There is a strong push to bring forward the entry into service of the Global Combat Air Programme’s sixth-generation fighter by around two years, and doing so is feasible provided the initial version enters service more gradually, according to Leonardo’s chief executive.

Speaking on the Italian group’s first-half results call on Thursday, Lorenzo Mariani said the pressure to accelerate GCAP was coming from ministerial level and was justified. “It’s true that there is quite a strong push to bring forward the first entry into service of GCAP, that was initially stated, that still stated, 2035, closer by a couple of years,” he said.

Mariani said the argument for moving faster had been “motivated correctly, in my view, by the urgency of having such multi-domain system starting to operate as as quickly as possible, as early as possible.”

Asked whether that was industrially realistic, he said it was, but with a caveat about what the aircraft would be able to do on day one. It was feasible “by making that entry into service even more gradual than it was supposed to be, so probably modulating the requirements that this initial version will fulfil,” he said, adding that “it’s always possible to be progressively meeting the final requirement, as it has always been the case in such complex programmes.”

GCAP is the trilateral programme between the UK, Italy and Japan to field a sixth-generation combat aircraft to replace the Eurofighter Typhoon and Japan’s F-2, with an in-service target of 2035. It is delivered through Edgewing, the joint venture formed by BAE Systems, Leonardo and Japan Aircraft Industrial Enhancement Co, which contracts to the trilateral government organisation GIGO, headquartered in the UK. Reports from the Farnborough International Airshow this month suggested Japan, and possibly Italy, were pressing for an earlier date.

Mariani was also asked about remarks by BAE Systems chief executive Charles Woodburn, who said a day earlier that the window for bringing an additional partner nation into GCAP was closing if the 2035 target is to hold. Mariani agreed. “I fully agree with what my friend Charles said. The window is closing, because otherwise confidence in timescales will be lost. This is the main reason,” he said.

He acknowledged a competing argument, specifically, “Then, to be really honest, one should think if there is a point in losing some time now to reach a more stable and more healthy consortium, and then maybe gain time in the second part of the development,” he said, “but I recognise that normally decisions are taken on what we have on the table today. So yes, the window will close very soon.”

Germany has been the country most frequently linked with a possible expansion of the programme. Saudi Arabia has also been discussed as a prospective partner, with the UK signalling interest in Riyadh’s involvement, and Canada has now joined as an observer. Mariani described that development as a positive indicator, noting that “an additional observer has been added with Canada, who has requested to be part of the programme, and for the moment will be an observer. That is a very good sign for the follow-on of the programme.”

On progress to date, Mariani pointed to the first major international contract signed between GIGO and Edgewing, which BAE Systems this week valued in excess of £5 billion across the joint venture, covering completion of the advanced concept and assessment phase and further joint detailed design and development work.

The comments came alongside first-half results the group described as an outstanding performance. Chief financial officer Giuseppe Aurelio reported orders up around 40% year on year to roughly €16 billion, revenues up 10%, return on sales rising 110 basis points to 7.6% and net income up 74%. Leonardo upgraded its full-year guidance, raising expected orders to €28.2 billion and EBITA to €2.21 billion, which Aurelio said would make the company a double-digit margin business in 2026, a year earlier than planned.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
X

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

124 COMMENTS

    • One can’t be absolutely certain true it’s a complex business and will inevitably have challenges and hiccups, but software design has come on immeasurably since the F-35s nineties into the noughties effort which has seriously obstructed its software development and updating. These days the approach is conceptionally different with modularity at its core separating flight control, sensors and weapon release which presently requires thorough retesting of one when the others are updated. Ai is also being incorporated (according to Bae) to speed up code production and testing too.

      Of course the reality may not completely fit the theory here but the past 15 years has transformed this sector so there is good reason to be hopeful. Read earlier today from the partners that in particular they are concentrating on creating systems that will make weapon integration a matter of months over years as a priority and Excalibur will be examining these efforts extensively as it was announced for the first time will the Tempest demonstrator on behalf of the partners, especially launch from weapons bay and supersonic launch as clearly the partners have no direct experience of these factors on home produced platforms, the Buccaneer being Britains closest comparison to such concepts, so a lot to learn. With the experience and lessons of the F-35 and the need for these Countries to fit their own weapon fits/combinations (not to mention its potential operators more generally) I can well believe this is their priority from the off in a way it never was for Lockheed Martin and the US Govt who simply prioritised their own and have been slow even there beyond a few core missiles. .

      • Thats what the F-35’s software is like, 28 discrete software modules of which 8 are core modules required for basic flight that are always running. Issue is its been suffering system memory conflicts between modules and the original computer hardware with the module that runs the radar in particular regularly crashing and needing to be reset, its chugging to manage the number of running modules. So TR3 is increasing the number of processor cores and running each of the software modules beyond the core modules virtualised in a separate instance to reduce memory conflicts. Original processor was a custom quad core capable of 40 billion instruction per second running around 2.9Ghz.

