6th generation aircraft – the European GCAP and FACS projects should join forces
In December, the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP, ex-Tempest) project, which aims to develop a 6th generation fighter aircraft, took a decisive step forward with the creation of a 50:50 joint venture between BAE Systems, Leonardo and Japan Aircraft Industrial Enhancement (JAIEC). The goal of bringing the new aircraft into service in 2035 is being maintained.
According to a report published by the British House of Commons this deadline remains ambitious, even if significant progress has been made by the three partner countries in recent months. According to the report, it can only be achieved if the mistakes that have plagued previous cooperation in the field of combat aviation are not repeated. It reads: "Fulfilling this promise will not be easy. To deliver on time and to budget, GCAP will need to avoid the mistakes which have beset previous international combat air programmes such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. The complex web of relationships between governments and industry both across and within the partner nations will need to be carefully navigated: the delivery organisations set up for this purpose must be sufficiently empowered; and workshare arrangements will need to accommodate flexibility within a clearly defined framework. Any inclusion of additional international partners cannot be allowed to derail the crucial 2035 target date. GCAP will take up a significant share of the defence budget in the coming years and as costs become more clearly defined they must be made transparent to enable meaningful Parliamentary scrutiny. (...) Progress on GCAP to date has been positive, but previous multilateral defence programmes have frequently seen costs spiral and delays pile up. GCAP will need to break the mould if it is to achieve its ambitious target date."
The British report fails to even mention the FCAS
At least two mistakes should be avoided. The first would be to accept new partners into the programme without first assessing their industrial capabilities and, above all, their financial resources. The second concerns future exports, which must not be hindered, as was the case with the Eurofighter Typhoon, where some contracts were not signed because of opposition from one of the countries involved, in that case from Germany. Wheter Japan can take over Germany's role in the GCAP remains a crucial question. The report fears this, but does not see it as an insurmountable obstacle: "The Committee was greatly encouraged by Japan’s recognition of the importance of exports to their GCAP partners. Nonetheless, Japan’s inexperience as a defence exporter is likely to present unique challenges for GCAP which were not in evidence for Typhoon. The UK government must continue to support and encourage Japan in making the necessary legislative and industrial progress to ensure that the new GCAP fighter can be successfully exported."
The document also stresses that one of the key issues for the GCAP will be its financial sustainability, even though its overall costs have not yet been defined, as they will depend on the solutions proposed, the effectiveness of the partnerships and the ability to implement the programme at a sustained pace: "Although precise costs may not yet be available, it is clear that GCAP will take up a significant share of the defence budget over the next decade and beyond. The Combat Air Strategy acknowledged that combat air systems have successively cost more than their predecessors, a trend which it said needed to be addressed urgently."
Among the mistakes that should not be repeated, the British parliamentary report failed to mention the simultaneous conduct of two competing combat aircraft programmes in Europe. At no point does it mention any possible rapprochement between the GCAP and the Future Air Combat System (FACS or SCAF in French), led by France, Germany and Spain.
Currently in phase 1B, intended to pave the way for demonstrators, the FACS should have been the subject of a summit between the three partner countries last December. It was not possible due to the political situation in France and especially Germany where elections are to be held in February. The summit was intended to provide an opportunity to take stock of the programme's progress and document the second phase.
Aibrus‘ Guillaume Faury: "FCAS and GCAP should join forces"
The French Minister for the Armed Forces Sébastien Lecornu said during an October Senate session: "We will have to deal with political issues, such as exports, but also operational issues: what does the aircraft look like? What is its weight, its ability to meet the needs of France's nuclear deterrent, to land on an aircraft carrier?" And on 15 January, at a press conference in London, Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury argued that the FCAS and GCAP should join forces: "I think there's really room to do things in a smart way. Each and every country could contribute its financial and technological capacity to a bigger programme for Europe, because that's what we need at the end."
This is meant to avoid developing different standards and technological components, which could lead to considerably higher costs: "There were plenty of opportunities to bring the two programmes closer to each other so we don’t spend all the money twice. If you want to create value and efficiency, spend less money on R&D and increase volumes to reduce costs, you have to bring together countries with identical capabilities." An agreement should be reached quickly in his opinion: "These programmes are still at the technological development stage, but they will have diverged too much to be brought together within two years. Governments need to talk as soon as they have a clear vision of the SCAF and GCAP specifications and the cost of what they want to achieve."
Guillaume Faury however did not go so far as to suggest merging the FCAS and the GCAP, but he also said it was possible that they could use the same engines, the same sensors, the same combat cloud and the same effectors. In the meantime, with the Chengdu JH-36 and the Shenyang J-50, China seems to be ahead of the game when it comes to 6th generation combat aircraft. And this at a time when, in the United States, the US Air Force is wondering about the future of its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) programme, unlike the US Navy, which intends to continue developing the F/A-XX to replace the Super Hornets and to complement the F-35C.
"Whilst progress to date has been positive, previous multilateral defence programmes have frequently seen costs spiral and delays pile up and GCAP will have to break the mould if it is to achieve its ambitious target date. Decisions made at this early stage around partnerships, delivery structures and workshare by both Government and industry will be key to ensuring the aircraft arrives on time and to budget; and the importance of recruiting and retaining a suitably skilled workforce cannot be understated," concludes the British House of Commons in its reports. The risks and the opportunities are known and explained. It remains to be seen whether the Europeans can deliver a competitive solution.
