The drive by a Trump presidency envoy for US presence in a Euro-Japanese warrior jet program has sparked fresh conflict, suspicion, and proper debate over transatlantic defense ties.
Paolo Zampolli, a close friend of US President Donald Trump and Italian special envoy, suggested US participation in the Euro-Japanese Global Combat Air Program ( GCAP ), according to Defense News this month.
In order to strengthen US-Italy protection relationships, Zampolli, who Trump just appointed, met with European leaders, including Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini.
Zampolli argued in discussions with the Italian media and Defense News for a unified maritime fighter plane program, claiming it would save the UK, Italy, and Japan from cutting costs and improving collaboration.
Zampolli even emphasized the potential of its strengthening of trade and economic ties. Zampolli was speaking in his private capacity or according to Trump’s wishes, it was unclear at the time.
European politicians were taken aback by Zampolli’s mission, which highlights the draft proposal’s infancy: US protection contractor Lockheed Martin reserved comments and directed inquiries to appropriate governments.
The abilities of GCAP might help to explain how US defence priorities correlate or diverge from this program. Trevor Taylor and Isabella Antinozzi mention that the GCAP retains significant human-machine integration, similar to the US Next-Generation Air Dominance ( NGAD ) program, in a May 2024 article for the Royal United Services Institute ( RUSI).
However, the NGAD program’s validity is questioned by rising expenses, shifting strategic priorities, and the development of satellite war.
The US Air Force has put a pause to the NGAD program, reevaluating whether the US can maintain air superiority by using a combination of the F-35, F-15EX, and F-22 along Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA ).
Price fears are of the essence with each NGAD warrior estimated to cost Us 250 million per unit. Some authorities advocate a less expensive, software-driven light warrior as an alternative.
In addition to incorporating manned-unmanned partnering, the US Navy is expanding its F/A-XX plan to replace the F/A-18 Super Hornet. Budget restrictions, however, could put an end to this endeavor, with officials from the US Department of Defense ( DOD ) warning that prioritizing submarine production might make the F/A-XX “unexecutable.”
The US Air Force’s overall airpower preparation is declining, with the organization reporting its lowest mission-capable levels in years.
Both the GCAP and NGAD are portrayed as” sixth-generation” fighters. Although there is disagreement over the definition of a sixth-generation warrior, the form may have manned-unmanned teaming capability, as well as the use of cutting-edge technologies like AI, data fusion, and advanced communication equipment.
The US and its associates may benefit from the most recent technological advancements in the US NGAD plan, which will speed up the development of sixth-generation soldiers.
For instance, Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion ( NGAP ) engines, which were approved by the US Air Force’s Detailed Design Review in February 2025, were reportedly approved by Air & Space Forces Magazine.
According to Air & Space Forces Magazine, the XA102 and Pratt & Whitney’s XA103 engines use model-based systems engineering and modern design tools to streamline development.
The document mentions that GE continues to refine its electric motor design while Pratt &, Whitney begins technology purchasing for XA103 ground testing in the late 2020s.
According to the report, despite the US Air Force’s analysis of NGAD’s practicality, engines offer improved energy efficiency, strength management, and survivability over current models. It goes on to say that its future will also be impacted by budget problems and geopolitical re-evaluations.
GCAP’s supporters in the US may assist in China and Russia’s participants in getting ready for the next-generation of heat energy.
China’s entry of the J-36 and J-50 soldiers represents a significant improvement in its martial aviation skills. The Chengdu Aircraft Corporation’s J-36 plane features a large, delta-wing design with three engines, which places a premium on secrecy and high-speed performance.
Shenyang Aircraft Corporation’s J-50 has a twin-engine construction and stealth technologies, including mammal designs to minimize radar signatures. These soldiers, which are marketed as sixth-generation fighters, show how determined China is to issue US dominance and to win airspace.
In regards to Russia, Lionel Becher mentions in an April 2024 article for the US Foreign Military Studies Office ( FMSO ) that Russia is actively working toward the creation of a sixth-generation combat aircraft with an aim to have a prototype by 2050.
According to Becher, the program, which is led by Russia’s State Research Institute of Aviation Systems, involves extensive research and engagement with military experts to foresee potential conflict needs.
He claims that the organized plane incorporates advanced digital capabilities, including improved command, control, and communication capabilities, such as AI and data fusion. He states that Russia is determined to improve its surroundings combat skills despite historic difficulties caused by difficulties and cost overruns in military aircraft.
However, introducing the US into the GCAP plan might destroy the latter’s underlying principle of strategic autonomy regarding protection capabilities for its stakeholders.
Joe Coles mentions that the UK’s devotion to the system comes from a desire to maintain its independence over its security features in a January 2024 content for the Royal Aeronautical Society.
Coles points out that the UK’s procedures, modifications, and trade autonomy are restrained by relying only on international platforms like the US F-35.
He claims that global partnerships with historical counterparts like the SEPECAT Jaguar and Eurofighter Typhoon have had difficulties due to project delays and challenging upgrades, but they also draw on the collective wisdom of the participating countries.
In a December 2023 article in the peer-reviewed Contemporary Italian Politics journal, Lorenzo Cladi and Andrea Locatelli discuss Italy’s position on GCAP and how it came to choose to join the Franco-German Future Combat Air System (FCAS ) over the Franco-German Fighter Fighter Program.
Cladi and Locatelli claim that Italy prioritized maintaining its relationship with the UK, a long-standing security lover, yet after Brexit despite its previous backing for EU protection efforts. They point out that given its close ties to BAE Systems, Italian security firms, especially Leonardo, saw more major technological and economical advantages in GCAP.
They add that GCAP was preferred by the Italian Air Force because of UK-wide administrative assistance.
Japan might have thought about finding other companions because of its troubled relationship with the US regarding the development of fighter jets. Gregg Rubenstein asserts in a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace ( CEIP ) article from May that while the US seeks to align on operational standards and security, Japan prioritizes the growth and autonomy of its domestic defense sector.
Rubenstein claims that without a clear strategic advantage, the US hesitates to discuss cutting-edge warrior technologies. He recalls tensions from the 1980s ‘ FSX system, when military interests were prioritized over trade issues. He even points out that US problems may be diminished by Japan’s participation in the GCAP.
Given those concerns, including the US in GCAP might alter intercontinental security cooperation or undermine the program’s corporate autonomy.