  3. No doubt GCAP can go faster but it’s always an equation between money available at each point on time vs timescales, generally faster is cheaper in the long run but more expensive each year of development.
    I’m actually in some ways hoping no further partners join as then the benefits of sales will be shared between the long term partnership

  4. Really? I guess if you bring the date forward, you can then delay it without worrying about Japan.

    Hopefully this isn’t a Tranche 1-scenario.

    • That is my concern, that an early tranche of GCAP aircraft cannot be later economically brought up to the full standard. The partners all have experience of that with Typhoon and F35 so it should be on the managements’ minds, though. And the open integration should help too.

    • Tempest will undoubtedly have spiraling development. The aircraft delivered in day one will be very different from aircraft delivered 10 years down the line.

    • The Tranche 1 anxiety is completely understandable, Leh, but the underlying computing technology makes that scenario highly unlikely for GCAP.

      The Tranche 1 Typhoon issue wasn’t just about incomplete software; it was a hardware trap. Those early aircraft were built with rigid, federated computer systems where the hardware was hard-wired to specific 1990s processing units, making later upgrades physically and financially prohibitive without replacing the entire backbone of the jet.

      GCAP is fundamentally different because it utilises a decoupled, software-defined architecture. Entering service in 2033 with an initial software block doesn’t lock the airframe into a dead end. Because the mission systems are containerised—acting more like apps on a unified operating system—the physical aircraft can easily receive updates, new sensor modes, and weapon integration via digital drops without needing structural hardware overhauls.

      It allows the air forces to get airframes into service early to master the low-observable flight characteristics while the advanced combat systems iterate digitally.

      • Spot on, it’s just generationally different even if challenges are inevitable. But as you say and unlike F-35 that’s locked into ‘stone age’ methodology Tempest is designed to be modular from the off so you can update systems without having to test virtually every aspect of the whole software suite for unforeseen effects. Equally the engines will have enormous electrical power potential from the off and again will be far more easily upgradable than that of the F-35 which is sorely afflicted by being a single immensely powerful engine whereby its priority from design was to enable the B version to operate effectively in a VStol envelope and to give all version decent performance in an anything but aerodynamically efficient airframe. Big job trying to then further prioritise generating more electrical power from it, thus once pondering the idea of replacing it altogether. GCAP should have a lot more flexibility especially with RR work on Orpheus designed specifically to incorporate changes and variations as easily as possible enabling RR to scale and perfect a range of engines from the same basic design to offer for a wide range of platforms.

        • Completely agree, Spyinthesky. The F-35 comparison is the perfect case study. Lockheed’s block upgrade delays are exactly what happens when you’re stuck with a monolithic software stack and a single engine that was compromised on day one by the STOVL requirement. The F135 is basically maxed out on thermal management because the airframe can’t dump the heat.

          GCAP going twin-engine completely changes the math for electrical generation. With Rolls-Royce and IHI working on the combustion core, they are embedding embedded starter-generators directly into the engine cores from the start. It means GCAP will generate massive megawatts of power purely to feed the new radar and directed-energy weapons without cooking the avionics.

          The Orpheus project approach you mentioned is exactly how we avoid the F-35 trap. Scalable, modular propulsion cores mean we aren’t rebuilding the wheel when we need a variant or a capability drop. It’s refreshing to actually discuss the real engineering trade-offs here rather than dealing with standard forum cynicism.

          • I have never understood the argument that the F35 was compromised by STOVL requirements. Can you please explain why the engine is compromised from day one by STOVL requirements? What would be different about the F135 engine is there was no B version?

            • I imagine it’s size. The total space available for F-35B has to accommodate both the engine and the lift fan. If that limits the size of F135, and the same F135 is used in two other planes that could have accommodated a larger engine, the requirements of the F-35B would be limiting to all three versions of the plane. I don’t know if this is true, it’s just my best guess.

              • Hi Jon, issue I see with that is the F35 is not short on engine power but it is short on fuel and internal weapons space and the extra room on the non STOVL versions is used to carry fuel and more internal stores.

                I just don’t understand the argument I hear about the B model compromising the program it never adds up to me. The issue won’t the F35 seems to be software, skin coatings and computers.

              • That’s not the case, a single engine design was mandated for price reasons before the JSF program even began. The F35 is primarily an F16 replacement. The single engine is one of the main reasons it costs so little.

