Britain and Japan have reaffirmed their commitment to the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), pledging to accelerate progress on the next-generation fighter project.

A joint ministerial statement issued in Tokyo highlighted the strengthening operational ties between the Royal Air Force and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

It noted their joint work during Operation Highmast and ongoing interoperability efforts in preparation for GCAP. The statement added: “The Ministers welcomed the future deployment to Europe, including the UK, by Japanese fighter aircraft and supporting transport aircraft.”

On GCAP, the statement made clear that both governments are intent on speeding up delivery: “Recognising the significance of the GCAP, the Ministers reaffirmed their personal commitment to it and to accelerating work to conclude the first international contract between the GCAP International Government Organisation (GIGO) and industry joint venture, Edgewing, by the end of 2025. This will be the first contract to set both entities to work together to support capable, affordable and timely programme delivery by 2035.”

The ministers also stressed the economic and industrial importance of the programme. They underlined that GCAP will support “growth and productivity, sustaining high-skilled jobs, and acting as catalysts for investment in research and development.”

The joint statement further emphasised the importance of sustaining the aerospace sectors in both countries while exploiting emerging technologies to address future threats and safeguard critical industries.

The renewed commitment to GCAP follows a series of UK–Japan defence milestones this year, including the planned deployment of Japanese F-15s to Europe and the first-ever landing of British F-35Bs on the Japanese carrier JS Kaga.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

118 COMMENTS

    • It will definitely be twin-engined, and pretty bloody huge by all measures. It’s supposed to have an exceptionally long range and will need a large weapons bay for ever longer-ranged air-to-air missiles and internal carriage of large air-to-ground weapons, so it will blur the line between fighter and bomber.

      • Hope that is all correct. One of the big mistakes many Western air forces made after the cold war supposedly ended was to divest themselves of long range strike capabilities, RAF included. The USN also made the same mistake. Geopoltical trends are now clearly signalling the urgent need for longer aircraft strike radius than is available from F35, Typhoon etc, and I guess B21 will be limited to the USAF.

    • Yes I hope we don’t Fanny around like the Americans with a tailless design that triples the cost and turns it into a slow moving bomb truck.

      If Lockheed wants to call that 5.5 Gen then so be it, we need evolution not revolution and it needs to be affordable and exportable.

      • The F-47 is an air superiority fighter not a “bomb truck”. And since you have absolutely no access to any information about the F-47 and its costs or attributes, provide justification that a tailless design “triples the cost.” Once again all you are good for is uninformed, knee jerk anti-American comments. Grow up.

          • Perhaps the UK’s Armed Forces wouldn’t be in such a mess and ineffectual if you Brits got upset at yourselves.

            • Don’t get your hotdogs in a twist cousin. We may be underfunded but still punch well above our weight.
              I do wonder if the f47 will have an orange paint scheme though.

              • And just who is the UK punching at above its weight? Russia? Your Prime Minister spends half of his time sucking up to Orange Man bad ns a desperate hope that he’ll fight your fight. Talk about twisted knickers.

            • Keep Winding, you’ll hook a big one soon !🐳🐳

              Out of interest, I took a google, It says *Casimer, a name of Polish Origin*, It means Destroyer of Peace.

            • Are you here for constructive comment or just to piss your panties and whinge? The term “fanny” around isn’t anti American it’s a term we use for people/organisations which lose direction, change things and generally put off hard choices – very much like our MOD, Labour Government, Kier Starmer etc. Get the tissue, dry the eyes and crack on.

        • Well if it can be a mix of Mossie and Hornet it will certainly be something special. Can’t wait for the demonstrator.

        • Seems you need to educate yourself somewhat, it may have started out as nominally an Air Superiority Fighter but the number experts I have carefully listened to either are still speculating on its exact role (post freeze) or are coming to the conclusion that as its size appears to be approaching that of an F-111 by all accounts it’s going to be far more than that and indeed common sense tells us an all round strike fighter is what will be needed in the thirties to remain relevant. Air superiority fighters are rapidly in their purest form certainly as represented by an f-22 obsolete, they simply don’t have the range or internal weapon storage to be remotely ideal while out and out speed somewhat and manoeuvrability very much so, less and less relevant to likely future air to air engagements. Indeed the F-22 even at the time and increasingly since, was seen by many as an erroneous choice as compared to the more relevant characteristics of the YF-23, so such enlightenment was already filtering through and only strengthening since. As a further note on the F-47 in support of the argument over role, if as seems likely it is a tailless design then it is already acknowledging that overt manoeuvrability is very secondary to stealth characteristics though the whole argument over Canards v flattened vertical tail planes is still at the non conclusive assessment stage. It seems in overall assessment that what is better described as an air defence fighter and an out and out strike fighter are moulding together in form simply because of range, in both aircraft and internal weaponry are equally the prime movers and the F-35 is becoming an increasingly vulnerable platform in this new vision. So unless the B-21 is considered totally adequate for nearly all strike missions a new strike fighter will be vital to the US strategic vision.

