Japan is in the process of designing a new air-to-air missile for next-generation fighter jets, co-developed with Britain and Italy, targeting initial deployment by 2035.

The missile is part of the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP), a multinational initiative led by the United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy to develop a sixth-generation stealth fighter.

An insider familiar with the situation told Kyodo News, “The plan is to have these anti-air missiles equipped on the fighter jets upon their initial deployment in Japan by 2035.”

According to a collaborative study between Japan and Britain, an indigenous Japanese air-to-air missile could offer improved performance at a reduced cost compared to the European Meteor missile, which is currently in use.

Although Japan’s initial objective is to use domestically developed missiles, there are considerations for incorporating missiles currently used by British and Italian aircraft in the future.

“While Japan initially aims to employ domestically developed missiles for the new fighters, there are considerations for integrating missiles already in use by British and Italian warplanes to enhance the fighters’ capabilities in the future,” the Kyodo News report stated.

This collaboration marks the first time Japan has worked on defence equipment development with countries other than the United States.

The three nations are actively involved in formulating the basic aircraft design and engine specifications. Discussions are also underway to establish a governing body for implementing decisions by the respective defence authorities.

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

153 COMMENTS

  1. America has been bloody slow with f35 b block 4 favouring their suppliers. There is a niche here for other countries to support their own industries.

    • The USA…. ALWAYS favours its domestic suppliers – they take parochialism, protectionism and commercial domination to new levels. So no meteor or SPEAR 3 integration until 2030’s. Meanwhile the US are promoting AIM-260 against Meteor …. We had the same issues with AH64 and Brimstone and ended up ordering US weapons –
      The USA seek total hegemony and complete destruction/subservience of our defence sector and sadly are almost there. ‘A’ vehicle sovereign capability destroyed & replaced by the highly successful and excellent value for money Ajax by the US contractor GD – Who’s proud boast to the markets is ‘ We have zero commercial exposure’ or LM who made the WCSP so expensive it was cancelled – after they had extracted huge amounts of cash from HMG. Of Course we could have gone to a British company who one knew what was required in the turret design from the off. Rather than designing one scrapping it and having to do what the OEM said in the first place! And with these billions of pounds invested what super export contracts will we have garnered ….. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH we have filled the coffers of US companies, paid for development work on their US production, have one vehicle that is sub par that no one in their right mind would buy. Which instead of state of the art systems, will have some reaching obsolescence by FOC, if that in fact ever arrives to the original spec. Then we have one vehicle cancelled due to cost increase. And where have the rest of the world ordered their Ajax style vehicles from? The British company that offered complete manufacture in the UK!! instead we have Spanish built tat with non parallel hull sides holes bored incorrectly etc. Honestly it would be difficult to make up a more incompetent tortured destruction of an industry sector. Of course we will do the same to the little that remains as we have to all our manufacturing in the interest of commonality, cost savings, teaming et al.makes me weep!

      • We have already done that to most of British Industry. The incompetence of this Country is only emphasise by the amazing exceptions of sectors like F1, aero engines and a few others. Indicators of what might have been if we had had competence in Management, investors and above all Politicians and civil servants. The only thing we achieved by punishing Bae for perceived shortcomings was to find just how mediocre alternative suppliers can be. If we hadn’t lost our land systems business we could have truly rejuvenated it with the South Koreans and Poles. Instead we are now just at one end a German subsidiary at best with at the other just a few half hearted US wide boys looking for a compliant opportunity. Unlike other Countries including the Poles there seems little opportunity to even leverage any of this to transfer technology to regain an independent status and potential export or collaboration opportunities down the line.

      • AIM120-D8 is 2,5M€. Meteor is 2M€, fluy further away and has engine working all along the flight…
        So… Meteor is used by 14 countries and not done yet.

      • Put simply kissing the US, and in other aspects of our foreign relationship with the EU, backsides ! One day I dream of an efficient effective armed forces, but I would settle for a government that bats for Britain. A man’s entitled to a dream !

    • The slow moving train wreck that is the US defence contractor industry shows why the UK really needs GCAP. F35 numbers should be kept to what’s needed for carriers with everything else going to Typhoon/Tempest.

      GCAP shows just how capable the UK is on the global stage, no one outside of the USA is seriously developing a 6th Gen fighter including the “super power” China and I seriously doubt the ability of any group of countries without the UK to get there. The Franco German effort will be still born.

      • France and Germany may not build SCAF right not. Rafale F5 is on the way. It will be allright for 6 Gen.
        The goal of a very expensive plateforme is démonstration of engineering skills. The goal of Rafale F5 is to win war. And so it will coordinate a fleet of drones that will be always cheaper and scarrier.
        Rafale F5 is the future of Awacs.

        • Rafale F5 would not fare a chance against 6th-generation platforms. Also, the Rafale carries a far too small radar to be “the future of Awacs”

          • 6 gen is a network, not a node. Regarding radar, we will see. Awacs is a solution that may or not work in the future.
            A network of flying éléments each carrying a radar may be able to perform tasks a single Awacs use to do. With far more resilience.
            The rafale F5 alone may be able to dominate or not a Tempest or a F35. Stealth may soon be condemned by increasing computing power.
            The main point is Ucav that will carry radar éléments, missiles and so on. With this in mind, it is difficult to say this plateform is better or the other One is better, based only on guesses.

          • Hi Math, I would disagree with the value of a multi-node radar drone network. Although, I would caveat that with, it depends on the frequency of the radar being used. A network of Protector drones for example can increase the surface area covered, but they can not extend the reach that a single large radar can produce carried by a large aircraft like the Sentry, as they can only carry a small radar.

            The example I’d use is a solitary E3 Sentry flying along the Polish/Ukrainian border. It is not allowed to cross the border, but we want to see what is going on in over the border? The AN/APY-2 PESA radar used on the Sentry, is an S-band (2 to 4 GHz) radar. It has a published detection range of around 400km. Where it can detect something like an IL-76 transport aircraft. A fighter sized target will be closer of around 320km for something like an F18.

            The current Rafale F4 with the RBE22 AA (AESA) radar can detect a similar IL-76 type aircraft at around 200km. So even with a flight of four Rafales flying along the border, it won’t be able to detect targets beyond 200km.

            This is a problem all fighter aircraft face. As the radar’s antenna area is limited by the internal volume (generally the nose) allocated to the radar antenna. The antenna cross sectional area is critical at determining the overall gain of the transmitter and receiver, Therefore in effect the radar’s output power and detection range. Though signal processing also plays a massive part these days in regards detection range.