                • The cost mandate for a single engine is true Jim, but the STOVL physics made it a structural trap. If you want a vertical lift fan to balance on the centre of gravity you are physically locked into a single massive core right down the spine of the jet. You cannot offset twin engines safely for a hover because an engine failure means an instant catastrophic flip. The problem is that designing one massive single engine to handle conventional flight, stealth signatures, and a vertical hover maxed out the thermal limits from day one. It is cheap to buy but a nightmare to upgrade, which is exactly why GCAP going twin-engine completely changes the capability horizon

                • The STVOL requirement forced the design into a single engine – the F-35 is leveraged off the YAK 141. No ones cracked asymmetric power out in twin engined planes and hovering.

                  • There were some concepts that tried in the nineties, but they never progressed anywhere.
                    Most used twin engines but with their cold thrust going through a paired nozzle on the Centreline to get the thrust lines as close together as possible.

            • Good question Jim. The STOVL requirement compromised the engine from day one because the entire F135 core had to be designed around the strict weight limits and physical architecture needed to make the B version hover.

              If there was no B version the F135 wouldn’t have been constrained by the space needed for the giant LiftFan drive shaft and gearboxes. The airframe could have been slimmer, allowing for much better aerodynamic cooling. Because of the vertical landing limits the engine core is locked into a design that simply cannot handle the extreme thermal and electrical power demands of modern avionics upgrades. That is why it is cooking itself and maxed out on power management, a trap GCAP avoids by using a clean-sheet twin-engine setup from the start

                • Spot on, Just Me. The Shenyang J-35 is the ultimate proof of the concept. China stole the F-35 stealth and low-observable data, but completely threw out the single-engine layout. Because they didn’t have to design around a vertical-landing requirement, they built a twin-engine carrier fighter with a much slimmer cross-section and far better aerodynamic efficiency. It shows that even the competition looked at the F-35’s STOVL compromises and said ‘no thank you’

                  • Chinese engine’s likely produce less power and how’s reliability? Tempest is a long range bomber to my mind, whilst also able to other things. So twin engine, big bomb bay, long range.

                    • Not sure why we are grading Chinese engine reliability here, Simon, when the comparison was strictly between the Western F-35 and GCAP design philosophies. Calling Tempest a ‘long-range bomber’ fundamentally misinterprets what a 6th-gen air dominance platform actually is. It requires long range and a large internal bay because of the vast distances in the Indo-Pacific and the need to carry stealthy anti-ship/cruise missiles, alongside operating as an airborne command node for uncrewed loyal wingmen. More importantly, the twin-engine setup isn’t just about kinetic payload or range—it’s about generating massive electrical power and managing thermal dissipation. A single-engine core constrained by STOVL architecture cannot generate the megawatts needed to run next-gen electronic warfare suites and directed-energy weapons without cooking itself. GCAP’s twin-engine layout solves the power-deficit trap from day one.

    • Logic to those words true, but not set in stone because I can counter with the Canberra a stop gap quickly designed aircraft From Teddy Petter who having learned much from the struggles with the high altitude Welkin, was tasked at wars end to design a plane to simply get us through to the ‘superior’ V bombers and ‘by accident’ created a one of the great British planes of all time, an outstanding success story that could pretty much match the altitude of a U2 and that well outlasted those V Bombers, was a great export success and in highly modernised form still flies today with NASA. So sometimes doing things with urgency can focus minds and create something outstanding that years of pondering possibilities so often does not match. The Mk IX Spitfire of course was another legendary example of a ‘rushed’ improvised design that was far more common and immediately useful than the version designed to replace it, indeed it never was replaced in the high altitude interceptor role it was so good at that function. In the end it’s getting the balance right.

  6. There is no way this will be ready to enter service in 2033 in any meaningful sense, beyond that there is well developed prototype that is forming the basis of tempests manufacture. If it’s in service by 2035 they are doing well…gcap is on a roll tho…
    Singapore said to be looking at it as well…👍

    • So, that’s Canada, Saudi Arabia, Australia and Singapore being reported as interested parties.

      It’s a good start if they can pull it off.

      • The one country I would really like to see get involved is Sweden. They have a long History of jest doing things slightly differently but nearly always surprise the hell out of larger nations.

        • ABCR,
          Agreed, but didn’t Sweden participate, at least briefly, in an observer status, earlier in the programme?

          • Yes. they pulled out citing that gcap and fcas didn’t offer what they wanted at the current time back in 2023. Or something like that. However, they are looking at their own project. But, you never know in the future.

        • Sweden wants a small jet though.

          They might be interested in the CCA, but unless their requirements drastically change they have no interest in Tempest.