          Out of interest. focusing on other if related details to its characteristics, Canards on Chinese stealth aircraft were pilloried by US experts and suedo experts alike, so if the F-47 does have them, as the limited imagery (and previous Boeing proposals) suggest then again I’m sure there will be much debate and interest in the overall characteristics of the aircraft as compromises will always exist whatever choices one makes.

          • What a bunch of speculative nonsense. Your so-called experts have no more idea what the F-47 is than you do. The Secretary of the US Air Force said the F-47 is an air superiority fighter. I’ll take his word over some nobody speculating on an obscure brish web site.

            • There are a number of assumptions from released information, that when put together gives an idea of what the F47 will be like, but also what the GCAP will be like. The primary requirement apart from the next generation of stealth, is unrefuelled range. Which has been stated by both the heads of the USAF and RAF as a primary goal. The RAF has stated that they’d like the aircraft to be capable of reaching the US from the UK in one go. Which if you consider London to New York is approximately 3,461 miles, is a massive ask! What I think they are both asking is to significantly reduce the number of times the aircraft requires being mid-air refuelled. Thereby allowing the tanker aircraft to operate further back from danger. But even then the aircraft will need to be much bigger than say a Typhoon, which needs 3 to 4 top ups to reach the US. But then there’s the thorny issue of weapons bays.

              Weapons bays are great for stealth and aerodynamics, but crap for packaging. As the volume needs to be mostly empty unless on a mission. To not interrupt the flight dynamics, they need to be near the aircraft’s centre of gravity, on the centre line for centralising the mass to make rolling easier, of a sufficient size to hold the weapons needed for particular missions (air to air/air to ground/surface). Though the designer will chuck in parts that don’t fit elsewhere or get added late in the design. But one of the biggest problems is how they affect the design and placement of the engine’s air intake. A good example of this is the J20. The J20 has three weapons bays. One central bay and two smaller side bays on the outside of the intakes. The main bay can only accommodate 4 BVRAAMs, as the bay is quite shallow. This is due to the two engine intakes going over the top of the bay. The cross sectional area of the intake must equal the demands of the engine at full power. Plus the shape must be smooth with no abrupt changes in direction or area. As this can and will cause turbulent flow, but can also generate shocks in the airflow that interrupts the flow to the engine.

              In a future beyond visual range air to air engagement, the aircraft that holds the largest number of weapons internally will have the advantage. Obviously there are other factors that come into play, such as stealth, radar, avionics, training etc. For both the F47 and GCAP you can guarantee that each aircraft will hold more than 4 BVRAAMs. As it means they can stay in the fight longer, plus have at least the capability for a follow-up shot in case the first fails to take out the target. Therefore, the weapons bays will have to be bigger than that currently used by the J20 or the F22. But how will the air intakes be packaged to allow this. Both Boeing and Northrop have shown artists images of 6th Gen aircraft with above wing air intakes. Which again is great for stealth and packaging a larger weapons bay, but crap for aerodynamics. Ok for a bomber (B2 and B21) that’s not expected to do much aerobatics, not great for a fighter type aircraft that is. So I’d “expect” to see both aircraft with underwing air intakes. As these are better for positive g turns. Packaging could be similar to the Su57, which uses two tandem bays. But does limit the length of weapons that can be used. The YF23 does show a potential direction, with its much wider placed engines than the F22, leaving a larger area between them. Which could then be used for a larger weapons bay. The supposed production version was going to have a deeper body between the engines, so the weapons bay could be deeper.

              The images shown of GCAP so far, show it with a large compound delta wing. This is good choice for a number of reasons and maybe pointing to what GCAP will eventually look like. The first is that at high subsonic and supersonic speeds, the wing is much more efficient than say a trapezoidal wing (F22), producing less drag. Therefore the engines won’t need to burn as much fuel to reach the desired speed. Additionally due to their larger area, they are also great for storing a lot more fuel.

              The images of the F47 released so far hint at a number of designs, possibly with canards and possibly without. However, there is some family resemblance to earlier Boeing stealth prototypes, noticeably the YF-118G Bird Of Prey technology demonstrator. However, this aircraft was fairly small. So if the USAF require a similar range to GCAP, it will have to be much larger. The wing design of the Bird of Prey is really suited for high g aerobatics. So I’d expect something a bit tamer, maybe more inline with the X45 UAV, but with drooped down wing tips. But the overall shape will be more of a blended wing body, so an evolution of the X45, giving it more volume for packaging fuel and a large weapons bay.

              Admittedly these are all assumptions and speculative. But judging by the images so far released by BAe and Boeing, you can sort of guess where things are heading. Especially if you are currently in that type of business. As Spy and others have said above. The aircraft especially in GCAP’s case will not be small or Typhoon sized, but substantially bigger. This is based on the amount of fuel it will need to carry to even get half way across the Atlantic. But also because of the required size of the weapons bay. Where the UK’s MoD have stated they want the aircraft to be as stealthy as possible. Which means no underwing stores and everything carried internally. If that includes weapons such as Storm Shadow (SS). Then the weapon bay must be over 5m long, as Storm Shadow is 5.1m long. To match Typhoon, it must be able to carry at least two SS. So width wise will be nearer 1.5m wide as SS is 0.63m wide (2 x 0.63 = 1.26m plus clearance around the weapons. To put this in perspective the F111 could only carry two M117 750lbs freefall bombs internally, which were up to 2.16m long and the fins were 0.52m wide. Making the bay fairly small. Will the F47 be any smaller, well its got to be significantly bigger than a F22, if the USAF say that it needs a minimum of 2000 miles on unrefuelled range. So perhaps more in keeping with the YF23 in size. Time will tell!

