The joint venture designing the next generation fighter for Britain, Italy and Japan has opened an engineering site in Turin, the first of three planned facilities, with British and Japanese sites due to follow in the coming months, according to Edgewing.
Turin is the first additional Edgewing site to open for engineering work since the joint GCAP Agency and Edgewing headquarters was established in Reading last year. All three global sites will play the same role as engineering hubs contributing to delivery of the programme.
The company says the site will sustain thousands of highly skilled engineering jobs in the region through its workforce and supply chain. Engineers from all three nations will work there, with the initial cohort made up of secondees from Edgewing’s three partner companies, some of whom have moved their lives and families as far as ten thousand kilometres from Japan to Italy.
Edgewing set out what the aircraft they are working on is meant to do. The fighter will feature sensing and communications equipment, artificial intelligence support for pilots and the latest stealth technology, flying surveillance and strike missions at long range in heavily contested airspace. It will also contribute to the strategic operating picture and direct drones and other assets in the battle as a flying team captain.
Marco Zoff, the chief executive of Edgewing, said: “Our new site in Italy is the latest step in Edgewing’s rapid growth as an organisation, as we scale up the company across our three nations. Ready to disrupt the defence industry by delivering dramatically quicker than previous generation programmes, the innovation and energy we can access here in Turin will underpin our acceleration.”
Giuseppe Lupoli, general manager of Edgewing in Italy, said: “GCAP represents the next generation of technology, and this new site represents an opportunity for many to join Edgewing and work on some of the world’s most advanced digitally-driven engineering. I look forward to welcoming colleagues from across our three partner nations to Turin as we embark on this journey together.”
Lorenzo Mariani, chief executive and general manager of Leonardo, said: “GCAP will ensure technological sovereignty for generations to come and I am proud that hundreds of engineers here in Turin, and thousands more around the country, will contribute to its success. Leonardo is proud to support Edgewing as the programme continues to drive technological development and long-term economic growth.”
Edgewing launched in 2025 as the industrial lead and design authority for the GCAP aircraft, and signed international contracts worth more than six billion euros with the three-nation GCAP Agency this year. The company is delivering the programme’s advanced concept and assessment phase while scaling to bring work together from the three national programmes, with the design and development phase to follow.
Ownership is split equally between BAE Systems in the United Kingdom, Leonardo in Italy and Japan Aircraft Industrial Enhancement Co in Japan, and the company will remain the design authority for the aircraft throughout its service life.
In Italy the new site has been placed alongside Leonardo, which has a long history of combat air technology research and development in Turin that Edgewing says it will draw on.
The United Kingdom site is one of the two still to open, and will sit alongside the Reading headquarters instead of replacing it. BAE Systems does the bulk of its combat air work at Warton and Samlesbury in Lancashire, where the Tempest demonstrator has been under construction. The programme replaces Typhoon in Royal Air Force service and F-2 in Japanese service, with an in-service date of 2035, and the three governments established the GCAP Agency in 2024 to act as the single customer.
Andy Burnhams ability to offer German a seat at the table shows just how important it is for the UK to continue to spend money on r&d to keep ourselves at the forefront of combat aircraft design and manufacturing.
The soft power of such projects is often over looked in a pure financial or military capability assessment.
Burham did that to try to get closer to the eu and because he doesnt want to spend the cash himself. Gcap is one of the most important manufacturing projects the uk has ever undertaken and him willy nilly offering german a seat at the table was nieve at best, it would lose us workshare, exports and likely delay its development.
If we can flog GCAP to the Germans that will be huge as essentially GCAP will become the defacto six generation European fighter…
I think there a big difference than them being a junior partner with some manufacturering or as a customer vs being a full fledged partner with equal workshare and design authority thats my big concern they would also constrain exports too
By all means let the Germans manufacture them for themselves: just as Italy assembles F35s. Tier 2 partners and room for other Tier 2’s as well.
Big question marks, as always, about German security, I am afraid, given the recent revelations.
However, they are a disaster when it comes to R&D engineering approach and mentality to get stuff done. It is a very much Germanic mentality to process and they are as stubborn as the French are in some ways. And then there is the work share gambit……nuff said.
