UK, Italy, Japan launch joint venture to develop next-generation fighter jet

Brace for it. The tripartite joint venture will face all kinds of interference, both direct and indirect, from the U.S. government and U.S. weapons industry.

Trump may say next year the US will not protect your country if you don't buy American products.

Under military considerations this is a rather outdated attempt, causing many operating problems. Generally, decisions are only found on the ground and with real boots on it. If playing a bit around in the airspace for whatever reasons, then development of own concerted drone swarms and a counterpart of effective defense from enemy drones would surely make some more sense.

Meiyouwenti:

Brace for it. The tripartite joint venture will face all kinds of interference, both direct and indirect, from the U.S. government and U.S. weapons industry.

This project was initiated after the U.S. refused to sell the F-22. Therefore, your concerns are unlikely to be an issue.

"The F-X program began when the United States banned exports of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor under the 1997 Obey Amendment, intended to protect sensitive technology. With the F-22 no longer an option, Japan opted to develop a domestic fighter to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets." (Wikipedia)

Sven Asai:

Under military considerations this is a rather outdated attempt... [D]rones would surely make some more sense.

You have not read the documents. The new jets wil be designed to drive drones.

'Japan plans on introducing unmanned combat aerial vehicles that can operate alongside the F-X, called the Combat Support Unmanned Aircraft. The drone program is similar to the Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie or Boeing Airpower Teaming System project in which the drone acts as a "loyal wingman" to the controlling aircraft. There are two versions of the drone: one that is a sensor carrier and scouts for targets, and another that fires munitions and directs incoming missiles away from the parent aircraft. Both versions share the same design as each other. The drones are expected to be fully developed by the 2030s.' (Wikipedia)

Let's cut to the chase, for efficacy, AI and DRONE capabilities needed, NOT manned aircraft.

@Socrateos

This project was initiated after the U.S. refused to sell the F-22. Therefore, your concerns are unlikely to be an issue.

Wrong. The US did offer a customized F-22 called FB-22 to Japan, which would replace F-22's ancient avionics with the F-35's and have a delta wing to meet Japan's range requirement.

Japan refused the US offer after the US refused to disclose the avionics source code to Japan; FB-22's avionics would be delivered to Japan in sealed black boxes, the same as F-35s. After all, FB-22 would have F-35's avionics and F-35 source code was classified.

The US offered this package to port F-35's avionics to F-22 on Japan's dime and modernize the avionics of USAF's existing F-22 fleet.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/lockheed-martins-f-22-f-35-hybrid-for-japan-will-cost-177-million-instead-of-133-million-per-aircraft/

Lockheed Martin’s F-22, F-35 hybrid for Japan will cost $177 million instead of $133 million per aircraft

The Yomiuri Shimbun revealed that the Lockheed Martin F-22 with F-35 avionics proposal for Japan is being sold at $177 million for each aircraft.

Let's cut to the chase, for efficacy, AI and DRONE capabilities needed, NOT manned aircraft.

Looked at it a different way; A modern manned aircraft is basically a drone, but one that's nearly impossible to jam because there's a little person riding along inside. It's a bit like the Japanese Ohka in WW2.

Great to see this moving along, as there was some concern how the UK would approach it after the change in government. Seems Starmer is fully behind it.

The program is vital, as the US has too much on its plate, and too little industrial capacity, to reliably supply the rest of the free world. Solid allies working together in this way is what's required.

The aircraft will also be available for export, which will help build Japan's defense exports. (And, before anyone tries the usual line, no that doesn't violate Japan's constitution.)

HopeSpringsEternalToday 11:03 am JST

Let's cut to the chase, for efficacy, AI and DRONE capabilities needed, NOT manned aircraft.

Obviously you didn't read the article.

*The objective is to develop a twin-engine stealth aircraft that could be operated with or without a crew, would boast features such as laser-directed weapons and a virtual cockpit and would be much harder to detect using radar and infrared.*

*New technologies being explored for Tempest include the integration of AI and augmented reality and the ability to conduct missions alongside drones.*

Samit Basu:

Wrong. 

It still remains true that Japan's decision to develop a domestic fighter jet was initiated because of sales ban by the US congress.

"The replacement of the F-2 has been an extremely long process. It started back in 1997 when the United States Congress took the decision not to export the F-22 Raptor. Despite strong interest from Japan, technologies inside the fighter jet, the first of its generation, were judged too critical.