              • Lets just hope the list of requirements doesn’t keep growing and it dilutes the original principle requirement , to the point where the design requirements become untenable . I believe that’s what happened to TSR2, everyone wanted everything, and we know how that ended up . I just can’t help feeling we are going down the same route with Tempest , hopefully we achieve a different outcome this time.

                • We can be assured that its primary requirement is to replace Typhoon in the fighter interceptor role. So it will be an air to air platform, but more like the Tornado F3. Where it stands off delivers its weapons then bugs out, rather than staying around to knife fight like a Typhoon. Though depending on how the tail arrangement is actually laid out, it may be a pretty nimble for its size. Much like the Phantom and then Tornado F3, its NATO role will be patrolling the Greenland-Iceland-UK(GIUK) gap. Which requires lots of fuel to patrol or over a shorter distance gives the aircraft lots of duration. Which I hear is what Japan are also interested in.

                  However, as alluded to by the RAF, the aircraft will be a true multi-swing role aircraft. So strike will also play a big part. Initially I’ve heard GCAP won’t have anything carried under its wings. But I am now starting to hear much like the F35, it will have a beast mode.

                  I am confident that the aircraft won’t go down the same route as the TSR2. For starters it is now a multinational collaboration. Where the joint Governmental agency (GIGO) is headed up by a Japanese and the industrial venture (JV) by an Italian. Both of these guys have history of delivering on major projects. Having Japan’s ex-vice defence minister as the head of the GIGO is a smart political move. As it gives Japan a massive say in how the venture is run, but also delivered. Japanese are very reluctant to give out misleading information on deliveries. They will do everything in their power to make sure an agreement is met, as its a cultural thing. Which may be the kick up the arse that both the UK and Italy need to stay on track.

              • You say that you need a massive space for the weapons bay which needs to be mostly empty, except on missions. And also you want huge range. Why not plumb the internal weapons bay for fuel tanks, same as you would for underwing pylons? If you aren’t on a mission and need to fly the Atlantic, wouldn’t that help? Also if you aren’t carrying a full bomb load internally, why not carry the only heavy thing that increases your range instead?

                • Hi Jon, both the F111 and Buccaneer did that, they fitted ferry tanks in to their weapons bay, to extend the range. Both aircraft also flew operational missions with the ferry tanks fitted to the bay, making them carry the weapons under the wings.

                  But I agree for peacetime operations, for example if the GCAP is flying from the UK to the US, it would make perfect sense to fit a ferry tank in the weapons bay. I guess if the aircraft is operating over a benign area, then carrying weapons under the wing won’t matter so much.

        • America does not have solutions for all ills or situations. So many elements in US aircraft come from external sources, so when those get together, competition arrives. The battlefield has changed dramatically in the face of current Russian aggression against Ukraine. They learnt very quickly that their battls tank inventory was useless. They learnt the boots on the ground equaled bodies in bags. They also learnt that aid superiority can only be achieved autonomously.. America takes too long to adjust to changes, because profite the primary goal of its arms industry (I can’t label it defence industry, because Americas industries are primarly offensive) Ukraine and Turkiyeare leaps and bounds ahead of cost effective drones and pilotless platforms..
          USA might hold the cards as for extended remote satellite control and targeting, but it’s getting to the point where those are the next assets to be targetted or disrupted… you can’t use a Reaper with fibre… and AI target acquisition will make some fairly dumb assets pretty agile.

          There will be a time when no pilot ever needs to put their lives on the line.. it will be tech geeks that get the programing perfected that the military will clas as front line troops.

          • Try staying current on what is going on in the US. The US has made massive strides in drone and anti-drone technology as well as developing a targeting system that doesn’t rely on GPS. The US is in the process of deploying, not developing, massive drone and anti-drone systems. You totally misunderstand air superiority in Ukraine. The You assume that the USAF and US Navy couldn’t have accomplished air superiority when the pathetic Russian and Ukranian Air Forces couldn’t. Quite frankly, you have a built in anti-American bias, typical of the average European so you see anything involving the US through a warped lens.

  4. Ok that is good news, my only question is numbers. How many will the Government be looking at buying and what will the unit cost be.

