File: GCAP.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>64823764
>What do you think is going to happen with this cluster fuck?
Total GCAP Victory.

>>64823774
GCAP isn't all sunshine and daisies either.

Italy announced an increase in 5 year spending on GCAP from 6B euro to just under 20B euro.

The UK was already balking at $12B over 5 years and if they want to keep pace with Italy they'd need to throw in at LEAST another $8-12B which they simply can't afford, they already had a ~$20B+ budget shortfall last year.

The UK is currently holding up the entire GCAP program, it was supposed to have finalized contracts signed in December but the UK keeps delaying saying they can't sign a contract until the SDR is done, which they've delayed AGAIN until March.

Japan and Italy are both getting a bit annoyed at this point, the UK seemingly wants to slow the program down (to save money) and Japan is unwilling to allow that to happen.

Thankfully, at the UK's insistence, the GCAP treaty was written to allow the partner nations to take sovereign IP from a nation that isn't paying/contributing their agreed upon share to the program. So abosolute worst case, Japan and Italy tell the UK to fuck off, invite Saudi Arabia in for funding, and japan takes over primary manufacturing while the UK might still be lightly involved as a parts supplier and contractor on specific subsystems.


So yeah, we're reaching a turning point in GCAP, either the UK shuts the fuck up and starts funding it to the level required, or the UK is ousted and Japan and Italy take their IP with them.

>>64823793
>IT'S BEING INVESTED IN TOO MUCH
Kek

File: 3242px-HMS_Glasgow_(52567292390).jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>64823793
Fucking UK politics, man. The Oxbridge ruling class really is retarded these days.

>>64823797
Anon, read my post please.

The UK is trying to slow development by NOT investing as much as is needed.

Japan has a hard 2035 entry deadline, they will NOT allow the UK to slow roll the development, the UK needs to start funding it more, or get the fuck out of the way.

>>64823799
Yeah, they're seemingly trying to keep the naval power dream alive when it has been dead for 30+ years already, but by doing so they drain the required resources to actually fund GCAP to the required levels.

So instead of cutting off the cancer (naval boondoggles), they're just ignoring it and trying to pay for it all (and failing as well).

AUKUS and GCAP should be the only things the UK defense industry cares about, but the navy is SCREAMING that you can't take away their carriers or carrier air wing despite the fact the UK hasn't had real force projection capability in 25+ years. It's been crumbling over the last 50+.

>>64823793
>GCAP isn't all sunshine and daisies either.
>Italy

Also constantly bitching about the UK not sharing anything
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/01/30/madness-italys-crosetto-slams-british-secrecy-on-gcap-fighter-jet/

>>64823815
Yup, the UK is the problem child in GCAP and they want to pretend they're leading it.

File: Challenger_2-Megatron_MOD_45161557.jpg (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB JPG

>>64823812
>the navy is SCREAMING that you can't take away their carriers or carrier air wing despite the fact the UK hasn't had real force projection capability in 25+ years. It's been crumbling over the last 50+.
YES! YES! I've been bitching for years about the billions wasted on the QE2 and the PoW. The frigate programs are good though.
The main problem with the UK's armed forces, as I see it, is that the Gordon Brown and David Cameron years were brutal to procurement efforts across the entire force. So now the MoD is stuck having to modernize the RN, RAF, and Army all at the same time.

File: 03647_c_Koreanische-Luftwaffe.jpg (67.8 KB)

67.8 KB JPG

>>64823764
Should've joined KF-21

>>64823827
I think the UK should shift to mirroring the japanese force of the '90s and 2000s.

BMD/AAD destroyers with a mixed fleet of frigates (some air defense focused, some anti-submarine focused).

Go all in on subs, and your regular airforce. You're a fucking island for god's sake, you have an unsinkable carrier.

There is zero reason the UK should have a naval airforce in 2000+.

>>64823812
>Yeah, they're seemingly trying to keep the naval power dream alive when it has been dead for 30+ years already,
The frigate number has dropped to its lowest ever due to the slow procurement of the T26 which should be in service 15 years ago. There will be an increase but it'll be late 2030s. Thankfully the world is very peaceful right now.

>>64823844
The frigates aren't even the problem.

It's the $10B spent on carriers and the other $25B spent on an F-35B fleet that could've been an F-35A fleet for 60-70% of the cost of the F-35B fleet, while being MORE capable.

The only "downside" is you wouldn't be able to LARP as a superpower since you wouldn't have carriers anymore.