It isn’t up to Burham, fortunately, who is invited in GCAP and hopefully Italy and Japan nix the idea of an equal partnership of four nations.
german mentality should be factored in. they wanted more cheap russian energy after crimea was taken. the relationship with the bear is confused at least. oh and they shut down perfectly good german nuclear power stations during energy crisis … thanks
I was shocked to discover that they shut down two reactors in the last few weeks. They are making giant strides to cut themselves off of Russian oil/gas but does seem madness to shut down reactors when even another year or 18 months can make such a difference to existing circumstances. Very odd.
Unfortunately GCAP is not really the aircraft Germany needs, as I feel it will be too big for what they want. I have a feeling the aircraft being developed by Saab to replace the Gripen will be more in keeping with Germany’s requirements.
I’m sorry you don’t see to understand how exports work 🤔
You dont seem to have bothered to read or understand my reply to your comment or the other comments under this article
… the worry is that germany will block export deals just as they have done with previous joint projects and just as bad they will delay the development if given full partner status
Yes Mgb but you are basing that on I presume circumstances around Typhoon and in particular sales to Saudi Arabia. The situation is very very different to when their unreliability over Typhoon development was in full flow and Britain’s heft in negotiation position now far, far greater. I don’t know the details but I read only last week that Germany has also relaxed its attitude to exports to Saudi Arabia.
One must also take into consideration that Britain is desperate to take part in Pan European defence finance initiatives and Germany has been supportive of this due to the presence of uk based work flows in defence technology that complicates and affects German industry far more than France for example especially moving ahead.
As such, such discussions are very sensible in my view especially considering dire economic considerations (that could well deteriorate) and as we don’t know any details on what any such involvement would be, I don’t think we should take a pre-determined set in stone view based on historical events That simply are so very different now. After all Germany is now investing more into defence than any other European Country rather than at that time pretty much closing it down as the wall came down. I would be more concerned about the prospect of a new right wing extremist more pro Russian Govt in the future if I were considering German participation, but that’s another story.
My view upon hearing this is that there are serious options for enhancing the programme without hindering it and as Japan in particular is rightfully determined not to allow delay to the timeline and with Italy supporting that decision, I would be shocked if any serious change threatening that position would take place. Germany was always going to lead on loyal wingmen in the previous project so that can be a strong potential area of cooperation, especially as this area is likely to become the leading one in twenty years or so. Equally, as with Canada too potentially, while the platform takes shape under the lead of the three original partners, there is still room for cooperation on certain systems within and if Germany as would seem certain were to build their own version, then at this still relatively early stage they could be free to mould that design to their needs in their own time, effort and cost. As a very modular design one would hope decisions taken now to help that option would have minimal effects to the standard design, after all the Demonstrator(s) will effect a lot of the final decisions. But clearly as Leonardo said at Farnborough, new entrants have to be incorporated soon and the longer that takes the less flexibility for such input will be, or the more costly and time consuming for Germany to adapt to their own build. But that should be their problem, and as they weren’t expecting their Franco/German aircraft till around 2040 it does potentially give them some leeway if they wish to exercise it assuming GCAP sticks close to its timeline.
The Germans are desperate. The Germans joining will really poss of the Japanese and slow down the whole project which helps rapidly collapsing British interest in defence or anything apart from daft politics.
But yes it shows how key it is to keep hard power and our industry at the forefront of innovation but that has to be backed by uk military orders not by pursuing exports first
I’m happy with a four way split on R&D cost with the Germans, more the merrier.
The more the slower. Time, tide and the Japanese won’t wait for the Germans to get their ducks in a row. Production by 2035 will be tough enough.
agree, germany must not slow down the program.
And that is the point, if an agreement that doesn’t slow down the project can be found with all the benefits that offers directly and indirectly (Britain needs to be involved in the pan eu defence financing regime) then we have to explore it and bring to fruition. Germany has no real options here (especially with poor US relations and reliability), so if such an agreement can be achieved, now is the time to do so. So let’s judge it on the details of any agreement, not any un-evidenced speculation. Even the UK Govt, as much as I have mixed faith at best, would surely not be willing to threaten strong uk/Japan/Italy ties to bend over backwards for Germany to participate. Truly mad if it was.
