Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 416

Thread: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program

  1. #241
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    - from there on, is there anything resembling a single european policy?

    no
    While I do not subscribe to the notion that there needs to be on every issue, formulating a common stance on some topics unlocks very interesting opportunities - defence matters being one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    - are german and french needs common?

    no
    On what topic? Fighter aircraft? If Rafale & Typhoon are the results of diverging requirements, it's arguably excellent proof that the difference was small enough to be overcome by a reasonable compromise - they are hardly worlds apart. That it didn't happen even though the purely military needs were so close demonstrates a wholly political unwillingness to negotiate, NOT irreconcilable differences in actual operational requirements. You could even go so far as to say France anticipated the needs of its would-be partners better than they did themselves

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    even the USA don't say "we will make..." they say "we will acquire...", then, they put up a set of requirements and let the companies compete for the production.. and, normally, let the best proposition win.
    Trouble is, domestic markets in Europe ARE too small to support independent national industries (even the US aerospace primes went through a lot of consolidation). Which is where France went wrong with Rafale - they need to learn from that experience and be team players on the industrial level. Competition is good, and it still happens - on the export markets. Which is where the Eurofighter partners went wrong - they need to learn from that experience and accept that France has an altogether more coherent and holistic conception of fighter requirements and managing development.

    If both sides heed the lessons, there's no reason why it can't work - the theoretical advantages of collaborative development remain as valid as ever, but the execution in practice needs to be *drastically* improved. How likely is that to happen? Colour me skeptical, but I don't think Europe can afford not to try.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,882
    I cant speak for the European project but with regards to the BAE and Rolls Royce involvement in TF-X, the condition of BAE & RR taking part is that Turkey owns all IP and is thus free to export the technology to whoever they want. So no, BAE and RR are not expanding into Turkey. In any event BAE and RR have partnered up with Turkey in many projects.
    For that bit of news, you just have to produce some Sources!?
    Thanks

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    the major problem is that it is enough to observe how things are going on to see that the lessons from the eurofighter aren't learned..

    There's a saying that one needs to know his history in order to avoid making the same mistakes all over again... still, repeatedly, our "leaders" come bragging about how "we" (europe) will do this or that, before coming back to the nation saying how "we" (nation) will benefit from it...

    That they said "our nations will set together a set of requirements that will fulfill our various needs and allow us to create conditions for a competition from european manufacturers to allow us to get the best aircraft for our needs" would be the way to start.. but you won't see it as:

    - everybody (politicians) wants his part of production line (give you the messy part of eurofighter)
    - nobody (politicians) wants to put a cent in development if its not perceived as necessary for him in the first place (gives you the messy part of eurofighter)
    - everybody (politicians) wants to come back before their electors as "super-european" as they claim to promote partnerships, development, and so on...

    when I say they don't have the same needs in mater of fighters:

    - german air force is essentially a defensive air force, made to defend the german soil exclusively.. german navy on the other hand doesn't even have any fighters

    - french air force is defensive in a sense that it has to "defend french interests", meaning, it has as a mission to go and make war wherever it suits french interests, be it economical, or political. Therefore, it is an air force that has to be able to be projected to wars far from France as well.. what's more, the french navy has the same missions, and to do it has, among different things, an aircraft carrier on which it needs fighters able to do the job as well


    now, if France says: "our requirement, a tactical striker able to take off in eastern france, the fly all the way down and bomb toyotas in Mali.. " and Germany say "naaah, all we need is that it goes 5-600nm and bomb and gets back"... what do you do with it? or; France: "we need it to be carrier capable" ... "naaaah, we don't need any carriers... for that, just go and buy american" or even funnier, if the brits join "nah, CATOBAR isn't needed, we have a STOBAR carrier..."

    you can go on for ages.. thing is, a fighter isn't just a big turbofan with one pointy end in front and a few things that go kaboom under the wings.. it's a tool for a job, and considering it costs loads of cash, you better partner with people that share your needs. Airbus? well, all partners wanted to make airliners.. good. The production may have been more efficient than spreading parts of a single aircraft all over europe, but hey, politicians, local production, and so on... as usual... When the french and the brits wanted to team up to make a supersonic airliner (Concorde), they had a common set of requirements before doing it... they did it. Transall, same thing, common requirements, it worked...