            For instance the nose cross sectional area of the Rafale is larger than a F16 and a Gripen, but smaller than a Typhoon’s or F35. Which means a Typhoon/F35 can accommodate a much larger radar antenna. Which means it should have a better detection range all things being equal

            However, the issue is that these aircraft in general will be using an X-band (8 to 12GHz) radar. Which means that atmospheric attenuation or otherwise known as free space losses comes into play. Therefore to match the detection range of a Sentry’s radar that operates at a much lower frequency. The X-band radar has to be transmitting at a significantly higher power output. Therefore it must use very expensive components made from Gallium Nitride (GaN), but more importantly use active cooling. Which then means space must be allocated for liquid to air coolers, pumps, etc. It is going to cost an inordinate amount.

            For a drone like the Protector (MQ-9), it can carry a radar in a pod mounted under the fuselage. However, again the radar’s performance is dictated by the size of the pod. Which places a limit on the antenna size. Not forgetting that these aircraft use a relatively low power turboprop, so electrical generation may also be limited. In effect these types of drone are limited to X-band radars. So they will have either a similar or lesser performance than those fitted to fighter aircraft.

            Whereas, a large aircraft like a Boeing 737 that can carry the MESA radar (i.e. the Wedgetail) that operates in the L-band (1 to 2 GHz) will be able to detect something like the IL-76 at over 400km, probably closer to 500km. it will be able to do this at a much lower power setting, as the atmospherics do not affect the transmitted frequency as much.

            There could be a case of having something like a business jet fitted with the SAAB Erieye AESA radar that operates in the S-band. Which although lower powered compared to the Sentry’s radar. Still has a detection range of around 350km for the IL-76 type aircraft. But instead use this aircraft as an unmanned air system (UAS). Which means it could have a longer endurance, but also means that no crew are in harms way if attacked.

            If there was a fleet of these AEW business jet sized drones, then yes, when operating together in a network. They could provide a substantially larger covered area than a single Sentry could provide. Though they would still have a smaller line of sight detection range than the Sentry. Though this could be mitigated by stacking a second Erieye on top of the other, to make a larger area array. There would be space on the aircraft with no crew for additional cooling. But power requirements could be an issue, though not undoable.

            In the future it may be possible to use the aircraft’s skin as part of the antenna. Which would then allow for a much larger area antenna. But we are a long way off from that development.

      • I agree. Use the F35’s for the carriers, upgrade the Tranche I Typhoons and buy the EAW version as well. Work on bringing in the Tempest asap. The speed were moving at the Tempest won’t be long behind the next F35’s if existing time scales are correct.

  2. Almost perfect timing to incorporate it onboard the F-35B. I wonder if we have allowed for this along with Japan and Italy?

    “Very complex software lies at the heart of the F-35, used to integrate sensor data, both internally and with other aircraft, and deliver weapons. The staggering technical and management challenge of writing, validating, and debugging that software is now the F-35 program’s biggest single issue.

    Although there will only be subtle external differences, TR-3 combined with the block IV software represents a major upgrade to the aircraft, harnessing computing developments made in the last decade.

    The cost of these two parallel projects has risen to around $15Bn with international partners contributing over half. The size of the effort has seen calls in the US for it to be treated as a separate Major Defense Acquisition Program.

    Block IV development was halted for eight months in 2021 because of multiple problems with the software and funding issues. Now re-baselined, delivery of Block IV software will be 3 years late and unlikely to complete roll-out before 2029.”

    If the UK decides it can afford to retrofit Block IV capability for its entire tranche 1 fleet, at an estimated cost of around £22M per aircraft, it would total more than £1Bn for all 48 jets. The software update is a critical requirement, needed to integrate the UK F-35’s two most potent weapons, SPEAR-3 and the beyond-visual-range Meteor air-air missile.”

    LINK

    • It seems pointless buying the F35B unless we keep the software up to date, so that it can carry SPEAR-3 and Meteor. I believe Meteor was modified to allow internal carriage on the F35B and it was expected to be integrated by the middle of the decade.

      • we dont keep the software up to date the yanks do …and why would they alow us carte blanche to use our weapons…that just means they are doing themselves out of revenue..and they don’ want that do they …heaven forbid.

        • They allowed their greatest ally access to the source code to create their own version of the F35, you know that amazing ally they have that does not buy anything from the US because the US gives them money for no reason and the same greatest ally that has never sent a single service person to fight for or along side the USA . The same amazing ally that bombed US naval vessels in 1967.

          Actually americas (Biden’s) second greatest ally also begins with an I and provides f**k all for US or global security as well but seems to get a lot of free shit form the USA.

          Maybe the UK should learn what the USA a really wants, it’s not a capable ally able to deploy forces from sovereign territory globally that shares the same set of values and goals.

          It’s corrupt kick backs and story’s of the “old country” from a bunch of delusional halfwits who think having a great granny from one country practically makes you a local. 😀

          • Jim wrote:
            “”They allowed their greatest ally access to the source code to create their own version of the F35,””

            I’m pretty sure ive read that the source code hasn’t been touched and that the IDF simply runs its own weapon systems in parallel 

            Jim wrote:
            “”you know that amazing ally they have that does not buy anything from the US because the US gives them money for no reason ,””

            Sherman tank, M48,M60 F4, F16, F15, F15SE, F35, JDAM. TOW, HMWW, M109. Yes the IDF did receive funding from the US, but then so did Iraq Afghanstan, Eygpt,Jordan and unlike them the US started cutting miltary aid to Israel in 2007. Whislt US Miltary continues on a reduced basis it is now tied in allowing the US access to Israels weapons systems, So Green Pine, Arrow, Davids sling, Iron dome , etc. In effect, the US is using Israel as design hub and test centre for future weapons. Just like the US used the UK during WW2 and after it. (looks at Bell X-1) and lets not forget the intel the US receives regards the ME from Israel, both security and weapons wise. Unlike the others whom the US lavishes aid on, the Israelis actually give back.

          • All that US equipment you sight that Israel has was given to them FOC, they have had $158 billion in free US equipment, I am not aware of them ever paying the US anything.

            I can’t say for sure what Israel is doing I don’t think any of us can but it’s clearly integrating its own weapons without waiting in the LM que and it’s not using ALIS, from what I know ALIS a is primarily responsible for low availability rate in F35 and the data provided by ALIS is LM proprietary IP which means you have to pay LM a fortune and no one else can take up the maintenance of the aircraft.

            Israel got all this access without paying for a single plane.

            The US gets benefits from other Allie’s including Iraq and Egypt such as basing and access to Suez Canal.

            I can’t think of a single benefit Israel has ever given the USA.

          • Some benefits: Tests of military hardware, un sinkable carrier in middle east, proof that F35 can be a thing without Alis? Worth it?

          • No US aircraft operate from Israel and have never done so, it’s an unsinkable aircraft carrier that can be used. Meanwhile it literally has airbases in Turkey and Qatar as well as a handy British base on sovereign territory just 90 miles away from Israel. Israel main benefit to the USA is big fat campaign donations to Democrats and Republicans.

