UK next gen fighter

[milosh]

The 117 is the best they got, and its reliability is way behind the European engines. An AL-31F is thrash after 2000hrs, they managed to bump that number to 4000hrs with the 117. The Ej200 and m88 are 30+ year old engines and got 6000hrs service life.

117S is what powered Su-35 it have 4000h service life, it use similar core as AL-31F. 117 is what power Su-57 isn't clear what engine it is based on. For example in Zvezda documentary about Su-57, engine constructor clearly say it isn't 117S. So it could be 117 is scaled down AL-41, Soviet F119.

[marsavian]

800 Eurocanards?
The counter stops well below 400.

Combat ready?
About 75 on a good day with lots of Sunshine.

UK 160
Germany 143
Italy 96
Spain 73
France 180
Sweden 98

The above do not include Gripen E or follow on Typhoon orders from Germany and Spain or secondary European users so 800 is a good shout at the European replacement market never mind foreign export users elsewhere that take the number well over 1000.

[vilters]

Nice numbers.

Care to share how many can fly?

Care to share how many you get combat ready?

Example for Germany ; They get 6 Tiffy's combat ready., Ok, 8 on a good day.

[marsavian]

Strawman argument as it won't affect the numbers bought to replace them.

[irt]

The 117 is the best they got, and its reliability is way behind the European engines. An AL-31F is thrash after 2000hrs, they managed to bump that number to 4000hrs with the 117. The Ej200 and m88 are 30+ year old engines and got 6000hrs service life.

117S is what powered Su-35 it have 4000h service life, it use similar core as AL-31F. 117 is what power Su-57 isn't clear what engine it is based on. For example in Zvezda documentary about Su-57, engine constructor clearly say it isn't 117S. So it could be 117 is scaled down AL-41, Soviet F119.

From what ive read, the 117 is a 117s modified for use in the Su57.
Propobly has even worse reliability than the 117s since its tuned up for slightly more power. One of Indias complaints before bailing the Su57 was that its engines were extremely unreliable. If they get the project 30 engines to work than maybe they are as reliable as the current european engines.

[mixelflick]

800 Eurocanards?
The counter stops well below 400.

Combat ready?
About 75 on a good day with lots of Sunshine.

I'm no expert in this regard, but I thought 800 sounded high too. But about the Tempest... even if it could be done, I don't think its really necessary. The backbone of the Russian fleet for years to come will be upgraded SU-27SM2's and 3's, along with a smaller number of SU-35's. I see nothing in that mix that can challenge the F-35, so question whether Tempest is needed at all.

And even if Russia procures all 76 SU-57's, those will be too little and too late. With no over-arching threat to justify its existence, Tempest is dead in the water..

[vilters]

Russia has the same issues we do.

Even if they build all the 76?
How many can they get to fly? And how many are they going to get combat ready?
Then add long term sustainability and you have your answer.

Russia can talk, Russia can bark, but that's about it.

With all of Europes F-35 in the order books, Europe does not need something "new" for the next 30 years or so.

[irt]

Russia has the same issues we do.

Even if they build all the 76?
How many can they get to fly? And how many are they going to get combat ready?
Then add long term sustainability and you have your answer.

Russia can talk, Russia can bark, but that's about it.

With all of Europes F-35 in the order books, Europe does not need something "new" for the next 30 years or so.

Then why are u sayin European nations should buy more US stuff and scrap their own industry if we now all of a sudden dosnt need any at all?

These new planes are made to replace the Eurocanards, not the F35. These planes are planed for delivery after 2040.. So there wont be any squadrons with new planes flying within 25 years from now. Maybe by then the russians are able to build better planes.. Or maybe buying the newest chineese stuff by then. Who knows..

And the issue with luftwaffe was lack of funding, ie political. Nothing stops the germans to spend more money and increasing the readieness of their fighters if they wanted to. The reddines issue would have been the same if they flew F35 too. I think the situation is better now for luftwaffe tho.

[irt]

800 Eurocanards?
The counter stops well below 400.

Combat ready?
About 75 on a good day with lots of Sunshine.

I'm no expert in this regard, but I thought 800 sounded high too. But about the Tempest... even if it could be done, I don't think its really necessary. The backbone of the Russian fleet for years to come will be upgraded SU-27SM2's and 3's, along with a smaller number of SU-35's. I see nothing in that mix that can challenge the F-35, so question whether Tempest is needed at all.

And even if Russia procures all 76 SU-57's, those will be too little and too late. With no over-arching threat to justify its existence, Tempest is dead in the water..

There is nothing in that mix that can really challage the Eurocanards either so the F35 isnt needed either. If EU planed to
conduct airstrikes on moscow or something then sure the F35 would be a great asset, but i dont see that happen.

The big questions is what the russians replace their su27/35 fleet with in the future. When their next fighter, made in Russia or imported from China, enter service thats when FCAS and Tempest are needed.

[vilters]

@ irt

Europe can build whatever they want whenever they want. But :

Let them try to keep the total cost / airplane below 75 Mil Dollar. => That is what an F-35 cost.

They have to devide the R&D between 200 airframes while the US can devide R&D between 3.000 airframes.
Then try to calculate what spare parts are going to cost to keep the fleet for 50 years between 200 and 3.000 airplanes.

The US can devide each engine, avionix weapons upgrade by 3.000.
I chalenge Europe to do better.

You are NEVER gonna build and sell something 5-6th gen below the US costs.

PS ; and for your info, I am Belgian-Europe.

