The UK has reiterated that it remains open to additional partners joining the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), as uncertainty deepens around Europe’s rival Future Combat Air System (FCAS) and Germany’s long-term position on next-generation combat aviation.
In a written parliamentary answer published on 18 December, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the UK, Italy and Japan continue to prioritise delivery of GCAP, while maintaining openness to expansion.
“As partners we have maintained that we remain open to other partners joining,” Pollard said. “The UK and our GCAP partners, Italy and Japan, are focused on delivering this vital military capability at pace.”
The Global Combat Air Programme is a trilateral effort between the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan to jointly develop a sixth-generation stealth combat aircraft intended to enter service by around 2035. The programme formally merged the UK’s Tempest and Japan’s F-X initiatives and is backed by a joint industrial base including BAE Systems (UK), Leonardo (Italy) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan), with the Edgewing joint venture established to lead design and delivery. GCAP is headquartered in the UK under an international treaty framework agreed by the three governments.
The response came after Liberal Democrat MP James MacCleary asked whether recent discussions had taken place with German, Italian and Japanese counterparts regarding Germany potentially joining GCAP. Recent reporting has described FCAS as being in serious difficulty, with officials now seeing the programme’s Next Generation Fighter as at risk of collapse. Ministerial talks in mid-December reportedly failed to unlock Phase 2 of the programme, leaving key industrial contracts unsigned and political declarations unconverted into binding agreements.
German political rhetoric around FCAS has also shifted. Lawmakers and officials in Berlin have begun speaking openly about the possibility of breaking with France on the fighter component, a marked change from earlier efforts to manage disagreements privately. This has been widely interpreted as frustration rather than routine negotiating pressure, particularly given Germany’s existing commitment to the F-35.
France and Spain have publicly reaffirmed their support for FCAS, framing it as central to European strategic autonomy. However, those statements have been undermined by persistent industrial deadlock, with Dassault’s chief executive openly questioning whether the fighter will ever be built without clear leadership and authority. The unresolved leadership dispute between Dassault and Airbus continues to be described by analysts as structural rather than temporary.
Against that backdrop, GCAP has increasingly been positioned as an alternative model with defined leadership and clearer industrial alignment. The UK-led programme aims to deliver a next-generation combat aircraft for service in the mid-2030s, with Italy and Japan as core partners.
Media coverage has also warned of wider consequences if FCAS fails, suggesting that collapse could damage cooperation on other flagship European defence programmes, including the Franco-German Main Ground Combat System. As such, FCAS is widely portrayed as a test case for whether large-scale European defence integration can survive competing national priorities and industrial sovereignty concerns.
Why not, Tornado worked our pretty well, no?
Both Tornado and Typhoon were fundamentally British designs.
Because Britain had most of the tech and spoon fed it to the others – the process was painfully slow.
There is a strong case that both aircraft and demonstrably Typhoon, could have been built quicker and cheaper by UK alone.
True, but essentially it secured the core market and derisked the entire programmes.. selling to others then becomes preferable not a requirement.
Not that I don’t think we could not have done so, but you’re always competing with the Americans and that is hard due to protectionist programs that have a large core build number.
Rafale would support your argument on speed. But I think it came close to being cancelled due to its development cost. I think there’s some rule of thumb relating increasing cost to the number of partners….but your share is less. France would not fund FCAS development alone and the UK would not develop GCAP alone; its not the only weapon we need. Agree though that above 3 partners the project mgt bureaucracy might slow things down quite a bit.
I think the three partners we have for Tempest is perfect.
Germany were a nightmare in both previous projects and factually have killed a lot of Typhoon exports. So they cannot have any export control seat at the table.
Could always introduce a tiering system for partner nations, with the 3 original partners being tier 1. Tier 2 gets less input into the design. Worked ok for F35.
As long as we stay focused on time scale and budget so that Tempest is the success story it can be.
Absolutely Geoff, I’m sure the German contribution can only strengthen the Tempest programme.
