Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 416

Thread: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    was just wondering, what does Turkey (not european) and GB (leaving europe), and neither being partner in it, have to do with the "European fighter"?

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    136
    My thought as well, are there seriously no moderators here?

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    Read the above article on the project I posted here- BAE systems said UK companies will be involved in this project (European Fighter) one way or the other.

    Also your comments about Turkey not being in the EU are irrelevant as Turkey is a EU Customs Union State. This allows it to participate in EU Defence projects e.g. such as the A-400M. Turkish companies were involved in development of certain engine parts and fuselage for the A-400M. But as Germany is involved in this project Turkey will stay clear and neither will it let BAE sustems transfer technology developed for the TF-X program to be used in the European fighter project.
    Last edited by Bayar; 22nd July 2017 at 11:31.

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Back to topic plz?
    X2

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f
    was just wondering, what does Turkey (not european) and GB (leaving europe), and neither being partner in it, have to do with the "European fighter"?
    GB is leaving Europe? Must have been one heck of an earthquake...

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    @ Bayar,

    Read the above article on the project I posted here- BAE systems said UK companies will be involved in this project (European Fighter) one way or the other.
    sorry to burst your bubble, but the position of BAe in EU is "slightly" different from the one Erdogan has in Turkey, if you get my meaning... It is not up to them to decide they will be part of a program.. at most, they can propose, but have zero capability to "decide" about a program that has been initiated by others... Now, once more, and regardless of what they said, there is still zero relevance to speak about BAe doing business in Turkey since none of them, and their potential agreement even less, has anything to do with the Airbus European fighter program (the topic of this thread)

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,147
    After reading for example this:
    https://www.hartpunkt.de/frankreich-...uen/#more-2768
    I assume Dassault will get the project lead, not Airbus.

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    On the subject of the subject, but still talking about BAE (sorry guys), I am dubious about the original quote from Chris Boardman of BAE. We would all agree that the main thrust of the coverage was to suggest Britain is being left out of a European project (post Brexit and all that).

    He is quoted as saying “I welcome it. I don’t feel threatened by it. I would like to see how it matures,” Chris Boardman, BAE’s managing director of Military Air and Information, said, adding BAE was always willing to collaborate in Europe, America and elsewhere.
    “I am sure it would happen over time and I am absolutely convinced that we, the UK, and we, BAE Systems, will one way or another have an involvement,”

    I would like to know what the "it" he welcomes is. I feel that the quote is out of context and probably it is not the case that BAE feel the French and Germans will make such a mess of things that BAE will have to help- which is the way the quotes read to me.

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    This is Europe:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	700px-Europe_polar_stereographic_Caucasus_Urals_boundary.svg.png 
Views:	286 
Size:	136.4 KB 
ID:	254880

    This does not change upon the mood in Brussels.

    Speaking about defense, if we start limiting the Defense of Europe to the border of the EU members, it doesn't mean anything to remember Adenauer, Churchill and other founding fathers*... Those speaking those words are definitively not EUropeans and should go back to primary school**.

    EUROPE
    Europe —a concept dating back to classical antiquity [...]

    *Hastly linked for illustration - I did not check the undelying meaning of the choice of name done by this website
    **If they have ever left it
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 22nd July 2017 at 15:26.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,159
    After reading for example this:
    https://www.hartpunkt.de/frankreich-...uen/#more-2768
    I assume Dassault will get the project lead, not Airbus.
    Very interesting, thank you.. Good to see a German point of view.

    @Mrmalaya. Very possible that Boardman's words were reported out of context. They seem too awkward

  11. #281
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    Thank you guys, I know what european continent is, but, unless I'm seriously mistaken, when someone points out "Europe" as a whole, or speaks about "european defense", and so on, he/she usually refers to the entity called "European Union" (or else, why is it always "defense against Russia", while Russia lays on a nice big chunk of Europe (the continent) )

    At one point, it would good to remain logical

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Republic of Ireland, EU
    Posts
    261
    That's probably the most practical solution. I'm cautiously optimist on all this, if you look at the MGCS (next gen MBT) Germany and France are working on, France has let Germany make the running on it. So maybe some cool heads have got together and laid out a workable solution ahead of the game.

