Key Points and Summary – The multinational GCAP 6th-generation fighter program (UK, Japan, Italy) is already facing “stark” warnings that it is “destined to be unaffordable.”
-A “new wrinkle” is Germany’s potential “withdrawal” from the rival French SCAF program to join GCAP as a “buyer” or “drone partner.”
GCAP 6th Generation Fighter.
-However, the core issue is the plan to let each partner nation build its own bespoke “loyal wingman” (CCA) drones, like Japan’s new “ARMDC-20X” concept.
-At a recent conference, the Eurofighter CEO “bluntly” warned that integrating all these different drones “will break the program’s budget,” stating, “We don’t have infinite resources.”
Is the GCAP Fighter Program Already Destined to be Unaffordable?
WARSAW, POLAND – The Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) is one of the most ambitious efforts ever undertaken in the history of several nations jointly developing a next-generation fighter aircraft.
The design and production of the aircraft will involve the three leading partner nations at the moment: Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom.
The program is so complex, with the different partner nations’ requirements, the various types of weapons that will need to be integrated into the aircraft, and the vast spectrum of partners’ threat scenarios.
There are so many considerations that a multinational treaty will be required to codify the roles of the different consortium members.
That document is already being worked out, but will not be finalized and signed before the end of 2025.
An additional wrinkle that has emerged in the past two months is the growing possibility that Germany will withdraw from the other major multinational 6th-generation fighter project, the French-led Système de Combat Aérien du Futur (SCAF) program.
As a maneuver both industrial and political in its motivations, the UK is now considering involving Germany in the GCAP program.
London’s Daily Telegraph reported at the end of September that the governments will make a final decision on Germany joining the GCAP.
But becoming involved at this late stage of the aircraft’s concept definition would limit Germany’s role in the effort.
The discussions to date have focused on a scenario in which Germany could join GCAP not as a full partner, but only as a buyer.
Nonetheless, German industry could also participate in some parts of the aircraft’s development.
One area where the German sector could take the lead is the creation of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) or “loyal wingman” unmanned platforms.
GCAP, like every over-6th-generation fighter program in development, includes a parallel effort to design CCAs to support and supplant the fighter jet’s combat role.
One Fighter – Many CCAs
At the end of last year, Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), one of the major actors in the country’s defense sector, rolled out two concepts for what it calls an “Autonomous Collaborative Platform (ACP).”
MHI’s proposed vehicles included a missile-like CCA designated as the Affordable Rapid Prototype Missile Drone Concept 20X (ARMDC-20X)
There was also a second CCA concept, which was described as a high-performance tactical combat unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The ARMDC-20X is nearly 6 m long, and its display mode,l previously exhibited at Japan’s national defense expo, appears to have a housing for an electro-optical targeting system (EOTS).
This sensor package is placed in what is described as an “under-chin position and a dorsal engine intake.”
The display model was also labelled with the six-digit serial number 50-6001, which is consistent with the nomenclature used by Japan’s Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF).
The second concept is approximately 33 feet long, with this ACP and the ARMDC-20X sharing combat and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) roles.
Two months earlier, MHI had released a computer-generated video showing these CCAs shooting down a Chinese-built Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter.
What is developing with GCAP is a situation in which the fighter aircraft design itself will be as identical as possible across all the partner nations.
However, it is likely that the individual nations involved will be designing and equipping their air forces with very different CCAs tailored to their requirements.
Jorge Tamarit-Degenhardt, CEO of the Eurofighter consortium, speaking at last week’s International Fighter Conference in Rome, questioned the viability of this direction of traval.
Integrating a flock of very different CCAs into the same fighter could create a number of compatibility and interoperability problems, ultimately breaking the program’s budget.
“Can we develop CCA integration in different configurations in different countries? We cannot do everything at the same time. We don’t have infinite resources,” he told the conference.
Weapons and Affordability
His sentiments are echoed by the MoD official responsible for the UK role in the program, RAF Group Captain Bill Sanders.
Writing earlier this year in the Journal of the Joint Airpower Competence Centre, he points out that the “GCAP has a responsibility to justify its cost and demonstrate value for money.”
“The war in Ukraine has reminded everyone that conflict is always more expensive than deterrence; however, deterrence is not an argument for unconstrained cost because it is vital that nations’ capability programs identify the most efficient and cost-effective means to achieve the desired capability. Additionally, combat air systems are good value for money because they provide adaptable, multi-use capability at every level, from peace to full-scale conflicts.”
But as several airpower specialists are pointing out, affordability can only be achieved if the weapons bay of the GCAP is capable of housing not just the most expensive weapon systems, but also the cheap “dumb” munitions.
Managing this “cost-per-kill ratio” would be critical to employing the GCAP and maintaining its relevance in a sustained conflict.
About the Author: Reuben F. Johnson
Reuben F. Johnson has thirty-six years of experience analyzing and reporting on foreign weapons systems, defense technologies, and international arms export policy. Johnson is the Director of the Asia Research Centre at the Casimir Pulaski Foundation. He is also a survivor of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. He worked for years in the American defense industry as a foreign technology analyst and later as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Defense, the Departments of the Navy and Air Force, and the governments of the United Kingdom and Australia. In 2022-2023, he won two awards in a row for his defense reporting. He holds a bachelor’s degree from DePauw University and a master’s degree from Miami University in Ohio, specializing in Soviet and Russian studies. He lives in Warsaw.
More Military
China Might Have a Way to ‘Swarm’ U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers
India Leases Russia’s ‘Stealth’ Nuclear Attack Submarines
The Mach 3 SR-71 Blackbird Deserves A Better Fate Than This
The F-14 Tomcat Fighter Was ‘Notoriously Difficult and Costly to Keep Operational’
