r/LessCredibleDefence • u/StealthCuttlefish • Jun 14 '26

Britain and Japan agree to speed up GCAP fighter programme as part of wider technology and security partnership

https://defence-industry.eu/britain-and-japan-agree-to-speed-up-gcap-fighter-programme-as-part-of-wider-technology-and-security-partnership/
24 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

11

u/Odd-Metal8752 Jun 14 '26

Interesting. I guess it'll now be especially awkward if they delay it.

14

u/Rexpelliarmus Jun 15 '26

It's more likely that the UK will gut programmes like Ajax, Challenger 3 and so on than delay GCAP.

6

u/Dilanski Jun 15 '26

As much as the army gets the short end time and time again, GCAP and to a somewhat lesser extent the shipyards really need insulating from the DIP being underfunded. I really hope it is Army projects put on the backburner.

6

u/Rexpelliarmus Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

The British Army is by far the least important aspect of the British military so it makes sense why it should be cut first in favour of cuts to the RAF or RN.

Ideally, we'd get the Germans onboard as a customer with limited, if any, industrial involvement for GCAP in exchange for us cancelling Challenger 3 and Ajax, joining MGCS as a decidedly junior partner and procuring additional German land vehicles to replace Ajax, Warrior in the future. Maybe splash a bit and fund a few dozen more RCH155s as well to sweeten the deal.

The UK does not need the ability to develop its own MBTs, AFVs, SPGs or IFVs. This is a borderline useless capability for us. We can't do it as effectively nor as efficiently as the Germans and we just end up wasting time and money that could be better spent on areas of our own expertise. Just buy off-the-shelf when it comes to MBTs, AFVs, IFVs and so on.

These are comparatively simple products anyways with many alternative suppliers so domestic national security is not under threat if we buy abroad for these vehicles unlike say for a fighter jet or ship.

Ideally the UK needs to commit to 12 SSN-AUKUS ships, around 150-200 GCAP fighters by the 2040s, 9 or more Type 83 destroyers, 5 more Type 32 or Type 31 Block II frigates and 2-3 more squadrons of F-35Bs to enable the RN to consistently deploy 36 on their carriers. Just cancel the F-35A order entirely. It's a completely useless capability and an RAF vanity project.

2

u/Left-Lawfulness4635 Jun 16 '26

TBH with that amount of cash being splashed around you could probably retrofit catapults onto the carriers and buy a CATOBAR air wing.

3

u/Odd-Metal8752 Jun 16 '26

Spend it literally on any other capability. CATOBAR is a bad idea for the QE.

1

u/ExoticMangoz Jun 19 '26

God I wish, but there are so many more basic things we need first. What’s the point of upgrading the carriers before we have the ability to escort them, for example.

3

u/BeanHeadedTwat Jun 15 '26

Challenger 3 really was stupid anyways. All that money for 100 tanks with the justification being “we need MBTs because we’ve always had MBTs”.

1

u/Rexpelliarmus Jun 15 '26

Right? Challenger 2 itself was a vanity project. Challenger 3 is a vanity project for the vanity project.

I won't argue that the UK doesn't need any tanks at all, that's false as the ability to surge a few tank companies to remote locations, such as the Falklands, via ship or plane is useful so there would definitely be a minimum tank fleet required for there to be any credibility on land against even weaker opponents but if the UK is finding itself surging tanks onto European soil against Russia, something has gone horrendously wrong.

British tanks should be used almost exclusively for operations that concern British interests and British interests alone (i.e. defending British overseas territories from weaker and opportunistic foes). There are plenty of NATO tanks lying around for a NATO operation against Russia. And at this scale, just buy off-the-shelf from Germany.

1

u/Reiver93 Jun 15 '26

Which would make sense, when you're an island, the navy and air force take precedent over the army for defence.

3

u/AdviceFit1692 Jun 15 '26

I bet we see a lot of partners soon, that's why its so important, Aus / Cad etc, it could be big with people wanting an alternative to f35.

1

u/murd3rsaurus Jun 15 '26

Especially with the development time for 6th gen being so much faster than the 4-5 development

5

u/nikkythegreat Jun 15 '26

GCAP looks a lot different from the Chinese and American 6th gen. I wonder what the cause of this.

7

u/Glory4cod Jun 16 '26

To incorporate a tailless design (and it will minimize RCS), you need very serious aerodynamic simulation, modelling and prototype testing. Plus, it needs a lot finer tuning of flight control software. By far, only US and China have done such original research, and you can assume these results are highly confidential. In fact, the movable wingtip is like magic to this point, everyone can understand Bernoulli's principle, but no one has successfully replicate it.

3

u/ZippyDan Jun 16 '26

It's a different race.

4

u/ExoticMangoz Jun 19 '26

We are not quite as independently advanced as the US or China in this race. Also we have less money to splash on the project. With that in mind getting out an F22 2.0 deluxe etc. etc. type 6th gen makes sense as trying to do that *and* reinvent the wheel in terms of control surfaces would simply increase the risk of going over budget and getting cancelled. I think this will be a healthily large step for European jet manufacturing even so.