    It all comes to the same thing: define your requirements first, see if you can have them shared with another nation, then you can partner (and still, if you want to have any economies of scale, you have to make it a competition, choose the best offer and rationalize the production, instead of letting every nation pull for itself and make it another mess.. starting by "we will make a fighter together" while the initial requirements aren't even defined (except that germany wants something to replace the tornados (a striker, obviously) 15 years from now, and France something to replace the Rafale (able to do anything from ground or sea) some 30 years from now) is simply starting to build a house by making a roof first
    Last edited by TooCool_12f; 20th July 2017 at 20:40.

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,882
    Not that i disagree^^.
    But as i have tried to explain, history is not future.
    And while we are at it(history).; The mighty USofA, have they done everything right, considering they have pretty much done it all alone. At least the part with wanted Requirements..

    Aah.. the Doom nd Gloom..

    While there are many paths to go wrong.
    There is several right paths to choose from in order to do this(next gen EF) right.
    It can be done.
    Last edited by haavarla; 20th July 2017 at 21:38.
    Thanks

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    It is sad that you have to go back 50 years to find a program where a partnership with Germany was successful. C-160 began design in the late 1950s. Alpha jet began design in the late 1960s.
    After those France made another plane in partnership, with UK this time, the Jaguar and went excellently the same.
    Probably problems begin when the parttner are too many , so complicating the possibility of reach a compromise.
    Airbus and Eurocopter are excellent examples of a stable partnership between France and Germany, so let's gave them almost the possibility of a try also when it come to tac planes-.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 20th July 2017 at 21:49.

  6. #246
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    when I say they don't have the same needs in mater of fighters:

    - german air force is essentially a defensive air force, made to defend the german soil exclusively.
    That's why they continue to fly Tornados?

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    - french air force is defensive in a sense that it has to "defend french interests", meaning, it has as a mission to go and make war wherever it suits french interests, be it economical, or political. Therefore, it is an air force that has to be able to be projected to wars far from France as well.. what's more, the french navy has the same missions, and to do it has, among different things, an aircraft carrier on which it needs fighters able to do the job as well
    I accept that there are minor differences in operational philosophy, but again - nothing that would excuse the kind of rift that developed when the Rafale/Typhoon split happened. That wasn't different requirements, that was willful political stubbornness on both sides - I'm pretty sure the military leadership would have been a lot more amenable to compromise.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    now, if France says: "our requirement, a tactical striker able to take off in eastern france, the fly all the way down and bomb toyotas in Mali.. " and Germany say "naaah, all we need is that it goes 5-600nm and bomb and gets back"... what do you do with it? or; France: "we need it to be carrier capable" ... "naaaah, we don't need any carriers... for that, just go and buy american" or even funnier, if the brits join "nah, CATOBAR isn't needed, we have a STOBAR carrier..."
    See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Some foresight and flexibility would perhaps have told Germany that a multirole and long-ranged fighter (which might one day make a suitable Tornado replacement - see the UK about that) could be a good thing - if only because it is more attractive on the export market. As for carrier compatibility, here too a bit of flexibility might have led to the realization that carrier compatibility does not necessarily taint a fighter - after all, the requirements of Switzerland, Malaysia and the USN would seem to be very different at a cursory glance...

    Hell, there was even a second partner (the UK) with a potential interest in carrier ops in play at the time - how they could manage to collectively squander that kind of rare convergence is completely baffling. Again, I can only conclude that it was lack of good will on all sides to find a solution, not factual lack of a viable path, that messed things up. It might even have offered a way for France to save its face on work share, they get all development and production on the naval version. Essentially, the land-based model is 100% that gets split up between the partners, and the carrier variant is a separate 15% that is wholly developed and manufactured, but also wholly funded, by France. With a 100% cake, the individual workshare packages can be only so big, but with a 115% cake France might get 40% (25% of 100% and 100% of 15% - specious math, but it might pacify the politicians). Whatever - so many possibilities, yet apparently so little motivation to forge a deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    When the french and the brits wanted to team up to make a supersonic airliner (Concorde), they had a common set of requirements before doing it... they did it. Transall, same thing, common requirements, it worked...
    I rather suspect you'd find requirements and conceptions about what became Concorde or Transall diverged far more dramatically to begin with than they did at the inception of Rafale/Typhoon. It was the willingness to find an agreement that made the difference - I guarantee that if Concorde or Transall had been approached with the same inflexible, petty mindset that seems to have prevailed with Rafale/Typhoon, neither of those earlier projects would have amounted to anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    It all comes to the same thing: define your requirements, see if you can have them shared with another nation, then you can partner
    Agree wholeheartedly, but I'd add that neither party should consider their own requirements to be set in stone... maybe the other guy is onto something with certain ideas? I've described a lot of instances where France had a more coherent vision above, but let's not forget that by insisting on a preposterous stake in the project they caused Rafale to miss out on a couple of cool gadgets that could have been contributed by other partners. I'm thinking about world class EJ200 engine technologies, an excellent HMD, one of the best IRSTs out there, a towed decoy...

