Japan’s Next-Gen Fighter Jet Ambitions: A Global Collaboration Seeking Buyers

By IndraStra Global Editorial Team

As geopolitical rivalries intensify and defense innovation accelerates, Japan is taking a leading role in a cutting-edge fighter jet initiative with the potential to transform military balance in the Indo-Pacific region and globally. The Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), a collaborative effort between Japan, the United Kingdom, and Italy, aims to produce a sixth-generation stealth fighter by 2035, replacing aging aircraft like Japan’s Mitsubishi F-2, the UK’s Eurofighter Typhoon, and Italy’s Eurofighter fleet. With an estimated cost exceeding $40 billion, the program is a high-stakes gamble, and recent reports indicate that Japan is eyeing Australia and India as potential export markets to offset the immense financial burden. This move, however, is fraught with strategic, technical, and diplomatic complexities, as the three nations navigate a delicate balance of collaboration, competition, and caution.
The GCAP, formally launched in December 2022, is an ambitious endeavor to create a cutting-edge combat aircraft equipped with advanced stealth, artificial intelligence, and networked warfare capabilities. Unlike previous multinational fighter jet programs, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, which faced delays and cost overruns, the GCAP seeks to streamline development through a joint venture involving leading defense contractors: Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the UK’s BAE Systems, and Italy’s Leonardo. The program’s governing body, the GCAP International Government Organisation (GIGO), oversees coordination, while a joint company formed by the three industrial partners manages the project’s technical and logistical demands. The aircraft, expected to enter service by 2035 and remain operational until 2070, is designed to counter emerging threats, particularly from advanced Chinese and Russian fighters like China’s J-36. Yet, the sheer scale of the investment has prompted Japan, the UK, and Italy to look beyond their own air forces for buyers, with Australia and India emerging as prime candidates.
Japan’s interest in exporting the GCAP fighter to Australia aligns with its strategic goal of deepening security ties in the Indo-Pacific. Australia, a key member of the Quad alongside Japan, India, and the United States, is a natural partner given its ongoing defense modernization efforts. The Royal Australian Air Force currently operates F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, but the prospect of a next-generation platform could complement its long-term strategic needs, particularly in countering China’s growing military presence in the region. Japan sees the export of common equipment as a way to strengthen interoperability between allied forces, fostering a shared defense architecture. However, Australia’s participation is not guaranteed. The country’s defense budget is already stretched by commitments to nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact and other high-cost programs. Moreover, the GCAP fighter’s advanced technology, while appealing, may come with a price tag that strains Australia’s fiscal priorities.
India, on the other hand, presents both an opportunity and a challenge. Japan has reportedly invited India to join the GCAP, either as a development partner or a buyer, to reduce costs and bolster Indo-Pacific security alliances. The two nations have deepened defense ties in recent years, with joint exercises like the Dharma Guardian army drill and the Malabar naval exercise, which also includes the US and Australia. In 2024, Japan and India conducted their first joint fighter jet exercise, involving Indian Su-30MKI jets and Japanese F-15s, signaling growing alignment in air combat capabilities. For India, the GCAP offers a chance to acquire a sixth-generation platform that could rival China’s advanced fighters, particularly in the context of ongoing border tensions. Yet, India’s participation is complicated by its own ambitions. The country is developing its Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a fifth-generation stealth fighter, and committing to the GCAP could divert resources from this indigenous program. Additionally, Japan’s caution about technology leakage, as reported by Japanese media, underscores concerns about sharing sensitive intellectual property with a partner whose defense industry has faced scrutiny over cybersecurity and reliability.
The financial imperative driving Japan’s export push cannot be overstated. The GCAP’s $40 billion price tag is a heavy burden for Japan, the UK, and Italy, none of which can afford to shoulder the costs alone. Export markets are critical to achieving economies of scale and making the program financially viable. Beyond Australia and India, other countries like Canada and Saudi Arabia have emerged as potential buyers, though each brings its own set of considerations. Canada, for instance, is reevaluating its reliance on US-made F-35s amid concerns over President Donald Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy, but its interest in the GCAP remains exploratory. Saudi Arabia, with its vast financial resources and desire for technological growth, is a more controversial prospect. Italy has expressed support for Saudi involvement, but Japan’s post-World War II policy of avoiding escalation in international conflicts could be tested if the fighter is used in Middle Eastern disputes, potentially undermining Tokyo’s reputation as a peaceful nation.
The GCAP’s development is not without its internal challenges. Tensions have surfaced among the three partners, particularly over technology sharing. In April 2025, Italy’s Defense Minister Guido Crosetto accused the UK of withholding critical technologies, urging London to dismantle “barriers of selfishness.” While Crosetto did not specify the technologies in question, his comments highlight the difficulties of aligning national interests in a multinational project. Japan, for its part, has made significant strides in breaking down technological barriers, but the UK’s reluctance to fully share its expertise could hinder progress. The UK’s Ministry of Defence has defended the GCAP as a model of collaborative strength, but the spat underscores the fragility of trust among partners. Historical examples, like the Eurofighter Typhoon’s protracted development, serve as a cautionary tale of how multinational programs can falter under competing priorities and bureaucratic inertia.
Technological ambition is both the GCAP’s greatest strength and its Achilles’ heel. The sixth-generation fighter is expected to incorporate adaptive cycle engines, thrust vectoring, and uncrewed wingmen drones, pushing the boundaries of aerospace engineering. These features promise unmatched stealth and air-to-air combat capabilities, but their complexity raises questions about feasibility and cost. The F-35 program, which ballooned to over $400 billion, looms large as a reminder of how cutting-edge technology can spiral out of control. Cybersecurity is another concern, particularly after a recent cyberattack on Japan’s national cybersecurity agency exposed vulnerabilities in safeguarding sensitive defense data. Ensuring robust security protocols will be critical to protecting the GCAP’s classified systems during development and deployment.
The broader geopolitical context adds another layer of complexity. The GCAP is unfolding against a backdrop of intensifying great power competition, with China and Russia advancing their own sixth-generation fighter programs. The US, too, is developing its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform, recently awarded to Boeing and dubbed the F-47. Some analysts speculate that the US could seek to join the GCAP, as suggested by a Trump administration envoy in March 2025, to unify transatlantic defense efforts and reduce costs. However, Japan’s decision to partner with the UK and Italy, rather than the US, reflects a desire to assert greater autonomy in defense development, shaped by past frustrations over technology-sharing disputes with Washington. This strategic divergence could complicate coordination with the US, a linchpin of both Japan’s and Australia’s security architectures.
As the GCAP moves forward, its success will hinge on balancing ambition with pragmatism. For Japan, exporting the fighter to Australia and India is not just a financial necessity but a strategic maneuver to cement its role as a defense powerhouse in the Indo-Pacific. Yet, the path is riddled with obstacles: Australia’s budget constraints, India’s competing priorities, and the inherent risks of multinational collaboration. The program’s ability to deliver a world-class fighter on time and within budget will determine whether it becomes a triumph of international cooperation or another cautionary tale in the annals of defense procurement. For now, Japan, the UK, and Italy are betting on a shared vision of technological supremacy, hoping that partners like Australia and India will join them in taking flight.

IndraStra Global is now available on
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and  WhatsApp Channel

COPYRIGHT: This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

REPUBLISH: Republish our articles online or in print for free if you follow these guidelines. https://www.indrastra.com/p/republish-us.html