France has a bigger arms export market share than Germany.
Maybe we won't supply parts for those German planes either.
If China is offering the J-31 then there's no choice.
Last edited:
Eurofighter Typhoon - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
Maybe we won't supply parts for those German planes either.
If China is offering the J-31 then there's no choice.
So basically it's just shitty German acting against UK interests. Hence why I say that maybe the UK just shouldn't sell them parts for their Typhoons either and should build whatever German parts are needed for Typhoons themselves.
Is Meteor really what's holding up the sale? That's completely irrelevant to the conflict and A2G in general. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Rheinmetal bombs aren't even guided are they? So they're selling the Saudi's unguided bombs by-proxy and complaining about the UK's sale of guided weapons and AAMs. Maybe they should just go back to murdering Jews, at least they were more honest back then.
Last edited:
Not in Europe and for NATO countries, that's where Germany has the clear diplomatic and industrial advantage. Neither French fighters, tanks, artillery, or even SSKs are selling in Europe/NATO. So when French and German MBT/Artillery makers team up, who benefits from whom?
And the same is the case for the NGF or EuroMale, where Germany brought France in (to a partnership with Spain) and where Dassault failed already by betting on their partnership to BAE/UK initially. So who is benefitting from whom?
So when you aim on combined EU military and industry, France is banking on the Germans, not the other way around. And as long as France understands, that's the main market they should focus on, there won't be any sanction issues anyway.
Not as regards fighter aircraft. Germany can't even maintain them, let alone design and build them.
The one has nothing to do with the other, operational limitations are based on limited defence funding for the forces and improper spare supply. And it's a funny to belive that Germany can't design a fighter, when the EF for the most part is based on the old MBB design. Most Airbus defence designs are from Airbus Germany too (see Mako, Barracuda, Talarion...), so the industrial side certainly is not the problem.
There's no EU market for European fighters. Let's have a look at fighter procurement since the end of the Cold War (post 1991) in the EU 28. (Soon to be EU 27.)
- Austria: Typhoon, but German bribes were involved
- Belgium: F-35 planned
- Bulgaria: nothing yet, a competition is ongoing with F-16 as the favorite
- Croatia: tried to acquire secondhand Israeli F-16, but USA blocked the resale
- Cyprus: no combat air force
- Czechia: leased Gripen
- Denmark: F-35
- Estonia: no combat air force
- Finland: nothing yet, a competition is ongoing with F-35 as the favorite
- France: Mirage 2000 (domestic), Rafale (domestic)
- Germany: Typhoon (domestic)
- Greece: F-16
- Hungary: leased Gripen
- Ireland: no combat air force
- Italy: Typhoon (domestic), F-35
- Latvia: no combat air force
- Lithuania: no combat air force
- Luxembourg: no combat air force
- Malta: no combat air force
- Netherlands: F-35
- Poland: F-16
- Portugal: Alpha Jet, F-16
- Romania: secondhand F-16 from Portugal
- Slovakia: F-16
- Slovenia: no combat air force
- Spain: F/A-18, Typhoon (domestic)
- Sweden: Gripen (domestic)
- United Kingdom Typhoon (domestic), F-35
I did say post-1991. Greece's Mirage 2000 were bought in the 1980s. They bought F-16 in the 1990s and early 2000s.
He doesn't understand, that's the main problem. The requirement for NGF/Tempest is any EF, Rafale, or Gripen that is available now, because this is a replacement of these fighters and with Germany, France and Spain already agreed to join, the NGF has 300+ orders fixed with more partners to join too.
What is there to understand from three failed projects that never went further than the prototype stage because even their home country didn't want to buy them? Barracuda took its name too seriously and dove into the sea, the other two might still be gathering dust in a hangar if they haven't been quietly scrapped.When you don't understand things, don't comment on it. Not that difficult.
Those are domestic orders. Big whoop. What's important is to sell to countries that aren't partners. Partners just want to recoup their investment. Customers want to buy your product. European countries don't want to buy European fighters unless they made it themselves.
Simply wrong. The EF was based on the British Aerospace EAP, which was based on the BAe ACA, which was derived from the BAe P110 and the EJ200 was based on the RR XG-40. The radar was based on Ferranti's ECR-90 and the IRST was developed by Thorn EMI originally.
British Aerospace EAP - Wikipedia
BAE P110 design concept, initially developed as a jaguar replacement =>
(Note, close coupled canards, side air intakes)
MBB TKF 90 concept
The EAP came later and included design studies of MBB and other partners, but be it the carnard position, the air intake layout, there should be no doubt, which design concept was the base for the EF.
That MBB TKF 90 is the BAe ACA
ACA (Agile Combat Aircraft)
ACA (Agile Combat Aircraft)
By July 1982 the P110 was now called the Agile Combat Aircraft. Industry's P110 proposals had now been superseded by those for the Agile Combat Aircraft. In September 1982, BAe managed to gather its partners Panavia (MBB and Aeritalia) and transformed P.110 into the Agile Combat Aircraft (ACA, not to be confused with the "Advanced Combat Aircraft").
The ACA concept superseded P110 as a private venture project by British Aerospace in collaboration with its German and Italian Tornado partners. It suggested that the MOD should be involved in funding P110 and ACA, but the Secretary of State's was unwilling to do this and offered instead a jointly funded British Aerospace-MOD demonstrator programme called EAP, the experimental aircraft program.
For a large period of time, BAe was also the only country funding the EAP. The production technology (super-plastic forming diffusion bonding) was also BAe. And again, the engines were RR XG-40s and the radar was based on the ECR 90, the IRST was Thorn EMI.
As regards the Canard position, that's the worst part of the EF, the ACA and P110 position is better for manoeuvrability. You will also note there is no cranked delta of the EF and a single tail. Also please see the 1978 BAe ECF project.
Last edited: