The Ministry of Defence has reiterated that the Global Combat Air Programme remains open in principle to additional partner nations, in a written answer to a parliamentary question prompted by the cancellation of the rival Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System.
Lord Lee of Trafford, a Liberal Democrat peer, had asked the government what assessment had been made of the implications and opportunities for GCAP arising from the discontinuation of the Franco-German plans to jointly develop a next-generation fighter.
Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence Lord Coaker replied: “The Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) has been designed with Allies and partners at its heart and interoperability at the centre of its development. We and our GCAP partners Italy and Japan agree that the programme is in principle open to additional partners to secure burden-sharing, industrial benefits and growth opportunities, as long as programme delivery is assured. Decisions on any additional partners will be made jointly with Italy and Japan.”
The answer maintains the position the three GCAP capitals have held since the trilateral programme was formalised under the GIGO international government organisation, with London, Rome and Tokyo retaining joint authority over admission decisions. The wording avoids any direct reference to Germany, France or Spain, but the timing of the question and the framing of the reply leave little doubt about the context.
FCAS was formally cancelled on 8 June, ending nine years of trilateral work between France, Germany and Spain on a sixth-generation fighter, accompanying remote carrier drones and a supporting combat cloud. Chancellor Friedrich Merz and President Emmanuel Macron agreed to scrap the Next Generation Fighter element of the programme after industrial mediation between Dassault Aviation and Airbus Defence and Space failed to resolve longstanding disputes over leadership, workshare and intellectual property.
Spain, as junior partner, aligned largely with German positions through the dispute but expressed disappointment at the outcome. Some elements of the wider FCAS ecosystem, including drone initiatives and combat cloud technologies, may continue as smaller standalone projects, but the manned fighter at the heart of the effort is gone.
For GCAP, the collapse of FCAS reshapes the European combat air landscape and opens a set of strategic and industrial questions that the three GCAP partner nations have until now been content to leave largely unspoken. The programme is structured around the delivery of an in-service date of 2035 for a crewed sixth-generation fighter, alongside the development of uncrewed adjuncts and the wider combat cloud and systems architecture needed to support them. BAE Systems leads the UK industrial effort alongside Leonardo in Italy and Japan Aircraft Industrial Enhancement Co in Japan, while Rolls-Royce, Avio Aero and IHI Corporation are working on the propulsion system, and MBDA, ELT and Mitsubishi Electric are among the other principal suppliers.
Coaker’s reference to “burden-sharing, industrial benefits and growth opportunities, as long as programme delivery is assured” sets out the criteria against which any candidate is being assessed.
This will be a real headache for the French. Especially with a new carrier air wing to equip in the late 2030s/early 40s.
I only hope Robert that we don’t spend years arguing with them about how large their share should be..
Its difficult. Because we will need the money. Even after 25 years of production, a new Typhoon still costs north of 85M a pop. So God knows what a large stealthy 6th gen is going to cost.
The French as usual want to do it their way Dassault etc etc
The Germans and Spanish should join GCAP and not try to change things too much The Japanese are important partners here!
Typhoon and Tornado have been successful European projects without the French and Americans
I must admit even knowing just how impossible it usually is to work with Dassault on such programmes, it’s beyond belief that the French and Dassault whether it was around calling bluffs or simple intransigence and French arrogance allowed this to collapse, the implications are just so monstrous for the French. Why the Germans ever thought it would be different is also baffling, based to a degree on anger against Britain around Brexit no doubt only exploited by French charmed promises it would be different this time around, yeah right. But for Germany and Spain they have options be it GCAP, the Swedes or even others as junior partners or pure imports, but the French where do they go now other than alone again. Is that truly feasible? Who else would work with Dassault when even Spain found them as the main culprits for this collapse. Answers on a postcard and sent to Father Christmas please, as an effective Gallic programme alone seems as fanciful as George’s Christmas Santa escort missions. How did it come to this, Dassault seems to be willing to bet its influence over the Govt far out-ways its actions (non actions) threatening its very existence. To big and proud to fail I guess in the French psyche, I wouldn’t feel so confident had Bae even as a bigger and broader affair, had taken a similar line that’s for sure.
Totally agree.
Spot on Sir.
I think the French will delay their Gen6 programme and fall back on a Rafael F6 refresh, with as much magic source as they can pour in, new radar, updated engines, F35 ‘ish’ avionics etc.
A clean sheet design is beyond their ability to pay for as a country.
I suspect alongside that, they will begin a post 2040 Gen6 programme, trying to bring Gulf States and India into the fold. Alas Hal and Dassault will likely immediately lock horns regarding workshare!
” ….. GCAP door open to new partners after FCAS collapse …”. This will just delay things, then there’s the arguing over workshare. I’d rather just crack on and have new partners as, to take a leaf out of F-35, 2nd tier partners.
Almost certainly that will be the only real option. There is no will to re introduce the very structures that so compromised the Typhoon programme costs, capabilities and timeline (it didn’t even get the tail it was supposed to have) and yes the Japanese are very firm about that not happening here thankfully because Labour might otherwise still be tempted ignoring those lessons of supposed project ‘savings’ becoming added expenses in the end.
The Japanese are up against a hard deadline due to structural concerns on their main fighter, F5 I think. They will not be keen on any rejigging of the top table. There are however hundreds of projects associated with each countries a lot share that could be allocated to new partners although the headache will get exponentially bigger .
Seems the UK is dancing to japans fiddle on this one. Big question is it worth it for the UK. The UK could very much do with a five year delay on GCAP and more partners to absorb the R&D cost.
GCAP development should be viewed as necessary for sovereign control not a job creation program because at £16billion + it’s an expensive way to create jobs.
At this stage though I just don’t see how Japan gets GCAP in service by 2035.
I thought that one of the issues with FCAS, beyond work-share and authourity, was that the French wanted a larger aircraft while the Germans wanted something smaller. Can’t see GCAP fitting with German plans, they’re more likely to team with Sweden on a replacement for Gripen.
It’s the other way round. It’s the French that want something smaller so it can operate from its carrier.
I thought it was the other way around, Germany wanting a big air superiority fighter and the French a smaller carrier capable aircraft.
Eh, this military attitude in the west that everyone has massively unique and special requirements needs to change.
Realistically, European forces should be prepared to fight the same conflicts and defend the same interests, and that probably means having mostly the same kit. The benefits of large orders as well as having, say, Spanish pilots able to hop into Polish fighters if shit really hits the fan, seems to seriously outweigh the marginal benefits of a plane slightly more suited to a specific need for a specific country.
Too many mouths wanting a slice of the pie
Just a thought… entice German, Spain, and Saab into the programme by developing two aircraft.
Tempest continues as-is, the top-tier 6th generation, ultimate wonder-weapon strike-fighter.
With Saab leading development of a cheaper, single-engine, ‘5-and-a-half’ generation fighter.
Both to have as much commonality of technology as possible: same engines, avionics, systems/networking integration, etc, etc.
Doable? Or a recipe for disaster?
Eh, sounds like a mess in the making to me. I think cracking on and making Tempest as quickly as is possible, and then offering sales is the way to go. Realistically, much of Europe will have no other choice for a high-end fighter in a reasonable timeframe. To sweeten deals, we should try to offer workshare on aspects other than the core aircraft – get germany to do the entirety of a loyal wingman system or something.