UK, Italy and Japan begin development of the GCAP fighter

42
UK, Italy and Japan begin development of the GCAP fighter
Estimated appearance of the GCAP fighter


The UK, Italy and Japan have announced the launch of a joint program to develop a promising next-generation fighter, designated as the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP). A number of aircraft manufacturing and related organizations from three countries will be attracted to participate in the program, and by 2035 they should present a finished aircraft. It is assumed that the new project will ensure the modernization of the air force, as well as a positive impact on the development of industry.



Joint statement


The launch of the GCAP program was announced on December 9 in a joint statement by the governments of the UK, Italy and Japan. In an official statement, the countries declared their commitment to the ideals of democracy and "a world based on rules", and also recalled their long-standing close relationship. Now the three states are taking a new step in strengthening cooperation.

The countries are launching a joint development of a promising next-generation fighter. The aircraft, so far designated as GCAP, should appear by 2035. What it will turn out to be, what characteristics it will be able to show, and what its advantages will be, have not yet been reported. In addition, it is not specified what number the mentioned “new generation” has.

In this case, one of the goals of the project is indicated. It is planned to create a full-fledged aviation a complex that can become the basis for larger aviation systems. The latter, in turn, will be able to work effectively in "multi-domain" forces.


The participating countries are already ready to disclose the planned organizational measures and the resulting benefits. Thus, through the GCAP program, the three states plan to strengthen military, scientific and technical ties. With the help of the distribution of roles and the creation of new production cooperations, it is proposed to strengthen the military-industrial base of the countries. Especially for the new project, the participating companies will create new jobs.

Separately, it is noted that the joint project will not weaken the industry of individual countries. Their enterprises will retain the ability to independently develop and manufacture aviation equipment.

The main customers of the promising fighter will be the developing countries. It is also planned to enter the international market. The official statement says that the GCAP will be compatible with the forces and means of the United States and other countries of NATO, the Indo-Pacific region, etc. In general, it is planned that the project will become global and live up to its name.

Information from industry


Also on December 9, BAE Systems published a press release about the launch of the GCAP program, containing new interesting data. In particular, she pointed to a certain continuity of promising projects, and also revealed an approximate list of companies participating in the future development. In addition, they showed the hypothetical appearance of a promising fighter. The company's artists depicted GCAP aircraft over London and Rome, as well as Mount Fuji in the background.


BAE Systems recalled that since 2018, the UK has been developing its own next-generation project called Tempest. In addition to BAE itself, Leonardo UK, MBDA UK and Rolls-Royce are involved in the work - such an association is called Team Tempest. Potential participants of the GCAP program from two other countries are also named. Italy will be represented by Avio Aero, Elettronica and Leonardo, while Japan will be joined by IHI Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

The British side notes that the basis of the joint GCAP project will be the developments under its own program. “The Tempest team has achieved some success in recent years, and their experience will be useful in the new program. At the same time, BAE Systems does not indicate how similar the two projects will end up being.

It should be recalled that Japan has a similar project for a promising fighter - FX or F-3 from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Now it is under development, and the first flight of an experimental aircraft is expected only in a few years. How the new GCAP program will affect the fate of FX is not yet reported.

Aircraft of unknown appearance


For obvious reasons, GCAP members are currently unable to provide any technical information. Even the preliminary study of the project has not yet begun, and even the most basic requirements remain uncertain.

However, curious illustrations are attached to the official announcements about the program. Perhaps they show current views on the appearance of the future aircraft. At the same time, it should be noted that the drawn fighter is similar to the previously presented British development projects.


Design appearance of the BAE Tempest fighter

In the form of a three-dimensional model, an aircraft of the "tailless" integrated layout is shown. The pronounced fuselage has a pointed nose cone and side air intakes. It is associated with a swept wing with a broken trailing edge. In the tail are keels collapsed outwards. The power plant includes two turbojet engines.

The GCAP developers have not yet disclosed the topic of electronic equipment and other equipment of the aircraft. Probably, the fighter will use the newest and most advanced devices, incl. do not yet exist or are being developed. What modes of operation they will receive will be known later. The same applies to approaches to management. It is quite possible that the GCAP, following recent trends, will be optionally manned.

An interesting statement was made by the leadership of the British branch of the Italian company Leonardo. It mentioned that the GCAP project may use so-called. integrated means of lighting the situation and a promising system of "battlefield control". More detailed information is not yet available.

The drawn aircraft have a smooth lower wing surface and do not carry weapons on an external sling. Probably, like a number of modern fighters, the GCAP should receive internal compartments for ammunition. The dimensions and capacity of such compartments cannot be estimated. Obviously, only promising ammunition will be included in the ammunition load, incl. only planned for development in the future.

Leonardo also mentions the possibility of introducing a fundamentally new weapons with "non-kinetic effects". Under this term, systems of directed energy - lasers or microwave weapons - can be hidden. Probably, the potential of such a system in the context of fighter aviation will be determined later, in the course of working out the optimal appearance of the aircraft.


Japanese F-3 fighter

The flight performance of the future GCAP remains unknown even to project participants. It is to be expected that the aircraft will be supersonic. At the same time, promising engines with increased thrust and improved efficiency will make it possible to make a long supersonic flight without the use of afterburner.

Bold plans


Thus, the three foreign states agreed to join forces to create a fundamentally new fighter aircraft with special characteristics and capabilities. In the coming years, they plan to conduct the necessary research and determine the shape of the future aircraft. Not earlier than the middle of the decade, full-fledged design will begin, and the finished GCAP will appear only by 2035.

Whether it will be possible to solve all the tasks, it is not known. The countries participating in the program have very limited experience in the development of modern aviation systems. So, they took some part in the American F-35 program, but they did not create their own 5th generation fighter projects. Whether the existing competencies and the potential for their development will be enough to create a “next generation” project is unknown.

However, the countries and companies participating in the program understand the complexity of the tasks set and seem to be ready for it. They intend to apply all the necessary conditions and develop both the fighter as a whole and all other components of a promising aviation complex. How justified such optimism, time will tell. However, it will take a long time to wait for the results - until the mid-thirties.
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    19 December 2022 05: 41
    For non-kinetic weapons, the generators on fighters are rather weak, although active, very active interference with missiles will pull, I think.
    1. 0
      19 December 2022 08: 14
      The Americans are already proposing to start serial production of XA100/101 three-circuit adaptive motors, including those for increased power generation. RR experience similar. There are no problems with electricity for directed energy weapons on a fighter.
      1. 0
        19 December 2022 13: 56
        Quote from cold wind
        There are no problems with electricity for directed energy weapons on a fighter.

        What already? Fighters can transfer 30 kW of output to a laser / maser?
        Quote from cold wind
        The Americans are already proposing to start mass production of XA100/101 adaptive three-circuit motors, including those for increased power generation.
        Where did you read about increased production? It's only about increased efficiency at subsonic.
        1. 0
          19 December 2022 20: 43
          Since there is an "economy" subsonic, then there is also a "sport mode" for powering the anti-missile / anti-drone laser or the AFAR EW mode. That is, "afterburner" is not for speed, but for generating electricity.
          1. 0
            20 December 2022 03: 11
            Quote: Torvlobnor IV
            it means there is also a "sport mode" for powering the anti-missile / anti-drone laser or the AFAR electronic warfare mode.

            Right already there? That is why there is not a word about such a mode in the descriptions of the engine, but there is a mode. I believe how not to believe.
  2. -4
    19 December 2022 06: 29
    Seven nannies have a child without supervision. He is destined for the fate of a eurofighter, and the Americans will not allow them. Lose the market for their f35
    1. +3
      19 December 2022 08: 19
      Quote from: FoBoss_VM
      He has the fate of a Eurofighter,

      Hmm... and what is the fate of Eurofighter? Is it the same as the Su-30?
      1. 0
        19 December 2022 08: 31
        Quote from cold wind
        Hmm... and what is the fate of Eurofighter?

        That's also interesting...
    2. +2
      19 December 2022 08: 34
      Quote from: FoBoss_VM
      Seven nannies have a child without supervision. He is destined for the fate of Eurofighter

      What's wrong with Eurofighter?
      It is in service with the Air Force of seven not the weakest states, in the amount of six hundred, being (together with Rafal) the basis of the fourth generation of the EU.
      1. +1
        19 December 2022 08: 55
        At the same time, which is typical, Eurofighter managed to take these positions when he had to compete with a very serious F-16. Which is relatively cheap, and quite versatile and generally a workhorse.
        What can not be said about the F-35. So I think GCAP has a good window of opportunity.
        1. +2
          19 December 2022 09: 23
          As long as there is no engine similar to the F135 in the world, the future of the F-35 is cloudless. All chances to repeat the fate of the F-16. Which, in turn, began its history with absolutely the same criticism: unreliable, extremely expensive, “weaker” than specialized 3rd generation fighters. And how fate turned out.
          Among twin-engine fighters in the future there will be extremely high competition for GCAP, NGF, NGAD, TF-X, KF-21+, J-20, Su-57.
          1. +2
            19 December 2022 09: 56
            there will be extremely high competition for GCAP, NGF, NGAD, TF-X, KF-21+, J-20, Su-57.

            oh well, there will be no competition with the Su 57, since this generation is much more expensive and more difficult that Western countries have to cooperate, and the Russian Federation, with a focus on laying pipes, will not have enough money or industry.
          2. +1
            19 December 2022 10: 49
            F-16 - light, cheap and multifunctional. F-35 - neither one nor the other, nor the third. They are conceptually different - the f-16 is a classic lightweight single-engine, in which the functionality is severely limited by weight, but sufficient to perform its tasks. And the f-35 is essentially an attempt to create a heavy single-engine fighter.
            Quote from cold wind
            . All chances to repeat the fate of the F-16. Which, in turn, began its story with absolutely the same criticism: unreliable, extremely expensive,

            Only now the reliability of the f-16 was quickly brought to the desired level, and the f-35 has been stumbling for a decade.
            1. 0
              19 December 2022 11: 16
              The F-16 was not multifunctional, it became one. Quickly it's the same 10+ years. The F-35 is cheaper than the same F-16, especially the F-15, EF, Rafal, so yes it is cheap, its versatility has no equal. In terms of weight, yes, it is a heavy single-engine multifunctional fighter. The question is what will NGAD be like, if under 40 tons takeoff, then the F-35 will become light again.
              1. +1
                19 December 2022 11: 35
                Quote from cold wind
                The F-16 was not multifunctional, it became one. Quickly it's the same 10+ years.

                Come on! On the modification of C / D, the reliability problems were solved, what are there 10 years?
                Quote from cold wind
                F-35 is cheaper than the same F-16, especially the F-15, EF, Rafal, so yes it is cheaper,

                It is more expensive, and stronger. It is necessary to look not at the cost of acquisition, but at the cost of an hour of flight.
                Quote from cold wind
                its versatility is unmatched.

                It's right. It is difficult to find a fighter today that would be less suitable for air combat than the f-35. But I wouldn't be proud of it :)
                1. +2
                  19 December 2022 12: 32
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                  Come on! On the modification of C / D, the reliability problems were solved, what are there 10 years?

                  Typical 10+ years. The F-16 solved all its problems in block 50/52, this is 91 years old, 79 years have passed since 12. Only after this block did the F-16 become the F-16 that your epithets fit. Although in block 30/32 it became a little more adequate to reality.

                  The cost of an hour of flight is listed in the tender of the Finnish Air Force, he also wins.

                  In close air combat, it outperforms the F-16/18, which is approximately equal to the rest of the 4th generation fighters.

                  That's all. It makes no sense to correspond with you, you will be repeated from different angles. Competitive tenders won and 875+ produced units speak for themselves.
                  1. -1
                    19 December 2022 13: 21
                    Quote from cold wind
                    F-16 solved all its problems in block 50/52

                    In block 15, the main problems with the reliability of the aircraft were resolved
                    Quote from cold wind
                    Only after this block did the F-16 become the F-16 that your epithets fit.

                    If we take modern requirements - then yes. But you need to take into account their evolution since the f-16 entered service.
                    Quote from cold wind

                    The cost of an hour of flight is listed in the tender of the Finnish Air Force, he also wins.