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f
    Thank you guys, I know what european continent is, but, unless I'm seriously mistaken, when someone points out "Europe" as a whole, or speaks about "european defense", and so on, he/she usually refers to the entity called "European Union" (or else, why is it always "defense against Russia", while Russia lays on a nice big chunk of Europe (the continent) )

    At one point, it would good to remain logical
    That depends on their level of education frankly. Are you going to say that Norway is doesn't belong in a discussion of "Europe" or "European defense?" I think they would be surprised to learn that.

    Europe is a concept that predates the EU by a long long time.

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,882
    Agree with hops on that one.
    EU can say or do anything in order to leave Norway out of Europe. But really..��
    Thanks

  15. #285
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,370
    Europe isn't a commie concept, Europe is a continent which includes many very different countries, and it should remain as such. Preferably with countries within Europe managing to live in peace, which should be possible were it not for massive immigration balkanising it from within.

  16. #286
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    This is Europe:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	700px-Europe_polar_stereographic_Caucasus_Urals_boundary.svg.png 
Views:	286 
Size:	136.4 KB 
ID:	254880

    This does not change upon the mood in Brussels.

    Speaking about defense, if we start limiting the Defense of Europe to the border of the EU members, it doesn't mean anything to remember Adenauer, Churchill and other founding fathers*... Those speaking those words are definitively not EUropeans and should go back to primary school**.

    EUROPE



    *Hastly linked for illustration - I did not check the undelying meaning of the choice of name done by this website
    **If they have ever left it
    The map you posted in aid shows both the United Kingdom and Turkey (Thrace) as being in Europe but excludes Cyprus an EU member State :-)
    Last edited by Bayar; 23rd July 2017 at 11:12.

  17. #287
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    Well, even bigger on it, you'll find a big chunk of Russia, all of Ukraine territory (including Crimea) etc... Have you noticed?

  18. #288
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    Both Russia and Turkey have territory which is geographically within Europe. Both Russia and Turkey have been historically politically well-linked with Europe. The Turks were once the "Sick man of Europe".

  19. #289
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Bayar
    Both Russia and Turkey have territory which is geographically within Europe. Both Russia and Turkey have been historically politically well-linked with Europe. The Turks were once the "Sick man of Europe".
    Modern Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire. (which is what the "Sick man of Europe" referred to)

    The Ottoman Empire once controlled a big chunk of Europe, but was finally expelled after WWI, leaving Turkey with only a tiny corner of European territory.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1280px-OttomanEmpireMain.png 
Views:	41 
Size:	451.8 KB 
ID:	254911

  20. #290
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,159
    There is a contest for naming the future aircraft on Facebook...

    https://www.facebook.com/portailavia...ofwHRI&fref=nf

  21. #291
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    ContEU/RU/UAE
    Posts
    4,759
    This thing stands and falls with the Europeans' ability to produce a new engine. One that moves the game on from the Pratt 135. If that's not achievable the thing might well be a Euro-version of the JSF.

    Even defining a mission profile for the thing is difficult as long as Europe is per design a vassal of the Empire.

  22. #292
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    This thing stands and falls with the Europeans' ability to produce a new engine. One that moves the game on from the Pratt 135. If that's not achievable the thing might well be a Euro-version of the JSF.

    Even defining a mission profile for the thing is difficult as long as Europe is per design a vassal of the Empire.
    LOL

    Life's hard, eh, Distiller? Feeling a bit nostalgic for the CCCP lately? :-)

    If you are questioning the ability of SAFRAN, MTU and RR to deliver a new generation engine you are way out of it (and by the way if Dassault/BAE/Airbus just wanted to toy around with something close to the weight/thrust/SFC/size of a F135, they need to get a few chaps into a car, drive to any of the several dozens of Typhoon airbases and ask for a pair of EJ200's) if the trouble is KPP's, well a look at the Anglo/French FCAS and the two twin engined euro canards, and here we go, a system composed of a pair of airframes, one manned and one unmanned, the ability to strike heavily defended targets deep inside North Africa or the Midle East (or somewhere around the Baltics) and the ability to defend the European aerospace from an evolved air threat. If whatever comes out of European efforts in the "thirties" and "fourties" is a lot different from the above I will be quite surprised.

