The United Kingdom is open in principle to expanding the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) to additional partner nations, Defence Secretary John Healey has indicated, as Poland signals interest in joining the effort.
Speaking to the UK Defence Journal in Edinburgh, Healey did not confirm any discussions with Warsaw but acknowledged that the programme is attracting wider international attention. “We’ve said, in principle, as three nations that we will talk to other nations that have an interest in the GCAP programme… potentially as future partners,” he said.
Polish officials have suggested engagement is already underway. Deputy Minister of State Assets Konrad Gołota told TVP.Info that “there is understanding for our proposal and a willingness to continue discussions” on joining GCAP, adding that he has been in contact with representatives from Italian and Japanese defence industries in recent months.
Healey, however, framed any such engagement as limited and exploratory, stressing that the programme remains firmly centred on its three core partners. “This is a programme with three countries at its core, Japan and Italy alongside the UK,” he said.
“There are already six and a half thousand engineers working on the GCAP programme. It has a real momentum and foundation, which understandably other nations are looking at.”
He said the three nations are willing, in principle, to engage with others, but only at an early stage. “We’ve said, in principle, as three nations that we will talk to other nations that have an interest in the GCAP programme, potentially finding out more, potentially as future partners,” he said.
GCAP, a joint initiative between the UK, Japan and Italy, aims to deliver a sixth-generation combat aircraft by 2035. It is built around a joint venture between the three core industrial partners and a single government programme office.
Healey made clear that his priority is maintaining progress within that existing structure, rather than expanding it. “As Defence Secretary, my first and foremost priority is making sure that the momentum that we’ve got in GCAP, the foundations we’ve already built… is maintained,” he said.
He pointed in particular to the way the programme has been set up across government and industry. “The foundations we’ve already built with a joint venture between the three major companies and a single government programme office…” he said.
That structure, he argued, sets GCAP apart from rival efforts. “That marks out our GCAP programme from other so-called similar sixth generation schemes that other nations may be involved with,” he added.
Poland’s interest comes as it continues to expand defence spending and deepen ties with major Western programmes, while reports suggest it is stepping back from the rival Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System.
The focus from London remains on delivery with the existing three partners, rather than near-term expansion.
GCAP
The Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) is a joint effort by the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan to develop a sixth-generation stealth fighter, often referred to as Tempest. The aircraft is intended to replace the Eurofighter Typhoon in UK and Italian service and the Mitsubishi F-2 in Japan. The programme reflects a shared requirement for an advanced, multirole combat aircraft capable of operating in highly contested environments from the mid-2030s onward.
GCAP was formally launched in December 2022, when the three governments agreed to merge the UK-Italian Tempest project with Japan’s F-X programme. This was solidified through a treaty signed in Japan in December 2023. The effort brings together major industrial partners including BAE Systems, Leonardo, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, under a new international framework designed to coordinate development and delivery.
The programme already involves around 6,000 personnel and more than 1,000 suppliers across the three partner nations, with a significant industrial footprint in each. A central joint venture, named Edgewing, was established to manage design, development, and long-term delivery of the aircraft. Each national partner holds an equal stake, with workshare distributed across multiple sites, while certain core technology areas are led by designated nations.
Development started recently, with a flying demonstrator planned for 2027 and entry into service targeted for 2035. Alongside the core aircraft, multiple test platforms are being used to mature technologies, including the UK-led Tempest demonstrator and the Excalibur flying testbed. Italy and Japan are also pursuing their own test aircraft to support sensor, avionics, and systems integration work.
The Poles are also talking to FCAS though it seems April is the deadline for talks on workshare between France and Germany, after which the partnership may collapse.
There’s also talk of India being interested! I would hope that’s quickly killed off, they could not be trusted with such sensitive tech. This needs to kept in house with countries who share the same security concerns and diplomatic allegiances.
It’s positive that countries are interested, but surely it’s too late to join the programme? The design must be fairly mature by now and workshare agreed. Bringing in more partners now might just serve to delay the whole thing.
Tier 2 partners maybe. Same for Germany as well possibly. The ME countries will be interested certainly Saudi Arabia.
The UK MUST publish the DIP without delay as it is hampering progress on GCAP.
Exactly what i was going to post.
Uk, Japan, Italy = Tier 1 (Design/Build)
Anyone Else = Tier 2 (Preferred Customer/Access to Priority Build Slots)
Tier 2 can also get involved in the systems of systems thing, which could be very lucrative for Germany if it builds the best CCAs for GCAP, SCAF, NGAD and the F/A-XX. It could be a bigger money spinner than GCAP itself.
Agreed regarding DIP. If tier 2 partners contribute financially and get some limited work-share but don’t mess about with the design & timetables then I would be on board, the programme needs as many customers as possible to bring costs down.
Yes obviously tier 2 would enable earlier access so that such customers can tune their aircraft buys to their own specific needs and content as Canada will be doing should it buy Gripens. They then can design any equipment they would wish to include not dissimilar I guess to F1 customers like McLaren gaining ongoing information about Mercedes engine design and general layout so they can take advantage early to incorporate their own distinct requirements without impinging upon the core design efforts of the core platform. It has the advantage of such specs making it more attractive to other customers who have relations with in this case Poland, but obviously potentially similarly with other Tier 1 contributors too.
A lot of negatives to our economy and navy reputation from the Iran war. But internationally it could be a positive. Starrmer had again come out strong like he did for Ukraine, and many nations are now questioning their trust in the US being there for them. It could see a number of more European defence projects kicking off. Including more money for the GCAP program and hopefully some cost saving through economy of scale.