                    That is, you don’t care that the Americans themselves calculated a much lower cost of an hour of flight for the f-16 compared to the f-35. In your opinion, the Finns know better :))
                    Quote from cold wind
                    In close air combat, it outperforms the F-16/18,

                    Or not. Opinions are very different on this topic. And according to the performance characteristics, it’s generally impossible to understand how he can surpass someone in BVB. With its power-to-weight ratio, wing area and aerodynamics.
                    And it would be nice if the criticism came from Internet hamsters like me, but when a lieutenant colonel of the US Air Force writes in 2021
                    "According to reports, the F-35 is inferior in maneuverability to the F-15 and F-16 and does not have the same firepower and weapon equipment as the A-10 and F / A-18."
                    Quote from cold wind
                    Competitive tenders won and 875+ produced units speak for themselves.

                    Yes. But they don't say exactly what you say. In the US, no one is going to change f-16s to f-35s, as was originally planned, and the 35s production program is being reduced. The fleet does not consider the f-35 as a replacement for the Hornet ...
                    1. +1
                      19 December 2022 16: 35
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      okay, the criticism would come from Internet hamsters like me, but when a US Air Force lieutenant colonel writes in 2021
                      "According to reports, the F-35 is inferior in maneuverability to the F-15 and F-16 and does not have the same firepower and weapon equipment as the A-10 and F / A-18."

                      ))) So this is hamsters like you. With the difference that Boeing is unlikely to pay you for your publications.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      In the US, no one is going to change f-16s to f-35s, as was originally planned, and the 35s production program is being reduced. The fleet does not consider the f-35 as a replacement for the Hornet ...

                      )))
                      We will learn about all this amazing news with the help of the Sputnik channel.
                      1. +1
                        19 December 2022 16: 59
                        Quote: Negro
                        ))) So this is hamsters like you

                        Whether business you. Where is the lieutenant colonel of the US Air Force ... Of course, you know better.
                        Quote: Negro
                        With the difference that Boeing is unlikely to pay you for your publications.

                        Are you so expert that you are able to accurately determine that the articles of those authors who blaspheme the f-35, and not those who defend it, are paid for?
                        Then you will be deeply disappointed - the underground I quoted above just defended the f-35 laughing
                        Quote: Negro
                        We will learn about all this amazing news with the help of the Sputnik channel.

                        So it's news to you that the US Navy has ordered the development of a new fighter to replace the f-18?
                        I'm not surprised
                      2. -1
                        19 December 2022 17: 36
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        ordered the development of a new fighter to replace the f-18?
                        I'm not surprised

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Whether business you. Where is the lieutenant colonel of the US Air Force ... Of course, you know better

                        Naturally.

                        The main problem of Joint Strike Fighter is the word Joint. Accordingly, someone eats exceptionally well, and someone eats badly. And the second someone - Boeing. Accordingly, the problems of the F-35 will never end. At least in the press and various committees of Congress.
                        Well, with the fleet it’s even easier. They have a fifth generation (albeit still in short supply) and have begun development of a sixth. It's high time, on the contrary, they lingered. Apparently, there is no one to push through the next Joint project yet.
                      3. -2
                        19 December 2022 17: 56
                        As usual, your interlocutor is engaged in juggling the facts. F-18 such aircraft does not exist. There are 2 technically and functionally different fighters: FA-18A-D Hornet and FA-18E/F Super Hornet.
                        The F-35C is replacing the Hornet, and the NGAD program has been launched to replace the Super Hornet, which in turn replaced the F-14.
                      4. +1
                        19 December 2022 19: 28
                        Quote from cold wind
                        As usual, your interlocutor is engaged in juggling the facts.

                        My opponent said and... what? Rushed to juggle the facts, of course.
                        Quote from cold wind
                        There are 2 technically and functionally different fighters: FA-18A-D Hornet and FA-18E/F Super Hornet.

                        So, distortion number of times - the recommended aircraft are technically different, but functionally the same. The Super Hornet is the logical development of the Hornet, and nothing more.
                        Quote from cold wind
                        FA-18A-D Hornet and FA-18E/F Super Hornet.
                        The F-35C is replacing the Hornet, and the NGAD program has been launched to replace the Super Hornet, which in turn replaced the F-14.

