Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 451

Thread: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,380
    Ryan,

    there is literally no evidence that the UK is more likely to build a fighter with Japan than Turkey or any other country.

    The only certainty in the UK at the moment is that everything is up in the air, and if there is a change of government, the likelihood of any defence projects being funded or supported drops to non-existent.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Call it a hunch. Note existing co-operation with Japan on a new version of Meteor.

    And things being up in the air? You talking about Turkey or the UK there? We have a stable democratic process here regardless of who gets in, or how close the result is.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,843
    You cannot honestly say EJ200 is better than M88.3 when neither one implemented all the cutting edge techniques. The EJ200 is the better back end and materials technology. The M88.3 has the better front stages and goes a bit beyond the EJ200 with its extra bypass. Neither engine is a peer of F135 technology.
    Go Huskers!

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,961
    Sintra said:

    In Europe alone there are more than one thousand airframes that will need replacement in the thirties and fourties, its common sense to pool Europe's resources in order to develop and field that replacement.
    except that "pooling resources" is the best way to waste money, while pooling is supposed to be about sparing some..

    you can't have competitive offers if you have no competition to force the companies to do it... and what's more, it would be good if the claims about "european" stuff stopped as there's no entity that could be considered as "europe" as such... there are countries qui coexist on european continent inside a web of agreements that every country tries to take advantage of.. as a result, you have fiascos like the Typhoon whose production is so explosed all over the continent for political reasons that it just is a waste of money and time (the development is hampered for years now by the fight between those who want to go forward and those who do not)

    You can have partnerships between a couple of countries who share similar doctrines and needs, but that would have Germans partner with Swedes and, eventually Switzerland, not France or UK

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    You are entirely correct. Lockheed and Boeing will be delighted if Europe doesnt get its act together.
    There's absolutely no reason why Europe cant emulate what it did in the missile, the comercial aircraft area, the helicopter and the space business. The market is there, the resources are there (for crying out loud, even in this "almost nill defense budget" times, Western Europe spends three times more than Russia!), the industry is there. Do an "MBDA" out of Dassault and Airbus, get some realistic KKP's, throw in 35 billion euros in R&D, wait till 2035 and serve the dam thing with white wine.
    What it cant happen is having three european xerox airframes that do the same bloody thing.
    EU does not have three times money of Russia to spend on defence. Infact both EF and Rafale lines will closed down without exports. How is that Gripen doing and that so called small awacs.
    Airbus can't afford anything better than A320. Even that need alot imports.
    Russia at this point does not need exports to India and China to procure several thousands of its own fighters. for EU export is main thing and consider lack of military power it is coming at cost that out weigh benefit .

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    219
    Why would Europe need 1000 fighter planes in addition to one they will have on hand. The reason they keep bring up European army is cut spending even more. 500 is more realistic number and drop to F22 numbers of 150-200 is very possible. 2040 is along way away and trying to predict stable defense numbers is basing projections upon fairy tales. Doing that is sure way to see the cost death spiral to rear its head.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,165
    JSR are you kidding? Russia is an economical dwarf when compared to EU.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    You cannot honestly say EJ200 is better than M88.3 when neither one implemented all the cutting edge techniques. The EJ200 is the better back end and materials technology. The M88.3 has the better front stages and goes a bit beyond the EJ200 with its extra bypass. Neither engine is a peer of F135 technology.
    Snecma M88-3 is only around as a prototype just as EJ230/XG-40-2. At the time the choice was EJ200 or 17,000lbf M88-2 and even the M88-3 doesn't beat any of the core parameters set by the EJ200, thrust to weight no better, SFC no lower. And yes, I can say the EJ200 was definitely better, and that's what the other 3 EF partners also said. And you can't seriously compare an engine that was flying 20+ years ago with the F135. The EJ200 was first ran in 1991. The JSF competition didn't even start until 1996 and the X-35 wasn't selected until 2001. You're talking about a time gap of 15 years.
    Last edited by Ryan; 17th June 2017 at 08:49.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    136
    I think France will join the effort, sooner rather than later. They got a new Pro-Europe president and they will have to get going with a new generation platform.

    Sure Rafale is an excellent platform with more to give, but reality is still there. The aim is to have the new platform ready by 2035 and by then Dassault's assembly lines should be pretty empty, at least at the french plant.

    Partnering with Germany and Spain would also almost surly give the french the lead for the engines and the radar.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Republic of Ireland, EU
    Posts
    261
    Russia's economy is smaller then Italy's...

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    Airbus should invite the UK and Turkey into this program as they would get large orders from these 2 countries alone.