      • The American media is quick to knock GCAP but it is based on very little other than a few models, a few mock ups and some vague press releases.
        At the moment , Tempest seems to have tails but whether the final aircraft will is anyone’s guess, also I wouldn’t put money against the tails rotating to lie flat , nor would I put it past them to throw a few red herring in the mix. If it does have fixed tails it will be a design decision as the team behind GCAP are more than capable of solving the problems involved with a supersonic tailless fighter
        The aircraft is being designed to take on the best the China and Russia can field so it is neither in the European or Japans best interests to field a fighter than cannot just survive but dominate in either theatre.
        As for the F47 , I have seen pictures of it with tails and without tails.
        It is going to be a big expensive beastie,
        So far nothing has been said about its pilotless wingmen.

        • To be fair one of its purportedly proposed wingmen took to the air last week.

          As for canted tail or not there will be much debate as to the pros and cons. F-23 had superior stealth to F-22 but no tail planes on paper will potentially be better for stealth but how much if it means you have canards which have always been a big no, no as expressed by experts in the field. In the end there are a wide range of contributing factors in an aircraft’s overall stealth against a wide range of radar sensors, so how various elements are combined aerodynamically and otherwise are vital ingredients. I note that Tempest, if renders are to be believed has gone from a presently popular lambda wing form to a more traditional delta, and I note that the flattened vertical tail surfaces are above that wing surface which I would surmise is deemed an excellent compromise between stealth and manoeuvrability. The idea that they may be pivoted too is an interesting one that again would theoretically give best stealth when you are cruising while adding manoeuvrability when needed in engagement scenarios. It’s speculated by some that the F-47 might have canards that can similarly incorporated into the wing when required but pure speculation and as gaps and fit are crucial to good stealth characteristics (not to mention potential added weight and complexity) the advantages of such systems might not be worth the effort.

          I think as part of an overall design the tail/non tail control/stealth benefits against disadvantages are still to be truly tested for a fighter. I think the argument will go on for a long while yet, but as various US unmanned aircraft feature the same flattened tail surface design first seen in the F23 and indeed Replica, I’m not sure it’s any sort of deal breaker stealth wise, certainly far superior to the F-35 layout which is exceptionally stealthy in its own right.

          • If vertical tails are the hallmark of mark of sixth gen then the Germans got there first in 1943 with the Horten Brother flying wing designs.
            Like any decision the Tempest (GCAP) will be a trade off of designs. Based on priorities some will be must haves, some will be nice to haves.
            It is the American way to knock anything that is not American, so I take the comments with a large shovel of Salt. But if the politicians stay out of it, I think Tempest will give them a shock and its export potential will be huge.

    • Not many.
      But that is not the primary driver here.
      Keeping the UK aviation industry going, high tech jobs, and money channelled to the MIC are the main aims.
      The RAF will get what it gets. My bet would be way, way less than 100.

      • Hmm, you might be right mate, but if that number comes along with the ability to direct (note I didn’t say control) drones including attritable drones I might be comfortable… Tempest directing say a half a dozen drones from stand off ranges which can themselves launch missiles on the way into their targets would be a hugely capable beast, and much of the tech is already in development…

        Mind you I would always welcome 100+ especially if the CRINK Axis is still holding together and getting even more pushy than it already is.

        Cheers CR

      • If 350 are planned between all 3 nations, I can’t see us getting less than 100 as the biggest investor in the program? Both Japan and Italy spend less than us and Japan is replacing its F-2 fleet, which only contains aircraft 98. Sure I imagine they’ll want more than that, but still, I don’t see the UK buying less than 120.

  5. It’s nice to have a development partner (Japan) pushing us to go faster, normally in Europe it’s the other way round with the Europeans dragging their feat.

    With the UK arguably having the second most 5th gen design experience of any country and Japan’s prolific manufacturing and electronics industry this could be a mirage made in heaven. The Italians bring a lot to the party as a small pattern as well.

    • Agree Japans commitment is crucial to success of Tempest. Without the Japan Tempest would probably collapse in a couple of years . Let’s hope UK can keep face and stay in the project as I am sure there will be politicians over the next 10 years who would gladly s rap this project to spend on welfare with zero return , or scrap to buy USA

      • Tempest has Huge sales potential and given the protracted if not stalled US and Franco German efforts, Tempest could be just about be the Worlds best seller.
        Any Government looking to scrap Tempest would be Insane.

        • Hmm, sadly that hasn’t always stopped them in the past…

          I refer you to your earlier comment 🙂

          Cheers CR

          • I wouldn’t go by anything I say, I’m just a Halfwit.
            However, my optimism is tempered by the historical acts of self destruction by so many previous Blood sucking Leaches that have gone before.

            Back in an hour, got to take the meds.

      • I don’t think there is any enthusiasm for buying American anything at the moment, only what we have to as with other Countries we do our best to disentangle ourselves from the US military hegemony. It is obvious from US internal/external oppressive policies that US weaponry will simply become an extension of American foreign policy and as such control over its weaponry in foreign service will be used as a powerful manipulative tool of what is deemed best for America and if that is to construct an ‘economic or other understanding’ with whatever of our enemies to suit personal profit or national advantage like absorbing foreign territories and real estate, he (or whoever follows) would use that increasing kill switch like control wherever possible to force it on ‘allies’ he no longer think are relevant other than as cannon fodder.