This forced Japan to design its own fifth-generation fighter jet, leading to the birth of the experimental X-2 Shinshin. Despite a successful maiden flight in 2016, the project was deemed too costly. A subsequent proposal was made by Lockheed Martin for a hybrid that would merge both designs of the F-35 Lightning II and of the F-22 Raptor – a unique opportunity, but too pricey and too risky for the Japanese Ministry of Defense." (Aero Time)

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/25807-mitsubishi-to-obtain-f-x-stealth-fighter-jet-development-contract

You cant have all your eggs in one basket, the danger is too great. Having multiple types of aircraft in the allied arsenal makes sense as dealing with each will have different challenges making any enemies job that much harder.

Europe is designing two different advanced 5th gen fighters, with France, Germany and Spain creating one and UK, Italy and Japan the other. Add that to US stocks and their planed future fighter and its a headache for any enemy to keep up. All will have differing abilities, radar signatures, weapons load-outs, speed, engines and they can all be manufactured in multiple locations for redundancy.

I doubt that everything stated will be achieved in the time frame stated, especially directed energy weapons which have been in development for decades without any real deployment as a standard weapon by any nation....yet.

Sounds promising.

MeiyouwentiToday  07:52 am JST

Brace for it. The tripartite joint venture will face all kinds of interference, both direct and indirect, from the U.S. government and U.S. weapons industry.

i see no military reason for this. The UK, France, Germany Spain et al all worked on multinational weapon systems and since Trump think Europe should pay for more this is a great way to increase defence spending.(or did Trump et think we’d all rush to Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockhead) the only problems the U.S has is that the F35 is now outdated. What do I mean by this? What you see flying today is technology we’ve been working on for decades. So today’s procurement is working on a plane for the future. Also it’s good to have diversity in a market, choice, and no be beholden to the U.S. we’ve seen their politics when it came To the Falklands war. The U.S has historically been slow. We’ve seen its politics when it comes to the Ukraine war, and we’ve seen their police when it has come to Taiwan, Isreal etc. one good thing is the U.K has past experience with these multinational military projects. Jaguar, Tornado, Eurofighter. Japan could really do with pulling away from the U.S when it comes to purchasing. Otherwise the U.S will just take it for granted we’re all going to buy their stuff.

Do these CEOs know about the risks involved in this joint venture to build sixth-generation fighter jets?

Japan's postwar constitution prohibits Japan from possessing such war weaponry to solve international disputes whereby it cannot build, possess or export such war machinery to third countries.

Multi Nations project is likely to be cost overrun and failure at the end. This is due to different countries have different requirements. Japan is an Asian country which is different with Europeans. By the way, why Germany and Spain choose to work with France instead with UK,Italy previous project (Tornado, Typhoon) ? Probably they don't see optimistic with GCAP !

elephant200Today 05:22 pm JST

Multi Nations project is likely to be cost overrun and failure at the end.

What evidence are you basing this conclusion on exactly?

Japan is an Asian country which is different with Europeans.

"Different" doesn't mean it won't work.

Japan has been working successfully with Europe, and many other areas of the world, for decades. There's no reason why this program won't be the same.

voiceofokinawaToday 04:54 pm JST

Japan's postwar constitution prohibits Japan from possessing such war weaponry

No, it doesn't. Japan has possessed military aircraft for decades with zero problems.

whereby it cannot build, possess or export such war machinery to third countries.

Wrong again. The aircraft can be exported, as I mention above.

https://www.ft.com/content/2463b935-f1f6-4b9f-827f-70c95dad4e03

AI and drone technology continues to develop, but for now, Japan's operational concept will likely involve manned fighter jets controlling a large number of drones, so fighter jets themselves are unlikely to disappear.

Incidentally, there were plans to develop the FB22, but it was not adopted by the Obama administration and remained just a concept. There is no way Japan would adopt an aircraft that has not even been developed in the United States.

elephant200Today  05:22 pm JST

Multi Nations project is likely to be cost overrun and failure at the end

not true. It is probably going to overtime and be over budget but it’ll be delivered. The reasons these projects fall is when a single nation can’t fund it.

voiceofokinawaToday  04:54 pm JST

Do these CEOs know about the risks involved in this joint venture to build sixth-generation fighter jets?

the CEOs understand that the gov is footing the bill bill. Unlike the U.S system where three companies build a next gen plane then have a fly off. This appears to be one plane. Built by three governments. So I think the procurement is different. The U.S system when the US had fly off between the F35 and .the Boeing X-22. And the YF22 v the YF23. So I think there is a difference.