                        I don’t even know what to accuse you of: either in unbridled lies, or in dense ignorance of the materiel.
                        Let it be known to you that not a single Hornet is left in the combat air wings of the US Navy. But the F-35, as of 2022, there are already as many as 35 vehicles (namely, the Navy, there are more in the ILC, but this is not a fleet). This alone suggests that there was no replacement for the Hornets by the F-35: in fact, the Hornets were replaced by Super Hornets.
                        But your blunder is especially enchanting about the fact that the SuperHornets were created to replace the F-14. These are aircraft of different subclasses, and the Superhornet does not inherit the Tomcat in any way.
                        The question is that with the collapse of the USSR, the United States lost serious rivals at sea, which is why a number of aviation programs were hacked to death, among which was the aircraft that was actually created to replace the Tomcat. The economy forced the fleet to abandon the specialized aircraft for gaining air supremacy, since it was assumed that a multifunctional fighter would be enough - given the total superiority in numbers, of course. Therefore, the Americans abandoned the specialization of naval aircraft in favor of a single station wagon. And the Superhornet coped with this task quite well.
                        But the F-35 is not. That is why it cannot replace the SuperHornet and that is why NGAD is needed.
                      5. +1
                        19 December 2022 19: 08
                        Quote: Negro
                        Naturally.

                        Well, revel in your own greatness
                      6. -1
                        19 December 2022 22: 48
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        revel in your own greatness

                        What else to do?

                        It seems that I have already noticed that personally you are one of the degradation markers, hmm, of the level of discussion on the site. Basically, the process is connected with the departure of adequate people, but even among the "old-timers" the previous level is probably maintained by one Bongo.

                        5 years ago, in your rantings "Russian Aerospace Forces against the European part of NATO in 2020" it was still possible to leave out the fifth generation (and at the same time find a regiment of combat-ready MiG-35s, no, I will not forget this). But now the penguin is essentially "the world's fighter for the rich." 15 countries, closer to 1000 aircraft - more than the entire fighter aircraft in the Aerospace Forces. And you keep talking about the sometimes flying scam, unsuitable for a cannon fight.

                        Tell me what's left for you. Fortunately, they are unlikely to reach Chelyabinsk.
                      7. 0
                        20 December 2022 09: 10
                        Quote: Negro
                        What else to do?

                        Yes indeed:)))
                        Quote: Negro
                        5 years ago, in your rantings "Russian Aerospace Forces against the European part of NATO in 2020" it was still possible to leave out the fifth generation (and at the same time find a regiment of combat-ready MiG-35s, no, I will not forget this).

                        Crazy - butthurt is five years long :)))
                        Yes, in terms of fighters, I was too optimistic about the MiG-35 (planned 30, in fact 7 were delivered) and Su-30 (planned 180, in fact -136). And you won't forget me :)
                        No problem. Just do not forget also that I indicated 31 Mig-113bm, but in fact there were about 150 units. And in general, instead of 571 units. with respect to modern sides, it turned out 539.
                        Do not forget that for all European aviation I took a technical readiness coefficient of 50-55%, although in the same Germany in 2017, out of 128 Eurofighters, as many as 39 were combat ready, and by 2020, according to der Spiegel, about 10 :)))
                        Quote: Negro
                        But now the penguin is essentially "the world's fighter for the rich

                        Blessed is he who believes.
                        Quote: Negro
                        And you keep talking about the sometimes flying scam, unsuitable for a cannon fight.

                        Because the plane frankly did not work out, as they have long been talking about in the United States itself. The Air Force is trying to slow down the program ... apparently, Boeing bought them all there, yes. And it’s okay if they just said - the fleet in 2019 continues to order superhornets ...
                      8. -1
                        20 December 2022 13: 45
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        butthurt five years long

                        If five! I do not use drugs, so your world, where there is no F-35, but there is a MiG-35, turned out to be too bright for me. It is unlikely that he will ever be forgotten.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Just do not forget also that I indicated 31 Mig-113bm, but in fact there were about 150 units. And in general, instead of 571 units. with respect to modern sides, it turned out 539.

                        Yes, at least 1000. MiG-31 flying museum exhibit.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        although in the same Germany in 2017

                        As we have now found out, the future member of the board of directors of Gazprom (as she then thought of herself) carried out the complete demilitarization of Germany. The enemy of the Aerospace Forces are the Air Forces of Poland and Finland. That is, they could have appeared if we had not found out that the aircraft of the Aerospace Forces would not reach the middle of the Dnieper.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Blessed is he who believes.