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    germany wants something to replace the tornados (a striker, obviously) 15 years from now, and France something to replace the Rafale (able to do anything from ground or sea) some 30 years from now) is simply starting to build a house by making a roof first
    There are potential solutions to all of these issues - if only one is willing to see them. Germany could do what the UK does and upgrade Typhoon to take on the strike role (making it more like Rafale - see what I mean?), or buy F-35s in the interim (they've already requested a briefing on it). And France might come round to the idea that it's bad policy to rely on Rafale for quite so long in a world of T-50s, NGADs, J-20s and J-31s.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    and still, if you want to have any economies of scale, you have to make it a competition, choose the best offer and rationalize the production, instead of letting every nation pull for itself and make it another mess
    Actually, I think the secret is to strictly separate the authority over various aspects of the project. Let the military (and ONLY the military!) define the requirements, politicians (and ONLY politicians) decide the budget and industry (and ONLY industry) divide up the workshare. But in my view the crucial part really is the requirements - Airbus proves that you can decide "we will make an airliner together", spread manufacturing around according to political considerations and still succeed in a market place that is a lot more efficiency-driven than fighter aircraft. The critical issue? With Airbus the customers (i.e. the airlines) and the customers alone decide what the aircraft should do - not the politicians.
    Last edited by Trident; 20th July 2017 at 22:55.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    After those France made another plane in partnership, with UK this time, the Jaguar and went excellently the same.
    Probably problems begin when the parttner are too many , so complicating the possibility of reach a compromise.
    Airbus and Eurocopter are excellent examples of a stable partnership between France and Germany, so let's gave them almost the possibility of a try also when it come to tac planes-.
    Airbus and Eurocopter hardly example of stable partnership.there supply network spread well outside Fr-Ger and skill level is so low that slightly complex work outside core competencies will be decades delayed and billions over budget.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,763
    On the subject of Germany's regrettable upset of the Typhoon project, it does bear mentioning that reunification was an unprecedented and in many ways incalculable challenge.

    With hindsight and the German economy nowadays being what it is, it's tempting to ask what the fuss was all about, but the truth is that at the time there was no template to follow. It was a plainly massive undertaking that nobody quite knew how to tackle and what it would cost. That it would work out as well as it did (certain grave mistakes not withstanding) was anything but a matter of course.

    Want to see a South Korean bureaucrat go pale with panic and start to sweat? Ask him about reunification on the peninsula - and they now even have an example that they can take at least *some* pointers from.

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    You see, Trident, you pretty much expressed what I was saying from the beginning in one sentence:

    That wasn't different requirements, that was willful political stubbornness on both sides - I'm pretty sure the military leadership would have been a lot more amenable to compromise.
    While the requirements were somewhat different (basically, the french wanted the most stuff out of it, "do it all, ground and carrier capable" which, necessarily, was inclusive of all the requirements the other partners wanted... some wanted an interceptor, others more multirole aircraft, and others may have had a use for a carrier fighter as well...) but in the end, it would've covered the needs of pretty much everybody, except that it could, communications wise, mean that the french idea was considered as a good one (not necessarily acceptable for political reasons) and also that some, in this or that country, may point out the fact that "in our country we finance stuff we don't need".. again politics, just as you said.