Only an idiot would allow Germans start meddling with the project with Airbus. I would not be surprised if the British PM is one.
Wow team America doesn’t like the Germans now 😂
I
They ain’t the only ones especially when it comes to. engineering ‘collaborations’.There are plenty on here that dont want their involvement for very good reasons.This project has been doing fine with just the tripartite approach and doesn’t need any other influences involved to derail it. You’ll.be backing asking The French round the table next.Im pretty sure our PR PM has already put the feelers out in that regard as part of his EU sycophancy.
Hmmm strange punctuation there very odd. The French will not be involved, only deflection or mischief for other reasons would bring them into the equation, so let’s not waste our time doing so and concentrate on the realistic possibilities.
I Agree Bumham is used to running Bus schedules and little else. How we have ended up with the present state of affairs in very disheartening.
Actually I’m terrified by Bumham and the prospects for Britain’s industry, defence and social cohesion.
The Germans already think we’re idiots, because we are terrible negotiators. They want workshare and possibly move the headquarters to Germany. The positive for us is that they probably want a smaller aircraft anyway and working with Sweden might suit them better.
Oh come on, emotions are clearly making this ridiculous now. Let’s try to keep this a rational debate, whatever the merits of our different takes on the matter.
You are wasting your time talking so much sense here…….
If you look at this logically, what does Germany need as a replacement for the Typhoon, which can’t be done by the F35A they are now getting? One thing the F35 is not great at is quick reaction alert (QRA), it is fairly fuel efficient when just carrying weapons internally, but still maxes out around Mach 1.6, unlike Typhoon’s Mach 2.35 (Mach 2+ in full air to air configuration). Which makes Typhoon the better aircraft for QRA duties. But for interdiction and electronic warfare, the F35 will be the better aircraft. The new Tranche 4/5 Typhoons Germany are getting will have better dogfighting capabilities and nearly on par long range beyond visual range air to air capabilities (F35 should still edge it due its stealthiness). For Germany I think QRA is far more important than it for us, as they are much nearer to Russia and Belarus.
GCAP for the 3 partner Nations is replacing Typhoon for the UK and Italy, and I personally believe Japan’s F15J, though its being reported as the replacement for the F2 (F16). For both the UK and Japan, the aircraft needed must have a very large internal fuel capacity along with a large internal payload (at least twice the F35A according to the MOD). Italy patrols the Med, so the range and payload will be good options as well. What this does mean though, is that the jet is going to be much larger than the preceding Typhoon and F15, due to the need to for the required internal volume to carry the fuel and place to fit the weapons bay. The current rumours flying around is that the jet won’t be particularly quick or aerobatic. Instead it will be more of “quarterback” directing close collaborative aircraft in air to air and air to ground missions.
For Germany, I actually think what Saab are developing to replace the Gripen, will be closer to their needs. Whereas countries like Canada and Australia would be more suited to GCAP….
Yes but the GCAP/ Tempest is urgently needed and reports widely in the press indicate offering Germsny membership is likely to slow the programme down by years and cause squabbling around industrial share and intellectual property. The programme was moving along well, we dont need Germsny. We should push it through to production with our partners and bag the equal shares of the huge anticipated export deals.
The project needs the money that Germany will bring with it, lack of funding is a MUCH bigger threat to GCAP future than .pretty much anything else
Hopefully behind the scenes things are moving smoothly and quickly. With the European programme in a mess we have a real opportunity to make this aircraft an export success.
This will be an heavy missile truck with a size near a F111. Not a F16 export success heir.
And that’s what a lot of nations will want..
Especially European nations that want to reach out and touch Russia, Australia and other Pacific powers..
As the US have already said they are nerfing export models of their 6 generation aircraft, they are going to fuck themselves over just as they did with F22.
It seems you need a nuke demonstration to remember the dangerous game you are playing. It could be similar to how Europe without realizing got into WW1. Now with nukes.
