Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 425

Thread: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan
    All other EF partners agreed that EJ200 was superior.
    Yes, it was better suited for what they needed : A simpler design, without all bells and whistles, to be fitted into the Typhoon.
    But from a technological standpoint it's not superior to other contemporary designs, M88 included, which are also tailored for specific applications. It's only a different beast of its kind.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    @JSR 3% my bottom. It was over 4% even before Ukraine and Syria.

    Dropping bombs with old aircraft in undefended airspace doesn't prove anything. And if the West simply stopped sending manufacturing to China it would hardly even have an economy, or anything to knock-off.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,487
    @ Ryan
    For what I know actual level of military spending of Russian federation is about 3% of GDP
    And please, just compare the average age of their planes with the ones of USAF and prepare yourself for a surprise.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Yes, it was better suited for what they needed : A simpler design, without all bells and whistles, to be fitted into the Typhoon.
    But from a technological standpoint it's not superior to other contemporary designs, M88 included, which are also tailored for specific applications. It's only a different beast of its kind.
    Exactly how do you work out that the EJ200 is simpler than the M88-2? All Typhoon partners felt it was better, the Swiss rated aircraft performance at 9 vs 7 for the Rafale, then the M88 ECO demonstrator, which is more a new design than an M88 derivative, arose because customers wanted more power than the M88-2 could muster. And this is again why Euro projects fail, even when one country has something that's clearly better by a country mile, there will still be an argument over it. Do I argue over whether the Rafale's EW suite is currently better? No. Yet when it comes to an equally straight forward admission on engine superiority the French will argue. Then there'll be an argument over whether a carrier variant should be funded by non-carrier owning nations etc. etc.

    So an apparently low tech, 'inferior engine' gave a heavier aircraft a performance result of 9 vs the 'superior engine' that only yielded 7 in a lighter aircraft, whilst also managing slightly lower SFC and a higher TWR.
    Last edited by Ryan; 18th June 2017 at 17:17.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    For what I know actual level of military spending of Russian federation is about 3% of GDP
    And please, just compare the average age of their planes with the ones of USAF and prepare yourself for a surprise.
    As I said, >4% even before Ukraine and Syria. Whilst I can't locate data past 2012, it's been as high as 8% between 2012 and present. So when you compare with countries like Germany spending 1%, and UK 2%, it kind of puts things in perspective. Imagine if Germany or the UK quadrupled military spending or even doubled it. Twice as much equipment, whole host of new abilities too but you could never sell that to European voters.



    Su-24s, Su-25s. It's not just the old aircraft, it's the fact most haven't been brought up to modern standards. For newish fighters, you're looking at Su-35s and Su-30s and that's about it. The speed of Su-35 production has been very slow, so much so that assuming the PAK-FA reaches production standard in 2020, it will take until 2035 before they have as many PAK-FAs as there are F-22s now.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    @JSR 3% my bottom. It was over 4% even before Ukraine and Syria.

    Dropping bombs with old aircraft in undefended airspace doesn't prove anything. And if the West simply stopped sending manufacturing to China it would hardly even have an economy, or anything to knock-off.
    These bombs are dropped at altitude higher than manpad range . It's either guided bombs or skill pilot is putting them at right target to avoid friendlies and most of them at night.
    China is well integrated into global supply chain. It can alternatively punish each of it's trading partner. Korea is recent example. China developing relationship with capital surplus Middleast. Israel is bigger supporter of China than Europe . China space and UAV tech is well respected. The point is there is not much money or skill labor left in EU that can do power projection fight. and that I am excluding the impact of next generation weopons that Russia is developing that will scare away Arab investment further from Europe.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Or they just don't care as much about what they're bombing.

    If people decided on a collective punishment of China, it would be screwed. Like if it invaded Taiwan, or started actually enforcing its EEZ claim aggressively. If the West pulled out the rug from under China, Israel would be forced to follow suit, since it relies on US military aid.

