The decision by the Air Force to reassess its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program is not expected to impact the trilateral Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) significantly, as analysts explain to Breaking Defense.
Recently, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin chose not to confirm a winner for the NGAD competition due to various cost factors and national priorities. He acknowledged the need to make choices across different areas given budgetary constraints and the emergence of a different approach to capability development from the service’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drone wingman initiative.
Traditionally, NATO nations tend to follow the U.S. in significant weapon development programs. If the U.S. were to decide against a sixth-gen manned fighter, it might influence European nations like the partners in the British-Italian-Japanese Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) and the Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System (SCAF) to reconsider their respective efforts.
Regarding GCAP, analysts note the distinct financial positioning of the programs, with NGAD being at a significantly different price point compared to GCAP. Estimates suggest a unit cost for NGAD between $200-300 million, a figure only sustainable by the U.S.
The financial contrast between NGAD and GCAP, particularly in terms of financial management, is highlighted as a key point of differentiation by experts. While the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has committed to funding GCAP, affordability uncertainties prompt questions around NGAD’s cost implications.
The UK Conservative government has allocated funds to GCAP up to 2025 and pledged investment in defense. However, with a potential change in government, the future of such allocations remains uncertain pending the upcoming general election. The differing program requirements suggest that GCAP will focus on delivering highly capable aircraft through a „system of systems” approach, while NGAD aims to develop a more advanced, costly platform.
The evaluation underscores the complexities of the organizations involved, with varied capabilities and priorities shaping their development paths. The progress of GCAP, guided by requirements and investment transparency, showcases a promising international collaboration. Potential reconfigurations can also influence export opportunities, with countries like Australia and Saudi Arabia expressing interest and potential for further partnership in the future.