    TuAF Present Inventory

    240 x F-16 CCIP and Advanced Block 50+
    49 x F-4/2020
    32 x NF-5/2000

    N.B. The TuAF have retired in excess of 80 F-4E

    The TuAF has plans for:

    116 x F-35 (to be introduced early 2018 onwards)
    250 x TF-X (to be introduced from 2023 onwards)

    Total: 366 Combat Aircraft

    Future Turkish Requirements

    Turkey currently has on order 1 LHD which will require 16 F-35 VTOL and another LHD planned which will require another 16 F-35's.
    Turkey will also have fully operational bases in Qatar, Somalia, Dijibouti and Cyprus which will require combat aircraft to be stationed there.

    Thus, Turkey will require approximately between 100 to 150 more combat aircraft to maintain their quantitative and qualitative advantage in the region 2040 onwards. Both the F-35 and TF-X would be about 20 years old then.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    250 x TF-X (to be introduced from 2023 onwards)
    Good luck to the TF-X team in achieving that.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,165
    Snecma M88-3 is only around as a prototype just as EJ230/XG-40-2. At the time the choice was EJ200 or 17,000lbf M88-2 and even the M88-3 doesn't beat any of the core parameters set by the EJ200, thrust to weight no better, SFC no lower. And yes, I can say the EJ200 was definitely better, and that's what the other 3 EF partners also said. And you can't seriously compare an engine that was flying 20+ years ago with the F135. The EJ200 was first ran in 1991. The JSF competition didn't even start until 1996 and the X-35 wasn't selected until 2001. You're talking about a time gap of 15 years.
    Guess what? the FCAS -DP (the drone) engine is a M88 derivative made by RR/snecma joint venture. if you check characteristics, SFC, TW etc. are very similar between EJ200 and M88. Rest is operationnaly relevant (eg time from 0 to 100% thrust, air density response), but generally not advertized.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,961
    because there's no "europe"

    every country wants to keep its sovereignity, which means that they certainly won't accept that for the whole continent (except russian part) they have even less fighters than France has today by itself... not to speak that, once again, the doctrines are very different, between the franch who not unlike the USA don't hesitate much to go to the other side of the world to intervene and germans who, basically, stay at home??? not to speak about small countries who never even had anything ressembling a colony or any sort of force projection tradition

    you just can't treat the europe as one entity.. the USA are one country, Europe is a continent with over 30 separate and independent countries on it

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    bring_it_on
    250 x TF-X (to be introduced from 2023 onwards)
    Good luck to the TF-X team in achieving that.
    Thats the official number according to many sources: https://www.aerosociety.com/news/tur...ary-aerospace/

    Turkish Aerospace Industries produced 300 F-16's back in the 1980s under licence from Lockheed Martin.

    The company has a lot of experience with large volume production.

    In any event going by the average combat aircraft in the TuAF fleet (averages 400 combat aircraft)- Turkey will need to either produce 250 TF-X or procure another 250 combat aircraft from elsewhere.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    219
    True but the politicians in Europe pushing things think different. They will sacrifice local industry on the alter of Europe. Then they will use a European army as a excuse to under invest in defense. Europe as whole doesn't need 1000 fighters in addition to those still on hand to defend it self. That is the reason why European countries are willing to let there defense spending fall bellow the 2% that they all agreed to.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    878
    It is great to see some nations will avoid falling into the F 35 black hole.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    878
    @mupp

    Russia's economy is not smaller than Italy's. That is just pure agitprop. When measuring with purchasing power parity, (includes production consumed internally) Russia has the 6th biggest economy in the world.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,393
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    JSR are you kidding? Russia is an economical dwarf when compared to EU.
    EU is always in short supply of money . Look at Galileo satellite cheap rides on Soyuz or Italy asking for helping in Libya or big gas development in Egypt. It's always the Russian firms that EU asking for money. I am sure with meltdown in Middleast the funding gap between EU and Russia will widen.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    KGB
    It is great to see some nations will avoid falling into the F 35 black hole.
    Many countries invested in the F-35 not solely for defence purposes but also political purposes. Turkey for instance is stuck with the JSF program because if it withdraws now many will interpret this as a solidification of its move East. However, the TuAF are not entirely convinced that the F-35 will address all its operational needs and is thus looking for other complimentary fighter platforms. I think Europe is now also coming to realise this and is looking at alternatives.

    Furthermore, the air threats are also now changing rapidly and aircraft manufacturers need to address these.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    219
    Yes air the threats is changing mostly that caused by hundreds and in few years over thousand JSF taking to the sky.
    Last edited by Siddar; 18th June 2017 at 04:20.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Republic of Ireland, EU
    Posts
    261
    You always know when someone has no clue about it when they invoke PPP...I'll stop here before the mods get twitchy.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,491
    Russia's economy is smaller then Italy's...
    You always know when someone has no clue about it when they invoke PPP...I'll stop here before the mods get twitchy.
    The pot calling keetle black there.

    How it come than Russia has still the second largest air force of the world and its overall military forces are largely superior to the ones of the (others) five greater European nations ?
    And that it is actually in the middle of the whole renovation of its own arsenal?