This will end up a bit like Euro Fighter did, good bit of kit, super slow build rate and endless up grades that make the first batch out of date so you have buy more. Mind you at least we would have the ablity to fit weapons we want to it un like F35 which the USA controls and restricts.
Europe can build great kit if it tries, and it should. The great USA is not a reliable friend any more, and it just seems they are interested in getting money and sales but not a lot else. Trump is mental as a fish and he changes mind every week any agreement or defence pact is worthless under him as just denies he agreed to things he can not be trusted to come to any ones aid.
An aquarium has been researching how sharks react to plastic toys. It seems they react to toys in a way that suggest a need for cognitive enrichment.
They can’t even persuade France to let us into the EU SAFE programme on reasonable terms (as the EU have admitted Canada). So why should Germany be allowed into one of our programmes? Slowing up the programme to admit another partner country is hugely against our interests and that of eNATO. Germany should only work on collaborative aircraft in parallel with the rest of the project.
Jon,
Wonder whether it may not also be beneficial to solicit Australian and Canadian participation in some form for GCAP/Tempest programme? Not certain re respective design capabilities, but each nation could easily justify a requirement to acquire a 6th gen, w/ comparable performance characteristics. Unfortunately, probably cost prohibitive for Kiwi interest,/participation. Some/all of the Nordic countries might also eventually exhibit an interest in acquisition, and Norway has deep pockets by anyone’s reconning. F-47 may follow same pathway as F-22, and be unavailable for export. Or perhaps not, virtually imponderable currently. 🤔
Canada and Australia would bring nothing to the table beyond massive political complications. Both have manufacturing ambitions and both lack a manufacturing capacity. Canada in particular has messed around on multiple fighter programs since the 90’s and its latest on again off again approach to F35 and Grippen does it no favours.
I’m loathed to have Germany in the program given their history of feet dragging in the Typhoon program however pulling out Germany from FCAS will collapse it and take out the only real competitor to GCAP on the world export markets.
Bringing in Germany will provide a massive cash and industrial infusion meaning we can better afford Tempest without having to gut other capabilities.
Most of all it will f**k up France and Dassault which in itself is a worth while outcome.
I think Dassault thinks if it digs its heels in the French government will eventually bite the bullet and pay for a French only aircraft. However given the absolute calamity that is French finances this will not happen.
It may even be that the French state wants out of FCAS because it knows it can’t afford a new fighter program even with Germany.
Tempest design is probably too far along for Germany to have much input beyond manufacturing which again suits us.
Good summary. Bringing Germany into GCAP would be the final piece of the jigsaw to rebalance the politics of Europe by leaving the EU, increasing the influence of the UK (+ Germany and Poland) and decreasing the post war influence of France.
I quite agree re French finances. They make ours look rosy. They have two really rather expensive and frankly pie-in-the-sky projects to attempt to turn both PANG and FCAS from rendering in a slide deck to reality. I don’t expect to ever see either
Sell them the ac only. We do not need another partner……
it will be a world beater with massive export potential.
Bring them in as the only tier one partner.. with all the same abilities to control the programme as the UK had with the F35…
Essentially have the 3 core tier zero nations…that are joint partners.. tier one gets you work share and complete sovereign control of your own aircraft.. but not ownership of the IP and decision making around other future customers.
We don’t really want German peccadillos involved in who we can and cannot sell it to.. as their generational trauma/ moral compass will kill some export orders. Not saying morals are bad, but I don’t really think we can afford to many as we come into a time of serious geopolitical and geostrategic instability..
That’s a BIG NO from me.
By all means let them buy some but don’t Invite them to join this project at this stage.
The French don’t play well with others. They want their next jet to be Dassault. They might allow a few token German or Spanish bits, but they want FCAS to be 90% French. Getting the Germans (& Spanish?) into Tempest may add complexity, but it will stop Rachel cancelling it.
They typically demand say, 60% workshare for 30% financial contribution, and then wonder why that’s not deemed acceptable.
Europe certainly needs to move away from buying US equipment, not that America can no longer be trusted