    The skilled labour is there in Europe and in much higher quantities than in Russia, the problem is the political will to devote an equally large share of GDP to defence in peace time. Just very occasionally Europe produces something that shows the true level of capability that exists, like Meteor, but most of the time it's unenthusiastic drippings of cash on this and that. If either one of the main European players spent 4-5% of GDP on defence, all of a sudden economies of scale would kick in, new capabilities would develop and export competitiveness would increase dramatically, offsetting the initial costs, such that a 2-fold increase in spend would amount to an at least 3-fold increase in equipment and capability. To put things in perspective, in X years time the UK plans to have 160 AESA Typhoons and 140 F-35s. If it spent 5% instead of 2% however, it would be 400 Typhoons, 350 F-35s and 5 carriers, 15 Type 45s and 33 Type 26s and 28 submarines, even without factoring in economies of scale. So yes, % GDP military spend makes a huge difference. Hell, at 5% we'd be developing our own stealth fighter and stuff the F-35.
    Last edited by Ryan; 18th June 2017 at 19:41.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,764
    Quote Originally Posted by OPIT
    Yes, it was better suited for what they needed : A simpler design, without all bells and whistles, to be fitted into the Typhoon.
    But from a technological standpoint it's not superior to other contemporary designs, M88 included, which are also tailored for specific applications. It's only a different beast of its kind.
    No, the EJ200 is simpler because it uses more advanced technology and hence does not suffer a performance penalty for its simplicity (in fact, it does slightly better than the M88 in various respects, as has been noted already). This isn't a situation like the M53, which was of a considerably simpler architecture than its contemporaries but also did not achieve anywhere near the same performance (pressure ratio of <10:1 where all of its competitors were already >20:1)*.

    Despite having one compressor stage less and far fewer variable guide vane rows (only one in the HPC, as opposed to one in the LPC and 3 in the HPC on M88), the EJ200 achieves a higher pressure ratio, resulting in lower SFC and higher T/W ratio. And being intended for an air/air-biased airframe application, care-free handling requirements will not have been appreciably different compared to Rafale, the demands of carrier compatibility not withstanding. To have done that with just a single row of VSVs and no handling bleed for the rear stages of the HPC is extremely impressive.

    This is not to say M88 isn't an outstanding engine in its own right - it is. I'd rate it as on par or slightly superior to the F414, which is no mean feat - certainly considering how far behind the curve the M53 was compared to the state of the art at the time. It is also not a Typhoon-w*nkfest - a fighter which apart from its engine (and the PIRATE IRST) I consider to be thoroughly overrated on the whole (certainly compared to Rafale and the 'newish Su-35'). But credit where it's due - the EJ200 is an incredible piece of engineering.

    *To its credit, the M53 did have very good gas dynamic stability and trouble-free handling (probably more so than the initially capricious F100, F110 and RB.199), but then so did the F404 and the AL-31F & RD-33.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    Or they just don't care as much about what they're bombing.
    They are highly accurate bombing thats why there is not much inside attacks on Russian troops despite the most intense bombing in modern history.
    If people decided on a collective punishment of China, it would be screwed. Like if it invaded Taiwan, or started actually enforcing its EEZ claim aggressively. If the West pulled out the rug from under China, Israel would be forced to follow suit, since it relies on US military aid.
    you should quit your wishfull thinking . Germany can't discipline Turkey as it need that labor/market and pipeline energy for eastern Europe factories . Turkey is getting big autos exporter. and you want challenge China?
    The skilled labour is there in Europe and in much higher quantities than in Russia, the problem is the political will to devote an equally large share of GDP to defence in peace time. Just very occasionally Europe produces something that shows the true level of capability that exists, like Meteor, but most of the time it's unenthusiastic drippings of cash on this and that. If either one of the main European players spent 4-5% of GDP on defence, all of a sudden economies of scale would kick in, new capabilities would develop and export competitiveness would increase dramatically, offsetting the initial costs, such that a 2-fold increase in spend would amount to an at least 3-fold increase in equipment and capability. To put things in perspective, in X years time the UK plans to have 160 AESA Typhoons and 140 F-35s. If it spent 5% instead of 2% however, it would be 400 Typhoons, 350 F-35s and 5 carriers, 15 Type 45s and 33 Type 26s and 28 submarines, even without factoring in economies of scale. So yes, % GDP military spend makes a huge difference. Hell, at 5% we'd be developing our own stealth fighter and stuff the F-35.
    That Meteor is 30 year old project and extremely expensive . %age of GDP won't matter if you don't have skilled discipline labor and universities don't have any practical experience in that particular research. All that borrowed money will create flop projects.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Sure they are. Tu-22 dripping 12 dumb bombs. That's more like WWII Dresden style bombing.