        Not only therefore do we need to commit to platforms we are capable of producing, like Tempest, missiles and land and sea platforms but we as a wide group of Countries need to cooperate and commit to developing capabilities we almost totally rely upon the US to provide. That means, launcher and satellite, space and situational awareness technologies which to a degree was already being initiated but far from mature sadly.

        While MAGA may still be something of an aberration it is clearly a distinct sign of American decline be it self confidence, economic and military so lashing out at anyone to blame and desperation to make friends of those it fears and whatever form this may take in the future the rest of us have a massive wake up call (far too long ignored indeed) that they will no longer be a reliable ally, will attempt to extract more and more from us to feed desperate attempts to at least delay US lack of competitiveness and greater economic problems. I doubt that cooperation like F-35 programmes will ever be supported again, rivalry will expand and that will no doubt anger any Trump like President/Dictator which is why it will develop stealthily for as long as possible.

        • Did you read their comment?

          ‘With the UK arguably having the second most 5th gen design experience of any country’

          This is a pretty indefensible statement.

      • Russians, not really
        China, we are definitely third behind them.
        Turks and Koreans, it all depends on how much we were involved with F35 and how advanced you assume K-21 and Kaan to be.

        • The Russians have succeeded in fielding their own sovereign stealth fighter, which is beyond what the UK has managed. They’ve fielded engines of a comparable generation, major avionics improvements and system integration alone. The UK has struggled to field a comparable capability even with assistance from the US and working with the rest of Europe.

          I’m all for dogging on the Su-57, it has some major flaws. However, to argue that Russia is behind the UK on advanced fighter development is taking it a little too far. I know people don’t like to hear this, but the last time the UK designed and fielded a purebred fighter alone was the English Electric Lightning, in the 1960s.

          Again, the Turks have built a stealthy, flying fighter prototype and several stealthy fighter UCAVs. That’s more than can be said for the UK.

          If Tempest succeeds, then yes, we could argue the UK is a solid third place. But until, the UK is being outpaced and frankly technologically outclassed around the globe. Hiding our head in the sand does little to improve that situation.

          • I think the key lies in Jim’s phrase ‘design experience’. BAE built Taranis with VLO and several 5th gen features like data linking ages ago, we just didn’t bring it into service or develop the ideas further.
            Leonardo have been designing and building prototypes for advanced fighter radars for ages and ages, we just didn’t order any.
            Rolls Royce have been producing prototypes here and there and refining concepts for advanced fighter engines ever since they finished EJ200 (which is in terms of thrust/weight further advanced than the engine in SU57 regardless of the awful intake design). We just didn’t have a fighter to put them in.
            MBDA have been producing missiles a generation ahead of even the US for a while, and this time we have actually bought some, but others have been left behind and overtaken (Spear 3) through no fault of the technology itself.
            The UK is vastly experienced in 5th gen design. We’re just useless at actually building anything.

            • I would add that the frontline operators are as frustrated as any of us at the lack of urgency.
              I was talking to a Typhoon pilot at Coningsby last week, he gave us a tour of the aircraft and said that the mechanical Captor-E ‘clunked’ audibly as it operated on the ground. They were always ‘being promised’ that a replacement would come soon but it never came.

              • I agree with your points, and I’m not disputing that the GCAP partners have the chops to complete the project to a competitive standard. But to claim the UK alone (not with Italian radar experience, not with European missile input from BAE) has more experience than a nation like Russia, which did it alone with the Su-57, or China (as the original comment claimed), who’ve done it alone twice now (with three more on the way) is indefensible.

                I appreciate that individual subsystems may excel in their roles, but there is a fundamental aspect of design and integration that cannot be maintained by simply building subsystems. Integrating those components across an airframe, designing the production lines, building the testing infrastructure, all aspects of ‘fifth gen design’ beyond the jet itself is a skill that cannot be maintained through simply building the occasional radar or one-off drone.

                This is part of the reason the UK is building the demonstrator for GCAP. Its to rebuild the design and manufacturing skills that the MoD has acknowledged are being, and may already have been, lost from the UK.

                • Why Italy and Leonardo SPA, has not been mentioned in the above article?? The 3 countries, Britian, Italy and Japan has signed an MOU, as equal partners!.

                • Isn’t Leonardo’s fighter radar unit in Glasgow, as reported on by George?
                  And the businesses they subsumed in their UK expansion, like Marconi and Ferranti (although they had Italian names for some reason) were entirely UK-grown.
                  There is a fundamental difference between building subsystems and building a fighter, but that lies largely in the scale of project management and having a cohesive industry. You implied that the UK was technologically inferior to Russia, which just doesn’t appear to be true. And the running of their projects leaves more than a little to be desired, too!

                  • Britain ‘inferior to Russia’ technologically, only a delusional idiot would claim such a thing. Yes Russia can achieve more on occasion by throwing massive resources at specific deemed nationally vital targeted assets as indeed they have outperformed the US too and the Chinese for that matter on occasion. But that only covers the overall mediocrity of their insufficiently supported technologies. It’s all been done for political and propaganda purposes over technological advancement.