And, last but not least. Europe has to start from NOTHING while the US has 30 years of combat proven stealth experience.

The moment Europe Air Forces are going to start USING their F-35 both Rafale and Tiffy will become more and more obsolete by the minute.

[Corsair1963]

@ irt

Europe can build whatever they want whenever they want. But :

Let them try to keep the total cost / airplane below 75 Mil Dollar. => That is what an F-35 cost.

They have to devide the R&D between 200 airframes while the US can devide R&D between 3.000 airframes.
Then try to calculate what spare parts are going to cost to keep the fleet for 50 years between 200 and 3.000 airplanes.

The US can devide each engine, avionix weapons upgrade by 3.000.
I chalenge Europe to do better.

You are NEVER gonna build and sell something 5-6th gen below the US costs.

PS ; and for your info, I am Belgian-Europe.

And, last but not least. Europe has to start from NOTHING while the US has 30 years of combat proven stealth experience.

The moment Europe Air Forces are going to start USING their F-35 both Rafale and Tiffy will become more and more obsolete by the minute.

All excellent points.....Honestly, appears Europe is repeating the same mistakes. That they made with the Euro Fighter and Rafale Programs.

[Corsair1963]

800 Eurocanards?
The counter stops well below 400.

Combat ready?
About 75 on a good day with lots of Sunshine.

I'm no expert in this regard, but I thought 800 sounded high too. But about the Tempest... even if it could be done, I don't think its really necessary. The backbone of the Russian fleet for years to come will be upgraded SU-27SM2's and 3's, along with a smaller number of SU-35's. I see nothing in that mix that can challenge the F-35, so question whether Tempest is needed at all.

And even if Russia procures all 76 SU-57's, those will be too little and too late. With no over-arching threat to justify its existence, Tempest is dead in the water..

There is nothing in that mix that can really challage the Eurocanards either so the F35 isnt needed either. If EU planed to
conduct airstrikes on moscow or something then sure the F35 would be a great asset, but i dont see that happen.

The big questions is what the russians replace their su27/35 fleet with in the future. When their next fighter, made in Russia or imported from China, enter service thats when FCAS and Tempest are needed.

The Tempest and FCAS are needed. In order to keep Europe in the Fighter Market. Otherwise, they will become a minor player or forced to rely solely on the US for protection.

Plus, even from an American Perspective "Competition" is good....

[mixelflick]

800 Eurocanards?
The counter stops well below 400.

Combat ready?
About 75 on a good day with lots of Sunshine.

I'm no expert in this regard, but I thought 800 sounded high too. But about the Tempest... even if it could be done, I don't think its really necessary. The backbone of the Russian fleet for years to come will be upgraded SU-27SM2's and 3's, along with a smaller number of SU-35's. I see nothing in that mix that can challenge the F-35, so question whether Tempest is needed at all.

And even if Russia procures all 76 SU-57's, those will be too little and too late. With no over-arching threat to justify its existence, Tempest is dead in the water..

There is nothing in that mix that can really challage the Eurocanards either so the F35 isnt needed either. If EU planed to
conduct airstrikes on moscow or something then sure the F35 would be a great asset, but i dont see that happen.

The big questions is what the russians replace their su27/35 fleet with in the future. When their next fighter, made in Russia or imported from China, enter service thats when FCAS and Tempest are needed.

Some flaws here in your argument...

First, advanced SU-27SM2's and 3's along with the SU-35 are nothing to sneeze at. They are closer in parity to Eurocanards than you're giving them credit for. There's certainly no clear, overwhelming advantage conveyed by European fighters as seen with the F-35.

Second, what will all of the NATO countries currently flying F-16's replace them with? Their choices are quite limited. New build F-16's/18's along with new Gripens/Rafale/Typhoon's all currently cost much more than the F-35, while considerably less capable. We're at under $78 million/copy now for an F-35A, and the cost is only going down. So yes, EU/NATO nations will most certainly need the F-35 to replace their current fighter fleets.

Russia will field nothing en masse that's anywhere near as capable as an F-35. I'd even go so far as to say they'll field nothing period, nevermind mass produced. Thus, there is no need for the FAS/Tempest - unless you consider them as an exercise in national pride.

Which is all well and good. It's their own money they're wasting..

[vilters]

As far as fighter building goes? Europe does not exist.

France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, the UK, all are individuals protecting their own industry when it comes to "Fighter building".
Each wants the largest piece of the cake. So, after extremely long and expensive talks, nothing "combined" happens.
Example => The split resulting in Tiffy - Rafale.

The Tornado that had to so many things, it is good at nothing.
The AM400 => Each regretting to buy C-130J.
The overweight unreliable helicopters.

Then try to export from Europe. LOL. With each having the right to veto? Forget export from a "combined Europe".

[madrat]

The UK might be better suited for a Rolls-Royce coop agreement with GE to build F136 for F-35UK's. If they really want a twin-engine option then guide them into the camp of one of our programs that is much more economically feasible. A minor partnership in an American effort with options to increase participation in the future is a better long term investment.

The US needs to sate the UK populism to further weaken Labour. Maybe even lease them a baker's dozen B-52 or future B-21 to meet their nuclear deterrent commitments. Maybe they could be seeking more long range sealane control where B-52 or B-1B would be inviting. Something to keep them from chasing down a rabbit hole that only benefits Turkey or one of their other Gulf partners that has been inconveniently undermining their national interests with bad agreements brokered through the Labour party. A strong UK devoid of leftism is good for both sides of the pond.