Brace for it. The tripartite joint venture will face all kinds of interference, both direct and indirect, from the U.S. government and U.S. weapons industry.

No idea why you say that. The US didn't try to interfere with the multi-national Panavia Tornado program nor with the current Typhoon program. The US isn't interfering with the German, French, Spanish Future Combat Air System program either.

Let's cut to the chase, for efficacy, AI and DRONE capabilities needed, NOT manned aircraft

Ah, armchair general, where is all the satellite bandwidth coming from to control all these unmanned systems?

Two things you are missing. Existing UAS fleets have used up available satellite bandwidth. There is only so much up there and it is already fully utilized. Putting stuff in space is expensive. What you will see is manned-unmanned teaming. Manned aircraft will have a little flock of UAVs supporting them, controlled not via a link to a satellite but data linked to the combat jet.

The other thing you are missing is that humans can see and react to rapidly changing situations that AI cannot deal with. AI only knows what it is taught. You can fool it. Humans have a so far unique capability to see that something just ain't right and adapt on the fly. The need for that ability in warfare isn't going to go away.

the CEOs understand that the gov is footing the bill bill. Unlike the U.S system where three companies build a next gen plane then have a fly off. This appears to be one plane. Built by three governments. So I think the procurement is different. The U.S system when the US had fly off between the F35 and .the Boeing X-22. And the YF22 v the YF23. So I think there is a difference.

So now we are talking about things in my profession. True fact, sole source procurement programs experience far less cost growth than "competitive" programs. How is that possible? With competitive programs offerors almost always under bid what the program will cost. They do this knowingly. They win the competition but a few years in they cry that costs have "escalated", try to blame this on the government side and cry for more money claiming they cannot complete the work without more money. I see this on almost every program I have ever been involved with.

Once a source selection is complete and a winner chosen the government is now buying from a monopolist. The alternative is to shut the program down and start a new competition. Meanwhile the military NEEDS that weapon you were working on and they really needed it yesterday. That forces a decision, pay the existing contractor more or stop the program and re-compete? Sometimes this happens after you have entered production. The company sells you a couple of lots at a reasonable price but for the fourth lot they want 40% or 50% more per unit, and no good explanation why. I am involved in one of those situations now. Problem is the existing contractor owns the data rights to that weapon so we can't at this point compete it again as it exists because nobody else can legally make it.

With sole source procurement there seems to be more realistic up front discussions on pricing since the contractor is not trying to low ball a source selection board. Historically with sole source procurement programs there are single digit increases in costs over the lifetime of the program. The competitive programs typically experience 35% or more increases in costs. Perverse but true.

Incidentally, there were plans to develop the FB22, but it was not adopted by the Obama administration and remained just a concept. There is no way Japan would adopt an aircraft that has not even been developed in the United States.

All this talk of the F-22 or an FB-22! What most laymen do not realize is what killed the F-22 was it's extreme cost per flight hour. It is more than four times as costly to fly as an F/A-18. five times as costly as an F-16 and almost double the cost per hour of an F-15.

In a typical budget year there are a fixed amount of dollars appropriated to each service to fly airplanes, tilt-rotors and helicopters with. It is up to each branch of the military to manage that sum of money and once it is gone you stop flying. I have seen that happen btw. If you replace one type of aircraft with another that costs twice as much to fly, think replacing the F-15 with the F-22, you can only fly them half as many hours per year. The F-22 is as expensive to fly as a B-52. The Air Force budget could not reasonably absorb the increased cost to fly the F-22. That is why the program was cancelled. One of the reasons US combat pilots are so much better than their peers is because they fly so much. A Navy or USAF fighter pilot gets more than ten times the annual flight hours of their Russian or Soviet counterpart. That builds competence, the pilot becomes so familiar with their aircraft that it becomes an extension of their mind and body. The US doesn't want to loose that edge and flying fewer hours is how you loose it. So the F-22 was cancelled.