                    Britain is building the technology demonstrator because that is what you do with a modern fighter project no matter what your previous experience, the US has done the same. The Russians did the same and took twenty years to do much more despite the basic design being fundamentally a major upgrade to a previous design not an unfettered new design. China is different it can thrown assets at the project(s) that no one else can match and inevitably (with their spying successes too, full plans for the F-35 for example many claim) will produce top notch platforms. Just when. The J-20 is good but until recently had mediocre engines and is not at the leading edge. The next efforts may be but from what’s been seen flying of late no one actually knows much about them or whether these are anything but test vehicles. It’s also speculated that a three engined design is so conflicted that it’s done purely because of the inability to produce high powered engines, which China still struggles to do so that aircraft may be only a test bed fundamentally for other technologies.

                    While Bae and RR haven’t produced a fighter jet for decades it doesn’t mean they haven’t been involved in state of the art developmental work, a simple look at their known work the past two decades shows that let alone more secret activities. It’s simply not a simplistic linear process whatever technology you are talking about. The Su-57 doesn’t presently even have acceptable panel fit or invisible riveting vital to true stealth, Bae achieved that on its Replica work over twenty years ago. Yes you want to keep skills up to date through as much hands on experience as possible but that’s only one aspect of technological progress, British Universities and research has always been at the forefront of technological advances, arm, YASA, Engineered Arts and DeepMind for example have out performed US competitors in their own back yard let alone any semblance of Russian capabilities and the work of companies like that are at the heart of producing platforms like Tempest.

                    So yes the Russians laboured over and finally in small numbers produced the Su-57 that even the Indians weren’t exactly impressed by and fails to match nebulous Gen 5 characteristics in terms of stealth and mediocre engines and that’s with massive investment in an industry they try to maintain at all costs but Britain didn’t persist with a far more advanced overall design in Replica because we instead invested that effort into F-35, wasn’t willing to spend the money due to other priorities at a time of rapprochement with Russia and pursues a social contract with its people that Russia does not. You can argue if it’s the right decision but to claim it proves Russia has capabilities we don’t is rather far fetched.

                    • Wowee, those are some long sentences!
                      But yes, that’s the general argument I was putting across, thanks for taking the effort to spell it out fully.

                    • And it was crap in Top Gun Maverick, even a Tomcat with export engines and avionics managed to shoot them down !

                      Yee Haaa, Great balls of fire !

                    • Has the UK alone ever produced a fighter engine with the same performance as the AL-51F1? Has it ever alone produced a radar complex equal in scale, energy processing, data fusing as that found onboard the Su-57? Has the UK built a fighter-based DIRCMS? Has the UK ever successfully built a large loyal-wingman drone, and then actively used said drone in combat trials whilst cooperating with an equivalent stealth aircraft? The list goes on.

                      People love to jump on the bandwagon of ‘Russia can’t build shit, West strong’ whilst ignoring the very real and often unique technological advancements that were made by the Russians in developing the Felon. Only a delusional idiot would argue that the UK has made consistent comparable strides in developing ‘fifth-generation’ designs.

                      Yes, the UK has some incredible tech. The ECRS Mk2 looks to be a great radar, the LiftFan in the F-35B is incredibly innovative (despite what some in Russia claim), the Meteor missile is rivalled only by its Chinese counterparts (and could very credibly be superior). But to claim that the UK is the second-most experienced country in the world at designing ‘fifth-generation’ fighters as the initial comment claimed, despite the UK having never independently developed its own comparable fighter, is absurd.

                      ‘Yes Russia can achieve more on occasion by throwing massive resources at specific deemed nationally vital targeted assets as indeed they have outperformed the US too and the Chinese for that matter on occasion.’

                      I mean, you’re pretty much agreeing with me here.

                      You then go on to claim that the J-20 is not at the ‘leading edge’. Again, has there ever been a two-seat stealth fighter? Does any Western nation operate a stealth fighter designed to directly collaborate with drone wingmen? Also, your argument that ‘until recently it had mediocre engines’ is clear evidence of the hypocrisy in your point of view. The UK is yet to field an operational sovereign airborne AESA radar on its Typhoons, and yet I’m expected to believe that the UK has the second most experience in fifth-gen system design, whilst simultaneously disregarding Chinese system because they on recently began fielding their fifth-gen engines. You can’t have that argument both ways.

                      Then your comment devolves into the usual features when discussing either Chinese or Russian systems. For example, you claim that the J-36 has three engines because they can’t produce an engine powerful enough to simply use two. There’s literally zero credible evidence for this. It’s far more likely that the Chinese assessed that three engines were more suited for the kind of roles and mission the J-36 is required to fill. If Chinese engines were really that poor, why would the J-50, another large fighter, only use two? You then bring up the classic, ‘Su-57 panel gaps and exposed screws’. There’s so much on the web debunking this, I’m not going to waste my time explaining it here, but for starters, I’d encourage you to learn a little more about the differences between the T-50 and the Su-57. It’ll help.

                      I’m going to bring this to a close with one last thing. I’m not arguing that British technology is not very good. It absolutely is excellent, and the systems going into Tempest will also be top notch. But that’s not the same as saying the UK is the second-most experienced nation on the planet at fifth generation design, which was the point I was disputing. I think in your jingoistic haste to attack an argument that I did not make, you might have missed what I was actually arguing.

                      Have a great day.

                  • They were both started by Italians of course and the Italians do like a link. There was very large Italian immigration in the late Victorian period while Britain at that time being at the forefront of innovation and investment for business attracted many more to start businesses here, Italy and Germany weren’t best mates at the time so Britain attracted many Italian entrepreneurs and inventors. There was/is an Italian Marconi business too, think there was a Ferranti business too. Additionally of course for Marconi to prove his early radio work a base in England was essential as the cross Atlantic wireless message achievement proved.

                    As an aside as Marconi is relevant to it, I had not realised till this week that apparently the whole story of early British radar development missed a vital early ingredient. We all know it came out of the concept of a ‘death ray’ but what I hadn’t realised where that came from. It seems that Tesla came to Britain and offered his patents for a death ray to the Ministry of Defence who refused his offer. However they decided to serupticiously to break in and photograph his plans just in case it had merit and then asked Watson-Watt to go to Orford Ness and test the theory. He concluded that a death ray was totally impractical without immense input of power totally impossible at the time, but out of it radar was finally made practical over long theoretical. Interestingly as an addendum post war, Offord Ness along with two other famous vital technology research sites all ‘coincidentally’ had nuclear power stations built next door. Fascinating stuff.

              • Indeed as is typical with Britain, the current new electronically scanned version was working in the labs twenty years ago. It was put on hold being considered an unnecessary investment at the time. Of course when it finally was given the go ahead ten years plus later its whole electrical innards were outdated and in some cases parts no longer made, so a total re design was required and urgency still not as high as it should have been till recently, leading to the further delays we have seen since. We do like to shoot ourselves in the foot.

            • BAE were also heavily involved in the Replica Project in the 1990’s until it got cancelled, but it did lead to BAE’s involvement in the F35

              • Indeed technology from that project fed directly into the F-35 and along with the VSTOL expertise got us the high level involvement we attained in that programme. The Replica mock up is still being used in its progressively updated form to feed into Tempest I believe. I was surprised just how advanced the process for producing it was back in the 90s, even early work on digital twinning and laser projection to ensure panel fit for better stealth characteristics. It also fed into Taranis and other Bae drone projects and the proposed Anglo/French drone project that the French welched on.

            • Totally correct, the technology in this Country that is left on the research benches or simply sold or absorbed by foreign competitors is legend. As I say elsewhere the new radar for Typhoon was being tested as far back as 2005 but was politically unsupported, after all we were all friends back then. Britain does excel in short sightedness. But while it does hinder the skill base it does mean it’s lost forever and what Britain is capable of creating and what for example Russia does put into its platforms is not a black and white answer. When we have to we will seriously out match them in most crucial technology getting it into service is however a mostly political issue that doesn’t display our true capabilities. Typhoon has never been allowed to reach its true potential while Russian designs are usually pushed beyond their true potential but look good in simple misleading stats.

          • Turkey looked to Britain to try to create such an aircraft because we had capabilities they do not. South Koreans did the same simple facts. The Russians built a rather average ‘stealth’ aircraft despite their priorities being behind such a platform that ours were not at that time. It’s not about capability it’s about political and national priorities. It’s the same reason the Russians first fielded hypersonic weapons before the US even though the US was years ahead for decades. However anyone who says Russia is more advanced or capable in such technology than the US is laughably misinformed. As with the Su-57 their weapons other than Asgard perhaps are just reworked existing Soviet designs to boast about capabilities that in reality fall far short of what the US and others can produce based on their superior underlying technology base even if putting them into service is a little later as dictated by political, strategic and financial considerations over time. But the capability potential remains far greater.

      • @Leh Ignoring them how? In terms of their aircraft projects you mean? Obviously it’s relative speculation still on many aspects of those projects but from what we know or believe:
        1) The Turks. They seem to have produced a decent airframe though as it stands represents only a 4.75 Gen aircraft at best simply because its stealth won’t be in the same range of say the F-35 and it’s presently using a 4th Gen engine. The fact it was desperate to get transfer of technology from Bae and RR on the project shows that without it (from whatever source) it won’t be a truly 5th Gen platform. Even though wrangling seem to have been endless it does seem that some input from Bae did occur but shows that Bae and RR are well ahead in their capabilities in 5th let alone 6th Gen platforms.
        2) Koreans. While many of the above considerations apply with them I would have greater faith that they will progress to a full 5th Gen fighter quicker even if initially it is less ambitious, simply because they are more advanced in internal technologies than Turkey I believe and open to foreign input. However they too will have to introduce modern engine technology and catch up on stealth coatings and other technologies quickly no doubt to compete and the Boramae presently uses external weapons so has some way to go to be a truly 5th Gen airframe. But they acknowledge that. Indeed its design goal was simply to be a 4.5 Gen fighter initially, better than an F-16/F-18 with the ability to be progressively improved in later blocks. Both Korea and Turkey cannot simply magic up the knowledge that Bae, Leonardo or RR or even the Japanese in these areas.
        3) Russians. The Su-57, don’t think we need to discuss this much, it’s had a laboured development and isn’t yet considered a true 5th Gen fighter but is probably a decent performer aerodynamically, but they notably don’t risk them presently. Their 6th Gen efforts are still purely speculative however. On both 5th and 6th Gen technologies they are reliant on external sources, though it will be interesting to see how much support China may provide on chip technology as time passes. One thing is for sure the Russians will boast extreme capabilities for any future platform (already do) while actual capabilities if it ever enters service, will be much more difficult to discern.
        4) Chinese. We know they will produce top notch 5th/6th Gen aircraft eventually, just a matter of time. No one is really denying that I think.