    • I tend to agree, we must remember Tempest isn’t precisely the same as GCAP, the aircraft is a solely uk test aircraft with Italian input (Japan developed its own) used to re establish the uk skills and produce new ones for such an advanced aircraft and to learn and enable its production. The carbon fibre panels and large light weight structures are the largest and/or most advanced ever generated here but the fundamental design is somewhat still pre GCAP in its final locked down design at least in essence, and though very large is still smaller than GCAP which is likely where Japanese interest has come into the equation. However it will not only test UK/Italian technology as originally planned, it will as now agreed with Edgewing, incorporate as much GCAP intended technology, sensor suite etc as and when ready, as is possible during its flight testing, so as to shorten GCAP overall development time. It will be interesting to know exactly when the first true GCAP prototype flies and when the engines for it will be ready.

      • “agreed with Edgewing, incorporate as much GCAP intended technology”.

        That is really interesting and reassuring. There was always the danger that the demonstrator would be of limited value to the development of GCAP (accepting it’s value as a training and experience project).

        The fact that it is now likely to generate real value to the development effort is great news raising the possibility of of being able to test soft and hardware in the real world alongside testing and experimentation in virtual environments is a significant advantage on many levels.

        Cheers CR

    • A lot of the flight control logic has already been designed virtualised before its even built, its more likely the further development will be in the radar interpretation, Gui functions and weapons handling software, so it should at least mean getting some airframes as flight trainers to learn takeoff/landing and aerial handling.

  7. Seriously? In my experience anything touched by MoD procurement usually takes years longer than expected at double the cost. Believe it when I see it.

  8. The fact that FCAC has collapsed and the US F47 is not being made available, means that GCAP has the potential to win multiple orders from friendly nations- getting it right is just/more important than getting it early!!

    • Let’s hope mate, I’m increasingly optimistic, they just have to make sure the price point doesn’t turn it into a small silver bullet force.

      I would argue the RAF need to be ordering 150, to equip at least 8 squadrons, so 96 in the front line, with a small OCU/ OTU of 10 ( virtully all training being virtual by 2035), with a healthy reserve.

      Backed up by 100 + capable CCA.

      That way all F35B can be allocated to the FAA, hopefully 65 ish, equipping 3 squadrons, again with a capable CCA backing them up.

        • We could certainly use a larger F35B fleet, but unfortunately, I doubt we will get it.

          Topping out at about 60.

        • Indeed and this announcement could be why the Alpha turns to Bravo buy.

          No point in buying a tiny number of planes with their own parts requirement when it makes more sense to have enough Bravo to do the CSG and ex Harrier taskings.

      • Hi John, it’s very much going to be a silver bullet force rather than a one for one Typhoon replacement.

        The CCA’s are supposed to bring the mass while the manned fighter is more like an AWACS.

        I think we are looking at maximum 100

        • I would think you are right Jim, unfortunately the fewer we order, the higher the unit cost.
          Are we going to be looking at a 150 million machine? Cost is critical, the further north we go from 100 million per copy, the fewer export customers we will generate.

          I would be very interested to know if there’s any truth to the rumours that during SDSR25 discussions, the RAF were apparently pushing for GCAP cancellation and a large order of F35A in its place. I think they are probably fearful that they will be left with a small fighter force, thanks to its potentially very high unit cost.

          Certainly, everyone’s attention is now on a very capable CCA, it has to be both capable and affordable.
          How does Brontanax compare Ghostbat mk3 for example?

          Ghostbat seems to have a definitive advantage with its swappable nose, will Brontanax be as capable I wonder??

          • Hi John, I hadn’t heard that about RAF wanting cancellation but I would not be surprised. Our military leadership is pretty short sighted, insert American defence product here with civilian defence contractor positions attached seems to be the main mantra of the army and increasingly the RAF.

            The F35A is certainly the most straight forward way to get combat mass to the RAF, no doubt about that but it would result in the death of western manned aviation outside of the USA.

            • Hi Jim,

              Yep, we just have to ensure we dont end up building something exquisitely expensive and consuming the entire budget for a minimum number of airframes, below required force levels.

              I would argue the RAF should have 12 Fast air squadrons, supplemented with a good number of ‘very’ capable CCA.

              In an ideal world, 8 squadrons of GCAP and 4 of F35A.
              Give the F35B to the FAA, hopefully enough for 3 squadrons with 60 airframes.

              Given enough Ghost Bat ( or whatever) that would be enough to kick anyones front door in on day one of a war and give the RAF a place back on the top table of Western Air forces.

      • The 35Bs are under powered, and with poor weapons fit. Suggest we order no more.

        Indeed we are now buying 35As for the OCU.

        • What goes on the carriers then?

          By the time any F-35A are delivered, given we need to wait for tranche 4, Tempest will arrive anyway and will completely outclass the F-35 making an a purchase completely pointless.

          There is no point of the A for the UK.