>>64823764
Modern Europe is not developed enough to make a 5th, let alone 6th, gen fighter. They'll stall until they buy the export F-47.

>>64823851
It is, the RN cant perform its duties with the low hull number. Also why on earth would they buy F35As? They aren't carrier capable and thats the only reason why they'd purchase the F35s. Also, where are you getting those figures for them? And those are past purchases, before GCAP, so aren't the large drain you seem to imply.

>>64823889
The UK needs a 5th gen fighter, you do NOT need a carrier capable fighter.

Why the FUCK do you dumb niggers STILL pretend you need carriers?

Are you all ACTUALLY this fucking dumb?

I genuinely don't understand you retards.


> Also, where are you getting those figures for them? And those are past purchases, before GCAP, so aren't the large drain you seem to imply

F-35B costs 30% more per hour to operate than F-35A.

Even if you ignore the initial cost (and F-35B costs ~20-30% more to buy as well), the F-35B demonstrably costs ~30% more than an identical sized F-35A fleet, while offering demonstrably worse capability (lower range, lower payload, more restrictive internal weapons bay).


Anyway, you're clearly retarded just like your MoD.

You faggots can't defend the carriers outside of being part of a national pride thing, and it's ruining you, and it's fucking HILARIOUS to watch from the outside, even if it's a bit sad.

>>64823889
The carriers are the ultimate reason for the RNs crumbling in 2020+.
Without the carriers the RN could've spent the same time/resources on their frigates and had an ACTUAL navy capable of defending the UK.
Instead you have 2 useless carriers that serve no functional purpose for a modern UK.

File: Germoney.jpg (111.1 KB)

111.1 KB JPG

>>64823793
>the UK seemingly wants to slow the program down (to save money)
I can think of a solution for this

>>64823895
You have no idea what you are talking about and are utterly retarded.

The UK doesn't need a 5th gen fighter, spending more on 5th gen means less for GCAP which it is actually developing. Buying F35s should be avoided unless necessary, the only reason the UK is purchasing them is for the carriers. And you've not backed up your figures at all.

>>64823910
Anon, i'm not talking about today.

The UK should've done this in 2000.

Kill the carriers, kill the F-35B, buy F-35As and actually pay for the frigates that you need instead of carriers that you don't.
OBVIOUSLY in 2025+ the money should be going to GCAP, but you already spent your money and you simply don't have any left for GCAP now unless you fuck over your remaining surface fleet (frigates/destroyers) even further.

You got yourself between a rock and a hard place because of 30+ years of terrible defense strategy.

>>64823764
>Where would the engines for the larger German/Airbus variant come from?

MTU

>>64823905
>The carriers are the ultimate reason for the RNs crumbling in 2020+.
No it was delaying a frigate replacement for the T23s which should have been done 15 years ago. Also carriers are excellent at defending the north atlantic due to their ability to their ASW ability. Youre assuming money was taken away for the carriers which was not what happened, the frigate replacement was delayed for a decade.

>>64823927
And why was it delayed by a decade?
Could it possibly have something to do with money that got spent no other programs instead?

Crazy stuff.

>>64823921
The FSC began in 1998 but was delayed because the RN was looking at the LCS and was testing a trimaran hull. There were multiple redesigns, only in 2010 they realizes they needed a real frigate instead of an LCS. The RN going to grow with time not shrink, to 18 frigates from currently 7. To blame the QE classes is fundamentally wrong.
Youve not explained why the UK should get the F35As. I don't think you understand the defense picture at all.
>>64823931
Nope, bad designing like the USN.

>>64823921
They're afraid Argentina might try something again. That fear is crippling the Royal Navy. Looks like Argentina will win in the end after all.

>>64823927
>Also carriers are excellent at defending the north atlantic due to their ability to their ASW ability.
You could do that with smaller helicopter carriers or even multiple frigates for a fraction of the cost. They want the carriers to support their Islands all over the world and look cool.

>we should stop relying exclusively on the US for defense
>but don't build carriers because they cost money!
naruhodo

>>64823970
So instead you have carriers you can't afford to operate
Surface combatants you can't man or replace
And you can't operate outside your sovereign waters without NATO/US/EU logistical support.

Wow, such power, very independent.

>>64823969
>frigates
That would be much more expensive and less capable. Each carrier only costs 3-4bn, compared to a frigate/destroyer which costs roughly 1bn each.
>smaller helicopter carriers
It would be able to carry a smaller number of helicopters and would be nowhere close to as potent in ASuW.
>to support their Islands all over the world
Why shouldnt they want to do that?

