Cola1973Congratulations you’ve forgotten about the USN and Marine corps plus all those juicy international contracts. Even if just A was cancelled costs would shoot up massively and most of the international contracts would go bye-bye.
+ USAF would lose the fighter actually designed to hit ground targets and would require yet another new plane.
If the US were to pull out now it’d cripple the majority of NATO’s air forces current procurement plans. But hey, i’m sure Typhoon would start doing some pretty big business as people sort to fill the gap.
LOL, I didn’t. 😀
Some “experts” claim F22 can fly AoA 60°, so there should be no problems with carrier landings, even without reinforced landing gear. 😀
As for Marines, they just need to extend their Tarawa’s decks and again F22’s STO abilities should have no problems with that. That’s cheaper than F35 program, anyway. 😀
As for international contracts, well I guess it’s time to repay a part of US international debt through some high-tech export, but I’m not sure whether the beneficiaries would be all that excited about that, in the end. 😉
Finally, F22 has larger weapon bays than F35, so it’s more efficient in the “first-day” combat anyway.
Ok, I’m joking a bit here, but some things aren’t that funny after all. 😉
Cola1973Of British jet fighters & armed trainers, the Meteor, Sea Hawk, Vampire, Venom, Hunter & Hawk have been exported to European countries. Italy & Sweden have both built indigenous combat aircraft using British jet engines – the Goblin, Ghost, Orpheus, Avon, Viper & Spey. Sweden & Italy both built British engines under licence, & produced their own modified versions of them, proving themselves capable of design, not just copying plans. They did the same with US engines. Belgium & Germany also licence-built US jet engines, & Germany licence-built British jet engines. A few countries licence-built turboprops, including British. e.g. Tyne engines for the Transall were licence-built in Germany, Belgium & France. Switzerland licence-built French jet engines for licence-built Mirage IIIs. By the time EJ200 development began, all this had been going on for a few decades.
But the details aren’t very important. What’s significant is that European countries haven’t been dependent on US-built or designed combat aircraft or engines, & US dominance was never as complete as you thought. The British industry, a fair bit of the French industry (used by Germany during the occupation), & the smaller industries of the neutrals, survived the war, & others were rebuilt quite quickly. The countries which didn’t have their own post-war designs used, & often built, both US & other European aircraft.
Hm, thanks for detailed report. 🙂 I forgot many of those smaller projects, indeed.
I remember RR Spey very well, since, although a bit “thirsty”, it was the only European engine (and later Atars to a degree) equal to J79 (and surpassing it, in some aspects).
However, the rest, although existing, wasn’t in the same league with most modern GE and PW models that powered American fighters. European engines were always one, or more, steps behind the American cutting-edge technology.
US (PW/GE) built, at least, 4000 engines for F16s, only. How many Speys did the RR build? You can’t really compare that.
Cola1973All the given countries do have the know how and production technologies at hand to create top end engines, when money is no issue.
Well, they do today.
20 years ago, when EJ200 begun, I don’t think so. Know-how and money, in tech sciences, are related more closely than in abstract ones, because you need to confirm calculations in actual material (engine). It’s not like proving 27 dimensional matrix, for which you need a piece of paper, a pencil and sharp brain.
Allegedly, Krupp burned some 10,000 barrels until they came to 8,8 cm caliber. That wasn’t free.
Cola1973Scrap F35 program.
Use whatever learned in F35 program and complete F35’s EW program.
Upgrade F22, with acquired knowledge and systems.
Build more F22, with F35 budget (both F and A).
…and then USAF may get somewhere…
Cola1973Er – no.
No, what? How many American manufactured tactical engines flew over the Europe up until the fall of Berlin Wall and how many European (altogether)?
British jets were exported to Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland & Denmark.
Ok that may be so, but I didn’t realize all those countries used British powered fighters?! Which model?
And as for F-104 and it’s J79, well that’s what I’m talking about. The difference between J79 and EJ200 is infinite.
Besides, it’s not the same to construct the engine from scrap (having a base of experienced engine designers, which have some creative ideas of their own) and building a licensed engine (with prepared plans and all testing complete).
Cola1973Might have to do with the fact that those other countries were mainly operating foreign types, spare Sweden.;)
Exactly. 😉
Right, but UK+France combined fielded quite the large proportion of total “European” (presumably ignoring Warsaw pact for this purpose) combat aircraft in the entire post-WWII period, I’d think you’d agree…?
I forgot the exact numbers, but USAFe was very strong, with at least two TFWs (WINGS!!!) of F-15s in W.Germany (possibly more, can’t remember) and some TBW in UK, etc…Plus, most European states flew exclusively American aircraft and only, UK and Italy (to a lesser extent) had their own production lines. French, were the only one to (re)develop their own aircraft industry and the first line of Atar jets was based on WW2 BMW 003 jet engine.
Yes, but the context was the development of EJ200 & M88. The latter is French, & the former is developed by a consortium the most important member of which is British – though the Germans & Italians also have experience of modern jet engines. Swedish use of American engines (but note that they used to use British engines in their fighters) is irrelevant.
If you compare RB199 and EJ200, you’ll see those are two different engines, although EJ200 was developed from RB199. While UK was fielding RB199, the Americans had F100 (F110) and such!
I mean you can’t really compare UK (Europe) and US engine manufacturers in terms of resources and production numbers.
Never the less EuroJet made a large step and is now in the world’s top and that’s no small accomplishment given the competition.
As for the French, as I said, they started in 1946 with BMW 003! It took much hard work to make Atar engine line and transition to M88 turbofan line, from Atar turbojets, was another important step and accomplishment of its own.
NOW, I’M SAYING THIS IN CASE YOU PEOPLE FORGOT HOW DID THE EUROPE LOOKED LIKE IN SUMMER 1945 ! ! !
Last time the US were in similar condition, it was 1865…and wasn’t that bad.
Obviously, it’s difficult to built superadvancedXYZturbomegaultranew engine, if you don’t have a house to live in, right?
Cola1973Why do you say “mostly foreign engines”? The UK has used British jet engines since WW2 (before the USA . . . ), even putting British engines in F-4s, & France has been using mostly French engines since the1950s.
UK and French did, but the Germans, Spanish, Italians, didn’t and the Swedes use American engines even today. I was talking about post WW2 era.
Cola1973Well, this numbers are pretty obvious in terms of development direction. The idea is to increase mass of air passing through the engine, hence larger diameter and higher compression level (by adding a few more compressor stages and that’s why the engine will be longer).
pistolero, check PM
Cola1973the m-88 3 eco will also be heavier… in fact, the ej200 and the m-88 3 will have the same thrust, same weight, same size… what a waste of money. by the way, i like ur profile picture cola1973, care to share?
Not quite. It’s good to have competition. As a consequence, the Europe made the engine in T/W class with F119 (9+:1) and with only somewhat larger bypass ratio and that’s quite an accomplishment for nations previously flying mostly foreign engines.
I guess it was inevitable that M88 and EJ200 will eventually meet, but I’d argue that this will be momentarily and both will continue their own way and that’s good.
As for my avatar, go ahead and use it if you like it :), but I don’t know how to share it, though. :confused: What do I need to do?
Cola1973But what about air superiority and dogfighting?
The winglets come in handy and can help your Flanker pull high-G maneuvers with comparative ease.
The Su-27/30/33/35 Flanker family of fighters was originally designed to be an air superiority fighter like the F-15C Eagle.
What about dogfighting?…well, nothing, really… 🙂
“Air Superiority” isn’t equal to “dogfight”. As the matter of fact, historically, dogfight occurs in 1 out of 5 kills. In E.Hartmann’s case (top scoring WW2 pilot), even less and he flew cannon armed fighter! 😉
As for the canards, it’s true they enable broader g envelope, but I tried to point out Sukhoi’s inclination towards pure interceptor, so it’s more useful to put 2 more radar’s amplifiers (or something), than canard servos.
It’s always a trade off, between possible and required…
Cola1973If the dry thrust is uprated it should and even if it just boosts the performance in operational config (which is the most important btw) it will be an advantage. Earlier indications were for a 60 kN dry/90 kN reheat version (M88-3) and increased reheat thrust is often achieved by increased dry thrust.
True. There’s no such thing as a “too powerful” engine and every pilot will vouch for that, especially if he’s already pulling high g, trying to shake the missile off, hoping the plane will hold the turn, just for a few moments more…
The only practical limit here is range/endurance, but I think Rafale should be able to handle 60/90 KN class engine, without significant reduction in op cap.
SNECMA M88 has a lower bypass ratio (0,3) than, let’s say EJ200 (0,4) and so there’s still a room for improvement without resorting to significant increase in fuel consumption.
Cola1973if you have some questions related to the rafale I can try to ask them…But don’t be too specific otherwise they won’t answer.
For instance when speaking about basic features of SPECTRA today ( even some aspects which are extensively discussed in the press) the AdA pilot prefered to talk about another topic…So the difficult thing is to get interesting pieces of infos knowing that we can’t have acces to everything of course….
Yes, I know, but I believe you could try asking about DFC. Although it’s not all that important, I’d like to know a little bit more about Rafale aerodynamic/control routine and flight protocols.
I already have “a guy” inside Eurofighter’s hangar :), but I know little about Rafale and I’d like to learn more. That’s all.
As far as electronics go, I’m not interested in it beyond public figures and I doubt even pilots know the “interesting” stuff.
Anyway, thx.
Cola1973Hey Arthuro, nice report.
When you do go again, on Thursday, could you do me a favor?
When you’ll be talking to Rafale pilots, please ask them, whether direct force control (DFC) has been used normally in flight, or the use of it requires some kind of override by pilot?
I don’t think there should be any problems regarding disclosure of “classified” material. 🙂 Thx.
Cola1973Ok, sorry. 😉
No problem 🙂
If I may add, I always liked Dassault’s creativity in a manner of elegant problem solving, as opposed to brute force by superpowers. I’m very pleased by the fact that EADS and SAAB took the same approach with their aircraft.
In the end, I wish you have nice weather on Le Bourget this year. 🙂
Cola1973TMor, time-out 🙂
I didn’t mention Rafale, did I? I didn’t even red most of the posts…
I just wanted to comment the political influence on aircraft purchase budgets. Now, I know many ppl have some “inside” info, but can’t verify them being classified and all, LOL. I don’t deal in that kind of stuff, but that doesn’t matter in the end.
However, if you imply that my comment can be interpreted as EF supremacy over Rafale, DON’T.
I think that Rafale is an excellent plane “en par” with Eurofighter. I’d count Gripen in there too, if it only had some 3 KN of thrust more. Whether Rafale can take out EF or 3xF16s, isn’t important at all.
Why?
Because it’s just ONE MOCK-UP combat. Pilots have their days and days, too. There’s no guaranties that superior hardware will prevail in the end of the day. However, superior numbers and a will to win will prevail and the more combatants you have engaged the less important their individual quality is. Russians learned that very well during WW2 and Americans with 183 F22s, have yet to (re?)learn this.
The bottom line;
F15SG won Singaporean tender, in spite of being technically surpassed by politically less attractive options.
Sign In
