In response to a parliamentary question from Rebecca Paul MP (Conservative, Reigate), Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, outlined recent developments in the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), a critical project to deliver the UK’s next-generation fighter aircraft.
Eagle confirmed ongoing progress through the trilateral Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), a collaboration between the UK, Italy, and Japan. She stated: “The core platform, that will sit at its heart, is being delivered through the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP). The Prime Minister and his Italian and Japanese counterparts have reiterated their commitment to GCAP.”
Eagle also highlighted the establishment of the GCAP International Government Organisation (GIGO) to oversee delivery on behalf of all partner governments, adding: “On 13 December 2024, BAE Systems (UK), Leonardo (Italy), and Japan Aircraft Industrial Enhancement Co Ltd (JAIEC) reached an agreement to form a new company under a business joint venture for GCAP, subject to regulatory approvals. The new joint venture will be accountable for the design, development and delivery of the next-generation combat aircraft.”
This update builds on progress announced in November 2024, following a meeting of the UK, Italian, and Japanese Prime Ministers at the G20 Summit in Brazil. Defence Ministers from the three nations praised the approval of the Convention on the Establishment of the GCAP International Government Organisation by all three parliaments.
In a joint statement, the ministers said: “This convention lays a solid basis for delivering a next-generation fighter aircraft by 2035 and for further enhancing the defence industrial base of each country.”
The GIGO headquarters will be based in the UK, with Japanese nominee Mr. OKA Masami appointed as its first Chief Executive. An industry-led joint venture headquartered in the UK will work alongside GIGO to ensure the programme achieves its 2035 in-service date.
The UK’s Defence Secretary, John Healey, spoke on the programme’s strategic importance, stating: “The GCAP represents a critical step forward in international defence collaboration and in securing the technological advantage our forces need to stay ahead of emerging threats.”
GCAP reflects a deepening trilateral partnership aimed at developing cutting-edge military capabilities. The programme remains on track for its 2035 delivery goal, with the UK, Italy, and Japan reaffirming their commitment to advancing defence collaboration and ensuring the GCAP’s success.
The potential market share advantage of bringing in affordable 6th generation fighter is potentially huge. Fingers crossed.
The issue is affordable and cutting edge are rarely the same thing. If the focus is too much on export sales then we will end up with something marginally better than the typhoon rather than a tier one fighter.
So eventually the UK is not the lead country as they all have equal shares which will bring the same chaos as the Euro Fighter. British idea 💡 the UK does the first replica and RD this countries jump in and want the exact same share lol and the identity of it’s Britishness watered down totally. Stereotype British business mentally sell yourself to first bidder
We have worked well with the Italians over three aircraft projects now. The Japanese are new to the game and have zero export success and are keen to learn. The UK is still very much the lead nation in this but it’s a first among equals scenario rather than an America first F35 scenario.
The reality is there are only going to likely ever be 2-4 western 6th generation fighters. Probably only 2 and only the US has the ability to both invest in and purchase in numbers its own fighters to make it viable. If the UK went on its own the investment cost would be huge norther of 10-15 billion pounds and the guaranteed market would only be around 100-150 aircraft which is non viable. Working with 2 other nations cuts the investment down to maybe 3-4 billion ( f35 cost around 40billon dollars to develop but that was bloated). It also means the final guaranteed market is more like 400-600 aircraft before exports, which is viable. Essentially working on our own was not a business risk it was a taxpayer risk that was not acceptable. As is we have two very competent partners who are actually far more open to investing and capitalising their fast jets than the UK with Italy actively ordering 24 new typhoons and 115 f35 for a total of around 200 fast jets and Japan having a fleet of 325 fast jets.
The US has put a price tag of $20b to develop but not build the next generation of fighters. I assume that will balloon as all projects do, but it’s significantly higher than the tempest project.
If the f35 program is anything to go by we will end up buying a fraction of what other counties do. If that is the case it’s hard to justify the uk being the lead nation. The lead logically the one that invests the most into the program. My assumption is that Japan will buy multiples of what the uk does, but time will tell.
It’s interesting that art work still shows Tempest with tail fins even though BAE demonstrated tailless control years ago.
I wonder if this suggests they think tailless control is insufficient for the kind of performance they need or whether it just doesn’t deliver on cost versus performance?
Hard to say.