                        The volume of production of penguins and the list of customer countries is, as it were, not a matter of faith at all.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Because the plane frankly did not work out, which has long been talked about in the United States itself

                        Naturally they say. There are 330 million people in the US, someone is saying something at any moment on any issue.
                      9. 0
                        20 December 2022 22: 26
                        Quote: Negro
                        If five! I do not use drugs, so your world, where there is no F-35, but there is a MiG-35, turned out to be too bright for me.

                        And at your leisure, count how many F-35s were in Europe in 2020 and how many of them were combat-ready :))))
                        Quote: Negro
                        Yes, at least 1000. MiG-31 flying museum exhibit.

                        In your narcotic fantasies - certainly. In reality, this is a very dangerous aircraft, by the way - the only official loss of American pilots in air battles in a "storm in a glass" is the Hornet, which was shot down by the MiG-25. And the Americans confirm the battle of two MiG-25s against 4 F-15s in which the Americans did not succeed by firing their missiles. There are other examples as well.
                      10. 0
                        21 December 2022 08: 04
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        how many F-35s were in Europe in 2020

                        As I said, 5 years ago, the refusal to consider fives could be taken as a theatrical convention. But your rearguard battles are still not over with time.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        the loss of American pilots in air battles in a "storm in a glass" is the Hornet, which was shot down by the MiG-25

                        )))
                        Do you think grandpa will be lucky for the second time in 50 years?

                        That's quite possible. Rotozei are found in any air force. Not so long ago, we saw the F-16 AOI lost due to stupidity on the air defense system of the same time. American pilots are likely even more relaxed.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        a battle of two MiG-25s against 4 F-15s in which the Americans did not succeed by firing their missiles

                        Yes Yes. Even in those days I saw your concept of air combat, in which long-range missiles are still useless. Well, let's wait and see.
                      11. 0
                        21 December 2022 15: 30
                        Quote: Negro
                        As I said, 5 years ago, the refusal to consider fives could be taken as a theatrical convention

                        It was not a theatrical convention, but a boring reality - in 2020, there were practically no combat-ready f-35s in the air forces of European countries.
                        Quote: Negro
                        Do you think grandpa will be lucky for the second time in 50 years?

                        Not the second, and not even the third.
                        The bottom line is that the Iraqi MiG-25s, with Iraqi pilots (it is difficult to assess the degree of gouging of the former and the "professionalism" of the latter), with the absolute dominance of the MNF aviation, with the total information superiority of the Americans, nevertheless managed to create known difficulties for the latter - not so much old Hornets and Needles. And the Mig-31 is never a MiG-25, and the Mig-31BM is never a Mig31
                      12. -1
                        21 December 2022 17: 23
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The air forces of European countries had practically no combat-ready f-35s

                        As far as I remember, you found everything you could in the VKS, including carrier-based aircraft.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The bottom line is that Iraqi MiG-25s, with Iraqi pilots

                        The bottom line is that even 50 years of technological superiority does not make enemy weapons completely safe. The best illustration of this thesis was the later case of an F-117 shot down by an S-125.

                        What did you say, "the only confirmed loss"? It seems that if you take losses for all reasons, you get 1:5? Well, a special military operation is a risky business.
                        And the Mig-31 is never a MiG-25, and the Mig-31BM is never a Mig31

                        The same long-range task that the Americans are solving. Only solved so to speak with a sledgehammer.
                      13. +1
                        22 December 2022 00: 30
                        Quote: Negro
                        As far as I remember, you found everything you could in the VKS, including carrier-based aircraft.

                        So I counted everything among the Europeans, including carrier-based aircraft. What is the problem?
                        Quote: Negro
                        What did you say, "the only confirmed loss"? It seems that if you take losses for all reasons, you get 1:5?