Besides what Euro countries will fire on Moscow? Except Poland, Greece none have any significant GBAD.
I agree on Australia
Being Portuguese you may not be aware of what are known as deterrents.
Russia will push until it finds resistance, the sooner greater resistance is shown the less Russia will push..
Weakness begets war far more than strength ever did.
You don’t see European nations invading other countries..
And if the nuclear weapons fly it’s likely every nation dies, be they in the Americas, Europe, Asia or Africa.
You are correct Jonathan. It’s interesting that the platform role has finally been more clearly defined. It’s not a direct Typhoon replacement, it’s far more with it seems strike as its prime function as air defence is going to be a very different platform to the concepts that led to Typhoon as a an Air Defence specialist later turned into a strike platform. So a long range strike platform is now equally the better bet for air defence, being able to stay on station, remain stealthy, carry a large number of long range (some large) air to air missiles and with too notch sensor suites to engage at long range and before they can be threatened. Both uk, Japan, China, the US and increasingly others are seeing the future in a platform very different to the F-35.
This is precisely why I previously claimed that F-35 will likely be a second rate aircraft as the thirties progress certainly the second half. I use that term in terms of how warships were once regarded in general capability. Fact is the F-35 was designed in the nineties for a threat scenario that is already becoming outmoded let alone what it will be in the thirties. Thanks to the B version it is already a poor airframe disguised by its excellent stealth and sensor and communications suite. But its big problem is it is inefficient aerodynamically, held back by a big single engine affecting performance and reliability, software a pig and has awful range and internal weapon storage. The threat environment is simply and progressively exposing those inherent often combining defects. The US military knows and has expressed the concerns for years now as Chinese capabilities, especially in long range weaponry come into play. So by mid to late thirties the F-35 will be seen as F-15 and F-16 aircraft are now, good aircraft yes, still useful, very effective indeed in low threat most like but deemed second raters in the bigger picture of how you want to exploit your air platforms.
It’s why the US is creating a very different aircraft for its air and navy to exploit in ten years, bigger, far greater range and able to utilise while in stealth mode far longer range stand off missiles of all types. The F-35 simply isn’t capable of doing that job, while keeping the battle group safe. It’s why the US Govt has reluctantly, after stalling for 13 years given the go ahead to a new navy strike/air defence aircraft which will be produced in far greater numbers than the airforce equivalent as vital as that will be too and the pre ious true focus of their plans. And it’s why GCAP is to be what it is, big, fast, enormous electrical output, extensive sensors and communications and very large internal weapons storage. It’s what the 30s will need especially in the Pacific of course.
F-35, even 4th Gen aircraft will still have their value, a lot depending on the threat scenario and opposition and state of any conflict, but for your main spearhead, aircraft of the nature of GCAP and F-47 will be the vital 1st raters, the others as support options in virtually any major role tuned to their capabilities in the conflict you find yourself engaged in.
Bae should sell ze Germans (and make available to other nations) the smaller demonstrator size aircraft.
All the major components will be the same, just the airframe scaled down.
No clear idea that is the case, it was conceived for the most part prior to GCAP, though some Japanese thinking has apparently been incorporated where applicable it seems. So it’s difficult to see how possible or cost efficient such a move would be for Germany though an interesting thought nonetheless, if they truly want a smaller airframe. Last thing we want to do mind is give them a home produced option that might be more sellable to a great many customers than its bigger brother. Woukld be a melt down on here 😱.
Exactly.
A smart move for the UK would be to work with Germany, Spain and Sweden on a slightly smaller fighter aircraft – perhaps single engined – but building on the same underlying technologies and components if at all possible. And perhaps using the BAe technology demonstrator as foundation for getting a foot in the door early with those other partners. GCAP would continue in parallel.
This smaller aircraft could be built very much with a wider export market in mind than the manned fighter that’s the focus of GCAP.
Software, sensors, mission data files (and maintenance of the same), radar technology, EW technology, elements of production technology, digital design processes, manufacturing processes, diagnostics, parts and spares management…. along with weapons and weapons integration and so on could very well be shared across two programmes. And indeed Canada might find this an even more attractive option than GCAP alone as it stands.