Might just be that they can’t be arsed to change the artwork at the moment. Chances are the final product will look different anyway; they always do from the initial concepts.
Well that’s not the latest design anyway it is now a delta not a lambda wing form. As for the tail fins I have done a little research over time. It’s fundamental it’s the balance between stealth and manoeuvrability. For a manoeuvrability fighter bomber platform tailless is a challenge and with present technology you simply can’t replace the control the vertical component gives you, you can just get as close as possible with more complex blown or vectored alternatives which have stealth implications of their own so a delicate balance and thus accept the compromises either way. For non fighter platforms there is little compromise in reality and clever flap arrangements seem to work well enough in giving stability so the advantages far out weigh any disadvantages, the Bae drone efforts Taranis Magma that experimented with no vertical tailplane or blown flaps weren’t to be highly manoeuvrable but very stealthy the latter did have verticals however I.note so who knows what progress has been made since.
Tempest is in that middle ground choice I guess and presently goes for the YF-23 (I believe Replica too?) compromise that’s currently all the rage of a flattened tail that does both the job of horizontal and vertical elements giving good control and decent stealth. Whether that’s the final form we will see and only time will tell if removing them entirely and relying on the alternatives is the better compromise here. Fact is mind US expertise is going to be beyond our own I suspect they have been working with ‘flying wings’ forever. So I suspect we will stick with this style it’s less risky, more predictable and the hit of lowered stealth yet to be fully determined I suspect. I have mentioned this before but I do wonder if a somewhat moveable tailplane that could lay almost flat (simulating Tarranis) in cruise mode but able to be more angled as and when in an environment where control and manoeuvrability are more crucial might work but never seen the idea suggested.
I am surprised that the Fa-xx artist impressions show a tail less design , given that low speed manoeuvrability is crucial for carrier landings I would have thought it would have them. I also think it is surprising that they cannot construct a tail from materials that do not reflect radar.
You can make control surfaces from radar transparent materials.
That means a mostly metal free design. Which is where it gets hard.
Aramid fibres like Kevlar, Vectran, Technora have varying radar transparencies. None of them are great when exposed to intense UV.
It’s not a material issue but a resonance issue for low wavelengths of radar that’s the issue with the tail.
I does seem strange that a moving tail plane has never been in any design.
It does
A tailless design does make for a more aerodynamically efficient design. However, not having “fins” does create control issues, that can only really be solved by a digital flight control system.
The primary issue is the Dutch Roll. This is where the aircraft’s yaw control is compromised. The can show itself as either weathercocking around the nose, or normally for tailless designs oscillate around the aircraft’s longitudinal axis (fore to aft).
The German Horten IX (229) suffered from the longitudinal oscillations, whilst WW1 aircraft suffered from weathercocking, as their tailfins were generally too small. The Horten could mitigate the problem by the pilot stamping down on both yaw pedals. This activated all the wing tip airbrakes. Which stabilized the aircraft. Thereby making it suitable to line up the aircraft for shooting. During combat simulations with FW190 and Me262. The Horten could out turn the other aircraft, as it had a significantly lower wing loading. However it suffered from another issue, which was slipping. Without a vertical fin coordinated turns (turning with either a constant speed or radius) proved to be difficult.
The other flying wings such as the Northrop YB35 and YB49 also suffered from Dutch Roll. Notably, the jet powered YB49 was worse than the propeller driven version. Though the YB49’s analogue autopilot did go to some way in mitigating the problem.
This issue wasn’t really solved until digital computers became small and fast enough to fit in aircraft. The Northrop B2 is the best example of what a flying wings/tailless design can achieve. It does yaw control through two active controls and possibly a third passive means.
The first is wing tip elevators that can split into upper and lower airbrakes. It also uses differential thrust between the port and starboard engines. The other possible method is when the aircraft is taking-off or landing. The main landing gear has huge undercarriage slab doors that stay down with the undercarriage. This may help with yaw stability during these crucial maneuvers.
It’s interesting to note that flying wings and tailless designs have mostly been used for subsonic aircraft. So the recent images of the Chinese J36 could be the first possible supersonic tailless aircraft. Though the US NGAD is “supposed” to tailless as well and a unseen prototype has been flying for years.
