Are you implying that Super Hornet and Gripen NG’s engine is outdated already? :rolleyes:
no, what I imply is that the power alone doesn’t mean much by itself. WS-13 seems to perform at the same level than the french technology from more than 40 years ago.
the F414 produces about 20% more thrust while being significantly smaller, proving, if need be, that its technology is more efficient; i.e. more advanced
well, a steam locomotive could have more power than that, it still is outdated technology today
well, for an engine that wide, it’s even less impressive (WS-13)
it would seem they push a lot of air through it, but can’t heat it all that much, which results in a quite low thrust for its diameter
actually, it would corroborate what a Snecma engineer said in a documentary about CFS-56 engines sold to china.
The chinese bought a small number of engines and then reverse-engineered them. However, at snecma they didn’t bother so much because they expected it, and, what’s more, the chinese could copy the shape but couldn’t copy the manufacturing technology for hot parts, and as a result, their engines had a much shorter lifespan
The WS-13 performance would seem to indicate that they still lag in that department. The Snecma M-53 from 1969 had 86kN of thrust with a 796mm wide fan. The WS-13, acocrding ot the wiki link, has 1060 wide fan (meaning, it can suck more air) to get just the same thrust, which means it has an even lesser performance (due to weaker hot parts) than the french technology from 1969… I won’t even speak about US tech in that area which is another level up..
actually, it’s about the size of a Snecma M53 and delivers the same kind of thrust…. and the M53 was concieved in the late ‘1960s… so much about revolutionary technology… 😀
that’s maybe why he granted himself a 70% salary rise when he got into office… but we’re getting somewhat off topic, methinks 😀
Why would the SH be more draggy than the Hornet?
with pylons, it is quite obvious if one looks at them:
while those of the F-18 are nicely lined up with the aircraft longitudinal axis, the SH pylons are pointed “outwards” as you can see here:

Hardly an example of nice streamlined aerodynamics…
the “false rumors” have been spread by Swiss military and swiss medias… now, unless they are all rafale fanboys, you have a problem with your statement
what’s more, the entire process has been questioned at the swiss parliament…. rafale fanboys as well?
as for the “fitting requirements”
the gripen has been considered inadequate. then, the swiss minister declared it fit the requirements, then they announced they’ll make an “evaluation” to validate it (weird way to proceed if you ask me: first you say “it’s ok” and then you make the evaluation to “see if it’s ok” )
sorry, but one thing is clear: Maurer obviously decided he’d go for SAAB (cheapest option available) regardless of evaluation results… claiming a “new evaluation” after was just plain politicians BS to give it a looks of a valid claim
Can the gripen replace the F-5s? yes
was the whole process made as it was claimed to be (fair, by the rules, and so on)? no.
just an italian blogger repeating the stuff we’re talked about (and dismissed) here already… nothing new under the sun 😉
er, yes, I meant SAMs, sorry, my typo.. 😮
well, if the aircraft in WWII could be made in such numbers, it was also because of their relatively low complexity… if the J-10 is anywhere near comparable to them in that area, one can only wonder of what use it would be in a modern war…
there’s no doubt that production rate could be increased for any fighter in the world, if a wartime necessity required so, but “thousands per week”… er…. no…
not even close 😀
when I was a kid, in Yugoslavia, back in the late seventies, I saw a documentary about national air defences where they explained how they used a TV manual guidance for AAMs (don’t ask me to remember what exact missile type it was… it was some 35 years ago 😀 )
Obviously, it could be done at the time, so, today it is probably feasible as well
Are France’s Horizon frigates dependent on US support?
actually, yes.
Should the US decide to veto deliveries to France, Italy couldn’t, legally, export any more turbines nor do any support of the existing ones.
For french forces:
ordered: 180
planned: 286
from my memory: initially it was planned to get a bit over 300, then, reduced to 296 and then 286. Further reductions are been said to be unlikely as the Rafale has to replace all the other combat aircraft in french inventory, and unless they reduce the total volume (difficult considering the french foreign “policy”) the 286 number should stand. (we’ll see soon enough anyway)
Halo & Per-Olof
– the leak comes from the Swiss air force. like it or not, they’re certainly more competent than anyone around this board, especially the ones speaking in this discussion
– that leak clearly shows that the Gripen was the least performer in every operational aspect and below the requirements of the Swiss Air Force
nothing you can claim will change that
The only aspect where the Gripen appeared as more interesting was the price and even Ueli Maurer stated, in his own words: “we can’t afford the best, so we choose the most cost effective solution”
Basically, he flushed the evaluation down the toilet declaring that “all aircraft met the requirements” (which they did not, obviously from the documents everyone could see) obviously not expecting that someone would challenge that statement, especially with hard data which wasn’t supposed to become public.
Once the leak took place, the whole mess started IN SWITZERLAND. It’s not Dassault who leaked the documents (they most certainly did not have access to these), nor is the fuss at the swiss parliament the result of “french fanboyism” – regardless of the fact that you like it or not
@ Vnomad
You talk about economies of scale, but for the typhoon they are nonexistent for a very simple reason: instead of optimising the production chain, every partner nation’s politicians wanted to have a final assembly chain at home, therefore reducing greatly (if not nullifying) the economy of scale that was possible to achieve.
for example, the UK assembly line will go barely above 200 aircraft (UK ones plus the saudi ones), germany around 160, and italian and spanish ones less than a hundred.
If they get some more export markets, they may add a few here and there, but compared to dassaults almost 300 rafales planned (180 already ordered) for the french forces alone, plus a small bunch for India, the economy of scale already seems to be more promising for the rafale, even with less units sold, overall.