          • I did not say that US had military bases in Israël. I said that Israël is a convinient ally in the middle east for USA.
            Israël pilotes use US military hardware and have them battle tested. They can act on the benefit (or sometime detriment) of US policy makers in the region.
            This loyalty will last under 2 conditions: wealthy individuals who support Israel in USA and strong military force in USA. If strong military is in India, interest will shift to India. There are some premisces of this allready.

          • Jim wrote:
            “All that US equipment you sight that Israel has was given to them FOC, they have had $158 billion in free US equipment,””

            US aid to Israel began in 1953, 70 years ago so that $158 billion comes in at $2.25 billion a year. Yes its a lot of money, but you know what it’s their money for them to do as they wish, who am I to dictate to Washington how to spend their money. just as nobody has a say in how I spent around £60 for a bottle of Eau de Parfum for my nephew whom I have met twice in his life for his birthday the other month.
            Washington obliviously see’s some merit in doing so and as I pointed out above, its their money. 

          • I think that’s a glossy view of the relationship but some truth in it. The unquestioning nature of it has strange religious overlaps in their own way both are addicted to the Old Testament since inception and the US from its puritan origins though hate Jews for what they did to their saviour, see it as a religious and moral duty to convert them to Christ. Like so much in American consciousness, including it’s Constitution and sense of being on Gods mission, the whole logic lost importance long ago but when someone like Obama wants to reel it in those hidden cords intwined in its power base prevent it, because hyped up by the indigenous Jewish lobby there is this inherent, if not understood link in their psyche that makes them feel Israel’s existence and purpose is intrinsically tied to their own.

            Of course this base is all enhanced by many other aspects, by mistrust of the Arabs and the feared historical Russian influence upon them and the need for intelligence and a reliable presence in an unstable Middle East that they believe enhances US power there (mixed bag at best), helps to protect US Oil interests and yes increasingly an important testbed for weaponry and check on Iran.

            The fact that Russia is Israel’s second most important ally is either ignored or perhaps is another reason to keep them close and reliant upon them. It’s all strangely f—cked up of course but then that’s increasingly becoming the norm in the US sadly and why Europe needs to wake up to the dangers and soon or become cannon fodder for others games and delusions of grandeur. Many Republicans idea that it can defend itself at its own borders or offering a bit of Ukraine can break Russia free of China doesn’t bode well.

          • Spy wrote:
            “”The fact that Russia is Israel’s second most important ally””

            Have to disagree with you there, I would place:
             
            India
            Czech Republic
            Azerbaijan
            and even the Uk before that of Russia

          • Jim wrote:
            “The same amazing ally that bombed US naval vessels in 1967.”
             
            It never fails to amaze me how so many people subscribe to duty rumour regards the attack on the USS liberty on the 8th of June 1967 (the 4th day of the 6 day war) than doing as I did and looking up what actually happened.
             
            The USS liberty was a SIGLINT ship and deployed to Western Africa in 1965. When Nasser closed the straits of Tiran, Liberty was tasked to head to Rota Spain where she took on extra equipment and 6 men (3 marines and 3 techs) the Captain was issued with orders to head east with an ear to scoop up electronic missions. Whilst she was heading east the captain requested a destroyer escort,, it was refused. During its journey, both Egypt and Israel issue world wide warnings in which to keep their ships out of the war zone up to 20 miles from the coast. In response the US navy sent signals to all US ships in the region to stay 100 miles away from the war zone. For some very strange reason the USS Liberty a state of the art SIGLINT ship didn’t receive that message neither did it receive the following 4 other messages telling it to halt its move to patrol 14 miles off the Egyptian coast during a war and pull back to the 100 mile mark.  On the morning of the 8th June the USS liberty was spotted by an Israeli aircraft looking for 3 submarines, this was reported IDF Naval HQ and Capt Avraham Lunz who pinned up the ship as green (neutral) at 11am on the 8th Lunz stagged off and cleared the board as per orders on the basis that all the information on the board was now out of date.

          • 24 mins later the ammunition dump at Al- Arish exploded and the Israeli troops on the ground came to the conclusion they were getting shelled from the sea from 2 ships off the coast. Shortly after the explosion the USS Liberty reached the extent of its Patrol east and turned around to head towards Port Said. The order was given to sink those ships but with caution as Russian ships were known to be in the area. As there were no aircraft available , Capt Izzy Rahav who had replaced Lunz despatched 3 MTBs of 914th squadron. Now one of the caveats the Israelis had issued the US was for their ships not to travel faster than 20 knots, and Ensign Aharon Yifrah combat information officer on flagship of those MTBs (T-204) twice checked the fleeing ships speed (now known to be the liberty) as 30 Knots this and the fact it was heading towards Eygpt led Comdr Moshe Oren to conclude that the ship was Egyptian and was heading home after a hit and run attack. As the MTBs were in a stern chase they called up air support. With the first pilot (Capt Yifah Spector) noting at 3000 feet that the ship was a miltary vessel , battleship grey with 4 gun mounts and its bow headed towards Port Said and one mast and one smokestack. No other markings were to be seen (appears he missed the US flag) and the ship was missing the blue and white cross all Israeli ships had painted on for ID, At 1.57pm the 2 mirage jet fighters started their attack. That first strike caught the USS liberty crew in stand down mode : helmets and Life jackets removed In fact Capt William Loren McGonagle (captain of the USS liberty and several officers were sunbathing on the deck, when that attack commenced resulting in 9 dead and several times that number injured With McGonagle injured in both legs. After 3 more passes the 2 Mirages ran out of 30mm shells and handed over to a squadron of Mysteres which were returning from attacking Egyptian infantry and dropped their remaining napalm bombs on the Liberty. Concerned about the lack of AAA, the air controllers informed the aircraft to break off their attack and check the ship to see if it was Israeli. Capt Yossi Zuk flew low over the burning ship and stated he could see no ID but read out the letters P, Charlie, tango, Romeo 5. Controlling realising that Egyptians ships would have lettering in Arabic the controllers realised the ship was American and called off the attack. Meanwhile the MTBs had caught up and as the Liberty was covered in flames and smoke proceeded to move forward. Liberty bu Now had touched base with the USS America requesting help and 8 F4s were launched, however all were called back by vice Admiral Martin . As the MTBs came within range McGonagle issued the order not to fire as he tried to contact the MTBs by the use of a handheld Aldis lamp. However one sailor did hear or get the message and opened up, which was followed by another machine gunner on the Liberty. Oren now coming under fire presumed the ship was Egyptian and attacked launching 5 torpedoes of which 4 missed, the one that didn’t killed 25 men. They then followed up with cannon and machine gun fire. They stopped firing when they picked up a life raft which ore US navy markings. However it still took over half and hour for the MTBs to make contact via the use of mega phones
            2 IAF super frelon helicopters were sent on a rescue mission but McGonagle waved them away by now the liberty had suffered 34 dead and 171 wounded.