My understanding is that at least some BAe team members always considered that a second smaller airframe had a place given the technologies being developed for GCAP. The airframe itself isn’t the really costly bit these days.
Now from the UK perspective, having involvement in two 6th generation projects (along with the F35 programme) but with a smaller airframe following on from GCAP/Tempest albeit likely 5 to 10 years later makes a lot of sense. It makes sense if the costs incurred are largely already sunk in GCAP and the demonstrator.
The market for non-American kit is growing for very good reasons. GCAP at perhaps over 22 metres long and given it’s intended role will not be of interest for many countries. But a slightly smaller fighter that’s longer, more stealthy, less compromised and more flexible and longer legged than the F35A – and more importantly more accessible to countries like India, the Gulf states, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey and so on – is likely to find many interested customers.
Japanese concerns about delays would be put to rest. Saudi money would likely find a home now Germany is getting more serious about building serious kit without breaking the bank. And the French government – which is none too pleased with Dassault right now, which in turn will milk a very full order book for Rafale for decades to come – might very well be become a customer itself. Unless India stumps up a lot of cash for FCAS, PANG may be flying an evolved Rafale plus drones and CCAs. The French air force may require something quite different and more advanced that has more in common with what Germany and Sweden may currently have in mind.
By 2035, the French may not have a choice but to go with a largely pan European 6th gen fighter that they didn’t design and that they can’t afford to complete with but that they can contribute towards with complementary unmanned systems and weapons that they can export themselves. The Rafale may slot in alongside that for a couple of decades.
If the UK wants to stay relevant beyond the rather exclusive GCAP ecosystem, it needs to start thinking little more creatively to finance military industrial recovery without necessarily being a customer for some of the products it helps others produce and buy but is nonetheless a key player in the supply chain and as a design authority.
It disturbs me to read comments apparently desperate to exclude partners and opportunities on the basis of selected past projects and sometimes simply petty nationalism. Smaller less important countries are smarter than this. The UK, given it’s a little adrift right now and in need of all the money and industrial partnership it can get, needs to be equally as smart and streetwise.
The important thing is not to allow others to stop progress in the UKs national interest while benefitting from scale and resilience/redundancy in the supply chain. As long as you find ways to achieve that, petty tribalism should be put firmly to one side.
This is where the JSF program and Americans have really succeeded. But so many in the UK, France and Germany still haven’t absorbed why this is the case and why so many are still placing F35 orders with a country they know they can’t trust in wartime anymore. The JSF program included them and the US didn’t behave like a petty European neighbour as the UK (and not just France and Germany) still often does for domestic political reasons. JSF brought everyone into the supply chain, created common training and made everybody interoperable and fighting the same way.
Instinctively excluding the French, Germans and others is the kind of petty parochial BS that the Russians so love about the Brits, French and Germans. Because to Russian eyes it rightly makes us all appear so much weaker and divided and gives them confidence and far less to deter them.
We have managed to produce great products together in the past. We can in future. But we need to take on board our collective failures and where and why we have succeeded. Not simply behave like spoiled children that don’t want to play with others who upset us once.
We need money. We need partners. We need collaboration where it makes sense and doesn’t screw either us or our partners up. And boys and girls we also need scale and exports to exert geopolitical influence as well as power and economic strength. We need ambition as well as common sense and finding common ground.
The UK is in no position to do otherwise in a world that has changed under our feet so quickly and dangerously. The British have always been good at building multiple alliances. We should be playing to that strength. GCAP doesn’t need to be the only game in town. If we can leverage it elsewhere to our benefit then we should.
Not sure about the Spanish, but I agree with the rest.
Practically impossible. UK needs agreement from Japan and Italy to share IP.
Concerning the French that is complete delusion. The Republic would have to fall, not they are not increasingly near that…. and they already started their new fighter programe.
Second there some comparisons that are outright wrong.
Saying that JSF was not affected by nationalism!? The project was all American. IP is all American, Americans decide. There was no conflict because everyone was ok with Americans ruling.
Actually a fair amount of the IP for the F35 is British..
