Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Airbus: European Future Fighter Program

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #81
    Yes air the threats is changing mostly that caused by hundreds and in few years over thousand JSF taking to the sky.
    Last edited by Siddar; 18th June 2017, 05:20.

    Comment


      #82
      You always know when someone has no clue about it when they invoke PPP...I'll stop here before the mods get twitchy.

      Comment


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

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

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

        PPP it's just a way to correct this perception but it is not sufficient IMHO as it still remain purely a monetary thing and doesn't measure how this money really is allocated.
        Looking also to budget in comparative terms is wrong, in many countries like Russia and China a great part of the military expense fall into other ministry than to the defense one.
        My own country is going in the same direction: our own military budget will reach 0% quota of armament purchases in the next future as all the future hardware would be acquired by the Industry and Development Ministry instead while their development would be financed by the ministry of University and Research.
        They would so be considered as Investments and not as Public Expenses so reducing our current deficit (but it turned out also as a more efficient way to allocate money).
        Obviously you can do it only with domestically produced things not with imported ones hence why we insisted so much to have our own F-35 assembly line.
        Last edited by Marcellogo; 18th June 2017, 11:07.

        Comment


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

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

          Comment


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

            How it come than Russia has still the second largest air force of the world and overall military forces superior to the ones of the (others) five greater European nations efficency
            Lot of really old planes and spends 8% of GDP on defence.
            Last edited by Ryan; 18th June 2017, 11:07.

            Comment


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

              Comment


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

                Comment


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

                  Comment


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

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

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

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

                    The Eurojet consortium was formed in 1986 to co-ordinate and manage the project largely based on XG-40 technology. In common with the XG-40, the EJ200 has a three-stage fan with a high pressure ratio, five-stage low-aspect-ratio high-pressure (HP) compressor, a combustor using advanced cooling and thermal protection, and single-stage HP and LP turbines with powder metallurgy discs and single crystal blades. A reheat system (afterburner) provides thrust augmentation. The variable area final nozzle is a convergent-divergent design.
                    Last edited by Ryan; 18th June 2017, 14:46.

                    Comment


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

                      Comment


                        #91
                        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.

                        Comment


                          #92
                          @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.

                          Comment


                            #93
                            @ 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.

                            Comment


                              #94
                              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, 18:17.

                              Comment


                                #95
                                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.

                                Comment


                                  #96
                                  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.

                                  Comment


                                    #97
                                    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, 20:41.

                                    Comment


                                      #98
                                      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.
                                      sigpic

                                      Comment


                                        #99
                                        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.

                                        Comment


                                          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.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X