            Unlike most I took the time and made the effort to look into the above (Including using the US library of congress) and I would put the blame on the US for ignoring a request to remain out of a war zone. Such as when asked by the Israelis if any ships were in the area (at the start of the war) the US replied back, nope all our ships are at least 100 miles away.

          • Can I just confirm then, that Israel did indeed bomb a US naval warship in international waters then just like I said it did in 1967.

            Can I also confirm that Israel has never deployed a single soldier in support of US security operations as I said.

            Yet it’s Americas greatest ally.

            It’s PM even spoke in front of congress without permission from the president and they still get given everything on a silver platter.

            Next time some US “general” wants to pep up telling Ben Wallace that the UK is no longer a tier 1 player or a useful ally I think we should ask what tier Israel is in because they seem to get a pretty sweet deal compared to us.

          • Jim,
            I posted the facts as they stand, and yet you chose to ignore the facts presented:

            1) Inside a war zone
            2) ignored 5 signals to stay 100 miles away from the coast
            (Anybody able to explain how 5 warning signals didnt reach one of the most advanced SIGLINT ships in the world at the time, telling them to back off, yet the same ship was able to touch base with the USS America in minutes when it came under attack)
            3) Informed the Israelis that no US navy ships were withing 100 miles
            4)Whislt operating off an active warzone, the Captain not only kept the ship on a peacetime setting, he himself was sunbathing on the deck, when the first attack took place. (You’d think he would have posted a couple of look outs?)
            5) What part the incident which took place during the 6 day war are you unable to accept? My point, F-ups happen all the time during war time usually due to a thing called the fog of war.

          • So just to confirm as you say Israel did bomb a US naval vessel in 1967 yet they are still Americas greatest ally.

            And they are still pissed at us for burning down the White House in 1812 😀

            PS, I did read what you wrote and I don’t disagree with any of it but the circumstance are largely irrelevant to my point.

          • In 1814. They deserved it. Madison was a wuss, his wife twice the man he was.

            The US still are pissed off about Pearl Harbor, but that doesn’t stop them allying with Japan. If they can forgive Japanese behaviours of WW2, a single Israeli blue on blue in 1967 really isn’t going to trouble anyone beyond you, Jim.

          • Wasn’t the “some” US General, actually Mark Miller, a clown general that epitomises the current state of the US military hierarchy. I would suggest from his comments, predictions and general attitude over Ukraine, anything he says is more politically expedient than tactically or strategically informed, and should be pigeonholed in File 13.

          • I did not know that but makes sense. It’s sad to see such a mighty people with massively capable forces lead by Donkeys.

            The British experienced much the same when we were the worlds super power.

          • Hi Farouk, thanks for your post. I will spend some time going over it and give it some research. It looks to me as I could write a paper on how things go wrong when a ship is in radio silence.

            As you maybe know I am ex Signals so this is of interest and to be honest a right old cluster f**k.

            I also wish to thank you for a well researched post as I am tiered of researching digging through govenment figures, giving evidence to defence committees, researching specs etc and then get ripped apart.

            Out of interst did you ever find out why the USS Liberty did not recieve any signal? If you did that would be of interest, is not I will try to find out from some friends retired from the NSA, and then post it.

          • When you finish that document you might find the War Crimes Report we filed with the Department of the Army on June 8, 2005 interesting. https://bit.ly/3HOIAmH

            Evermore so since despite the DoD Law of War Program demand that the DoD investigate all violations of the Laws of War whether committed by or against the US, the Report has been languishing in the DoD for over 18 years.

            Joe Meadors
            USS Liberty Survivor
            Historian, USS Liberty Veterans Association
            Email: [email protected]
            https://usslibertyveterans.blog
            https://usslibertydocuments.info
            https://twitter.com/usslibertyvets

          • I was aboard the USS Liberty when the ship was attacked by the IDF on June 8, 1967 and serve my shipmates as Historian of the USS Liberty Veterans Association.

            The attack on the USS Liberty was a deliberate, premeditated, well planned and almost perfectly executed attack on a lone, freshly painted, well-marked, correctly identified, non-combatant, virtually unarmed US Navy ship by the most powerful military in the Middle East allied with the President of the United States in violation of international law and US Statutes.

            Of a crew of 294 officers and men (including three civilians), the ship suffered thirty-four (34) killed in action and at lease one hundred seventy-four (174) wounded in action. The ship itself, a Forty Million ($40,000,000) Dollar state-of-the-art signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform, was so badly damaged that it never sailed on an operational mission again and was sold in 1970 for $101,666.66 as scrap.

            The attack included the jamming of our radios on both US Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies, the use of unmarked aircraft by the forces attacking the USS Liberty, and the deliberate machine gunning of life rafts we had dropped over the side in anticipation of abandoning ship.

            The White House ordered the recall of rescue aircraft that had been launched from Sixth Fleet aircraft carriers while we were still under attack and calling for help. That order cost the lives of 25 of our shipmates killed by the torpedo.

            After those flights were recalled, Sixth Fleet personnel listened to our calls for help as the attack continued, knowing they were forbidden to come to our assistance.

            The attack on our ship is the only attack on a US Navy ship since the end of WWII NOT investigated by the US government. That fact can be independently verified from official US government sources at https://www.usslibertyveterans.blog/get-involved-in-helping-us/

            Joe Meadors
            USS Liberty Survivor
            Historian, USS Liberty Veterans Association
            Archive https://usslibertydocuments.info
            Blog: https://usslibertyveterans.blog

          • You mean that UK should be jealous of Israël? But what do want people in UK? What is the goal of UK toward USA? What do you want to achieve?
            This is a complete mistery for me. You can make planes, helicopters, satellites, nukes, and in the end, somehow strange choices for me, even if I respect UK and USA. I just don’t understand the « bending the knee stuff ». May be I go to quickly over benefits, but a country should never sacrifice a bit of it’s indépendance, otherwise it may not be a country but a colony. But this is way beyond my understanding. This is a complexe matter. I lack UK political understanding.

          • We entered a joint development with the USA as a co Tier 1 partner on F35. Along the way this turned in to the USA becoming a Tier 0 partner then Lockheed having sole access to the F35 source code so we can’t integrate our own weapons on the plane we helped to develop.

            Then Israel comes along, puts zero money in to the program and gets F35 jets for free from the USA, then gets access to the source code to actually make its own F35i.

            That’s what we are pissed about, this is also why Japan pulled out of developing an aircraft with the USA and Lockheed they got screwed the same way on the F2 program.