Maybe add in the Tempest spin-off mix, a manned/ optionally manned stovl successor to the F35B?
I don’t think Edgewing could now, or would even want to switch to a smaller platform, or build another aircraft in parallel. We don’t have the money for multiple projects, wasn’t that what Taranis was about… it was either Taranis or Tempest, but we couldn’t afford to do both. Also, there are other options out there for international customers like the TAI TF Kaan and the KAI KF-21 Boramae that will likely undercut Tempest and cater to that smaller aircraft demand, plus the US will increasingly offer the F35 to more countries as its technology becomes less sensitive. Just my take, but Burnham sounded a bit desperate to me. The subtext of his offer was – we have no money, please come onboard.
Beautifully put, an adult has entered the room.
There is a very good reason for inviting Germany to participate: the development costs for GCAP are going to be fairly vast and a major strain on all three partners’ defence budgets going forward. Italy was talking about a contribution of more than £20bn and cost projections have jumped up since then. Where is the UK going to find that kind of money from the defence budget?
This is a particulr problem for the UK, as the defence nuclear programme is now accounting for more than half our procurement budget, meaning that just about everything else, if not squeezed out completely, is going to be reduced to minimal numbers and procurement spread out as far as possible. We have been foolishly pretending to ourselves as a nation that we can fund an independent nuclear deterrent, as well as nuclear boats, carriers etc on 2% or 2.5% of GDP, when twice that sum would be needed.
The reason for the invitation to Germany is partly political but primarily financial: the GCAP development costs split four ways rather than three will make the thing more affordable.
I doubt that Germany will take up the offer anyway, as their requirements are different. GCAP will be a large, long-range strike fighter, somewhere in the F-111/F-15E class, with a big price tag limiting order sizes. A smaller, less expensive 6th gen equivalent, available in larger numbers, would be more suitable for European continental air defence/strike. I think we will find that the global market for GCAP is limited to a few wealthy nations.
If GCAP turns out to be primarily a strike aircraft, there would be a good case for the UK to limit the numbers acquired to a strategic strike wing and to purchase a larger quantity of more affordable 6th gen air defence/attack aircraft.
Japan and Italy do not have the same
Which more affordable 6th gen plane would that be ?
I doubt that another one will pop up in time AND be the perfect fit.
Exactly. Perhaps germany wants a slightly smaller plane for whatever reason – tough luck, there aren’t any.
If they want to have a 6th gen plane by the 2040s, they’ll need to join or by from us or the Americans.
In general, all European nations need to stop being so silly about thinking that they have magically unique requirements.
The days of a dedicated air defence fighter I think will be over shortly. If and it’s a big if, they can make close collaborative aircraft (CCAs) work. The reason for the demise of the dedicated fighter, will be that the CCAs will be operating ahead of the manned aircraft, acting either as a sensor node or a weapons carrier. Whilst the manned aircraft stays back and directs the fight. The CCAs will be semi-autonomous, with the pilot just monitoring and overseeing the CCAs as the mission progresses. When in contact the CCAs will take the majority of the risk, whilst the manned aircraft stays back and directs the fight. If things do go pear shaped for the manned aircraft, the CCAs can be used to protect the aircraft attritionally.
GCAP will be a long range strike fighter, with the emphasis on strike. Where it has the internal space for large stand-off weapons. But additionally the larger airframe can hold a lot more fuel, thereby either increasing its patrol duration or its strike reach. For air to air missions, it larger payload bay, should allow it carry more air to air weapons, therefore allowing to stay in a fight for longer, especially if working in concert with some CCAs.
… problem of funding an independent nuclear deterrent, so can likely meet the funding schedule for GCAP. We are the weak link in this regard. Calling on the government to just find the extra money is rather naive. The amount needed just to fund the current equipment plans, plus make good years of neglect and gapping of essential kit, munitions, infrastructure etc, plus reconstituting our run-down nuclear capability, plus funding a big investment in GCAP, would require a very large lump of money well North of the 3.5% of GDP target. With the high level of UK debt and tight public finances, that kind of extra money for defence ain’t going to happen, whichever party is in power.