>>64823983
None of those issue are the current issues with the RN, its the lack of frigates/destroyers and cost overruns of future systems like AUKUS.

>>64823983
Every weapons system in the world costs money to operate. You can make this argument about GCAP too.

Could go back in time about 80 years and end feminism, then the UK could have a population of 200 million
Would be easier to maintain a navy then

>>64823926
MTU can't produce jet engines for modern fighters let alone of future ones which will require greater power loads. They'd have to pay for Safran/RR/P&W/GE to do the hot part of the engine.

File: 1763312742736239.jpg (329.3 KB)

329.3 KB JPG

>A thread about FCAS/German Defense/Saab becomes a GCAP/Royal navy thread

>>64824009
>>64823994
>if I just keep ignoring the fact the carriers make zero sense, despite costing billions of dollars, then I can pretend the real issue isn't the carriers

what the fuck is wrong with you "people"?

It's staring you dead in the face and you act like you can't see it.

>>64824028
The carriers make perfect sense, you just don't like the reason and are spewing falsehoods.

>>64823764
You don't need larger engines if you just intent to make a missile truck, the TF Kaan is huge and isn't optimized for sustained dogfights. Meanwhile the KF21 has a more conventional T/W but it scarified too much.

>>64824037
Okay, argue for how they make sense for an island nation that doesn't have the logistical/support fleet to operate those carriers outside sovereign UK waters.

If they can't be operated INDEPENDENTLY by the UK outside the UK's sovereign waters, what security purpose do they REALLY serve?

Outside of pretending to be a superpower, what purpose do the carriers serve strategically?

File: 1731014989815536.jpg (76.4 KB)

76.4 KB JPG

>>64824025

>>64824061
Have you heard of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary by any chance?

File: purple_skunk_works.png (2 MB)

2 MB PNG

>>64823764
>>64823926
>MTU


The JV (EUMET) between Safran, MTU and ITP will likely continue.

The thing that dies will be the NGF the rest of the FCAS program will likely continue in some capacity. Since the EUMET engine has been the least complicated parts of the entire NGF program I believe it will likely continue. A naval version for France and a high performance one for Germany, similar to f404 and its derivatives.

>>64823856
The golden blm jet is an f-22 replacement and will similarly not sold to outsiders.

>>64823908
>germany joining gcap delusion-post

Just shut up. Germany is never going to join gcap. There is nothing in it for them that they wouldn't have remaining in FCAS as a Dassault-Golem. The work is split, the contracts signed, the milestones set, why would the UK or Japan jeopardize this by having to renegotiate with a financial heavyweight like Germany?


If Germany had real balls they'd just abandon this whole thing. Build high end drones with supersonic, subsonic, stealth and non-stealth capabilities at a high enough volume to completely corner and flood the market. Completely domestic tech and cheap enough to sell to turdies. Gen 6 is too expensive for anyone but old money countries, a drone on the other hand...

>>64824044
It does, a missile truck needs to go fast, travel high and have a good range. The whole idea is firing a high volume of missiles at best conditions out of enemy range.

>>64824017
>MTU can't produce jet engines for modern fighters let alone of future ones which will require greater power loads. They'd have to pay for Safran/RR/P&W/GE to do the hot part of the engine.

Why do you make up random shit?

>>64824073
The only ship you have in the RFA capable of supplying solid stores to your two carriers is RFA Fort Victoria, which hasn't been in service in over a year, and is being removed from service soon. Her replacement won't be in service until at LEAST 2032, and that's assuming it has no more delays (it was supposed to enter service around 2027-28 originally).

Currently, the Royal Navy relies entirely on NATO/US and other allied logistical support to operate their carriers and resupply them with solid goods.

The four other ships in the RFA fleet can only supply fuel to the carriers.

>>64824103
The Concorde could cruise at M 2.0 with a T/W of a bomber (0.37).
It's not thrust (actually specific thrust) the thing limiting post 1950s fighters in speed.

>>64824061
They have the largest support fleet outside of the US and China, what are you talking about?

>>64824105
When did they last create a hot section of a fighter engine?

>>64824118
Missiles want to be shot at optimal conditions, which is high and fast. Their capabilities degrade if not.

>>64824133
>Missiles want to be shot at optimal conditions
>Missiles want
Are they sentient?

>>64824139
Yes.