    Go tell Eastern European countries that they need Turkish labour. They have so much excess labour there already that they're all migrating West. China would not manage if all the manufacturing jobs put there by Western companies were withdrawn.

    30 year-old? The first utterance of an RFI was only 23 years ago, and the project itself didn't start until 2001.

    I can't assume why you think there is a shortage of skill in Western Europe. You have noticed that even in PPP terms, the GDP/Capita of Russia is well behind any Western European nation. Funny that huh. The whole tech market is either US, Western European, ROK, Taiwan or Japan. Most commercial CPUs are designed in either the US or Western Europe, ditto for commercial airliners. What % of airliners use Russian engines vs RR/Snecma/CFMI. Funny that despite all this skill, the Russian economy still only generating about half the GDP/Capita PPP as Western European countries and less than a quarter in nominal terms.

    I'll say again, the only difference is the political climate to allow spending 5+% of GDP on defence.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Tu-22 has minor role. there are hundreds of cruise missiles tested from various platforms. even that is pale in comparision to daily grunt work with various SU in syria. i am not even counting attack chopper work.
    East EU is not competitive with Turkey. Germany has discovered it. Infact Turkish firms own firms like Grundig/BEKO and various German house hold good makers. East EU dont have that big construction firms thats why all labor has to move west. There are Chinese working inside firms like Apple/Qualcom/Nvidia/Google. US competitive edge on EU is due to this big factor. and you want EU to compete with Russia in miitary technology and when already its going backward in the rest of fields.

    PPP/GDP. what kind of nonsense is that? i am not even talking about superiority of education system.
    Is Aeroflot own by Emirates/Ethihad like Airberlin and various other EU airlines. Russia is the largest titanium provider and help designed every Boeing. i am sure Russian will be replace the unreliable MTU geared engines soon with its own line up of PD and PS engines. EU simply not have any chance to catch in military technology. and its not just military technology but application of superior training and maintaince that come on top of that.

    you can bet on it who will leapfrog in drone tech?

    http://luxlibertas.com/the-new-cold-...ssian-nemesis/
    “Their drones work around the clock,” said Col. Vyacheslav Vlasenko, a Ukrainian battalion commander deployed recently in the country’s east, referring to forces opposing him. “They correct their artillery fire. They also started using precision weapons.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    JSR not just household good item manufacturers. Turkish companies now also own some critical German aerospace companies. For example, the Turks have bought all rights and intellectual property relating to the Fairchild Dornier 328 series and are developing a larger variant dubbed the TRJ-728.

    Turkey now has significant leverage over Europe due to the refugee crisis, pipelines and 4 million Turks living in Germany with direct familial ties to Turkey. Germany can never "discipline" the Turks and it is this mentality that is causing disunity within NATO and the EU.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    219
    What does Turkey have to do with Europe? Turkey has made its choice and were seeing the end of the relationship Europe as result. Turkey may feel it has leverage over Europe. But it is only temporary as soon as Europe figures out that Turkey has shifted in policy it will eventually change its position in regards to Turkey. Turkey has shifted course faster then Europe. Once Europe changes course as response to changes by Turkey all Turkeys leverage will disappear.

    That will be both a loss for Europe and Turkey. Just as it was with Europe and Russia. But in both cases it was the decisions made by their countries leadership to oppose Europe that led to situation.
    Last edited by Siddar; 19th June 2017 at 07:37.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    369
    Despite having one compressor stage less and far fewer variable guide vane rows (only one in the HPC, as opposed to one in the LPC and 3 in the HPC on M88), the EJ200 achieves a higher pressure ratio, resulting in lower SFC and higher T/W ratio.
    The extra complexity of the M88 is a direct result of the requirements for a very compact engine. The EJ200 is considerably longer (and larger), it wouldn't have worked for an the French requirements.

    The British were dead set on a design that could be used to re-engine Tornado's (even if it never happened, that was the plan at the time). This pushed the requirements to a larger engine which pushed to a larger airframe which made it unsuitable for French carriers and more expensive overall.

    Plus, the M88 development started five years before the EJ200, from the French point of view it made no sense to spend money again.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    So, if the M88 is a smaller design, is it sensible to say that it will be less suited to a bigger fighter? What engine options are there for a future fighter? Does a modified M88 or EJ200 actually get us to an ADVENT type situation?

