Snecma was one of the first to cool their engines with incoming fuel.

Has the typhoon been tested for the cruel arctic conditions? Would seem some minimal level of certification would be mandatory. The F-35 is getting certified for operating within the worst of arctic conditions, as was the F-22 previously. Can’t imagine it was in the original program as none of the member states probably required it.

Anyone know what aircraft has a receptacle that can reliably handle the 1200gpm flow?

edit: n/m I see irtusk already answered that. None of them can as of right now. If 1176gpm is the maximum for anything right now then the spec should reflect that with a merited target date for increasing to 1200gpm at some later date. If they do not reach the target flow at the later date you simply pull the carrot (money) back.

I wonder why they don’t create separate bids for the airframes and the equipment outlay for the aircraft. If they had standardized plug-n-play modules for components like the fuel transfer options then more potential vendors could participate. As it is right now the bidder can bait and switch equipment and pin the blame on government sanctioned subs. This gouges the tax payer in the middle of the programs.

I suppose pfcem’s hangup with the previous RFP processes may stem from not understanding that RFP requirements are mobile. The whole point of the RFP is to have input from potential bidders before the RFB.

We’ll find out if the political will is still out there in Congress to break up Boeing. The real problem for Boeing in this tender is that its from Boeing. It may or may not have a product that fits the program, but there was concerted effort in Congress to rebuke Boeing this last time around. And the USAF seemed all too happy to kick them while they were down. It really speaks volumes about the sorry state of American industry when only one tender comes from the states and they have to resort to international partnerships to offer alternatives.

There are tradeoffs in this oversimplification.Contrary to what Showtime is suggesting they are trading simplification for performance. That extra stage and the more complicated design of the Al-31F is for reasons that the engineers know. Otherwise the Russian engineers would have built a WS-10 alike a long time ago. I’m guessing they intend to keep the J-11B in a tighter flight envelope in exchange for a less difficult to manufacture product. The tradeoff is a calculated risk by the chinese.

Less difficult to manufacture may result in accepting a product that has a shorter life cycle and costs more to maintain in the long term.

WS-10A looks like a step backwards compared to Al-31F, how do you figure it’s more ambitious?

Skybolt was killed by treatise. Imagine the destabilizing force of such a missile in that time period.