    As for the requirements, it's not so much about being "set in stone", but rather fulfill what the real operational needs are. The idea should be: country A needs to adress points "a", "b" and "c", country B needs "b", "d" and "e".. the project then has to cover "a", "b", "c", "d" and "e" to satisfy each country's needs... the fact that each country gets additional capabilities it didn't ask for in the first place should be considered as "a bonus" they got from cooperation instead of, what it has been done with eurofighter until now, as "unnecessary cost for one nation who, then, prevents everybody else from getting it". and once more, we get to the same point: it is the politicians who make those decisions

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    For that bit of news, you just have to produce some Sources!?
    Check the Turkish Aerospace thread- the article on the Rolls-Royce/ Kale partnership and the statements made by Rolls-Royce- See below
    Last edited by Bayar; 21st July 2017 at 01:17.

  11. #251
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    If BAE and RR sold any tech that advance Turkey projects . It may face losses that it will not be able to survive. not even China sell advance technology to Turkey and Iran.
    This is what Rolls-Royce says:

    "Director of Rolls-Royce's Defense Group Mr. Chris Cholerton expressed that they were happy to seize the opportunity to collaborate with Kale Group within the scope of the Turkish Fighter Program to develop an indigenous engine, the Intellectual Property Rights of which will entirely be possessed by Turkey and which will not be subject to export restrictions"- See Page 1, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph of below article.

    The Turkish Air Engine Company will probably be the only company in the Middle East to be able to produce next-generation high bypass turbo-fan engines not just for combat aircraft but civilian use.

    Engine First Flight: 2023
    Full Certification and Serial Production: 2030

    Kale produces Turbo-Jet engines for Turkish missiles programs. RR produces large high-tech turbo-fan engines. Its a match in heaven for Turkish Aerospace.




    Last edited by Bayar; 21st July 2017 at 01:19.

  12. #252
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,403
    Bayar, did you read the article you posted and do you understand the meaning of the part about "double firewall". This is a JV between RR and Kale. Rolls will not transfer IP that is proprietary. What is developed from the JV will be Turkey's, exactly what data will be transferred isn't defined at this early stage.

    This is another example of jumping to conclusions. Please illustrate where in the document it specifically states that this JV will produce an engine technologically superior to the EJ200 and equivalent in power to the F119.
    Last edited by FBW; 21st July 2017 at 03:20.

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Bayar, did you read the article you posted and do you understand the meaning of the part about "double firewall". This is a JV between RR and Kale. Rolls will not transfer IP that is proprietary. What is developed from the JV will be Turkey's, exactly what data will be transferred isn't defined at this early stage.

    This is another example of jumping to conclusions. Please illustrate where in the document it specifically states that this JV will produce an engine technologically superior to the EJ200 and equivalent in power to the F119.
    With respect you have misinterpreted the article. The reference to a "double firewall" is with respect to Rolls-Rolls vs Eurojet EJ-200. Rolls-Royce is entering the TF-X engine tender with the Eurojet EJ-200 on the one hand and then on the other hand with a Joint-Venture between Kale/JJ on a new co-developed engine. So as to prevent collusion between the Rolls Royce EJ-200 team and the Rolls-Royce/Kale team he is saying there will be a double-firewall to prevent information exchange between the 2 Rolls-Royce teams. See Page 3, First Column Last Paragraph.

    You have misinterpreted this to mean that there is an information barrier between Rolls-Royce and Kale (Turkey).

    You would also note that the Rolls-Royce executive mentioned that RR has already obtained "export approval from the British Government" for the engine technology. See Page 3, end of Column 2 and 1st paragraph of column 3. It clearly states "technology transfer".
    Last edited by Bayar; 21st July 2017 at 03:40.

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,403
    Firewall-IP is not shared. For example, BAE does not share information between US based corporation and parent company. RR is helping Kale develop a turbofan, it will share experience and expertise without compromising sensitive and proprietary technology that is how these JV generally work. As far as specifications, as the article states: they are still in a very early stage. Nowhere does it state the goal is an F119 class engine, despite your above claim.

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Bayar View Post
    With respect you have misinterpreted the article. The reference to a "double firewall" is with respect to Rolls-Rolls vs Eurojet EJ-200. Rolls-Royce is entering the TF-X engine tender with the Eurojet EJ-200 on the one hand and then on the other hand with a Joint-Venture between Kale/JJ on a new co-developed engine. So as to prevent collusion between the Rolls Royce EJ-200 team and the Rolls-Royce/Kale team he is saying there will be a double-firewall to prevent information exchange between the 2 Rolls-Royce teams. See Page 3, First Column Last Paragraph.

    You have misinterpreted this to mean that there is an information barrier between Rolls-Royce and Kale (Turkey).

    You would also note that the Rolls-Royce executive mentioned that RR has already obtained "export approval from the British Government" for the engine technology. See Page 3, end of Column 2 and 1st paragraph of column 3. It clearly states "technology transfer".
    You have a blanket assumption that ToT means "all technology" That is not how these work. The firewall is to prevent RR, EJ, and Kale from exporting technology developed from the JV from running into restrictions. If you really believe that RR, and EJ are handing over IP to a competitor you aren't thinking clearly. They are competing to aid in the development of a separate turbofan, giving technical support and training. Even that requires government approval.

  16. #256
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    I think the following excerpts address your assertions.

    Rolls-Royce is involved in two of the offerings. The Eurojet and the co-developed engine through the Rolls-Royce - Kale Group joint venture. Clearly there's a competition so we have very clear firewalls inside Rolls-Royce, 2 very separate teams to make sure there's no transfer of information between the two, and that we fulfill all of the regulatory requirements for the competition.
    See Page 3, First Column Last Paragraph.

    it's 51% Kale 49% Rolls-Royce, so therefore a Turkish company based in Turkey. We will use that to create capability through the transfer of data from the UK from Rolls-Royce, Through the TF-X program which will be the first catalyst project, we will create about 350 Turkish engineers in Turkey, that to us is the unique feature of the offer as it is creating design capability in Turkey for Turkey. This design capability will then allow the engine to be manufactured in Turkey using the supply chains in Turkey and creating ecosystems around it. It will also enable the engine to be supported out of Turkey. That's clearly what we hear from SSM and from the government, it is the aspiration to have the indigenous capability, and it is fully supported by the UK government and that's really important. The government, the political connections, the bilateral relationship supports that cooperation because ultimately it allows that transfer of technology. The UK has stepped forward in a fairly unprecedented way on the engine as it has already granted us export licenses to allow us to do that, and that's before a contract. The UK is looking to demonstrate its commitment to Turkey and to ensure that Turkey understands it is here for the long-term with industrial cooperation and government to government cooperation.
    See Page 3, end of Column 2 and 1st paragraph of column 3. It clearly states "technology transfer".

    From the above it is clear that the British Government is giving Turkey a capability that the Chinese even do not have. An (at the least) EJ-200 level combat aircraft engine- design and production capability. It is also training 350 Turkish engineers on advanced turbo-fan engine technology.
    Last edited by Bayar; 21st July 2017 at 03:54.

  17. #257
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,403
    Read the carefully worded parts about training Turkish engineers, again it's a fantasy of you really believe ToT includes specific technology that is proprietary to RR or to the EJ200. But this has been par for the course for your assumptions. "ToT" is the most abused term on this forum. The devil is in the details.

  18. #258
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    You have a blanket assumption that ToT means "all technology" That is not how these work. The firewall is to prevent RR, EJ, and Kale from exporting technology developed from the JV from running into restrictions. If you really believe that RR, and EJ are handing over IP to a competitor you aren't thinking clearly. They are competing to aid in the development of a separate turbofan, giving technical support and training. Even that requires government approval.
    You are falling into the trap of assuming something on the basis that the alternative would be unprecedented and impossible.

    Well I have just shown you that this is not the case in this instance and that the British Government through Rolls-Royce is giving Turkey an indigenous engine development industry.

    I know the deal in and out so I am not misinterpreting anything. I am just drawing your attention to information which counters your argument from open sources.

    I don't see what you don't understand about the following statements:

    We will use that to create capability through the transfer of data from the UK from Rolls-Royce
    it is fully supported by the UK government and that's really important. The government, the political connections, the bilateral relationship supports that cooperation because ultimately it allows that transfer of technology. The UK has stepped forward in a fairly unprecedented way on the engine as it has already granted us export licenses to allow us to do that, and that's before a contract.
    Last edited by Bayar; 21st July 2017 at 04:01.