            It’s defence contractors are incompetent and corrupt and it’s politicians are even more incompetent and corrupt.

            It’s not a nation you ever want to work with.

            I say that however I do have a deep love of it’s people and it’s country. It’s just it’s military industrial complex that holds it hostage. You will find many Americans feel much the same way but they are trapped by their two party political system.

          • I see, thank you for the explaination.
            I am sure that this will not be the case with GCAP program, since you lead it with Japan and are almost equal partners.
            Though on F35, you still have some good manufacturing activities, even if research wise it sounds unsatisfying.
            And everybody knows that in BAE, Rollroyce and Thales UK, their are top engineering capabilities.

          • The Political situation is dire. Much worse than UK. Far too many geriatrics in’power’ who stay there to continue backing their backers. Our system is much better, where the HoL contributes experience but being virtually powerless shares its experience instead. Whereas the Senate has enormous power to block legislation, impeach, influence.

        • Grizzler, lets look at it in a diffrent way. I buy a sports car for the road. I then want this car to go on the track. So I change some things such as engine performance, suspension etc. Some bits I need custom made and some I buy of the shelf. It is my car, I can do with it what I want.

          Then comes a diffrent situation, I am a major investor into the car design and build then I buy the car and want to use it in a diffrent way say for the track. Surely my senior partner would help me do that. Or at least give some priority or the tools to do it myself.

          Then comes the final thing, not only do I invest, help in the design, help to build, help in testing, help to develop new methods of use but also build 15% of the car you are then going to tell me that I am going to be back of the que for the alterations I need.

          It is simple the F35Bs in the UK belong to the RAF and FAA, if they wish to stick a tallboy on it that is for the RAF and FAA to make it work. It just means that LM gives no garantee.

          Finally what would happen if I as an investor (British Government) tell my subcontactor say (RR, BAE) no more delivey of the 15% of parts or using of designs until I get what I need.

          Please look at the UKDJ article How British is the F-35 dated Oct 14 2019. The B version would not land or take off without the UK, A,B and C could not be built without the UK. So 15% does not seem much but it can cause major issues.

          • I also forgot to mention one more issue sales. I will use the Euro Typhoon as an example. The UK wants to sell the Typhoon to Saudi Arabia, Germany says no. So the contract is on hold.

            The US wants to sell the F35 to xyz, the UK as a partner says no. By the way the Euro Typhoon was mostly a British design and British finaced. Please look at the British Aerospace EAP.

            So possibly the US and LM should think about how they treet partners!

          • The UK can also block F35 exports, The UK can block the sale of virtually any western combat aircraft because of the components, ejector seats being the main one.

            The UK only chooses to do this against Argentina.

          • I think you’ve misunderstood the context of my post but justvto be clear.
            Im not doubting the input of the UK into the F35b,
            I am however merely pointing that when it comes to US arms and defence industry the only thing the US is interested in is the US arms and defence industry.
            We are utterly dependant on this plane and its development for our carriers and as such beholding to LM on their priorities.
            They will never prioritise providing capabilities to allow non US based solutions if there is a US based solution on the cards..simple economics dictates that.
            Let’s not pretend we hold any sway whatsoever
            over timescales for block IV ..we don’t.
            I doubt we will ever integrate our weapons onto the platform.
            We need to ensure this position is not allowed to develop for Tempest and must categorically state and enforce that from the off.

          • WTF does Tempest have to do with F-35 weapons integration? Integration schedules aren’t about providing sales for US weaponry but providing capability for the US armed forces. ASRAAM was integrated at an early stage, because of the UK’s Tier 1 status, and is the only weapon not in the US a inventory that has been integrated. The Block 4 contract stipulated Meteor and Spear 3: JNAAM integration is also agreed, but I’m not sure of the time scale.

          • That’s much of the problem, no one knows the timescales because LM is years behind schedule however the US has been able to skip the queue for newer weapons like AIM 260.

            The US is the biggest user of the platform but it’s hard to see that it’s not also exploiting that fact to promote its own weapons at the expense of UK ones.

            Recent cancelation of the Anglo Japanese missile being a prime example of this.

            F35 armed with MBDA Meteor would be the most deadly air to air platform on the planet.

            The US should have been buying meteor not going out of its way to block its export through F35 integration.

            Much the same will soon ge true for MBDA SPEAR 3.

            The US Government talks a great game in NATO cooperation and not replicating capabilities but it’s even more protectionist than France and always has been.

          • Indeed. How did I forget EPW IV? Thank you. I’ve not seen anything suggesting JNAAM’s been cancelled. Can you share the source, please?

          • JNAAM is tech demonstrator only.

            See the Secret Projects JNAAM thread, it has news from Japan on it. Looks like the French have kiboshed any further operational version. Hence the reason for Japan to develop their own new missile…

          • Thank you. It’s hard to keep up with Japanese news! What a bloody shock! The French throw a wobbly! I must admit I’ve always wondered how the other partners were persuaded to allow JNAAM.

          • I was merely pointing out that having to wait for plethora of upgrades to integrate a weapons system onto a plane we are currently involved in as a ‘partner’, as we have no influence in that timescale should ensure we do not allow that to continue with the partnerships & development for projectTempest- I thought it quite a simple association to follow.
            Also in my opinion sales for US weaponry & capability for the US Armed forces are intrisically linked.

          • Yes, obviously US forces’ new weaponry is usually widely exported. You do realise that the UK is the major partner on Tempest, I suppose? And that the US isn’t involved? So again, WTF does F-35 weapon integration have to do with Tempest?

      • Indeed. It will also be very interesting to see the timescale and costings for the critical engine upgrade and how many aircraft we will retrofit them to.

        This upgrade is all about supporting the Block 4 weapon systems that are coming onto the jet. Block 4 is the name of the current modernization program for the F-35 platform.

        “The new Block 4 systems need more electrical power and more cooling. The engine enables both of those functions. And that’s really what is the driving need for F135 modernization. The F135 ECU fully enables all planned Block 4 capabilities.”

      • It was but Block IV has been delayed and obviously the US is going to prioritise their own new weapons’ integration.

    • And people say we are buying too slow. Like the US we shouldn’t accept any more non Block IV capable airframes.

    • True, but it means you have to have an open standard and the seller looses all control, other than trusting treaties will be observed, as to how the plane is subsequently used?

      It also breaks the model of exorbitant charges for software mods to pay for your dev teams!

    • From what I read a while back the whole software package for F-35 (being initiated from over 20 years back) is anything but modular. In other words flight management and weapon systems and sensors are all intertwined so that when you add a new weapon tie them into aircraft sensors the whole software sweet for flight controls need to be stress tested extensively to make sure it isn’t compromised. Seems like madness to me but I assume that was the state of software design when this project started. It seems this has become a total clusterfuck of complexity that wasn’t properly foreseen.