          • You miss the point. THE F35As are much cheaper to buy and operate. `Also had you not oticed 2we are going back to having a nuclear capability that is air launched and need As for that.

            As for the carriers, we cannot afford two carriers so watch this space re a disposal. `we need more destroyers and frigates supported by autonomous craft not a second carrier. We are the only nation in Europe with two. `why?

  10. The ministerial push to bring GCAP forward to 2033 highlights a vital shift in how we approach 6th-generation threat horizons. This acceleration isn’t arbitrary political posturing; it is a direct response to the rapid maturation of peer-adversary systems. For Japan in particular, the mid-2030s timeline for replacing the F-2 fleet was already razor-thin against regional airpower expansion. Getting these platforms into squadrons early is a strategic necessity.

    However, Mariani’s note that the initial version will enter service gradually is the most telling part of the announcement. This shouldn’t be viewed through the cynical lens of traditional procurement delays, but rather as a victory for a software-defined approach.

    Historically, European defence projects stumbled by trying to deliver a 100% ‘perfect’ aircraft on day one, leading to massive delays and obsolete tech upon arrival. By fielding a robust, initial block in 2033, the partner nations can master the core flight characteristics, aerodynamic integration, and low-observable signatures early.

    Because GCAP is built on an open-system software architecture, adding the advanced sensor fusion, next-gen electronic warfare suites, and loyal wingman drone integration can be handled through iterative ‘capability drops’ over the subsequent years. It balances immediate geopolitical deterrence with long-term technological adaptability.

      • Well Chat Gpt or not, it is relevant as it reflects and focuses upon so very much that has been written about its aims, either by the various partners themselves or the specialist press, so personally I don’t mind it either way. It quantifies and focuses the overall core intent of the programme accurately, we can discuss the likelihood of success and timelines I guess in and around those known parameters, rather than trying to determine them ourselves in fragments, usually with extensive disagreements over the facts.

        • Appreciate that, Spyinthesky. I can assure you it’s 100% organic brain power here, just well-read on the subject! You hit the nail on the head—if we don’t anchor the discussion in the actual parameters the partners are laying out, the debate just devolves into endless arguments over fragments.

          To your point on the likelihood of success, the real test is going to be how London, Rome, and Tokyo manage the industrial workload share without slipping back into the old Eurofighter/A400M style political squabbling. If they stick to the open-system software roadmap Mariani is hinting at, they might actually pull this off

      • Sorry that using proper paragraphs and actually understanding 6th-gen procurement trade-offs is too high a standard for you. If you have an actual counter-argument about Japan’s F-2 timeline, let’s hear it. Otherwise, find someone else to troll.

        • Don’t try and cover.

          Your comment was 100% written by AI, “it’s not this, it’s that”, starting paragraphs with “However,” and “Historically,”.

          Some of us know what we’re talking about, including when it comes to identifying AI.

          • Being a traditionalis, I’ve not dabbled in all that stuff, so not got a clue.
            But BMs poats look different, somehow? Be it AI assisted or just BMs own style.
            Magenta also posts excellent long essays that have a similar feel and look to them.
            They certainly stand out, whatever methods being used.

            • So for BM it’s very obvious.

              I’d recommend giving free AI a go so you can get an idea of its writing style. But it has some very clear structures that start to stand out the more you use it.

              One is using the phrasing “it’s not this, it’s that” style, another is some form of “it’s highlights the importance of”. And in general it’s overly verbose. You can also notice the sycophantic wording such as “you’ve correctly identified the key fundamental difference”

              For BM in particular if you look through their older posts they had spelling errors, little punctuation such as never any fullstops, using ?? Instead of a single ?, and their comments were very short. But a month ago they all switched to long form AI with lots of punctuation including emdashes when they aren’t needed.

              Maybe it’s a bot using their username, I don’t think there’s any limit in doing so, or maybe they just like the responses they get.

              Not anti AI by any means, it’s probably more accurate than 90% of commenters here. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to be talking to AI pretending to be authentic, and we also know from previous articles around Iran bots pushing for Scottish independence, that they start with reasonable AI posts to build credibility and authenticity before switching to their misinformation campaign. That’s the risk if we don’t identify and call out unauthentic commenters.

              • For me, a great post, I’ve learned something there.
                On unauthentic commentators, I can vouch for myself, at least, as I’m a real person known by some here, including the boss.
                On BM, not saying he’s one or the other, I enjoy the detail in their posts much as I appreciate Magenta’s.
                Makes you wonder how many “bots” there are here, I know it’s a subject that particularly vexes Halfwit!

                • Thanks, as an example I asked ChatGPT free tired to give me an insightful 4 paragraph comment for this article. It took about 10seconds to generate. Hopefully you can see some similarities in writing style, prose, and general tone of an AI generated comment.