    Surely the work by Safran and RR for FCAS is an excellent start point or a genuine future fighter propulsion system, if only because it gets people working on something together.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    842
    Whatever. Engines are tailor-made for specific applications, which means every parameter si set to reach the best compromise. Comparing the overall pressure ratio or bypass ratio, out of context, only to make a point is idiotic to say the least.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,148
    Studies are already being done to consider the successor to the Gripen, which “will be a significant change,” he said. There needs to be a “community of thinkers,” who will consider factors beyond artificial intelligence and big data.
    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...er-competition

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Tu-22 has minor role. there are hundreds of cruise missiles tested from various platforms. even that is pale in comparision to daily grunt work with various SU in syria. i am not even counting attack chopper work.
    East EU is not competitive with Turkey. Germany has discovered it. Infact Turkish firms own firms like Grundig/BEKO and various German house hold good makers. East EU dont have that big construction firms thats why all labor has to move west. There are Chinese working inside firms like Apple/Qualcom/Nvidia/Google. US competitive edge on EU is due to this big factor. and you want EU to compete with Russia in miitary technology and when already its going backward in the rest of fields.

    PPP/GDP. what kind of nonsense is that? i am not even talking about superiority of education system.
    Is Aeroflot own by Emirates/Ethihad like Airberlin and various other EU airlines. Russia is the largest titanium provider and help designed every Boeing. i am sure Russian will be replace the unreliable MTU geared engines soon with its own line up of PD and PS engines. EU simply not have any chance to catch in military technology. and its not just military technology but application of superior training and maintaince that come on top of that.

    you can bet on it who will leapfrog in drone tech?
    Barrel bombing has also played a major role and bombs not appearing to land on the cross-hairs. Cruise missiles crashing in Iran.

    That's funny because Poland outstrips Turkey in both PPP GDP/Capita and Nominal GDP/Capita.

    Exactly, the Chinese economy relies on Apple/Qualcom/Nvidia/Google/Asics/Nike etc. sending manufacturing there.

    They're important economic indicators, that's what 'nonsense' they are.

    Airlines don't make aeroplanes, or engines. Wow Russia has a lot of resources, who would have thought it for a country so vast huh? But even with all those resources it's still failed to achieve the same economic performance as countries with far fewer resources.

    Promises and predictions with nought to show.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    JSR not just household good item manufacturers. Turkish companies now also own some critical German aerospace companies. For example, the Turks have bought all rights and intellectual property relating to the Fairchild Dornier 328 series and are developing a larger variant dubbed the TRJ-728.

    Turkey now has significant leverage over Europe due to the refugee crisis, pipelines and 4 million Turks living in Germany with direct familial ties to Turkey. Germany can never "discipline" the Turks and it is this mentality that is causing disunity within NATO and the EU.
    It disciplines it by leaving it outside the EU but IMO that's a good thing.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    The extra complexity of the M88 is a direct result of the requirements for a very compact engine. The EJ200 is considerably longer (and larger), it wouldn't have worked for an the French requirements.

    The British were dead set on a design that could be used to re-engine Tornado's (even if it never happened, that was the plan at the time). This pushed the requirements to a larger engine which pushed to a larger airframe which made it unsuitable for French carriers and more expensive overall.

    Plus, the M88 development started five years before the EJ200, from the French point of view it made no sense to spend money again.
    Utterly irrelevant, the EJ200 still has a higher TWR. The M88 ECO is wider than the EJ200 too.

    The Tornado engine is the same length as the M88.

    So why did they develop the M88 ECO? And the XG-40 had been in play a good while before the EJ200.

    Whatever. Engines are tailor-made for specific applications, which means every parameter si set to reach the best compromise. Comparing the overall pressure ratio or bypass ratio, out of context, only to make a point is idiotic to say the least.
    So why develop the M88 ECO with a higher PR, even though it hasn't gone in a single plane yet? Just making a point?

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    except that "pooling resources" is the best way to waste money, while pooling is supposed to be about sparing some..
    Off course! Thats why Airbus, Airbus Helicopters, MBDA, Ariane espace, etc, are such a waste of money...

    you can't have competitive offers if you have no competition to force the companies to do it...
    Warn Sukhoi, and SAAB, and an awfull lot of other weapons companies. And if its competition that you want, Lockheed Martin and Boeing are not going to disapear anytime soon, and competing with those chaps while building airframes at a glacial pace is an obvious way of getting kicked out of the market.