  19. #259
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,403
    Let's break down your ToT claims to date:
    1. Turkey has full ToT to produce GE-F110 or PW-F100 engines- I've stated before that ITAR precludes tech transfer of the specific parts of the -229 due to inclusion of technology from the F119 and F135. Ditto with the GE-129.
    2. You claimed that Turkey received ToT on manufacture of blisks and F135 engine tech, read ITAR again
    3. You claim that RR and EJ are handing over ToT on engine technology that: a. In the case of RR would require RR to basically hand proprietary technology to a competitor. And in the case of EJ, hand over technology with the complicit ok of the U.K. Government that is not entirely theirs to give.
    4. That Russia is transferring technology of the S400 system to a NATO member state.

    I don't know or much care who your source is for " inside information", because it is not credible on the face of established policies that require government approval. For example, please point out where the U.S. Congress wavied the new ITAR for ToT of hot and cold compressor technology regarding the latest U.S. turbofans. Or Russian release of IP regarding the S400.
    Not to mention the most obvious issue, if the U.S. handed over all the proprietary technology for manufacturing even the older versions of the F110, why is Turkey seeking a partner with RR, or EJ, for the TFX engine? Perhaps it's because your overstating what has actually been shared.
    Last edited by FBW; 21st July 2017 at 05:11.

  20. #260
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    I've proven all those claims but you choose to believe in what you believe. This is called cognitive-dissonance.

    The statements made vis-a-vis Rolls-Royce and Kale have been supported with irrefutable evidence (direct from the source- Rolls-Royce PLC).

    What you fail to understand and accept is how does a western country such as the United Kingdom transfer such technology to Turkey when the Chinese even do not possess it. Well the answer to this question was provided in the Turkish Aerospace thread: the Turkish Republic and the United Kingdom now have a Defense Relationship and Pact independent of NATO. The text of this agreement was also reproduced in that thread.

    I have also directed your attention to the following FACTS but you constantly choose to ignore them and substitute your assumptions (which is based solely on the premise that "no one would transfer such strategic technology":

    The Facts:

    (1) The British Government has given export approval to Rolls-Royce to transfer technology to a new Turkish Joint-Venture between Turkey's Kale group and Rolls-Royce PLC- named the "Turkish Aircraft Engine Company) that would enable it to develop, design and produce advanced turbo-fan engines;
    (2) Rolls-Royce has offered Turkey the following: (a) To licence produce the EJ-200 OR (b) To co-develop a new engine with Kale
    (3) The Turkish Aircraft Engines Company has significant Government support (from both the British Government and the Turkish Government)
    (4) Rolls-Royce PLC is training 350 Turkish engineers on turbo-fan technology;
    (5) Turkey will have supply chains for design, development and production of advanced Turbo-fan engines.

    I don't need to argue with you on this topic. Your answers are below.

    Last edited by Bayar; 21st July 2017 at 05:54.

  21. #261
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    This was the prelude to the joint-venture between Kale and Rolls-Royce PLC

    Rolls-Royce supports Turkey’s advancement in manufacturing technology
    Tuesday, 6 October 2015
    https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/pr...echnology.aspx

    Rolls-Royce announced that it will be the first industrial lead and founder member of Turkey’s Advanced Manufacturing Technology Centre (AMTC), a project led by Turkey’s Ministry of Science, Industry & Technology and with the endorsements of the Ministries of Defence, Transportation and Energy.

    The development plan for the AMTC was announced by the Government at a signing ceremony witnessed by the Turkish Minister of Science, Industry & Technology Fikri Isik, and UK Minister of Trade and Investment, Lord Maude of Horsham in Istanbul, with the participation of Vice President of The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) Prof. Mehmet Çelik and Director of Global Manufacturing for Rolls-Royce Dr. Hamid Mughal.

    The AMTC will be designed to satisfy Turkey’s ambition to develop advanced core industrial capabilities around its national indigenous programs. Based on a collaborative cross-industry research working culture, this Centre of Excellence will be a public-private partnership focusing on manufacturing capability development and technology application development in Aerospace and will include more areas such as civil nuclear, marine and other industrial sectors over time. The AMTC will be seeking both International and Turkish companies to join as members in its new state-of-the-art facility.