Vectored 3D exhaust thrust can help with yaw control. But they don’t give an aircraft the same responsiveness as a moving fin. The other proposed method is blown wing control. Where high pressure air is either blown tangentially to wings airflow. Or is used to reattach the flow to generate more lift. The issue with this method is the amount of air required when transonic or supersonic. For example the Buccaneer used nearly 1/3 of the engine’s power just for the blown flaps. However, neither of these methods would make the aircraft acrobatic, definitely not in the same league as a Typhoon/F22/Su35.
What it will give you though, is a pretty fuel efficient aircraft, as it won’t have the drag generated by the fin/rudder. Plus it will be inherently radar stealthier than one with a fin.
Yes the RAF has still highlighted maneuverer as a key metric as well as speed. Lockheed Martin can pretend all they want but any tailless design will still have to compromise on maneuverer ability and high speed stability without a vertical stabiliser.
The tailless design will give a reduced RCS to low frequency stealth. The big question is who is right.
My inclination is the tailed design is better primarily because low frequency radar tracking is not really a thing. Low frequency radars bounce off everything and can’t travel through clouds well and can’t provide a high fidelity track just the odd echo.
High speed is always going to be useful in a fighter. Even if your have great missiles they can always be better if they are going faster and higher at launch.
Then there is cost. You can probably double the price for a tailless design. NGAD as a starting price of $300 million final cost probably in excess of $500 billion will severely dent the USAF just like F22 did and there are no export prospects to get economies of scale.
Yes but what dothey define as “progress” here? when will we see something tangible?
Hopefully by 2027 when the test demonstrator is supposed to fly though it’s not necessarily going to be the final design by any means as it’s more the uk take and Japanese input is likely to be changing things beyond that demonstrators settled design I reckon. I can imagine if it’s visually complete or close to then before that we will get much more promotional information as we did with the Turkish and South Korean 5th Gen prototypes before they flew.
It’s hard to truly know, but from what is coming out, it does appear to be progressing well, and certainly better than the franco German fcas program. Bringing Japsn on board was massively important. The next big question is what role, if any the Saudis should play in it….
10 years to fly a technology demonstrator, finalise design, costs, agree on capability requirements/airframe numbers, build pre production prototypes, complete the extremely extensive flight test programme, navigate the various spending rounds and the politics, international and domestic and then enter low rate production……. Easy eh. mmmm.
Yep..we really really need to buy more typhoons I’m not sure we are going to see the first tempest front line squadron before the mid 2040s and not fully replace typhoon until the mid 2050s.
Personally I think the Saudis should just be an export customer, like they were for Typhoon.
The Saudis are buying 100 Turkish Kaan 5th Gen jet .
Saudis have big pockets , with the kind of money 💰 they have they could fund Turkish 6th Gen project which is underway and accelerate things. Saudis are a low risk partner..they haven’t shown much interest in this project despite British solicitation though. If they wanted to join and they were refused I highly doubt they would buy any British jets anymore! Saudis no longer want to depend on western countries which made them buy like multi dozens of Turkish Akinci drones with technology transfer and industry collaboration.
India might join I heard , but I wouldn’t trust such a big country part of Brics, they would vacuum industrial secrets then go their own way
Turkey and Saudi have many issues with each other. The Saudis want work share and the Japanese don’t want them in. Britain is trying to find a compromise. In a choice between Japan and Saudi I would take Japan any day.
I agree I’m not sure they bring that much to the table other than some cash. Maybe offer them a regional assembly and maintaining hub as a sweetener for a large order. That would provide them what they want ( industrial development) without making them a full tec and development partner.
Thats the old design.
I see some Blackburn Buccaneer in this rendering of Tempest. Looks fantastic which is roughly 90% of what matters when it comes to fighters!
Very savvy move giving the first GIGO chief executive position to Japan. Hopefully there will be less political stonewalling, that delayed upgrades and modifications on the Typhoon.
At this point in time, I would have thought that the next generation fighter aircraft would be AI driven, overseen by a ‘pilot’ in an ‘office somewhere. oops sorry… wishful thinking.
So the UK will be offered a multi million/billion £$ airframe, fitted out with all the Gucci bings, bongs, bangs and whistles. An oversized airframe capable of carrying all manner of weight of armaments, multi faceted, capable of being switched from one role to another.
So another similar looking ‘effort’, to just about every other 5th gen warplane out there?
If you want all aspect stealth. They will look similar to other designs.
Having seen some of Bae’s futuristic designs from the nineties I’m rather glad it does come to similar conclusions to others, what about a forward swept tandem boomed strike fighter for example? The devils in the detail that makes the difference I reckon but the old favorite delta seems to be taking over from the diamond shape of the F-22 but interested to see the final US designs tbh before that’s a given.
Oh, I love the pre Typhoon fighter designs. Twin boom X-wing VTOL, the P.1215 is what I think you are referring to.
Yes but it will over come many 5th Gen platform limitations with much more electrical power and a significantly larger internal storage volume and it will achieve a further reduction in RCS and thermal signatures. Not even the USA is proposing a 6th Gen fighter aircraft with no pilot.
It is all good and well thinking of the future.. 10 years plus before production. I get that and money needs to be put aside for it but at what cost.
We have a tyrant who could potentially start WW3.
CHINA trying to manipulate the South China Sea..
Middle East issues with ISIS now controlling Syria.. Iran supporting Putin.
We need NOW. new planes ships and armoured vehicles to boost our depleted overworked armed forces..
Raising defence spenditure to 5%.. would be proactive.
Could not agree more F15EX for me. Interesting it is top of the Israel shopping list. Rather than wait for St Louis to deliver they have already asked Biden to divert USAF orders to them. That I believe was obfuscated on. No doubt Donald will be asked the same question very soon.
We do not need F15
F15 although a great aircraft is a terrible choice for the RAF. We have no experience in operating them and we have a fleet full of Typhoons and F35s… It would be better to get some more typhoons as we already have the training and infrastructure. Plus the Typhoon is world class.
Why would we go for f15s when we could order the latest verson of the typhoon ?
The only time the F15 should have been considered for the RAF was in the late 70’s early 80’s,but as MRCA/Tornado was on the horizon the Politics would not have worked.
Thank you Mr Trump we will take that into consideration honestly. Mind you the dangers you mention do support such an investment, not going to happen mind. If we get 3% that’s probably the best we can hope for as things stand.
5% wow but it’s wishful thinking mate 👍
Two thoughts:
1) What is the difference between 5th gen and 6th gen aircraft?
2) What will we have to give up to get GCAP as we all know cuts are coming instead of more resources.
They are undefined terms.
4.5 and 5th generation definitions were largely made up by Lockheed Martin who are selling the F35 to NATO [in three flavours] so amazingly F35 was the only 5th Gen offering!
They will do the same with 6th Gen and the internet will buy it hook line and sinker. If it has any form of vertical stabiliser they will say it’s a 5.5 Gen aircraft.
There isnt really even a stock definition of a 6th Gen fighter as yet just generalisations, development will frame it as much for branding as anything much more, probably best to do a search if you want to know more. The first 4 Gens were not even defined until 5th Gen came along so all manipulated to fit. There will be lots of arguments over 5.5 v 6 I reckon as we have 4 v 4.5 now and new 5th Gen manufacturers are already talking of developing them into 6th Gen. if I had to do it in a sentence I would say improved 5th Gen attributes further matured, like better super cruise, better stealth with improved coating resilience, more modularity and most predominantly advanced deeply integrated ai, automation and sensor sharing, communication and situational awareness. But still rather nebulous in reality.
Ouch I guess one of the major defining factors will be the hybrid adaptive engines that not only give that superior super cruise but combine it with far superior lower speed fuel consumption for markedly superior range and performances so a bit of a holy grail. Without such advanced engines you won’t have a 6th Gen aircraft by any real definition, which is why some manufacturers believe they can develop their new 5th Gen into potentially 6th Gen platforms.
I’d say the ability to work with drones in tandem. A key requirement for early GCAP was the drone in support so 1 manned aircraft and a group not supporting drones.
But any modern aircraft can work with drones in tandem.
I would hope tempest is f35 with more performance and less maintenance using current knowledge and tech available. Doubt it needs to be a dog fighter just long range flying computer probably with big bomb bay.
The FCAS aircraft will be designed without the VTOL compromises of the F35. Therefore, it will be aerodynamically more efficient, even though it is likely to be significantly bigger. The F35 design had to incorporate the lift fan, roll ducting and exhausts as well as the rotating main exhaust. This had to be done in one generic design, that also had to incorporate airframe strengthening for the US Navy’s CTOL requirements. A lot of F35 crews call the F35 either “Fat Mary” or the “Battle Penguin”, due to its stunted shape.