                  “ The prospect of bringing GCAP into service two years ahead of schedule is encouraging, but the real measure of success won’t be the date on the calendar—it will be whether the programme delivers meaningful combat capability from day one. Modern air combat is increasingly defined by software, sensor fusion, electronic warfare, and secure data sharing rather than simply aerodynamic performance. If the aircraft enters service with a robust digital architecture that can evolve rapidly, an earlier introduction could provide a significant operational advantage.

                  What’s particularly interesting is how GCAP appears to be embracing a “digital-first” development philosophy. Advanced modelling, digital engineering, and open systems architecture should allow hardware and software to mature in parallel, reducing some of the risks that traditionally delayed large defence programmes. If managed well, this could become a model for future multinational defence projects, demonstrating that complex international collaboration doesn’t necessarily have to mean decades of delays.

                  The timing also reflects the changing strategic environment. Air forces are no longer planning solely around replacing legacy fighters; they’re preparing for highly contested battlespaces where aircraft operate as part of a wider combat network alongside autonomous systems, space assets, cyber capabilities, and long-range precision weapons. In that context, GCAP isn’t just a successor to Typhoon—it’s intended to be the centrepiece of an integrated combat ecosystem.

                  That said, the biggest challenge may come after the first aircraft enters service. Maintaining political commitment, controlling costs, and delivering continuous capability upgrades over the following decades will ultimately determine whether GCAP becomes another successful long-term platform or simply an impressive technological achievement. An earlier service date would certainly be welcome, but sustained investment and disciplined programme management will matter even more than an accelerated delivery.”

                    • Yeah, or you can ask to for a reply to a comment. You’ll notice BMs comment replies often start with repeating the persons name at the beginning.

                      The frustrating thing is BM has used the most obvious form of AI by copying it directly from a simple prompt. I probably shouldn’t provide tips, but you can very easily get the AI to modify its response to be less noticeable, include errors, or copy the style of someone else’s writing.

                      AI models of today are the worst they’ll ever be from now on.

                      I’d prefer a better commenting system that is tied to accounts and have moderation tools. Otherwise there’s no way to deal with it.

                  • Thanks for proving my point, and you accuse me of using AI. The text you generated reads like a safe, generic corporate press release full of bland buzzwords like ‘integrated combat ecosystem’ and ‘disciplined programme management’. It completely avoids taking a hard stance or analysing real technical constraints. When humans debate GCAP, we talk about actual engineering realities—like comparing the processing limits of Tranche 1 Typhoon hardware to modern decoupled, software-defined architectures, or tracking Rolls-Royce core engine milestones. Your AI sample is just safe fluff that doesn’t say anything substantial. Real analysis requires an actual point of view, not just a collection of polished buzzwords.

                • True mate, same here, ive never even looked at AI to be honest and all my replies, poor spelling and iffy punctuation are my own…

                  No Amstrad 8 bit computer writing essays it for me!!

                  • Now it has been pointed out I’m curious to look at it. I know my wife has used it and downloaded it onto her phone.
                    Anyone who knows me knows I’m a bit of a fossil with tech anyway so I’m slow to get into these things. And I’m only 54! Yes, all my punctuation and spelling errors are mine, and there will be plenty I’m sure. This place is not the Nazi spelling police though so if you spot it, fine, if not, who cares. If we had the edit function back I’d use it for sure.

              • Hey, I write like that. Furthermore, I speak like that. Really!
                Are you calling me AI?
                If yes, is that meant as a compliment or is it an insult?
                AI is supposed to be a super intelligence, so I’ll take it as a compliment. After all, I’ve spoken this way since before AI, smartphones and the internet. Who knows, it might all be modelled on me. Yes, that’s it; it probably is.

                • Trust me, you don’t write like that.

                  It’s incredibly specific in terms of structure, and there’s a multitude of tells that are all in BMs comment.

                  To me they stand out like a sore thumb and it’s nothing to with length of a comment or one type of punctuation.

                  • On your point above, with proper accounts, fully agree.
                    That’s up to UKDJ though and there may well be reasons why it’s not feasible.

                  • You are obsessing over my grammar while completely avoiding the actual debate on GCAP Submitten. At this point your paranoia is just getting sad.