      It’s no surprise then that one of the major advances (or at least envisaged) for post F-35 Gen 5 and 6 aircraft is the fundamental change to modularity whereby the flight systems are completely independent of the weapons systems so that integration of weapons no longer entails extensive re-testing of every aspect of the flight system software too. So I guess ‘plug and play’ is indeed finally coming into the 5th/6th Gen environment, at least in theory. One of the major reasons the next gen of jets are expected to be introduced much quicker than the F-35. We will see and it will be interesting to see how sensors fit seamlessly into this equation. One things for sure there is no way we could allow Tempest to operate in the way F-35 does it would simply not be financeable, doubt the Americans could suffer such a scenario either tbh.

      • Wow. The requirements definition from the client(s) should have stated firmly the need to integrate new kit quickly and easily. The design team should have anticipated the senario. It is perhaps short sighted as the long term benefits of being able to sell a flexible system should out weigh the any short term benefits of locking clients into your system. This does not leave the F35 programme in a good place.

    • It appears to have been parked up at the moment. All efforts going to the manned GCAP.

      Considering they intend to be delivering production aircraft within 10 years, it’s probably just as well. Delivery of a production aircraft in that seemingly impossible timeframe appears to a magic trick that Paul Daniels would have been proud of!

      I wouldn’t be surprised if we went for an off the shelf option, perhaps Ghost Bat, along with Japan and Italy.

      A large joint buy of a developed and de-risked system, would certainly save some money, allowing cash for GCAP partner modification, licence assembly and partner weapons integration.

      • There is zero reason why it can’t be done in 10 years if:-

        – politicking is kept out of it; and
        – deliberate slowing to suit budgets is avoided

        The BAE2000 was a flyable airframe that performed quite well before being Eurofudged to death.

        UK already has radar and helmet integrations ready to go as well as a suite of weapons.

        We have also, closely, observed how not to do it with F35 development.

        • Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies

          The Tempest Programme Assessing Advances and Risks Across Multiple Fronts

          “It is encouraging that the approach to Tempest is very different to that followed by the Joint Strike Fighter/F-35 programme but broadly in line with the knowledge-based approach to acquisition which has been specified and promoted by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) continuously since at least 2004.

          79 The basis of that approach is that a programme should not be launched until the core enabling technologies are sufficiently mature. Further staged commitments should then be made first, when it has been shown that the core technologies can work together as a system and, second, when engineering work has shown the time and cost to manufacture and reliability of the finished system.

          The failure of the F-35 to follow this guidance was asserted and illustrated by the GAO in 2009. 80 Specifically, as Figure 3 illustrates, the level of knowledge attained at decision points consistently failed to meet the desirable levels shown by the diagonal line.

          The costs associated with both the acquisition and support of modern combat aircraft suggest that cost limits in both stages should be a driving factor in Tempest’s development, with digital engineering offering the chance to generate enhanced capability without perpetuating Norman Augustine’s insight about intergenerational cost growth.

          81 Given the US experience of cost increases and growth with the F-35 family, an open-source study of what went well and what went badly with that programme could be a useful resource document for the Tempest programme.

          Bluntly speaking, FCAS cannot expect to survive politically in the UK if it develops a similar history to that of the F-35.”

          LINK  

          • No point handing them a blank cheque like Typhoon or F35. Better to give then a fixed budget and tell them to develop the best fighter they can for the given funds.

            The USAF was proposing something similar with the digital century series a few years back then they thought, nah f**k it, let’s just give Boeing and Lockheed a boat load of cash and a four letter acronym to make anti gravity powered, laser flying space robots 😀 NGAD.

          • F35 programme is the end of air superiority of the west. Sad program. Too costly, too flawed, too many promises, not enough proof.

          • Really? Are you sure you’re not confusing it with EF2000? I don’t recall ever seeing anything from BAe referring to a “BAE2000” or even a “Bae 2000”. EAP wasn’t a Typhoon prototype: it was a technology demonstrator, which is a very different thing. I doubt you’d find a single common component.

          • EAP -> T1 has a fair few common parts.

            EAP was quite a developed plane: which was why BAe were so furious that it was turned into another Eurofudge. They really wanted a sovereign plane to export and felt they had substantially derisked it on their own dollar.

          • And yet BAe and MBB proposed a joint venture in 1979, while EAP wasn’t begun until late 1983 as a risk reduction measure. Do tell me exactly what parts EAP and ANY Typhoon have in common.

          • Admit it. You don’t know ANY because there really aren’t any. I’m glad you now know that EAP reused existing Tornado parts to an extent but where did you get the Jaguar idea? Surely you’re not going to claim that Typhoon uses either Jag or Tonka parts? That would be too funny.

          • I won’t argue with you.

            Please read the BAE website

            “ The flight control system, which was derived from that flown on the active control SEPECAT Jaguar (XX765), emphasised carefree ‘hands on throttle and stick’ handling with a high angle of attack , manoeuvrability and a departure prevention system.”

            https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/british-aerospace-eap—-experimental-aircraft-programme

            Plenty if other authorities are clear about the TONKA bits that were used for the *basis* of the rear fuselage.

          • Still reading selectively I see. And to claim the flight control system was from a Jaguar is simply not true. Your very source says “derived from”. not “taken from” or “the same as”; and in any case XX765 was hardly a standard Jaguar. That was its whole point! Your “arguments” are increasingly desperate, so not pursuing this really is the sensible choice.

          • OMG 😳

            In my first comment I said ‘parts bin’ implying a blend of bits from wherever suited.

            Are you seriously suggesting that having taken the XX765 controls and authority system that any sane engineer wouldn’t take the servos and allied bits too?

            Oooooh yeeeer: they were Jag bits.

            I’m sure you will argue that as well.

            The whole EAP was made up, rightly, of tried and tested bits from a whole range of jets.

            What your comment hinges on: is what level of bits to you accept as being from somewhere else – flap bearings or undercarriage elements or ejector seat parts or canopy fastenings. They all came from somewhere and none of them were entirely new for that project.

          • Are you serious? That would require the control surfaces to be the same size, shape and mass as the Jag’s. And to have the same deflection. I suggest you take a look at the aircraft concerned! But keep it coming. It’s too funny.

          • You change the lever arm?

            The length of the piston isn’t the only adjustment that can be made..zzz

            What I do note and I’m sure everyone else has too: is you haven’t provided a single alternative factual source.

          • That’s funny, because I was thinking exactly the same. Find me evidence of any Jaguar or Typhoon parts used on Typhoon, which is what you claimed. We’ll all wait. I won’t even try and find proof that none were because that obviously cannot exist. Only a fool would suggest it.

          • That argument, which you are having with yourself, solely hinges on a debate about how large a part or a component is.