Both Japan and the UK require an aircraft more in-line with what the Tornado F3 was, ie a long range interdictor. But also to have a significant strike capability more in-line with a F15E. Japan’s need is more urgent than either the UK or Italy. As their neighbours are China, North Korea and Russia. Especially as China now has a number of 5th Gen aircraft that could significantly outclass their F15Js. Though with the purchase of the F35As, this may help to rebalance the deficit.
@ Davy. The US navy are developing a separate 6th generation offering that will probably be the definitive six gen CATOBAR aircraft. I suspect therefore development of a CATOBAR version of the FCAS is going to be problematic.. vast expense for essentially 2 -3 squadrons of aircraft, I suspect it will be a point that breaks that particular partnership. It’s why the USN and airforce are running completely different six Gen programs.
Is there anything in this article that wasnt already announced and repeated weeks ago?
Well it is Eagle.
Is every new aircraft going to be a new generation, or is it just a way around explaining the protracted development time and cost?
That’s an interesting question. Unless it’s hypersonic and near space capable I will be interested to see how they might play it. I’m assuming that Russian or Chinese hype are going to be rather less than that in any reality.
Agreed. So called 6th gen Chinese aircraft won’t have the engines to compete with the F35/ 22 on an equal footing. Not so sure on their weapons systems either. Will be interesting to see 1 in combat as that is where you really learn.
It’s a good question
The generations are in no way liner scales and are infact completely none liner in nature and don’t have rigid definitions at all, they also overlap massively in timeframes and to an Extent capabilities.
1st generation, developed in the late 1930s, in service in the early 1940s with production ending in the mid 1950s the most long lived and successful first generation was the DH vampire, the final examples of which were retired in 1990. The Hunter was hanging around until 2020 So first generation fighters were produced for only around 12-15 years and lasted in service around 80 years.
2nd generation developed in the late 1940s introduced in service for 1953 with the most famous example the mig 21, with its last version (J-7) ending produced in 2013. For a production life of 60 years and a likely service life stretching into the 2040s for 90 years of life. Although some would argue that the later versons of the mig 21 and J-7 actually crossed over into the 3rd generation..so figuring when it moved from the second to third is difficult.
3rd generation developed in the late 1950s built from the 1970s until to 2013..with essentially that merging of the j-7 into 2 generations for 43 years of production and likely 70 years of life..
The first 4th generation fighters were developed in the 1970s and introduced in the middle to late 1970s and are still being built now and will be until at least the mid 2035s and will probably be in service until the 2060s-2070s essentially forth generation fighters will have have had a production life of 60 years and a service life of probably 90 to 100 years. Infact it’s a generation that has spanned so long it’s been split into 4th and 4.5 generations. In reality you could say a 4 and 4.5 are separate generations..as an early to mid 4th generation aircraft would probably have little chance against a 4.5 generation aircraft.
Fifth generation. Developed 1990s production 1997 introduced 2005, production is likely to run into the 2040+
Six generation developed 2020s production 2030s
As you can see for the first 4 generations there was actually only around a 10-15 year gap between the development of each new generation, but a 20 year development gap between the fourth and 5th generations and a 30 year gap between the 5th and 6th… the other big differences apart form the massive development gaps is the very Small number of types for the later generations…..
Let me guess – a sh.. load of money wasted and sweet f a achieved still 15 years away
12 billion from MoD budget to develop it.
Never mind then buy it!
The MIC wins both times.
Billions over budget
Outdated and surpassed by other jets on arrival
In service by 2050
Just some headlines in advance
You can perpetually design an aircraft, systems and weapons. At some point you have to freeze the design and build it. At which point it “can” become out of date. If you don’t freeze the design you will be constantly chasing unicorns, ie an idea that is unachievable. However, someone has to be the first to deliver a 6th Gen aircraft. As it’s first past the post, it will be used as the standard by which other Companies/Countries assess their designs. Sadly it is unavoidable, as in this day and age it’s nigh on impossible to keep it secret. The UK does not have a massive rea such as the US’s Area 51 to keep prying eyes away from viewing its development.
Japan have stated that the aircraft’s in-service date (ISD) will be in the 2030’s.