RiiThe nuclear power plant technology/fighter package deal requirement limits the fighter choice to French Rafale, Russian SU 35 and/or PAK FA or a Chinese type J 17 or maybe J 31. http://http://revolution-green.com/2013/10/15/chinas-thorium-initiative-leaves-usa-behind/ http://http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2012/10/30/completion-date-slips-for-chinas-thorium-molten-salt-reactor/
Brazil is certainly interested in nuclear and other high technology sectors, but so far as I am aware there is no indication that FX-2’s industrial objectives extend beyond aerospace technologies. Indeed it would make much more sense to link nuclear technologies to the French-Brazilian SSN program…
Brazil’s wide-ranging interests are one of the reasons I favour Rafale for FX-2, and deprecate Gripen’s chances despite its excellent operational suitability, in that it serves as one element in a comprehensive industrial-strategic partnership. Of course there is a counter-vailing argument that Brazil should avoid becoming too dependent on any single vendor, both for strategic and economic reasons, and this is certainly a significant factor for India, but I don’t think it will play the same way in Brazil. If Brazilian military spending was double or more what it is, things would be different and it would make sense to play the Russians, French, Americans, etc. off against each other and obtain the best deal for each respective niche, but with limited funding and operational ambitions I think the benefits of smooth integration e.g. future carrier aircraft with future carrier, favour sticking with a single vendor, and that as such continuing and deepening the already extensive engagement with France is the best way forward.
RiiNew J-10 Shows Comprehensive Rather Than Partial Improvements
This article is devoid of content.
RiiWho said anything about replacing Rafale? Those are Argentinean colours are they not? It’s simply a speculative further development of Rafale the likes of which could well be of interest to Brazil, India, and other export customers in the 2020s, akin to the Hyper Hornet roadmap. It is in no way an alternative to a clean-sheet successor, at most it might push the timeline for such along a few years and share some development resources akin to Su-35 and T-50.
Rii
RiiHerck no… Don’t you know all about French tendency to discuss fiercely every bit of a subject?.. So not in 2005. But in 2025 probably 😉
Well I certainly don’t wish to uncritically endorse French decision-making. The MN should’ve acquired F/A-18, for instance.
RiiThat’ll amost certainly be the PAK-FA.
I’m still strongly of the opinion it’s cruising and maximum speeds will be significant advances on anything fielded elsewhere today.
T-50 will be kinematic monster for sure, but I doubt that it’s maximum operational speed will be exceptional. Above Mach 2 friction heating becomes a significant issue demanding tailored solutions in the form of materials employed and so forth. T-50 cannot become a Mach 2.5+ machine ‘by accident’, and we have heard nothing regarding specific design work to enable this class of performance.
RiiYou wouldn’t spend a tiny fraction of your time defending the F-35 if it was French made.
To be fair, if the F-35 had been conceived and executed by France, it would’ve been cancelled back in 2005 once the extent of its failures became apparent. Only the United States can afford a ‘success’ like the JSF program.
Eh … ok, maybe Russia would’ve gone ahead with it if Putin’s brother-in-law was running the project. I’m reminded of a tweet from a Russian satire account a while back: our politicians need to have more children so we have more skilled industrialists to run our factories. :p
RiiWith respect to India and China, there is certainly some merit to that assertion (abandoning the Marut program for example was a major blunder). On the other hand, fact is since 80s, China has had far larger finances at its disposal than India. And its military-industrial development was driven as much by embargoes as it was through vision.
True enough. On the other hand, I suspect that even today India would benefit more from putting Kaveri into production for Tejas than importing F404/F414. Many engines have begun their careers with sub-par performance, reliability, and other problems, and it’s only through the experience that comes from biting the bullet and producing and using the bloody things that progress is made. India seems to lack the commitment necessary to realise its long-term potential, forever looking for the short-cut.
‘Twilight of Europe’? Military-industrial decisions reflecting the ‘greatness’ of the nation? You might be getting a little carried away here.
A touch dramatic perhaps. National greatness has always been associated, in part, with military achievement. Public works are another element of national greatness, particularly those that reflect unique cultural characteristics. Since the industrial age, major military-industrial projects have assumed elements of both, from the USA’s ‘Great White Fleet’ of the early 20th century to Concorde. There is nothing very controversial about this.