            If we are talking about bearings and smaller components then there will be plenty in common. That is the nature of aerospace: proven parts and sub assemblies are reused.

            If you read what you wrote, up the thread, you were trying to pour cold water on the fact there were any Jag bits in EAP.

          • It was never meant to be a production aircraft – just a stepping stone to one. So perhaps my use of prototype was incorrect.

            The original idea was that it was a UK/GER/IT collaboration but the other two governments pulled the money.

            BAe held nerve and used it’s own money, lots of it, plus £85m MOD money to build EAP quickly and cheaply. Obviously, liberally using the parts bins it had to hand.

            The reason they were mad: was having done this to produce a sovereign aircraft they were made to share with the dilution of workshare and exports that was inevitable.

          • A flying prototype with re-used features like engines and flight controls.
            New engines, radars , other sensors, full flight controls plus a production airframe wasnt so cheap for Britain having partners share costs. I forget now what the development costs were as they were rolled into the production costs plus delay costs.
            It was just affordable with partners

          • I’d correct that slightly if I may.

            The cost was driven up by the partners and the ensuing arguments.

            The return was driven down by the workshare.

            The EJ200 was already under development by RR as the XG-40. That too was shared for slightly dubious and wholly unnecessary reasons.

        • The issue as I see it is the compressed funding requirments for the time frame.

          Let’s say it’s going to cost £40 billion, with the UK contributing £15 billion, all compressed into 10 years.

          That’s a very steep investment curve, something of an inverted ‘V’!

          It will have to be very carefully budgeted for in SDSR 2025, this will coincide with GCAP main gate and will require an almost immediate injection of 7/8 billion in the first 5 years.

          Assuming we stick at 2% GDP on defence, something else will have to give. I can’t see how the budget could stand the required high level of compressed funding needed over such a short period.

          My biggest and very real fear is the next government, with empty coffers, might just swallow a Lockheed Martin sales pitch and opt for F35A instead..

          LM would pitch block 4, possibly with increased UK content (30% build) and UK assembly for an order of 150 let’s say.

          It will be a ‘huge’ temptation for the next cash strapped government that’s for sure and it could be pitched to the public as a ‘British’ solution too by the PR men…

          If we ( by some miracle) get a sustained increase in defence spending to 2.5%, then it’s affordable.

          As things stand and considering the new international and very expensive SSN programme that’s already winding up and it’s progressing looking like our eyes are bigger than our bellies….

          Keep everything crossed!!!

          • I think the current government has a plan for it, all those steep years of funding will be a Labour government. 😀

          • The problem is GCAP main gate will be 2025, so next parliament, as will the government of the days SDSR.

            I don’t think the Tories will sign up to anything during the confines of the current Parliament.

            GCAP decision will be for however sits in No10 in 2025.

          • I think it’s probably too high profile for Kier Starmer to cancel, much the same as Typhoon under Blair.

            Much will depend on what ever budget can be found for its development.

          • I don’t see any party cancelling Tempest. It would effectively kill the UK fast jet business and probably affect 10’s of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly, including but not limited to RR jet engine business and avionics industries. It would also upset Italy and especially Japan. It would be political suicide.

            All that before we get into the defence implications, since F-35A isn’t going to give the RAF what they need. The US FGAD program is already talking about multiple 100’s of $millions per airframe so that won’t be an option either and the Europeans aren’t going to include us in their program in any meaningful way.

            BTW, the fast development program is deliberate in order to reduce costs, its long developments that drive up the costs. Both BAES and the RAF know this and both want to keep the costs down; for the former it will be for foreign sales, the latter wants to ensure maintaining if not increasing aircraft numbers. This latter point was stressed back at the 2018 program launch at Farnborough as captured in two interviews as follows.
            https://youtu.be/ogAtFy3q3xk

          • I totally agree with you mate, the point I am making is that the speed of development (to save money) is a double edged sword.

            It requires serious finance ‘front loaded’ into the programme and that’s a potential problem.

            A dire financial situation and a very expensive aircraft programme have the potential to clash rather violently. If (let’s hypothersise here) Labour form the next government and decide to embark on a radical social programme, then something is going to have to give.

            They may decide to spend an additional 30 odd billion in the NHS perhaps, they may decide that a hypothetical UK F35A is good enough, saves money and social spending is simply more important.

            Nothing is guaranteed and the spector of TSR2 is ever present!

            We have to hope that the international nature of GCAP, plus the forthcoming demonstrator is enough to carry it though.

          • I understood your point John, I just think a Starmer govt. won’t be that radical and killing jobs would lose them seats in the following election.

          • The Europeans, you mean Sweden and Italy? Italy is the only EU member working on 6th Gen aircraft to be delivered in the next two decades.

          • No, I was referring to the French/German/Spanish FCAS program. I agree its not likely to deliver anything until the 2040’s but that wasn’t my point. My point is that killing Tempest kills the UK fast jet industry because we won’t get a meaningfull share of anyone else’s program.

      • John I picked up a aerospace mag last week, still havent got round to reading but it does have a chapter on BAEs new division (UK version of skunk works?) called Falconworks

    • It would seem sensible (probably for too sensible) for the team to give out sufficient information for potential lw suppliers to incorporate the apppropriate interfaces thus providing a choice of products. Why limit yourself to anything especially as the best choice is not on the drawing board yet.

  5. I see French & Germany are already ‘arguing’ about the development of their new fighter…Who’da thunk it hey.!
    Let’s hope we can keep the Yanks at bay before they stick their oar into this one and screw it over..

    • I don’t think SCAF is an emergency given lessons from Ukraine air war.
      The important point to prevail in air war is the number of assets, the fact they are cheap, the ability to mass produce them. Rafale F5 is loyal wingman, remote carriers, AI and cloud. This is relevant. This is for now.
      New jet like Tempest is amazing, but for later. Not enough jet is less air power. We want to be ready for war, not exhibition. I would love to see a flying Tempest or SCAF, but these may soon become irrelevant (too costly to risk in suicide mission). Like apaches and combat drones. Apaches 5 to 10 times more expensive than drone for similare activities. I have doubts.
      UK position is different. UK does not have a plane it own’s.

      • Rafale F5 can’t be for now as it isn’t even going to fly until after 2030. We can’t tell if rafale F5 will be cheaper than other aircraft.
        I like rafale and France is all in on it. Most European countries have 4th gen aircraft and are getting F35s.
        As we get into 2030s it will be interesting to see where aircraft are going to be.