    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)
    That "fiasco", is the European combat aircraft with the more airframes built, the one with more external orders and the one that, for all its flaws, is a lot less expensive for the tax payers of the four partners than the two other alternatives, going alone (yes, the French tax payer pays more for each Rafale) or buy American.

    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
    The Germans, the French and the British will eventually join up in severall defense projects, they wont go together in all of them, but they will share the development work on quite a lot of them, just like they are doing now. The replacement for the Leclerc and the Leo will be "European", the replacement for a great big chunk of the "Eurocanards" will also be "European", etc, the alternatives are a) buy American or b) spend an awfull lot more on defense and go alone.
    We are entering the age of Continental countries, China, India and the USA. Huge countries, with massive populations and huge budgets, the European Countries on their own are starting to look like geopolitical midgets, either they work together or in a few decades will become irrelevant.
    Last edited by Sintra; 19th June 2017 at 11:08.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    So, if the M88 is a smaller design, is it sensible to say that it will be less suited to a bigger fighter? What engine options are there for a future fighter? Does a modified M88 or EJ200 actually get us to an ADVENT type situation?

    Surely the work by Safran and RR for FCAS is an excellent start point or a genuine future fighter propulsion system, if only because it gets people working on something together.
    Of course that having Safran and RR working together is "an excellent start point", at least they are working on something!

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    Off course! Thats why Airbus, Airbus Helicopters, MBDA, Ariane espace, etc, are such a waste of money...
    wrong examples.. Airbus, for example, makes aircraft for private companies (selling huge numbers that have nothing in common with scarce orders of fighters) and is in competition for sales... and they definitely could be more efficient (competitive) without dragging parts from all around Europe but build them in one location.. yes, they do waste money, in fact


    Warn Sukhoi, and SAAB, and an awfull lot of other weapons companies. And if its competition that you want, Lockheed Martin and Boeing are not going to disapear anytime soon, and competing with those chaps while building airframes at a glacial pace is an obvious way of getting kicked out of the market.
    why don't you propose the guys in charge of typhoon managment to make a visit to Sukhoi or SAAB so they learn a thing or two about efficiency then? as for Boeing or LM, it's quite simple: just proceed like the USA do: it has to be european build, and they're out..

    That "fiasco", is the European combat aircraft with the more airframes built, the one with more external orders and the one that, for all its flaws, is a lot less expensive for the tax payers of the four partners than the two other alternatives, going alone (yes, the French tax payer pays more for each Rafale) or buy American.

    well, yeah, but then again, how about making able to do the same stuff before talking about price? fully multirole (dassault speaks about omnirole, but hey, whatever you like), carrier compatible, fitted with working AESA radar, and so on, and so on... when you have the Typhoon able to do everything you airforce needs, you can compare..


    fact is, Europe does not exist as a single entity.. asking it to act as a single nation, especially when strategic stuff like overall defense and, more specifically, combat aircraft goes, is wishful thinking

    as I said earlier, you can partner only between countries who have compatible needs on the project they partner for.. you speak about a tank.. well, Germany and france use them pretty much the same way... they can partner on it... if france wants to make a second aircraft carrier, will they be able to partner with germans on it? germans can build ships, but they have no use of an aircraft carrier, so the partnership won't go anywhere... you get the point?

    Germany want a fighter that can replace the tornado? France can propose them the Rafale right now, if they want.. the next aircraft for the french may be a UCAV that would accompany the Rafale for strike, when needed, and for Rafale replacement, it way too early anyway

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan
    So why develop the M88 ECO with a higher PR, even though it hasn't gone in a single plane yet? Just making a point?
    Yes, that makes Safran's point, and yes it didn't make it to any plane yet. Technology has moved forward during the last two decades, so it may makes sense to propose an uprated version to better suit some client's needs.
    Where are EJ-200 improvements or uprated versions today ? Oh, sorry. I forgot it was so technologically advanced that no further improvement can be made yet after two decades of unparalleled performances...

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    TooCool_12f, surely top people are thinking about what happens to the Rafale fleet as it is replaced in just 15-20 years time.

    Whilst it's likely that a German Tornado replacement is not a Rafale replacement, surely Typhoon fleets are being replaced at the same time as Rafale.