‘Greatness’ isn’t necessarily an unalloyed good, or something that confers benefits on the average citizen. Russia is and has been a great nation and its history is full of horrors. The UK is no longer a great nation, nor is Germany, yet both are much better places to live than they ever were in their periods of greatness. Many European nations have had their periods of greatness, but only in France does a glimmer still remain. Even Swedish exceptionalism — an inward-looking form of greatness — is fading beneath the crushing weight of globalisation.
In any case, what I mourn specifically about the loss of British greatness is the loss of the design heritage that gave rise to such aircraft as the Venom, Lightning, Saro Princess, Harrier, the V bombers, TSR.2, etc. These were all British aircraft embodying uniquely British characteristics, much as most French and Russian aircraft are unmistakeable in their origins. And all the industrial offsets in the world can’t change the fact that the F-35 is an American aircraft through-and-through.
Not England.
In this context I think ‘England’ is indeed appropriate. After all, much of the historical rivalry predates the Acts of Union. 🙂
Are you sure about that? There’s so many other sectors in the UK that we design and produce where others envy and indeed lack. Small example: Want to design and produce a Racing Car (pick any Formula), ask a few Brits and they’ll cook one up in the UK and stick a Mercedes AMG, Red Bull or a Renault badge on it. Just because they don’t produce ‘Made in the UK’ fighters no more doesn’t mean they lack overall in what they produce elsewhere.
My first thought was the new Minis. But then that’s a BMW marque now isn’t it? Telling.
RiiSlightly OT but how does the Irbis radar on Su-35 compare to the upgraded Zaslon on MiG-31BM?
RiiToo less pixels I would say, but looks like a Medium range Bomber/Missile Carrier.
It looks like Shenyang’s JH-X design we heard about earlier that was apparently rejected in favour of a subsonic flying wing design.
RiiI think the question of LMFS depends largely on whether T-50 can be made carrier-compatible, and also on potential program partners such as India. Export potential is a shadow of what it once was, and is unlikely to weigh significantly.
The original rationale for MiG-29 is certainly gone. Even if VVS still had interest in massing numbers at the front, Russia has many other operational and developmental priorities to attend to ahead of this.
Rii@Vnomad: will reply to your post shortly.
I just noticed the following from Scooter over in the Tejas thread. I don’t wish to drag that thread further off topic, so I’m posting about it here:
Well, even before the F-35 came along it was obvious the next Generation wasn’t going to be replaced older types one for one.
I can’t be reading this right. Did you just admit that the JSF program was flawed in its basic conception and sold with lies? Because replacing older types one-for-one is precisely what the American services and many NATO allies called for with a new aircraft, and it was the resulting projections of thousands upon thousands of airframes that promised to generate the unprecedented economies of scale that would allow the aircraft to be no more expensive than those it would replace (and cheaper to operate to boot — something else that went out the window as soon as airframe weight and fuel burn ballooned) and further it was those promised airframe numbers that provided the economic incentive for nations to become program partners in the first place. Indeed, most of these lies are officially maintained to the present day, e.g. projected US airframe numbers.
RiiBig fuel tank for small plane. 😮
[I have sometimes wondered if it is worth having a consolidated videos thread for the forum.]
RiiAgreed completely. And that is one of the reasons why I disagree with any European involvement in the F-35 project. Losing own designing capability, paying twice as much as agreed and as a result getting a P.O.S. of an aircraft is as bad as it gets, IMO.
Pretty much. Dependency is a spiralling process and the United Kingdom is deep within the vortex from which there is no escape. Has been for decades, really.
Here’s a comparison that isn’t often made: you can pair France and China off against UK and India in pursuing alternative industrial-strategic paths — the former pair opted for self-sufficiency, the latter for market opportunities. The results can be seen today: France still maintains its strategic-industrial independence (even if reaching the end of its tether) and China is preparing to field indigenous fifth generation aircraft. In contrast the UK is dancing to a combination of someone else’s drum and its own staggering incompetence (the -B/-C carrier switcheroo) and India can barely field a fourth-generation aircraft powered by someone else’s engine. Short-term expediency vs. long-term foresight indeed.
It’s odd to think that the eternal rivalry between France and England actually does have a coda: in the European twilight, France has proven to possess a greatness that its rival does not.
Sign In