        • Hi Monkey Spanker,
          Rafale will be cheaper than SCAF, for sure given the specifications. Regarding FCAS/GCAP/Tempest, the UK & Japan plane, I don’t know.
          You are right, it is for 2030.
          Though the main point is that Rafale F5 is not so much about a plane. It is mostly combat drones and remote carriers plus AI. This is 6 Gen.
          5 Gen end up nowhere, with unbelievable cost per flying hours, insolvable code issues and abysmal flying performance. Even simulation is barely functionnal. This is not working.
          The drone between USA and Australia (walkyrie) is a marvel. Cheap, a bit stealthy, able to talk with other drones and planes, could be mass produced…
          This is what will enable endurance in the fight and destroy ennemy ground to air defense. The believe in sylver bullets is fading away.
          The Scalp/Stom Shadow could have been very close to that, but it is a missile, not reusable. There are definitely things UK and France should talk about.

          • If the integration between drones and manned aircraft can be worked out so it’s really easy to operate that will be a game changer.
            It will have to be easy enough that 1 pilot will have instant non stop access to the drones (no buffering😂) and can control multiples and get them to do what they want easily. Im still thinking 2 seat planes might be better.
            Pilot still needs to fly the plane, make sense of sensor data and everything else they do.
            I think it can be worked out as with a learning AI machine it can be shown every air combat mission ever and practice it a million times working out how best to do it. IF all that works it will be fine

          • Big ifs!
            I agree with you on the two seater airplane concept to manage all incoming information.
            Though, the biggest improvement claim of the F35 seems to be the help provided to the pilote to execute his mission. If mirage 2000 and all other planes made it much easier to the pilote to fly the plane, Rafale and Eurofighters being even better, the big up in F35 is the help provided to mission management.
            I guess the goal with Tempest or Rafale F5 will be to make it as easy as possible to control air asset in the vincinity.
            If you played video games in 1990 and 2020, the idea of how computer can help you manage assets available may be telling. If it is flawless in video games, it should be ok in military aviation as well. Some say that since a kid is able to control an army with joysticks, a pilote should be able to control the same way an army of drones.
            Video games companies are now military assets, as much as toy manufacturer…
            I agree on connectivity issues. A lot of them in fact. And now, 70% of civilian engineering in connectivity is in India or China. The pool of talent for confidential work is reducing.

          • “5 Gen end up nowhere, with unbelievable cost per flying hours, insolvable code issues and abysmal flying performance.”

            Tell that to any pilot that ever has to go into combat knowing a F22 or a F35 is lurking out there somewhere. Tell it to the Russian pilots who recently decided it was no longer a good idea to harass US reaper drones since F35 were deployed to the area.

    • The Franco German effort is a waste of time for Germany. France will stay in the programme off the back of German investment and funding. Then quietly poach all intellectual property and technology before going off on their own to make the next gen Rafael equivalent.
      They have history, form and are known to do this to their defence partners.
      Germany will be left with the option of buying the next gen Rafael equivalent , Tempest or whatever the US are prepared to sell them.
      Tempest needs pushing through to completion with our allies then ordering in large numbers to ensure adequate RAF frontline strength.

  6. Interesting Saudi now looks like it will join the collaboration.

    Cant see it bringing anything to the table other than funding along with guaranteed aircraft without the purchases being blocked by other nations.

      • I play a game with a Saudi and he knows am Scottish, he was telling me the English are fanatical 😂😂😂. His words not mine.

      • I would not be involving The Saudis in anything we are developing…its disgraceful we are allowing The Crown Prince’s involvement.
        Still ..it tells you all you need to know I suppose.

      • I disagree, it’ll just be pushing them closer to China. As seen with the recent nuclear deal with US causing issues, the Saudis went with China.

        Tempest will not garner much export opportunity as most countries cannot afford that and F35, and any export could go to any 3 nations depending on military ties.
        The Saudi jets would most likely be built in the UK, and with RAF orders getting smaller each year, something will be needed to keep the production line going.
        It would really be shooting ourselves in the foot to block an export.

        • Good point re production numbers.
          Access to the programme with money as the carrot means tech transfer and access though? I wonder what Japan’s objection is beyond that then?

          • Sorry for the late reply mate. I don’t know much about this but to the best of my knowledge Saudi Arabia has a non existent aerospace industry and the only work done there is parts being produced for spares and repairs of aircraft, for example Typhoon parts and repairs are done locally. I highly doubt Saudi are looking to go from that to building a 6th gen fighter.

            Japan’s objection is likely Saudis ties with China. For Japan there isn’t as much to lose with industry as I doubt GCAP parts will be built in different countries and then assembled in the home country, unlike Eurofighter or other European projects. This means unlike the German block of 48 Typhoons of which 30% of each are built in Germany, a tiny percentage of British Tempest parts will be built in Japan. If it has no affect on Japans industry there really is no incentive. Japan doesn’t have any countries in the Middle East that but it’s military products in bulk so really has no incentive. Italy does so probably won’t block the order.

            By the time Tempest is in service the two US 6th gen jets will have been in service for 5+ years. Whilst I’d like to say that Tempest will be a lot more advanced that won’t be true. It’d be underestimating China to say that they’d need Saudi to leak details to build their own 6th gen fighters. Their R&D and espionage is far too good for that.

    • The UK, Italy and Japan don’t really need Saudi involvement between those 3 partner nations we’ve got enough funding and technical prowess to deliver Tempest. Saudi involvement would be high risk and could lead to advanced Western technology falling into the laps of China and Russia.

  8. So Japan is making a new missile on its own that it wants to put on the joint aircraft project.
    It does seem like a joint project the 3 countries should be working on. Guess the funding wasn’t there on the European end.

    • Chinese missiles outranges meteor. Big concern for Japan.
      Besides, europeans are makiing meteor. They can have it for a better price than a Customer.
      US aim 260 has a good range, but it will probably be more expensive than Amram and design looks very conservative.

    • No Monkey the Japanese missile was already in development. The UK and Japan signed a joint memorandum for its development in 2021. It was intended to utilise the meteors advanced propulsion unit with a new Japanese seeker head and warhead. Pushing the range out to 300+Kms at Mach 4+ and giving the missile the ability to engage stealth targets and some hypersonic missiles as well as potentially ballistic missiles on re-entry/ terminal phase approach.

      • Thanks for reminding me I’d forgotten that fact.
        However we do not want to in the same position with Tempest that we are with block IV on F35b.
        We must insist applications architecture is modular so we can integrate our chosen systems in our timescales.

  9. The mention of Japan not working with companies on defence projects is not actually true. The British company that I worked for were supplying and developing equipment for Japanese IR missiles back in the 80’s I was the project engineer on 5 different projects for Japan at the time.

  10. Reading some Japanese language reports via Google translate, commentators there clearly see GCAP as a landmark project for the country. They are also less than keen for Saudi Arabia to be accepted as a fourth partner, but would love to see Australia to come on board, perhaps via some kind of Japan+AUKUS (JAUKUS?) arrangement.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here