                    Do I need to get a restraining order, or should I just go ahead and book us both a room?? 🙂

                    feckin loser

                • Haha cheers Befoxy! Glad to know I am not the only ‘AI model’ posting here. If Submitten finds out you have been writing like this since before smartphones he might report you to national security too!! 😂

              • Whatcha talkin’ ’bout, Willis? An Iranian bot campaign for Scottish independence because I started using em-dashes?
                Going through my old post history to count my question marks is incredibly weird behaviour, Submitten. The big ‘conspiracy’ here is that I’ve actually been taking typing lessons to improve my grammar and format my thoughts better. My tutor is genuinely impressed by my improvements, but apparently, using full stops and proper punctuation means I’m a national security threat to you
                Spinning a wild geopolitical thriller because a forum regular learned how to use a keyboard properly is peak desperation. Seek help, you absolute loser. 🙂
                The rest of us are here to talk about GCAP

                • You’re embarrassing yourself, if you want to use AI it’s fine. Just say at the beginning “I asked AI and it said:”

                  Saying you’ve started taking grammar lessons is a good one though, pretty obvious you didn’t use AI to come up with that excuse.

                  • So you admit my reply was entirely human then. Glad we finally got there Submitten. Now please let the rest of us get back to actual defence engineering, enjoy your evening gimp 🙂

                    • Not sure what was difficult to understand in my comment.

                      But yes it’s obvious when you use AI for your comments and when you don’t.

                      I guess your “grammar tutor” ran out of tokens.

    • We would not be getting any F35A much before 2033 so this would put a major spanner in the works but I doubt the USA would allow integration of B61 on GCAP.

      The B61 bomb is actually a repurposed warhead from Pershing II. It would be pretty simple for the UK to repurpose the mk4 Holbrook warheads into a gravity bomb as it has a selectable yield that is very similar to the B61.

      Tempest is probably the ideal nuclear weapon delivery aircraft in the world, large, lots of range and all aspect stealth. Able to fly all the way from the UK to Moscow. Such a capability would be very attractive to Germany and Poland and might bring Sweden onboard too. It would also open up a lot of options for Japan should it find itself without US support in future.

      • The ideal delivery system for a nuke has been a ballistic missile since the 1950’s. Not gonna change anytime soon.

        • I agree on a purely mechanical basis but sub strategic weapons are a political statement rather than a weapon of war. Giving other NATO Allie’s nuclear armed ballistic or even cruise missiles opens up multiple treaty violations under NPT and gives more credence for our adversaries to do the same.

          Allowing other Allie’s access to a simple gravity bomb in the way that the US does with NATO Allie’s doesn’t open up the same challenges. When that gravity bomb can be delivered from a low observable long range regional bomber it can serve a significant deterrent from using nuclear weapons against a none nuclear armed opponent as anyone operating Tempest will be potentially able to use the weapon at short notice. In theory countries like Australia or Japan could use this as a threshold nuclear capability as well.

          I’m in favour of developing a UK MRBM or a medium range nuclear armed cruise missile but either program will cost billions, take years and will open up a major political controversy in the UK. Imagine the SNP delight when road mobile MRBM’s start travelling around the highlands but are not based in England. Imagine the county council in East Anglia losing its s**t at the prospect of sub strategic missiles on local roads along with the caravans in summer.

          By comparison taking the Physics package out of a Holbrook Mk4 warhead and putting it into a gravity bomb is pretty easy. It doesn’t even need to be integrated with the aircraft as it can be a simple dumb bomb and we already have airbases in the UK storing nuclear weapons.

          We use to do this stuff all the time in the Cold War. It’s exactly where the modern B61 came from. Our last air launched nuclear weapon was the WE177 also used a repurposed physics package in the same way. We don’t need to go off and spend £5 billion on a ASN4G style hypersonic cruise missile if we have an aircraft like Tempest.

          It’s another big plus in the Tempest column making it worth the expenditure.

      • No argument Jim. I never understood what the “A” was about in thre first place but if Tempest is coming on strong it makes more sense to go with our own aircraft surely.

  13. If it’s possible to get it into service by 2033 then it could be a game changer from a defence economics perspective. Delivery by 2033 makes it competitive against F35, Typhoon and Rafale for delivery slots. All of these aircraft have substantial order backlogs into the 2030’s now and having the ability to receive a 6th generation jet before a 4th generation jet will be attractive to a number of high spending militaries. Saudi Arabia and Canada would both probably be very interested in this. We could potentially get Warton into a position like BAE on the Clyde where we order aircraft then sell slots onto foreign buyers.

    This would mean that the UK could also just have a second additional buy of F35B purely for carriers then concentrate on Tempest for the RAF.

    I also suspect this might be why the planned entry for Storm Fighter has been moved up to the early 2030’s. Anyone wishing to buy Tempest will want the full range of CCA’s available. It’s also interesting that we have heard nothing about CCA from Japan or Italy. That could carve out a real niche for the UK as the first GCAO partner to offer a full CCA range in the Storm programme.