    Minister Fikri Isik said: “We are well positioned to grow our manufacturing industry in high value sectors, and we find it great to be able to use a proven working model and partner with experienced companies like Rolls-Royce. This Centre will bring great economic value as it will focus on key success factors of supplier capability development across our industry, including training and skills development, as well as technology innovation.”

    Dr Mughal said: “We will work closely with our Turkish Government and industrial partners in the establishment of the AMTC. The AMTC will be an integral part of our strategy to establish a global network of Advanced Manufacturing Research Centres. These centres operate a novel model of academic and industrial collaboration that is designed to accelerate the transfer of innovation from early university research to successful exploitation in industry. We have no doubt therefore that this environment of cross-sector knowhow and team spirit will enable Turkey’s AMTC to develop itself into a leading regional centre of excellence in manufacturing technology.”

    Patrick Regis, Rolls-Royce, Regional Executive – Turkey and Central Asia, remarked: “We are proud to be a founder member of the AMTC in Turkey. We have a well-established and mature advanced manufacturing model in the UK, Singapore and US, and have selected Turkey because of its high skill levels and manufacturing capabilities. Turkey is aiming to be within the top Aerospace and Defence nations by 2023, embarking on the development of a world-class manufacturing industry. We believe Rolls-Royce can be a partner to Turkey in this venture. This initiative will help shape the regional supply chain to meet the future needs of the aerospace industry in the region and we encourage other companies interested in being founder members to come forward.”

  22. #262
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    So figuratively speaking, RR has advanced fighter engine teams on each side of the Atlantic, Channel and Bosphorus. That is a hell of a lead compared to other European manufacturers. Regardless of IP concerns, it must be fair to say that the other manufacturers in this joint venture have some catching up to do?

  23. #263
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,431
    Bayar,

    you're missing something. A RR offer to Turkey to licence-build the EJ200 does not necessarily mean full transfer of technology. In fact, it can't, because RR doesn't own all the technology in the EJ200. Licence-building can mean anything from local assembly of kits with a few local parts up to full local manufacture. For EJ200, I would expect it to be somewhere in between, with some parts imported (& not all from RR) & some made in Turkey.

    Consider the RM12. It's a licence-built F404 - but a Swedish-only version. Half the parts are imported, & others designed, not just made, in Sweden. I think it has a higher local share than most licence-built products at that level. So why assume that a licence-built EJ200 would be all made in Turkey?

    A jointly-developed engine could be entirely made in Turkey, with design & development help from RR, because although RR doesn't own all of the EJ200 it is capable of designing & making a complete fighter engine. But it's quite likely that it would use some imported parts.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  24. #264
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    Had what you claimed been true- both Rolls-Royce PLC and Eurojet would be disqualified from the TF-X engine tender process.

    The terms of the tender are crystal clear- full ownership of IP, full production in Turkey, no third-party export restrictions.

    It was EuroJet Turbo GmbH, a multi-national consortium: Rolls Royce of the United Kingdom, Avio of Italy, ITP of Spain and MTU Aero Engines of Germany that offered Turkey the EJ200 not Rolls-Royce. But RR owns 33% of Eurojet and has alot of say.

    Germany just announced an arms embargo on Turkey afew hours ago hence Eurojet is now out of the question. See http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960430000733
    https://stockholmcf.org/report-germa...s-with-turkey/

    Most probably the race will be between the Rolls-Royce/Kale Group Engine and a Saturn AL-31 FN derivative.
    Last edited by Bayar; 21st July 2017 at 15:18.

  25. #265
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    Turkey has confiscated 966 companies with assets of $13 billion over alleged links to the Gülen movement so far.
    !!!
    Would the Turkish leadership soon outpace Mr Maduro when it comes to be cornered in an inextricable level of stupidity?
    BAE should not have much concerns turning around the German owned EJ200 IP... A 20 years old tech for a firm at the forefront of engine design worldwide...
    Once again, if the goal was ever to bar the Brits from doing some business with the Turks, the choice of strategy is probably ill-chosen with a final level of Turkish design that could be harder to match...