    GDP is a faulty way to measure things, it measure purely the monetary aspect of the economy not the structure of their expenses and relative efficency and the quality of inputs.
    A world leading stock exchange in the middle of an industrial and social wasteland can so appear great according to such measurements when compared to some industrial powerhouses but it doesn't automatically translate into a greater military potential.

    PPP it's just a way to correct this perception but it is not sufficient IMHO as it still remain purely a monetary thing and doesn't measure how this money really is allocated.
    Looking also to budget in comparative terms is wrong, in many countries like Russia and China a great part of the military expense fall into other ministry than to the defense one.
    My own country is going in the same direction: our own military budget will reach 0% quota of armament purchases in the next future as all the future hardware would be acquired by the Industry and Development Ministry instead while their development would be financed by the ministry of University and Research.
    They would so be considered as Investments and not as Public Expenses so reducing our current deficit (but it turned out also as a more efficient way to allocate money).
    Obviously you can do it only with domestically produced things not with imported ones hence why we insisted so much to have our own F-35 assembly line.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 18th June 2017 at 10:07.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Guess what? the FCAS -DP (the drone) engine is a M88 derivative made by RR/snecma joint venture. if you check characteristics, SFC, TW etc. are very similar between EJ200 and M88. Rest is operationnaly relevant (eg time from 0 to 100% thrust, air density response), but generally not advertized.
    Between M88-3 and EJ200 they are similar, but M88-2, as relevant to EF engine selection was a long way inferior.

    The M88-3 is so different to the M88-2 that it's basically a completely different engine. Heavier, larger, completely different pressure ratio etc. and the FCAS engine will be completely different too.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    True but the politicians in Europe pushing things think different. They will sacrifice local industry on the alter of Europe.
    Don't be so sure about that. There are a lot of problems ahead. Argument with Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic over refugee allocations, new funding split to be agreed after Brexit. Asking nations to sacrifice local industry on top of that will be a big issue.

    How it come than Russia has still the second largest air force of the world and overall military forces superior to the ones of the (others) five greater European nations efficency
    Lot of really old planes and spends 8% of GDP on defence.
    Last edited by Ryan; 18th June 2017 at 10:07.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,165
    Between M88-3 and EJ200 they are similar, but M88-2, as relevant to EF engine selection was a long way inferior.
    explain? tW ratio, lifetime, SFC are very simiilar.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    TW ratio is lower, SFC is higher, pressure ratio and BPR lower. All other EF partners agreed that EJ200 was superior. And this is exactly the kind of argument that explains why Euro collaborations fail. If the M88-2 was as good as the EJ200, the M88-3 wouldn't exist.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,380
    You have to assume that the M88 gives the FCAS team a better basis for an LO propulsion system (given that it did have features designed to reduce its IR). The Americans will always want to believe their kit is best, the French likewise. In the regard of jet engine design, RR has it's fingers in many pies around the world, so perhaps has the broadest experience in Europe, but the EJ200 is not a British design, it is a product of cold war Europe.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    From what I heard it was more to do with shared IP on the EJ200. IR reduction features are mostly over-rated, the reductions are marginal at best.

    EJ200 is mostly a British design based on the Rolls-Royce XG-40 technology demonstrator split for the purposes of work share.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurojet_EJ200

    Rolls-Royce began development of the XG-40 technology demonstrator engine in 1984.[1] Development costs were met by the British government (85%) and Rolls-Royce.[2]
    On 2 August 1985, Italy, West Germany and the UK agreed to go ahead with the Eurofighter. The announcement of this agreement confirmed that France had chosen not to proceed as a member of the project.[3] One issue was French insistence that the aircraft be powered by the SNECMA M88, in development at the same time as the XG-40.[4]

    The Eurojet consortium was formed in 1986 to co-ordinate and manage the project largely based on XG-40 technology. In common with the XG-40, the EJ200 has a three-stage fan with a high pressure ratio, five-stage low-aspect-ratio high-pressure (HP) compressor, a combustor using advanced cooling and thermal protection, and single-stage HP and LP turbines with powder metallurgy discs and single crystal blades. A reheat system (afterburner) provides thrust augmentation. The variable area final nozzle is a convergent-divergent design.
    Last edited by Ryan; 18th June 2017 at 13:46.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    Lot of really old planes and spends 8% of GDP on defence.
    Old planes?.Ruaf managed to drop over 100k bombs on Syria with out mechanical defect. I am excluding all the hundreds of thousands of sorties of attack, transport choppers and UAV survellence. It need tremendous training and maintainance . and I don't think they spend more than 3% of the real GDP . It wont take more than few months for Europe to realize that it's GDP and military power is approaching practically zero. If Chinese do same treatment to VW what they doing to Hyundai motors. VW will cease to exist and with that every thing else of banks and credit suppliers.
    This simplest of example. The point is never allocate scientific resources and labor that create more dependencies.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES