Hi there!

Welcome aboard. Interesting to read your thoughtful post.

It might be worth noting that the EJ200 consortium were required to make an engine with at least 20% growth potential – which would boost it from 60kN to over 70kN. Eurojet itself was reported to have plans to increase dry thrust to 78kN in time for a Typhoon midlife upgrade.

Source: http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html

I wonder if a 78kN engine would provide sufficient power for a mini SAAB F-35?

Why not use the RM12 in that case? it´s 80,5kN thustclass. Today its not to many american parts left.. Before F414G was selected as future engine for gripen, the RM12++ was on the drawingboard with expected 100kN thust.
too bad EJ200 consortium didnt incorporate Volvo Aero..
And that they worked on an engine together..

RM12 is rated at 54kN dry thrust / 80.5kN wet thrust according to the Volvo website. The EJ200 figure of 78kN mentioned was dry thrust.

That might of been how it was sold but really I don’t see how the Iraq War was ever going to achieve anything to combat terrorism.

Saddam was a secular tyrant who, while nominally a Muslim, did not behave as such. He would have been utterly intolerant of any group such as AQ that tried to set up in his fiefdom. AQ’s allegiance would be to the Islamic deity, not to the dictator.

The Iraq war did nothing to quell terrorism. Where there was none, it created it.

All IMO of course. May not be the same as GWB’s opinion but I think that in many extra-US matters others know better than he.

GWB’s the guy who was unaware of Sunni and Shiite, wasn’t he? And unaware of what the crusaders did in Jerusalem in 1099.

Americans are tough and non negotiating when it comes to terrorism especially in Afghanistan. While Brits are eager to engage the Taleban in dialogue and solve the issue diplomatically, and very eager to pull out. It has to be noted that the defeatist statements coming from British officers serving in Iraq in BBC and other media do not help the coalition causes either.

British do not want to fight the war in Afghanistan, the Americans do. And i do not think its good to keep people who no longer want to be fighting there.
I like the commitment Bush and now Obama has given to the war in Afghanistan, I am yet to see a positive commitment from British for a long time.

Defeatist Brits 😡

Afghanistan has a traditional tribal culture with constantly changing alliances and allegiances. It is also a Muslim country. It is a country with terrain that facilitates indefinite resistance to a military opponent.

No foreign power is ever likely to “defeat” Afghan resistance. If it is defeatist to acknowledge that, the sensible guys are the defeatists.

Tejas will make a terrible MRCA contender.

I think it’s a waste of time considering it but why not? It will be excluded from selection immediately, won’t it?

Well, I doubt many see the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a good thing!:rolleyes: As I stated before the US didn’t have a problem per se with India getting Nuclear Weapons. It had a problem with the spread of such weapons to rogue nations.

And how are rogue nations defined? They are defined as nations the US considers to be rogue in nature. And the rest of us are supposed to kowtow to the US’ flawed conception of the world. If we’re not with you, we’re against you, according to your enlightened leader. In your misinformed (eg WMD’s), misguided (eg Cuba and all other nasty red places pose a threat) and mistaken (eg Israel is the oppressed, not the oppressor) view we should consider all states that you deem your enemies as our enemies too. If we don’t, you have told us that we are added to your list of enemies.

Do you seriously expect non-Americans to subscribe to such blatently stupid “thinking”?

No one is saying Europe can’t make a turbofan in the class of the F119/135/136 – RR is doing 40% of GE’s F136. But what I’m saying is Europe doesn’t have such an engine currently, as it opted for the smaller and cheaper EJ200 and M88 – which are fantastic jet engines. SAAB cannot realistically pay for the R&D of an engine in the F135 class – which is exactly what it will have to do unless it goes to Russia. The US won’t be willing to sell its powerplants if it threatens F-35 – especially since SAAB has done so well in the export market already.

Well now, the US engine manufacturers would not want to supply to power a non-US aircraft to compete with a US aircraft? And what if the F136 is not in fact used for the F-35? And what if RR said that they would like the business even if that did not suit LM?

all this mumbo gumbo about Europe can’t making a large fighter engine begs the question..

do some European countries need to make a stealth fighter the size of the F-35?

what if say, Sweden decided to make a stealth fighter with an internal weapons bay about as small as the one on the X45? Could a single EJ2000 give it enough power? Basically a manned version of something like the X45/7.

it will be stealthy, small, maybe cheaper.. and not directly competing with the larger F-35?

It might be worth noting that the EJ200 consortium were required to make an engine with at least 20% growth potential – which would boost it from 60kN to over 70kN. Eurojet itself was reported to have plans to increase dry thrust to 78kN in time for a Typhoon midlife upgrade.

Source: http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html

I wonder if a 78kN engine would provide sufficient power for a mini SAAB F-35?

Personally I see no good case for SAAB embarking on such a project… except that I don’t have any real confidence in the cost of ownership of F-35 remotely resembling the numbers given out by LM. I think there is a high risk that the various countries that selected F-35 will face a severe shock in a few years time when they get the bill. I foresee the bill forcing some countries to make draconian cuts in other parts of their defence budget. At this point an alternative to F-35 might gain some traction in the market.

There are plenty of precedents. The USA is a reliable supplier of weapons, as long as the recipients are obedient. I don’t see India being content to obey US directives on foreign & some domestic policies, as would be required to keep up a steady supply of US support for Indias weapons.

I agree that you cannot rely on the US as a supplier unless you observe US policies.

If US administrations were altruistic and endowed with more wisdom than any other, it could be argued that pressurising other countries to observe US policies was to the benefit of all. US foreign policy, however, is not governed by altruism nor does the US leadership exhibit exceptional wisdom. On the contrary US leadership tends to exhibit surprising naivity and ignorance and a steadfast determination to ignore the counsel of better informed and wiser leaderships from other countries.