>>64824133
Flight altitude is defined by speed, it's more related to specific thrust and intakes than T/W

>>64824122
In NATO maybe.

Not in the world.

China and Russia both easily surpass the Royal Navy for auxiliary fleet size/scope/capability.

India's and Japan's auxiliary fleets would also give the current RFA a run for its money.

>>64824142
You are talking about the mechanics of engines range that optimal launch parameters of missiles.

>>64824183
KE energy defines range (besides glide ratio and drag), so initial speed and Δv, the T/W of the platform is pretty much irrelevant because the engines aren't the reason max speed of a fighter is limited.

>>64824177
No, all of them are significantly smaller.

>>64824213
>>64824177
By that I mean India, Japan and Russia. Not China.

>>64824216
>>64824213
Well you're factually incorrect by a significant margin when it comes to russia.

They have a MASSIVE auxiliary fleet; you are probably ignoring more than half of it because it's old, but it's still in service and used for fleet replenishment, towing, etc.

But in any case, the RFA is 10-12 ships. The Russian auxiliary fleet is easily 50+ ships and 80+ if you include all the tiny tugboats and shit they use.


India and Japan are both at ~8-12 ships as well, so nose to nose with the current RFA size.

>>64824213
>>64824122
> As of late 2024, the RFA was suffering from severe manpower shortages resulting in only 6 of (then) 11 vessels being able to be crewed on a regular basis

Lol

Lmao even

>>64824225
>>64824228
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships#Auxiliaries
Apart from nationalized cargo ships I don't see much of anything apart from the Elbrus classes. You count tonnage rather than hulls, as it shows capability, or one thousand fishing boats would be the strongest navy in the world.

File: 1748140753514987.png (56.1 KB)

56.1 KB PNG

>>64824253
Still puts you in 4th place behind russia and just ahead of india and japan.

File: 3840px-HMNZS_Aotearoa_(A11)_refuels_USS_Howard_(DDG-83)_in_the_Pacific_Ocean_on_23_November_2021.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

>You now remember that the largest ship in the New Zealand navy is a replenishment ship

>>64823793
As a bong, the worst case scenario amounts to national suicide. If you can't even fund and complete a major project that you started, can you even call yourself a real country at that point? We are already getting shown up by the fucking Baltics with high speed rail projects.

>>64824309
I agree, but where does the money come from?

File: Track_Laying_Begins_on_Rail_Baltica_in_Lithuania.webm (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB WEBM

>>64824309
>We are already getting shown up by the fucking Baltics with high speed rail projects.
Rail Baltica mentioned!

>>64824257
Now account for how many are maintained and ready to go which is something Wikipedia can't do

>>64824330
I mean, that would be even worse for the RFA since less than half the fleet is in service at the moment...

Nobody cares about GRAP

Rheinmetall, codename Black Eagle.....wait for it

t. Wouldn't you like to know

>>64824333
Considering the rusted hell inside russian ships, idk about that.

File: 1739343948178387.png (70.2 KB)

70.2 KB PNG

>>64824342
Alright, well if you want to get specific and remove reserve ships, smaller ships like tugs, and larger ships that are niche like ice breakers, then sure, the RFA beats russia, but with those same stipulations the RFA is looking MUCH closer to India/Japan.

>>64824314
It's more that the money we do have is being constantly burned on nothing. £6B spent on the Ajax, Capita being re-awarded contracts to utterly fail at recruitment. Not even mentioning the hugely delayed and over budget infrastructure projects etc. the consequences of every bad decision over the past 2 decades has come to fruition. Even the challenger 3 project is looking shaky.

>>64824320
To clarify, I wasn't talking shit about the Baltics, but it's absurd that a G7 member can't make a simple railway, while 3 different countries with a combined population of 10% of the UK can do it for less than half the cost.

File: Rail_Baltica.jpg (148.4 KB)

148.4 KB JPG

>>64824401
>To clarify, I wasn't talking shit about the Baltics, but it's absurd that a G7 member can't make a simple railway, while 3 different countries with a combined population of 10% of the UK can do it for less than half the cost.
The skinny is that Latvia is on the verge of fucking the project, but progress in Estonia and Lithuania is good.

>>64824257
>chatgpt
>counting nationalized tankers
If you are counting nationalized civilian tankers what stops any nation from buying hundreds right now?

>>64824314
We spend all our on gibs

What happened to this thread? Is it deflection or something?

>>64824439
Magatards can't see something unrelated to their shithole so they'll derail any non-US thread.

