Actually France was the ones who discovered the Falklands before it became British. Lets say France holds onto this territory and in the 80s Argentina decides to take it away from France.

The french respond by trying to take it back. would they have done it better?

in this scenario, because Argentine-French relations are not good
they don’t have mirages and super entendards, but the EE Lightning and Buccaneer instead

Well if the Buccaneer is limited to 5 anti ship missiles they wouldn’t be more efficient than the SUE in that role, although probably more efficient in conventional bombings, but that’s a risky business & two carriers operating Crusaders could give them a hard time.

I don’t think that the Lightning is renowned for its range so it would suffer the same problems than the Mirages operating on fumes (I stole that expression from the other thread sorry).

My guess is the result would be the same.

Nic

T/W 10% better, SFC a few percent better based on medium value, higher pressure ratio, higher mass-flow rate confirm SFC likely better throughout much of the envelope and mean lower jet velocity and core temperature for any given thrust. Same diameter, same drag package. Can’t see what else there is to discuss.

I think you beat the EJ200 by quite a large margin spouting so much hot air.

T/W 10% better

AdlA & MN got to chose between 90KN or lower SFC & better cost of ownership, they chose the latter. By your own chart which compared EJ200, M88-E4 ECO & M88-3 you find that potential T/W is pretty similar if you go for M88-3. But those who use it opted for lower SFC & increased life. Since you can’t compare the life of both engines because the the MTBO of the EJ200 is nowhere to be found (hint… it’s probably not that good or it would be plastered all over), you can’t compare how much emphasis has been chosen on sheer power or lower cost/longer life.

Maybe the high operational cost of the EF hints to low MTBO of the engines?

SFC a few percent better based on medium value

Why are there even two values for the EJ200? What do they represent exactly? How did you come to the conclusion that the M88’s value representing the same thing as the average between those values? It’s not logical deduction, it’s faith.

As for the rest I’m not educated enough to conclude either way.

Nic

And what if someone just makes unfounded remarks with no evidence or context?

Like you did when you claimed that the EJ200 was superior to the M88, to which I asked why exactly?

Nic

Fascinatingly, reading about the F117 shootdown by an S125, they claim they had detected it between 50 & 60 km & shot the missile from 13 km… oh wait… just under 15 km!

Nic

That’s true for the Rafale, but AFAIK not for the engine. I should add that the Rafale could have its engine changed on the airbase (or carrier) in under an hour with two maintenance personnel, and fly again without any bench testing. I’m not sure the Typhoon could claim the same?

That said the M88-4E CGP has been increased to 4000 cycles between overhauls (2500 cycles before CGP), but I’m not too sure what it means in terms of flight hours. Probably about 800-1000?

Nic

That might be true or the journo might possibly have had a conversation with people who knew what the opposing force kit was and then used the commonly quoted range for the particular variant of kit.

Much as I have a healthy distain for journalists sometimes they sometimes do get things in the right ball park, especially when they are specialists.

Well I don’t think you could find a worse bunch of professional liars than french journalists, except french politicians maybe?

Then again a range of 15 km for SA3 vs a Rafale (lower signature than your average fighter when ranges were estimated for those systems) is nothing too astounding.

Nic

Shown by linking French wikipedia? You may want to check other resources, or even other wikipedias, just saying.

Wasn’t your point that even school children, let alone journalists could check wiki before saying things that are completely off. As it turns out that journo probably checked the french wiki page and used that range. I’ve seen more sloppy journalism than that.

Nic

Nice comparison of EJ200 vs M88

http://www.air-defense.net/forum/topic/13875-m88-vs-ej-200/

exceprt:

Comme expliqué plus haut, le choix du taux de compression du compresseur BP procède d’une optimisation particulière liée aux missions principales envisagées pour l’avion. En l’occurrence, le choix retenu pour l’EJ-200 permet une réduction de la consommation de carburant en post-combustion et optimise donc le moteur pour un usage en supersonique. A contrario, le M88 privilégie une poussée spécifique plus faible pour augmenter le rayon d’action en croisière subsonique.

As explaine above, the choice of the compression rate of the LP compressor derives from the missions assigned to the fighter. Indeed the choice retained for the EJ200 allows for reduction of fuel consumption during afterburner and optimises the engine for supersonic use. On the contrary, M88 favors a lower specific thrust to increase the radius of action in subsonic cruise.

Le M88 semble ici plus conservateur, mais la perspective de devoir supporter de longs vols en TBA n’y est probablement pas étrangère même si le choix du taux de compression total est aussi une question de compromis lié à l’équilibre général du moteur ou à sa longévité (température réduite)

The M88 seems more conservative here, but the prospect of sustaining long very low altitude flight is probably no stranger to it, even if the choice of the global compression rate is also a compromise linked to the general equilibrium of the engine or its longevity (reduced temperature).

Translated as best as I could because of the technical terms. Feel free to correct it.

Nic