  26. #266
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    !!!
    Would the Turkish leadership soon outpace Mr Maduro when it comes to be cornered in an inextricable level of stupidity?
    BAE should not have much concerns turning around the German owned EJ200 IP... A 20 years old tech for a firm at the forefront of engine design worldwide...
    Once again, if the goal was ever to bar the Brits from doing some business with the Turks, the choice of strategy is probably ill-chosen with a final level of Turkish design that could be harder to match...
    The US Government & allies exterminate Islamist threats abroad. Why are they so concerned about Turkey seizing the assets of an Islamist cult that is running a shadow Government in Turkey? Or is this particular Islamist cult working for US or German foreign policy objectives: the creation of a "moderate" Islamist caliphate to counter current caliphate Movements?

    If the US/Europeans (Germans in particular) were so concerned about human rights why are they hosting the Egyptian Dictator who came to office through a coup? Why did France sell the Egyptian dictator two Mistral LHD's? Why is the US/ Europeans dancing with Saudi Arabia?

    The German's are just punching way above their weight with this one- they are about to compromise Europe's security by allowing Russia and China into their backyard. President Erdogan is more than willing to hand Turkey to the Russians in a bid to stick it to Europe.

    Germany is upset that it has lost Turkey as a market because the Brits and Russians offer more. They are now seeking to strong arm British firms such as MTU (the subsidiary of Rolls-Royce) to prevent exports to Turkey. They are seeking to punish the UK for Brexit and Turkey for hitting the PKK hard. It will only backfire.
    Last edited by Bayar; 22nd July 2017 at 05:36.

  27. #267
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    If the US/Europeans (Germans in particular) were so concerned about human rights why are they hosting the Egyptian Dictator who came to office through a coup?
    Egypt leader is alot more competent thats why everyone trying to get along with it. He bought Mistral ship (that release money to Russia), bought Rafale fighters so atleast get idea about something better than outdated F-16. now Egypt is going to building its military with Russian weopons that will give it much better bargaining power with Israel and rest of Middleast. ( there is whole history of Egypt fights over Suez canal and with Israel that has superior technology at the time)
    Even Sudan has built its airforce with Russian fighters and Saudi sent dozens of fighters for exercise and lots of money.
    Turkey military is practically worthless with its dependence on western technology and Turkey simply not capable of closing down that canal from black sea.
    Turkey also not capable to fight with Israel. unless and untill Turkey equips its military with 100% Russian weopons, training and survellence technology no one will take it seriously.

  28. #268
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    Turkey military is practically worthless with its dependence on western technology and Turkey simply not capable of closing down that canal from black sea.
    Turkey also not capable to fight with Israel. unless and untill Turkey equips its military with 100% Russian weopons, training and survellence technology no one will take it seriously.
    JSR, you are talking like a 2 year old.

    Firstly, Turkey's F-16's are licence built in Turkey and now use Turkish Mission computers, IFF systems etc. Turkey's Hurkus COIN aircraft alone are enough to launch precision strike weapons from the air.

    Secondly, lets assume for a second that the Turkish Air Force only has useless Western junk as you claim- Turkey has indigenous artillery and MLRS systems that can rain rockets onto every square metre of the Bosphorus. Again this is assuming that everything else in the Turkish Armed Forces inventory is useless Western junk. On top of this Turkey's land-based ATMACA anti-ship missiles and the SOM Stand-off cruise missiles can obliterate anything in the Black Sea with their range and guidance systems. They are also indigenous from A to Z.

    I am not even going into the Turkish Naval inventory which now fields indigenous MILGEM class warships. Turkey's minelayer fleet can also close the entire Aegean and Black sea entrances to the Bosphorus within 4 hours.

  29. #269
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Turkey basically built some parts for that outdated F-16. it does not mean you put some new radar, EW or engine nor some new AAM missiles. Turkey has very weak airdefence thats why all those Ships or rocket artellery can be easily destroyed from air. at best it can close down the straits for few days after that Nato or any other force will open it by force and Turkey ground forces will have to withdraw to reopen it tail between its legs. Nato also deployed ships between Greek and Turkey waters to prevent smuggling as they think Turkish navy is not upto the Task. when you so weak that need Nato help infront of your waters what else you can accomplish?
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu...-idUSKCN0VY0M7
    NATO overcomes Greek-Turkish tension to set terms of Aegean mission

  30. #270
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,159
    Back to topic plz?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 9 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 7 guests)

  1. Deino,
  2. mupp

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