Only a couple weeks ago someone on here claimed how our supposed weak response in the region would lose us influence and support amongst regional players. That aged well, in reality despite exposing our present lack of ships we all knew about, it is likely to push these States more into closer relationships with anyone but the United States, who’s ties and influence with them will remain only through threat and blackmail now, no sense of mutual benefit, all those prior bitcoin commitments, promised billion dollar investments and personal deals with Trump family members have led to this disaster for them (while Israel gets all the real support for nothing), no influence no real security and serious damage to their economies, so what trust with the US could there possibly be. As such while they may smile on the surface (like the poor Japanese PM had to as her Country was insulted in the White House yesterday) they will be desperate to do real deals with anyone but the US, China will be smiling no doubt. Real US influence almost anywhere now has been damaged to a degree it is unlikely it can be truly repaired other than papering over short term but ever widening cracks and superficial pronouncements. Trump may have thought he could intimidate everyone into obedience but that is a short term effect at best, underneath he is driving the World into self sufficiency or/and others hands. How much Britain can exploit this scenario is yet to be seen, however military sales are one great opportunity I think.
Agreed, biggest winners are China and Russia. Which is ironic that the US has damaged its own encomy to support nations it considers to be enemies or at least competitors.
Unfortunately the biggest losers are the UK, we rely too much on gas for heating and lack the buying other of other nations. We have to hope Norway doesn’t decide to profit from this mess too much.
We still have the media and the conservatives / reform pushing for more reliance on fossil fuel, which seems madness post Russia war and now Iran. We need energy security which can only be achieved by using renewable/ nuclear plus they are way cheaper
Fortunately for us in the UK, reliance on gas does not mean we have to rely on imported gas, it was a path we chose as a country. Unlike most of Europe, the UK can get oil and gas from the North sea (that doesn’t change the market price significantly but at least when it’s expensive like now the country profits from it). The UK has just chosen not to extract it and leave that to Norway.
Hopefully this is a wake-up call to the country as a whole that the world is not a nice kind place and the UK needs to look after itself (no one is going to do it for us), this means investing in the GCAP program to get it ready for sale to the world and make the profit from it. I suspect the usual mentality will prevail and anyone who comes in to invest in return for work share will be encouraged because money will be saved in the short term for much less gain in the long term.
We do rely on imported gas, most of our gas comes from Norway. However even the stuff that is dug up in the north sea is sold on the international markets and we pay market rates as the country does not own it, the energy companies do.
The US voters are also discovering this, as they thought as they were a net exporter they would be unaffected but all that oil/gas is sold on the international market rate, so doesn’t matter where it was dug up.
Off Topic: Rumours are circulating about a £10bn cut to MOD to be paid for by delays in shipbuilding. Because delays to shipbuilding programmes have always proven to be solid cash savers in the long run, right? I’m just hoping this is part of the treasury vs MOD spat, and will get knocked on the head when the grownups turn up. Er… Remind me again, who are the grownups?
Last thing RN can cope with are any delays in shipbuilding.
T31 is contracted in a no fiddle contract and that would need to be expensively renegotiated. T26 is now an international partnership the only way to change the cost profile is to give Norway more early production but that would destroy the RN frigate rebuild curve.
FSSS is essential to CSG and already massively gapped.
Previous SSBN delays are already costing fortunes and keeping CASD running is becoming eye wateringly expensive and difficult due to Osbornian budget reproducing.
The report on Times Radio that I heard this morning said that the shipbuilding delay was rumoured to be pushing back (delaying) the Type 83 project. I can’t remember if it said by how many years but this sort of news when Labour (and pretty much all political parties across many countries) are talking about increasing defence spending seems to me to be jaw-droppingly crazy. We should be talking about accelerating programs not delaying them.
Given the project isn’t close to main gate and it is still about putting a design together that is truly nutty.
ATM T45 need to be augmented.
The 2023 10 year equipment plan included funding for T83 even though there wasn’ta mature design. Pushing back the start date makes sense given how lightly used the T45s have been.
As I have written before light use may be more of a problem than a sensible level of constant use.
HMG have no interest in defence.
Most of the public have no interest either.
That’ll never change until the missiles are hitting and they are hiding under the table waiting for the military to save them….
Something that is, unfortunately, increasingly likely given the glee with which Mad Vlad is trying to destabilise the world egged on by Xi who is laughing in the corner whilst the Mad Mullahs in Iran are busily stirring it up and helping Mad Vlad to deplete weapons stocks. With The Tangerine King destabilising the stabilising forces.
You couldn’t make up the level of mess that is appearing here but it is real!
If you had written that as a follow on to the Tom Clancy novels it would have been viewed as ridiculous. Not now.
Maybe the £10bn is the expected cost of six destroyers. Obviously it doesn’t really save anything. It kicks it past this Parliament into Somebody Else’s Problem.
I read the same report. As we are in the crazy situation of decommissioning Frigates faster than we are building them if anything we need a few more T26 . It is early days but must have the new T83 air defence destroyer in the water before we start scrapping the T45s or we risk leaving the carriers unprotected .
But hey we are British, the barbarians are at the gate , what are we going to do, absolutely nothing until it is too late.
The Civil Service are superb at handwringing – won’t that protect us.
Interested parties can state their case. Any late comers though should be asked to pony up a share of the already significant development costs.
India is also looking, but rhe.most likely hood they will go with France with their Rafeal purchases.
There is no official plan to make GCAP carrier compatible, whereas SCAF will be. I think that will attract the Indians, assuming SCAF doesn’t collapse.
I worry about security of tech with too many countries joining, and then there are the endless workshare spats.
No to Saudi, no to India.
Poland, European allies, without the political crap over decades, yes.