By: flex297
- 26th May 2008 at 17:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right. So if we don't need or want a second engine why should we pay out of our own pocket to develope one? (European partners aren't covering the cost of the F136).
Maybe so that you can sell it? ;) Ever heard of customer-oriented market?
It is common that companies develop things that are not needed or required by the home airforce and yes, they pay the development from their own pockets. Some are more and some less commercially successful, but that's the risk you need to carry. History has many examples: Mirage 4000, Su-30MKA/MKM/MKI, AN/APG-67 radar, PW1120 engine, Gripen NG, the whole lineage of Zhuk-ME/MFE/MSFE radars, or Lyulka Al-31FP.
Or do you want us Europeans pay you for the development and then make winnings from our investition? Why would we do that?
By: sferrin
- 26th May 2008 at 23:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If tthe engine fits a fighter than is planned to be procured in thousands, then it may be worth the risk..
If it was GE & the UK putting the money on the table that would be another thing altogether. It's not though. Everybody expects the US gov to pay for it and the US military doesn't want it. Therefore, it's like I said. The only people who want it are GE & the politicians (and of course the EU who's not paying for it).
By: sferrin
- 27th May 2008 at 04:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd rather the export models get the denatured F136 over the refined F135.
I'd think the F136 will be the more refined of the two since GE's been able to see some of the issues P&W has had to overcome. Similar to the F100/F110 situation I'd think. P&W was the bleeding edge and had trouble early on with the F100 and GE was able to learn the lessons when it came to developing the F110.
By: bring_it_on
- 27th May 2008 at 05:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
GE was also smart in seeing the weight gain on the F-35 and having an engine less mature thereby tweaking for a 8-12% thrust gain which I am sure would be welcomed by the users a great deal.
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 26th May 2008 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe so that you can sell it? ;) Ever heard of customer-oriented market?It is common that companies develop things that are not needed or required by the home airforce and yes, they pay the development from their own pockets. Some are more and some less commercially successful, but that's the risk you need to carry. History has many examples: Mirage 4000, Su-30MKA/MKM/MKI, AN/APG-67 radar, PW1120 engine, Gripen NG, the whole lineage of Zhuk-ME/MFE/MSFE radars, or Lyulka Al-31FP.
Or do you want us Europeans pay you for the development and then make winnings from our investition? Why would we do that?
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 26th May 2008 at 18:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Estimated developement cost is something like $2 billion. That's a LOT of engines to sell just to break even.
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 26th May 2008 at 23:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If tthe engine fits a fighter than is planned to be procured in thousands, then it may be worth the risk..Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 26th May 2008 at 23:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If it was GE & the UK putting the money on the table that would be another thing altogether. It's not though. Everybody expects the US gov to pay for it and the US military doesn't want it. Therefore, it's like I said. The only people who want it are GE & the politicians (and of course the EU who's not paying for it).
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 27th May 2008 at 03:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd rather the export models get the denatured F136 over the refined F135.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 27th May 2008 at 04:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd think the F136 will be the more refined of the two since GE's been able to see some of the issues P&W has had to overcome. Similar to the F100/F110 situation I'd think. P&W was the bleeding edge and had trouble early on with the F100 and GE was able to learn the lessons when it came to developing the F110.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 27th May 2008 at 05:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
GE was also smart in seeing the weight gain on the F-35 and having an engine less mature thereby tweaking for a 8-12% thrust gain which I am sure would be welcomed by the users a great deal.