    Cheers

  23. #293
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    It's a Euro fighter not European fighter. There is also improving Tiger helicopter
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...mentum-439509/
    Macron says the allies discussed "road maps" and joint investment opportunities concerning 18 equipment areas, including fighters, unmanned air vehicles, helicopters and military satellites. This should reduce duplication and enable the nations to more effectively pursue export opportunities, he adds.

  24. #294
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,403
    @sintra-

    I don't know about the whole sfc part of that statement. Those small diameter, high thrust to weight turbofans like the M88, F414, EJ200 tend to be on the high side of sfc. Never seen a credible source for the F135, but it's a large engine with a relatively high bypass ratio. Wouldn't be surprised it's sfc in military thrust was lower than the aforementioned (and it's probably a hog in augmented thrust sfc). The difference is mostly in future proofing. The F135 has considerable growth potential, even with AETD/ATEP program ongoing , PW still has plans for testing third stream fan technology for the F135 on top of the proposed thrust and fuel economy improvement from the existing core/fans.

    A future platform is probably going to need an engine with a larger core than the existing turbofan options available in Europe in order to incorporate adaptive fan/ variable cycle technology. I would bet on a "clean sheet" design for these reasons.

  25. #295
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    just had a thought... for those nitpicking on "Europe" and putting forward the "continent".. as Russia is on it, we may say that "Europe" has a 5th gen fighter in development which is the PAK-FA...

    So, while we go that way: why not just partner with Russia, and everybody buys PAK-FAs or its derivatives, more or less customized? The french, for example, could put their RBE-2 AESA on it, with a much larger antenna (space in the nose cone allows it)..

    European nations looking at the F-35 could drop it instantly, and you'd get the whole continent full or air forces lining up PAK-FAs in much more significant numbers..

    of course, I have some doubts that it would be very appreciated on the other side of the Atlantic

  26. #296
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,403
    Can't speak for all on the other side of the Atlantic, but nothing would make U.S. Aerospace corporations happier than what you propose TooCool. That would the end of European aerospace companies, and the majority of European air forces. While I don't doubt the Pak-Fa program will eventually yield a very capable aircraft, it still has a looonnnggg road to go, and considerable uncertainties. There would be a lot of imaginary aircraft filling those tarmacs as far as the mind's eye can see.
    Last edited by FBW; 23rd July 2017 at 15:57.

  27. #297
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    this old Euro-Atlantic concept. that Europeans escaped from continental infighting wars find refuge new world North America. the escape route. but it does not work in 21st century. if you add 10 million people to Canada. the Oil/Gas industry will simply unable to export and whole currency collapse. if you add another 15 milllion people of US the trade deficits explode with Asia not mention the water shortage for fracking and agriculture. this 20 to 25 million need not be Europeans. they could be Asians/latin America.
    PAK-FA does not have long way ahead. It is coming in 2019 follow up in next 10 years MiG 6G fighter.

  28. #298
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    127
    Maybe if You had an ounce of sense, you would be aware how popular (not) Russia is in the rest of Europe.
    People do not seek alliances with other people that does not share the same values.

  29. #299
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    Actually, I was joking, FBW.. but, joke set aside, let's go for a moment on that "what if" route:

    if you speak about partnership, the european companies could bring their knowhow one one side, Sukhoi on the other, fundings from all around Europe (continent) and, as a result, you may very well get relatively rapidly several variants of the PAK-FA (not that Sukhoi isn't familiar with making a gazillion variants of a single aircraft) and keeping european industry busy making parts, especially customized ones, and so on... Considering the needs of different air forces, those in need for in about 10 years should be able to get first versions, others, having a couple of decades ahead of them could wait a bit, and buy a more advanced versions when they need it...

    One possibility in that fantasy land where "Europe" is the whole continent, and nations team up for a "european fighter"...

  30. #300
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,882
    Don't think it will ever come to that^^..
    But US(perhaps US senate most!) Should be carefull not to widen the already tarnish relationship with several European countries..
    Yes i'm thinking about US push against European countries whom do trade with Russia..

    This part of reason why we see Germany and France going forward at this point with next Gen EF and not F-35.
    US foreign policy.. or should i say policing at its best..
    Last edited by haavarla; 23rd July 2017 at 21:23.
    Thanks

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 8 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