>>64823764
Meh, we Germans should build one of our own. We have the know how and it would be good for further innovations and independence.

>>64824544
You don't have the know how unless you're building a 4th gen jet.

And even that would be expensive and time consuming for germany to do alone.

5th or 6th gen is simply not in your wheel house, there are too many areas you have zero experience with that would take years to develop equivalent sovereign industry capability that would rival western partner nations like UK/France/US.

>>64824550
What part of 5th gen does Germany lack?

>>64824177
>Russian navy
Lol.
>Indian navy
Lmao.

>>64824583
None.

>SAAB wants to join FCAS
>France is trying to kill off their only real competition
What would be the fall out of France killing the only other major military aircraft producer in the EU

>>64824638
Turkey would most likely roll in without competition

>>64824638
>>SAAB wants to join FCAS
Saab is willing to join the FCAS if they dont have to share their IP.

>>64824644
It's still going to take resources they won't be spending on other projects and will probably end up being a dead end where they are even further behind whatever the US is working on.

>>64824672
The F47 is completely unrelated to this project, it wont be for export despite what Trump said.

>>64824680
Given the timeline on projects whatever Saab starts on now probably wouldn't be flying till the mid-late 2030s at best. By that point the US is looking at a 6th mass production plane to replace the F-35s

>>64824701
>By that point the US is looking at a 6th mass production plane to replace the F-35s
The US is delaying the F/A-XX but giving it a low budget, there will be no replacement for the F-35 any time soon.

>>64824710
F/A-xx is the Naval equivalent of the F-47 isn't it? That's a way different niche than the F-35 replacer.

>>64824701
The F-35 is programmed to be in service until the late 2070s at minimum, and the block 4 will not be ready before 2031.

>>64824710
F/A-XX just got a massive increase in budget.

It WAS ~$75M, but then congress gave them about $1B this last month and said pick a contract winner and award it already.

>>64824713
>F/A-xx is the Naval equivalent of the F-47 isn't it?
Not really, its a new plane, but it isn't anything like the F-47.
>>64824738
1Bn isn't that much, also neither the F/A-XX or the F-47 are replacing F-35s.

>>64824320
welcome to the 1435mm master race

File: OIP-3838555677.jpg (34.5 KB)

34.5 KB JPG

>>64823764
Airbus, a "bus with wings"

FMC, makers of the Bradley, is "Food Machine Corp", making meat lockers. Then they figured they could paint them green and sell them to the Govt for more money.

>>64825028
Your post is retarded and irrelevant.

>>64824583
MTU doesn't have the proven engineering capability to develop a high-performance engine from scratch. They've never demonstrated the ability to engineer/design a modern hot section.

Germany lacks the facilities required to test/verify a large stealth airframe, and those facilities would be expensive to set up and take a fair bit of time. You have experience with stealth on small-scale drones and test vehicles, but nothing fighter-sized, and what facilities you do have can't be easily scaled up for a fighter-sized aircraft.

You're in luck that Spain happens to have the newest/largest stealth testing/integration center in Europe, though.

>>64825087
Siemens is on par with GE in gas turbines (+1600ºC class), Germany itself has the know-how and tech to develop HPT and combustion chambers (they already developed better HPC than PW for the PW6000/8000).

>>64823764
Why aren't the nords cooperating on an ice SVTOL or VTOL air wing? It's trivially easy to condition an sheet of fucking ice and artic airports are very normal now. They could have secret air bases all over the north ice cap and... well whatever it would just be rad.

>>64825149
SVTOL/VTOL are mediocre if you don't have carriers.

>>64823812
It all boils down to being able to defend the Falklands. Carriers are essential for that. For that purpose, the two carriers is more cost effective than 50 frigates.

File: Trans-European_Transport_Network_(2024).png (610.5 KB)

610.5 KB PNG

>>64824320
>>64824420
Tbh I don't get why Rail Baltica is getting all the attention when the EU is building rail infrastructure fucking everywhere.
Genuine question btw, Italy is digging a tunnel through the fucking alps and yet you barely hear about it compared to Rail Baltica.

>>64825097
>Siemens is on par with GE in gas turbines
Are you insane? Siemens havent made a engine for a jet ever. And heat is far from the metric to tell engines apart.

