Yes, that makes Safran’s point, and yes it didn’t make it to any plane yet. Technology has moved forward during the last two decades, so it may makes sense to propose an uprated version to better suit some client’s needs.
Where are EJ-200 improvements or uprated versions today ? Oh, sorry. I forgot it was so technologically advanced that no further improvement can be made yet after two decades of unparalleled performances…

So that contradicts your original premise that they aren’t in the business of just making a point. Clearly they are, and the point made was that given an extra 20-25 years they can make an engine roughly as good as an EJ200.

XG-40-2 and EJ230 are on test beds, never required because the Typhoon already has a ridiculously good TWR and a perfect 9 for aircraft performance from the Swiss eval. No point wasting money improving on a perfect score when there are so many other areas that need addressing.

The extra complexity of the M88 is a direct result of the requirements for a very compact engine. The EJ200 is considerably longer (and larger), it wouldn’t have worked for an the French requirements.

The British were dead set on a design that could be used to re-engine Tornado’s (even if it never happened, that was the plan at the time). This pushed the requirements to a larger engine which pushed to a larger airframe which made it unsuitable for French carriers and more expensive overall.

Plus, the M88 development started five years before the EJ200, from the French point of view it made no sense to spend money again.

Utterly irrelevant, the EJ200 still has a higher TWR. The M88 ECO is wider than the EJ200 too.

The Tornado engine is the same length as the M88.

So why did they develop the M88 ECO? And the XG-40 had been in play a good while before the EJ200.

Whatever. Engines are tailor-made for specific applications, which means every parameter si set to reach the best compromise. Comparing the overall pressure ratio or bypass ratio, out of context, only to make a point is idiotic to say the least.

So why develop the M88 ECO with a higher PR, even though it hasn’t gone in a single plane yet? Just making a point?

Tu-22 has minor role. there are hundreds of cruise missiles tested from various platforms. even that is pale in comparision to daily grunt work with various SU in syria. i am not even counting attack chopper work.
East EU is not competitive with Turkey. Germany has discovered it. Infact Turkish firms own firms like Grundig/BEKO and various German house hold good makers. East EU dont have that big construction firms thats why all labor has to move west. There are Chinese working inside firms like Apple/Qualcom/Nvidia/Google. US competitive edge on EU is due to this big factor. and you want EU to compete with Russia in miitary technology and when already its going backward in the rest of fields.

PPP/GDP. what kind of nonsense is that? i am not even talking about superiority of education system.
Is Aeroflot own by Emirates/Ethihad like Airberlin and various other EU airlines. Russia is the largest titanium provider and help designed every Boeing. i am sure Russian will be replace the unreliable MTU geared engines soon with its own line up of PD and PS engines. EU simply not have any chance to catch in military technology. and its not just military technology but application of superior training and maintaince that come on top of that.

you can bet on it who will leapfrog in drone tech?

Barrel bombing has also played a major role and bombs not appearing to land on the cross-hairs. Cruise missiles crashing in Iran.

That’s funny because Poland outstrips Turkey in both PPP GDP/Capita and Nominal GDP/Capita.

Exactly, the Chinese economy relies on Apple/Qualcom/Nvidia/Google/Asics/Nike etc. sending manufacturing there.

They’re important economic indicators, that’s what ‘nonsense’ they are.

Airlines don’t make aeroplanes, or engines. Wow Russia has a lot of resources, who would have thought it for a country so vast huh? But even with all those resources it’s still failed to achieve the same economic performance as countries with far fewer resources.

Promises and predictions with nought to show.

The planning application?

Now I admit to being confused. The Council own the buildings. They submit an ambiguous planning application and therefore are not to blame in reading it to mean the safe stuff having just written it?

I know in reality its two very different teams, and drafting of the application may even have been outsourced, but corporately an ambiguous planning application does not, in this instance, matter one iota.

They would naturally assume it means legally compliant stuff, why wouldn’t they. There is no excuse for a contractor not complying with legislation. I know this due to my profession.

Reynobond PE is not banned in the UK.

Which is correct, but only as far as buildings under 18m.

You think Hammond would have walked into that interview 100% knowing his facts, the fact it appears the stuff is legal and he does not know that, and indeed is spouting the opposite just makes him look like a *******!

Seriously, it is a damning insight into a Government of all parties that are both so badly informed and factually incorrect… That should never happen, and certainly not in front of the worlds press. Who the hell is advising these muppets?
Teresa May being a classic example of listening to people during an election who will simply be sucking up to you as their huge wage depends on it.

Have you ever considered that he might be right?

AMRAAM or Sidewinder?

Incorrect. The Labour vote increased by 3.5m, the Tory vote by 2.3m, making 5.8m in total. UKIP only had 3.8m in 2015 and still had 0.6m in 2017. 0.5m came from the SNP, or about 1/3rd of their vote. 0.1m came from the Lib Dems, or the pro-EU party. Roughly 1.2m more people turned up to vote. So the idea that this was a vote against hard Brexit, as it’s being portrayed by the left-wing media is simply codswallop. All the pro-EU parties (SNP, Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru) lost votes despite the larger turnout.

Or they just don’t care as much about what they’re bombing.

If people decided on a collective punishment of China, it would be screwed. Like if it invaded Taiwan, or started actually enforcing its EEZ claim aggressively. If the West pulled out the rug from under China, Israel would be forced to follow suit, since it relies on US military aid.

The skilled labour is there in Europe and in much higher quantities than in Russia, the problem is the political will to devote an equally large share of GDP to defence in peace time. Just very occasionally Europe produces something that shows the true level of capability that exists, like Meteor, but most of the time it’s unenthusiastic drippings of cash on this and that. If either one of the main European players spent 4-5% of GDP on defence, all of a sudden economies of scale would kick in, new capabilities would develop and export competitiveness would increase dramatically, offsetting the initial costs, such that a 2-fold increase in spend would amount to an at least 3-fold increase in equipment and capability. To put things in perspective, in X years time the UK plans to have 160 AESA Typhoons and 140 F-35s. If it spent 5% instead of 2% however, it would be 400 Typhoons, 350 F-35s and 5 carriers, 15 Type 45s and 33 Type 26s and 28 submarines, even without factoring in economies of scale. So yes, % GDP military spend makes a huge difference. Hell, at 5% we’d be developing our own stealth fighter and stuff the F-35.

Surely someone should be removing it from the other 30,000 buildings it’s currently attached to.