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Yes, that makes Safran's point, and yes it didn't make it to any plane yet. Technology has moved forward during the last two decades, so it may makes sense to propose an uprated version to better suit some client's needs.
    Where are EJ-200 improvements or uprated versions today ? Oh, sorry. I forgot it was so technologically advanced that no further improvement can be made yet after two decades of unparalleled performances...
    So that contradicts your original premise that they aren't in the business of just making a point. Clearly they are, and the point made was that given an extra 20-25 years they can make an engine roughly as good as an EJ200.

    XG-40-2 and EJ230 are on test beds, never required because the Typhoon already has a ridiculously good TWR and a perfect 9 for aircraft performance from the Swiss eval. No point wasting money improving on a perfect score when there are so many other areas that need addressing.
    Last edited by Ryan; 19th June 2017 at 12:44.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,404
    as I said earlier, you can partner only between countries who have compatible needs on the project they partner for.. you speak about a tank.. well, Germany and france use them pretty much the same way... they can partner on it... if france wants to make a second aircraft carrier, will they be able to partner with germans on it? germans can build ships, but they have no use of an aircraft carrier, so the partnership won't go anywhere... you get the point?

    Germany want a fighter that can replace the tornado? France can propose them the Rafale right now, if they want.. the next aircraft for the french may be a UCAV that would accompany the Rafale for strike, when needed, and for Rafale replacement, it way too early anyway
    France backed out of joint development of the Leopard II due to disagreements over design. The Leopard II entered service and was in full production before the Leclerc prototype was in testing. France ended up with a MBT that took another decade to enter service, and rumored to be the most expensive MBT in the world.

    The point is that France HAS a robust defense industry, and like the U.S. is going to defend that industry even if less expensive analogues are available. The parallel development of the Typhoon and the Rafale is another example. The needs were largely compatable, there were some obvious disagreements over some specifications (9500 vs 9750 kg empty weight target, carrier capable, strike capability), but nothing that should have been insurmountable. Disagreements over workshare requirements were insurmountable. Perhaps it is a pessimistic view, but I don't think that will change should any future European fighter program be initiated.

    France would insist on the lead to protect Dassault, rightly viewing any future European fighter project as a threat to the Rafale. The U.S. and France protect their indigenous defense industry (and considering the relative fiasco of the Typhoon upgrade path, the Horizon frigate procurement, and the A400M, who is to say that is wrong?). It is hard to fathom how Airbus is going to navigate the workshare minefield.
    Last edited by FBW; 19th June 2017 at 13:07.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    Perhaps only by letting France take the lead?

    France are building, designing and developing advanced fighters, UCAVs and systems. What is Airbus doing in these fields? If its a choice between nothing or being a partner in the future, where is the choice?

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    369
    Utterly irrelevant, the EJ200 still has a higher TWR.
    The larger the engine (and its thrust), the easier it is to reach a high TWR. It's not obvious that an EJ200 scaled down to M-88-2 size & thrust would match its TWR.

    Besides, "paper" spec mean little. Sea-level thrust isn't going to matter much at altitude or in supersonic regime. Airframe/engine optimization is very important too. Smaller cross-section engine means a smaller cross-section fighter means less drag means less need for thrust and/or better fuel consumption even if the engine SFC is worse.

    And the XG-40 had been in play a good while before the EJ200.
    It was still five years later than the M88-1. Component testing on the XG-40 started in 1983, by that time SNECMA had a full high-pressure core running on test benches.*

    *see "XG40 - Rolls-Royce Advanced Fighter Engine Demonstrator"; DefSci Journal, 1988
    and "SNECMA M88 Engine Development Status"; ASME, 1990

    From the French perspective, it made no sense to go with a foreign design that was still a paper engine while they had their own demonstrator (almost) ready.

    Whilst it's likely that a German Tornado replacement is not a Rafale replacement, surely Typhoon fleets are being replaced at the same time as Rafale.
    That's far from obvious.

    That would depend on the airframe lifetime, flight hours per year, identified capability gaps, modernization programs...and political will, defense budget amount...

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan
    Clearly they are, and the point made was that given an extra 20-25 years they can make an engine roughly as good as an EJ200.
    LOL. You still can't get it right, no matter what.
    I'm done with you, kid.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 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