                        Yes more. But the question is that most of the losses of Iraqi aviation looked like this - the Iraqis are trying to fly to Iran, they are detected by the AWACS of the Americans, directing their own fighters, they go to the distance of the BVB at full speed with radars (and the Iraqis do not see due to the lack / malfunction of the SPO) and they bring down them with missiles from a distance of 15-20 kilometers, but usually they strive for line of sight, so as not to make a mistake ... And for the Iraqis, a missile attack is a bolt from the blue, which they usually found out about after their plane was shot down .
                        But when the Iraqis tried to actively counteract, it happened in every way ... for example, when the MiG-25 attacked a group of American attack aircraft operating under the cover of an EW and F-15 aircraft, and ... although its attack was not successful, it forced the aircraft EW deviate from the course, from which one aircraft of the strike group, having lost cover, was shot down by an air defense system.
                        Quote: Negro
                        The same long-range task that the Americans are solving.

                        The only question is that the Iraqi MiG-25s a priori did not have missiles, not only long-range, but even medium combat. They fought air-to-air air-to-air close combat.
                      14. -1
                        22 December 2022 08: 11
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So I counted everything among the Europeans, including carrier-based aircraft

                        Except for the penguins.

                        Okay, we've been discussing this folklore for too long.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But when the Iraqis tried to actively counteract, it happened for everyone

                        Yes. Do not underestimate the enemy, especially those with combat experience. We have seen many examples of this, closer than Iraq 91. Naturally, no one can guarantee a dry score even for the US Air Force in advance.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The only question is that the Iraqi MiG-25

                        I'm not talking about Iraqi MiG-25s. I'm talking about the idea of ​​​​putting a more powerful searchlight on a huge, high-altitude and high-speed MiG-31. MiG-31BM.
              2. 0
                19 December 2022 20: 49
                The single-engine design of the F-35 allowed engineers to play with the concept of internal weapons bays in a very beautiful and efficient way. It turned out to be very convenient to place rockets on the sides of a hefty engine.
                1. 0
                  19 December 2022 21: 18
                  Quote: Torvlobnor IV
                  The single-engine design of the F-35 allowed engineers to play with the concept of internal weapons bays in a very beautiful and efficient way.

                  When there are no clear advantages, you have to compose them on the go ...
                2. -2
                  19 December 2022 22: 01
                  Well, I would say Lockheed engineers managed to make a better version of the layout of the compartments than the X-32 / Su-75. In general, the F-35 turned out to be extremely harmonious fighters, they managed to find the best compromises.
  3. 0
    19 December 2022 09: 53
    And against whom will they do it, us? They threw something in Germany, it turns out the wrong axis.
  4. 0
    19 December 2022 10: 15
    Let me guess ... Britain will then leave the joint project? Well, as they usually do with joint projects. In general, it is difficult to say something intelligible on the topic. Theme is about the future. Personally, I bet on the hegemon and his lobby. The Americans will do it faster and throw sticks into the wheels of all allies. It is very stupid to think that in the current and future bacchanalia, the Americans from the arms market will allow themselves to be lowered. Well, you understand what I mean. And so about the project itself, it can be said more simply ... Do not expect a miracle.
  5. ASM
    +1
    19 December 2022 20: 17
    Nothing useful will come of it. It's "like a swan-cancer-pike." Stupidly drank dough. When there is a single and authorized design center, then you can order, for example, an electrician in Japan, a glider in Italy, engines in Britain. It doesn't even smell like that here. Everyone will drag the blanket over themselves, especially those who are shaved.
  6. +1
    19 December 2022 20: 50
    And this will end up with the conditional "Lockheed Martin" entering the program, "on a parity basis", and after N years and a lot of fucking €, a decision will be made to purchase the F-35 Block148 (with a standard package of imperfections and glitches) and everyone will be happy ! Some from the R&D bubble, others from the forcible expansion of the "services" market wassat
    IMHO hi
  7. +1
    6 February 2023 02: 06
    And Russia has a zoo with Su-30, Su-35, Su-34, Su-57 and all turned out to be useless to Ukraine, soon we will lag behind not only the USA
    1. 0
      15 February 2023 08: 58
      The problem is not in the planes themselves, but in the lack of adequate weapons. Simple plowing of areas with expensive aircraft turned out to be not only ineffective, but also highly risky.
  8. 0
    15 February 2023 08: 52
    So far, we have only decided: "We will think together." Well, think. Then tell.