    Israel will be mightily upset if Saudi starts getting deliveries of 6th generation aircraft while the US is still developing F47 and not allowing them to have it. I can imagine Saudi would be willing to part with some serious cash for the honour of being the first middle eastern nation to operate a 6th gen aircraft. It would out Iran in its place too.

    GCAP is also the perfect fighter for Canada, big lots of range and two engines. It should be relatively simple to accommodate Canadian industrial participation in the program without affecting the schedule. My understanding is they are most interested in selling simulators anyway.

    This aircraft is also ideal for Australia offering it a true F111 replacement. The system will be very attractive to Middle East operators like Qatar and Kuwait that have lots of cash but few personnel.

    If Andy wants to splash the cash on industrial strategy then speeding up GCAP/Storm programs is probably the way to go. Northrop has shown with B21 that using modern CAD and fabrication technology can significantly speed up entry into service and also a quicker program is a cheaper program.

    • The only plane it might make it more competitive against is the F-47. Early versions are due to fly in 2028. However, the new adaptive engines won’t be ground tested until 2030. The F-47 won’t be flying with the new engines until “early 2030s”.

      At the moment it’s assumed that the GCAP engines will be ready for operational use in 2035. Prototypes will have to be ready earlier than that. The test phase is mentioned to be 2030 to 2032. To me it seems the two aircraft are neck and neck. Can we bring GCAP forward in engineering terms? I doubt it. Getting the plane operational by 2033 means skipping any redesign from lessons learned from the prototypes. Or even just running prototypes as operational. It’s a valid choice, but I don’t think it materially changes when the plane will be produced in quantity, or will actually be ready for export.

        • I wish comment history was still a feature.
          I’ve asked David myself what the issue is but he wasn’t forthcoming and not my business anyway.

          • Sad really though. One of the things I like about this site is people are knowledgeable and polite. I’m sure Jim’s a big boy and can cope but bullying like that irritates me on a basic level

      • It’s so preposterous of them to pretend that it can be delivered earlier. 2035 isn’t even guaranteed so why is he even talking about 2033?? Literally all large scale military programs are late. That’s something that won’t change just because you say it. There’s always something unforeseen that will delay the development, even if you think that you’ve accounted for the unforeseen.
        I’d say 2037 is a safer bet.

  14. But…..

    With nothing built yet, no demo aircraft or firm design known, surely this Is a big ask ?

    It’s fast approaching 2027, so that gives just 6 years to confirm and build the Initial batch.

    Hell, we would be bucking a trend there, having the foresight to avoid such an Important Gap.

    But….. Bring It On.

    • I can’t seen him wielding boat loads of cash to the MoD either.

      I can see them putting significant funding towards military re industrialisation though to meet the 3.5% target very much along the lines of what France does and Germany is now rapidly doing.

      I don’t think the MoD will be happy about it either or many commentators on here as it will mean accepting sub par military solutions and capability gaps like France does rather than just simply running to the open market and buying what ever the US has available.

      It will probably result in significantly fewer civilian jobs for senior military officers as well.

      However this seems to be how Burnham and Healey are framing things. Under treasury rules it’s ok to borrow to invest but not to fund day to day funding. Paying billions to develop weapons that can be exported can seen as investing. Spending a couple of billion on high spec chinooks to give the SAS a longer reach can’t be seen in the same way. Spending on military research and manufacturing is all permissible under the NATO 3.5% of GDP target even though it might have no impact in military capability.

      • Under the sustainability rule it’s okay to borrow to invest, but the investment rule effectively limits that to financial investments, not buying council houses or fighter jets. Not because those are day-to-day expenditure, but because they are not financialised for short term profit.

    • In year yes.

      Long term: no.

      It will be cheaper to move fast.

      Tight deadlines don’t allow Typhoon style EuroFudge arguments. You have to keep moving.

  19. What they need to avoid is a rushed development due to pressure from upon high, then have endless problems in the field. Your just end up trying to catch your own tail in the end.
    Secondly always thought it would be good if anther large European Country (perhaps Germany) joined the programme to guarantee to boost the production numbers if it did not mean changing the overall specs than much.

  21. OK, I promise not to say anything humorous, I’ll just fit in with everyone else and hurl Insults and be aggressive towards other posters.

    Is that how things are preferred ? 🤔👀

  22. Speeding GCAP up by 2 years is indeed good news and pretty impressive if they can pull it off on such a complex project.

    As a comparison the Ukraine are developing a new air intercept ballistic missile concept to fill the gap left by the consumption of Patriot missiles. It is called the FP-7 and apparently has gone from ‘napkin’ design to near working prototype in about 3 months..! Not sure how effective it will be but it will likely be way cheaper than Patriot, but 3 months development time, now that is backs to the wall kind of effort.

    Cheers CR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here