  7. We will see what happens the Germans might join shortly. I saw an article (Reuters) that said Dasault/france are asking for all program and development control and 80% manufacturing. German companies would just be a supplier.
    I can’t imagine that would go down well. Frankly it feels like they are trying to kill the program so they get 100% of a sovereign french fighter all seems rather pathetic.

    • The window for extra programme members has closed, according to the partner nations. If Germany joins, they’ll be second-tier at best and an export customer at worst, meaning the German aviation industry would be screwed.

    • Germany will not join Tempest but we could take their new found Defence Funds.

      Just think though, Germany, Italy, Japan and UK all on the same side !

    • No they want control but German/Spanish investment, not subtle but predictable. The Germans were naive to say the least. They are supposed to lead on the loyal wingmen, they have accepted that emphasis but as usual the French or Dassault want it all. Seems the Germans will fight but eat it up overall. Can’t see them jumping ship to Tempest, how would they be absorbed in any way more significantly more than with their present arrangement now? So I suspect they will stay put willingly or otherwise. Only question might be that as lead in that area they could cooperate on loyal wingmen for Tempest as that area seems rather nebulous as things stand in the project. Certainly seems logical that Europe more generally at least cooperates in that area but then when has logic truly prevailed where the French are concerned.

  8. I read recently that a financial analysis of the Tempest project has deemed it unachievable! It’s going to be interesting to see if that is true or not.

  9. I’ve read a couple of articles that say that the Japanese are getting frustrated at the lack of urgency from our end. I hope this goes some way to satisfying them and that they stick with the program

    • This was issued as part of a British-Japanese defence meeting, so it’s not surprising it doesn’t directly refer to the Italians.

      Still, the Italians remain committed. There’s been lots of updates on the programme recently from the Italian corner during GASCC 2025.

    • No. Italy is more involved through the internal sensor suite and other aspects whereas the overall aircraft and engine design is very much an Anglo- Japanese concern because it’s a combination of those twos pre existing design work. Italy has signed its own agreements with Japanese companies on various sensor work. Of course these agreements have their own complexities as the agreement over the next gen radar for example is fundamentally Leonardo uk specific but this is the general direction of travel for the three partners, Italy had no indigenous fighter project of its own before joint Tempest but was very keen to ensure Leonardo both Italian and uk based had a secure, profitable and expanding future which the project ensures.

      If it were to try to enter the Franco/German project that would be very much in danger, what work share would it get overall and what Leonardo led sensor leadership would survive, none. It’s uk radar efforts the core of its involvement, would still be tied to Tempest so Italy might as well shoot itself in the head. Indeed Italian relations with France and Germany was like Britain one of the reasons it was not considered for the Franco/German project. Italy and the uk have excellent relations by comparison and their relations with Japan seem to be developing very well and mutually beneficial too.

  11. Looks like a modern Buccaneer. The RAF and RN need medium range strike and with the Buccaneer they had it. The Tornado was really too small and short ranged not to mention a tad complex with the swing wing for no real advantage (it could not operate from short or austere runways so what was the point?). The UK, Japan and Italy would really all benefit if the GCAP was carrier capable. The QE carriers are big enough and were designed for CATOBAR conversion. I think the US has shown it is not really a reliable partner so the UK really needs to be more independent. With the likely change in politics in the UK this may actually happen.

      • I’m just going to put it out there.

        The F111B, the prototype for a carrier based F111 was 68 ft 10 in (20.98 m) long and with a max take-off weight of 88,000 lb (39,900 kg), that did quite a few take-offs and landings from carriers during trials. Whilst the Douglas A3 Skywarrior that did go into production and was the largest aircraft to operate from carriers, was 72 ft 6 in (22.10 m) and had a max take-off weight of 82,000 lb (37,195 kg). The F14 Tomcat by comparison was 62 ft 9 in (19.13 m) and had a max take-off weight of 74,350 lb (33,725 kg). The Su33, which is no dainty daffodil is 69ft 6in (21.19 m) long and has a max take-off weight of 72,725 lb (33,000 kg).

        So there’s precedence for large aircraft being capable of operating from carriers. Just saying!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

By submitting this comment, you agree to the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.