SintraOne can note , aside the sagitta , one side oriented toward facet while the other priviledge a curve approach a bit like F117 vs B2/F22/F35, so I guess there are a generation gap there.
The last German faceted stealth design that i am aware was made in the late eighties and the industry was still called Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm.
Cheers
SintraRegarding the Mako, check back your timeline*
*Cancellation 2006 – a that time EADS was part of airbus –
In 2006, EADS acquired BAE Systems’s remaining 20% of Airbus
And…
EADS also confirmed that Tom Enders will replace Louis Gallois** as chief executive on May 31. Mr Enders is presently chief executive of Airbus, EADS’s plane-maker division. He will be succeeded at Airbus, the world’s biggest manufacturer of aircraft, by Fabrice Bregier, Airbus’s chief operating officer.
You’ll find back the source/date… B/w…
EADS Defence and Security/Cassidian was integrated into Airbus in 17 January 2014, untill then it was entirely out of the Airbus consortium.
There´s has much “Airbus” in MAKO has in the F-104G or the Focke Wul 190.
SintraThe alleged lack of political backing, perhaps a contestable opinion to say the least, has nothing to do here. Airbus failed it by itself.
Here, the Geniuses at Airbus added their low understanding of the market asking things like weapon carriage, fighter level systems etc… that destroyed this project
The MAKO died, just like the contemporary SAAB Project 518 and Dassault “Advanced Trainer”, because a) the 12 nations “Eurotrainer” (AEJPT) program died and b) unlike the M346, no one else footed the bill (the UAE almost did), it had absolutely nothing to do with “weapons carriage”!
The two combat versions, single and two seater, were studied at the request of two of the main prospective customers, the UAE and South Korea. It was not some “out of the blue” idea from the EADS chaps, quite the oposite, they were answering clients requirements.
And, again, Airbus was not involved.
SintraMako… What a sad story
Mako existence would have pulled back T-X in limbo, boosting de-facto Airbus to the leading position for Pilot training. Hundreds of contractors would have participated in the combined training sustaining both Bk117 and Mako.
Another failure that I failed to add to the list
What the hell has the Dornier/DASA/EADS AT2000/Mako and the Eurotrainer program have to do with Airbus? It was never an Airbus program, it was dead almost a decade before the EADS defense dept consolidated into Airbus. Its like blaming Airbus for the ME109 short legs, or for not producing the MBB Lampyridae.
And by the way, if the EADS design was a failure, what would we call the equivalent Dassault and Saab offers for the “Eurotrainer” program?
The BK117 is called today H145 or UH-72 and its an incredibly sucessful airframe.
SintraFact is that on internal fuel, the F-35A and F-35C are perhaps second only to the F-15E when it comes to combat radius against western fighters and can go head to head and come out favourbly against a number of aircraft when these aircraft are kitted with external fuel tanks (on a USN Strike profile).
I would imagine that Dave A or C would outrange handsomely whatever other Western fighter on internal fuel, that certainly includes the Strike Eagle, its internal fuel fraction is quite … well … big.
Cheers
SintraCan you prove this by calculations?
What calculations? You dont have the fuel comsumption of that particular engine…
SintraI get the following:
F-35B
Range with a load of 1241 kg, take-off weight 21980 kg – 2602 km
Range without load – 2758 kmF-35A
Range without load – 3760 kmfineness – 12
specific fuel consumption – 0.54 kg / kgs * hI think that this is not real in 2017. Probably FY18 SAR is trying to deceive us …
a) The F135 SFC is not published
b) The range numbers for the F35A are pretty similar to the ones of the MRCA Tornado gr1/gr4 an aircraft that with a pair of “Hidenburg” external fuel tanks carries the same amount of fuel and weights roughly the same has Dave A, why wouldnt those numbers be believable?
SintraOne has to ask himself: is it in the french best interest to drop national industry and loose that independence? In France, the answer is a massive “NO”… yet, and this is realy funny when you think about it, people find that that posture from the french is arrogant, selfish or whatnot, but find it perfectly normal for the USA, Russia or China… go figure
Budget, money, numbers…
France is not a world power like those three are.
If France decides to build an entirely new aerospace combat capability on their own it undoutebly can, just like Great Britain, but with its defense budget (small by comparison with China and the US, with the caveat that French R&D and products are more expensive by comparison with Russia) its going to make a compromise in some places (deleting other programs, compromising on capability or numbers, etc). Joining with other European countries is a way to maintain some design and production inhouse capability with a (more or less) small budget, the alternatives are, increase the defense budget or buy American. You have done this on an humongous number of projects, its nothing new.
SintraWhat a load of bull.
It’s a success story for those who want to destroy national industries & independence, or for those who want a european lockmart to grow so huge that they dictate politics. For the rest of us it’s a theft of national know how.
Nic
look at the numbers.
Airbus provides more jobs, more value, more technology to France or Germany than the old national bits ever provided. Airbus is one of those cases in wich the sum provided something vastly more capable than the original pieces, the total combined backlog for Airbus is a trillion Euros (!), almost half of it will go to France.
SintraWhat products are real best sellers?
– A320
– A 330
– Ecureuil
– Dauphin
– Bo105 derivatives
Etc…
A400 Failure
A340 Failure (not their fault – market insight was risky)
A380 Failure
Tiger Failure
NH90 Failure
Post Ariane V: impressing lack of reactiveness in front a huge blind spot for commercial launches (commercial means truly market driven launches)
…You’ll get the picture.
Lets look again at that list:
– A400 a failure ? Why? It was late and over budget, true, so was the C-17, so was the C-130J, so is the Kawasaki C-2, the Russians couldnt even get a new generation cargo aircraft! The aircraft is being produced now, its starting to be fielded now, god know hows how manny will be built. Its too early to call that program a success or not.
– The A340 a failure? That particular “failure” has more export orders by almost 1/3 then any other European commercial jet before Airbus came along. It broke even, its development was made together with the A330, it got a profit and 377 were built. The only place were that´s a failure is in Boeing´s land, a particular place were the Europeans simply couldnt compete before a particular Company appeared.
– A380 – Another one wich is still being built, its entirely possible that its development costs actualy gets even, its not obviously the massive success that was hoped, but its too soon to call it a failure
– Tiger and NH90 – The Tiger is no way a failure, the NH90 has an helluv lot of problems
– Ariane V – That competition finnaly got its act together in recent years (congratulations to SpaceX ) doesnt mean that the chaps who actually send more things into space in 2014, 2015 and 2016 are in any way a failure.
What you are doing is calling “failure” to programs using an yardstick, and the yardstick that you are using is… Airbus himself, had those programs being launched by any other European company and you would be calling them a sucess, because they have been built in numbers that no other European company has ever provided.
But its irrelevant what we think, there´s one particular number that smashes this entire argument. Airbus was formed in 1967 and from that date till June 2017 (half a century) it had delivered 10514 commercial aircrafts, its backlog (firm orders) is … 6771 airframes!
Recently i´ve read an article in wich it was stated that if we excluded the US aerospace industry, the Airbus commercial backlog was bigger than the combined value of the rest of world´s aerospace industry combined, commercial and military. Airbus is a massive success today, there´s absolutely no way of denying it.
Cheers
SintraMy dear friend, you are blinded by history. Although I think this fighter project IS a tremendous opportunity for Airbus and more generally for the Aerospace industry all over Europe, it will be not while resorting to the old habits that have plagued the last 20 years projects. In case you can’t see, Airbus is not anymore the success story it was at the time the most talented Industrials all over Europe where agglomerated into a single entity.
Its not?!
Its one of the two world leaders in commercial airframes, its a world leader in helicopters, its a world leader in sattelite launch, etc, etc, etc!
Hell, take Airbus out of the European scenario and there´s precious litle left!
SintraActually its related a lot. The UK was left out of the Airbus future fighter. So in order for them to keep their competitive edge they are transferring technology to others like Turkey and Japan and thereby keeping their engineering teams working. So how successful in terms of exports would the Airbus fighter be when the Japanese and Turks will be pumping out comparable aircraft at cheaper prices?
And by what miracle Japan would be delivering “cheaper” airframes?
How that turned out for the Mitsubishi F-1, the Mitsubishi F-2, the MRJ, the Kawasaki C-1, the Kawasaki C-2, etc?
And i really loved the bit about Turkey! Turkey has designed and produced the … Hurkus, a turboprop trainer and sudenly its going to design and build a fifth generation fighter on a string budget, with political stability and political backup akin to a gelatine for what amounts to a two decade project while at the same time beating the crap out of France and Germany´s aerospace industries! Any idea of how many dozens of countries have tried and failed to break into the high end combat airframe club for the last century? The only ones which got a measure of success were the Chinese and they have poured countless resources at it for six decades!
Nationalistic Hubris at its best!
And just to finish this:
The pact between France and Germany to develop a next-generation fighter does not threaten the Franco-British unmanned combat air vehicle project on which Dassault and BAE Systems are partnered, the French company’s chief executive insists.
In fact, Éric Trappier believes all three countries may combine their efforts into an initiative to develop a successor to the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale, despite concerns that Brexit could leave the UK isolated from future pan-European defence programmes.
SintraAffinities ?!! There is not such that prevail. It’s a market, a defense market where competition must rule to get the most out of every taxpayers Euro.
Do you think that Affinities is anywhere involved with IT giant like Apple or Samsung? And when SpaceX started from scratch (it is now the world’s most valuable privately held companies), what would you think was in their mind ? Affinity, perfumed encent, body hormones ?Non-sensical industrial planning as only one single output as already experienced by Airbus: FAILURE. Archaism*, should I add, is not a science.
*neither is Feodalism
Didnt understood you, Airbus is THE European aerospace sucess story, absolutely nothing else comes close. We actually could make a point that without Airbus there would be a very nice chance that “European Aerospace” would be an almost inexistant “thing” and not a world leader in quite a lot of the aerospace sector.
And the term “Affinities” is an interesting one, any military project by definition is a political statement, there´s not much “free market” at play by obvious reasons. Western Europe would not buy Mig´s in the sixties by… obvious reasons, albeit they would be cheaper than BAC Lightings or Mirage III´s. The same aplies to the US, or Russia, or China, or…
Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, Spain and Sweden (less) do have “affinities” both political, operational (the two and a half “xeroxes” need replacement in the future), industrial (maintaining some capability inhouse, not relying entirely on a third party, the US) and budgetary (not one single of them have the budget to develop entirely on their own a MALE plus a combat system).
Cheers
Sintrahis thread has deteriorated into pro-Turkish political propaganda. Why have the moderators not shut it down?
X2
SintraYes i’m thinking about US push against European countries whom do trade with Rus
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..
Trading with Russia has nothing to do with this program, maintaining a indigenous capabiliy (first and foremost) and the possibility that one day Germany and France might be faced with a dangerous military power (guess whom) without the US backing has everything to do with this program.
Sign In