>>64825215
For a 1600ºC class GT you need to have all the know how related to hot sections (TBC, MC, SX and alloys, EDC machining).
Don't worry about Germany, they have all the engineering and IP to make modern jet engines for aircraft, the decision of not making them is unrelated to technical side, it's purely political and economical (that is irrelevant for defense when the goverment is willing to pay the cost)

>>64825202
True. There has been a bunch of rail construction in Hungary and Romania that often gets overlooked. Bulgaria is also next in line for transport gibs.

>>64825229
Jet engines are not industrial engines, you cant compare them, they are simply different.

>>64825245
They literally use the same SX alloys, EDC machining and TBC.
The main differences aren't the hot section but the auxiliary hardware, AB and bearings

>>64825254
EDM*

>>64825254
You're just wrong.

Siemens turbines are designed for steady state operation. They are started up, brought to a specific RPM, and left there for weeks or months.

Fighter engines are designed for transients. A pilot slams the throttle from idle to full afterburner in seconds, then back again, while pulling a 9G turn. This creates massive thermal and mechanical shock.

A Siemens SGT-8000H turbine can weigh over 440 tons. It has the luxury of space for massive cooling ducts and thick, heavy ceramic coatings.

A fighter engine (like the F135 or the EJ200) must handle those same temperatures within a diameter of about 1-1.5 meters and a weight of around 1,500-3,000 kg.

In an industrial turbine, if a part is too hot, you make it thicker or add a larger cooling pipe. In a fighter engine, you have to use micro-cooling channels (laser-drilled holes the size of a human hair) and single-crystal superalloys that must also withstand extreme G-forces and rapid throttle transients. Siemens has never had to solve the "extreme performance per kilogram" equation.

>>64825265
Only creep and corrosion restricts the life of turbine blades, your thinking is just wrong and irrelevant.
>Fighter engines are designed for transients. A pilot slams the throttle from idle to full afterburner in seconds,
That is controlled by the FADEC (or engine control unit in general), again, unrelated to the hot section.
>heavy ceramic coatings.
Tell me that you don't understand stabilized zirconia coatings without mention it.
>meters and a weight of around 1,500-3,000 kg.
Unrelated to the hot section, they already have knowhow for LPT, shafts, auxiliary hardware, HPC, IPC, etc. You don't even know what are you talking about or how to make a point. LMAO

>>64825254
>The main differences aren't the hot section
Fucking insane, research it or ask some retarded AI.

>>64825312
Lmao, fucking retard

FADEC is just the brain. It doesn't change the physics of what happens to the metal. When a FADEC commands a throttle jump, the core temperature spikes by hundreds of degrees in sub-seconds. The high-pressure turbine (HPT) blades expand physically due to centrifugal force and heat. In a fighter engine, the “tip clearance” (the gap between the spinning blade and the engine casing) is microscopic to maintain efficiency. If your material science isn't perfect, the blade expands too fast and hits the casing (a “rub”), destroying the engine. Siemens turbines have massive clearances compared to a fighter because they don't need to worry about the weight of a heavy, rigid casing.

Thermal mechanical fatigue (TMF) is still a thing. Industrial turbines are designed to fight creep (deformation under constant high heat/stress over 30,000 hours). Fighter engines are designed to fight low-cycle fatigue (LCF). Every time a pilot dogfights, the metal undergoes a thermal cycle. Doing this 10 times in a mission creates micro-cracks that an industrial turbine (which stays at one temperature for a month) never sees. Germany has the data for creep; they do not have the domestic data for the TMF/LCF cycles of a 5th-gen combat core.

As for the zirconia, yes, everyone uses zirconia. But in an industrial turbine, you apply it thick because weight doesn't matter. In a fighter engine, if the coating is too thick, it peels off (spallation) under the high G-loads and vibrations of supersonic flight.


You're actually retarded.

>>64825335
Industrial gas turbines like of the H-class use 2nd generation SX superalloys, the same class of alloys as the F119/135...
They demonstrated and are selling gas turbines with advanced alloys, cooling and TBC. Meanwhile you're stuck in a fanfic. The laalaa world.

>>64825338
>It doesn't change the physics of what happens to the metal.
>t. missed all the improvements of engines during the 1980s related to improved response and engine life thanks to better modelling (only possible with digital control)
Whatever.

Honestly what is more of a fucking mess right now?
>USN procurement
>FCAS
I get the sense that FCAS is just euro bickering again (lmao at every unifying) so I lean towards US ship building but then there’s a voice in the back of my head that is whispering that USN leadership doesn’t really give a fuck right now and is just throwing shit out for Trump and plan on making real changes in the next administration.

>>64825403
> (lmao at every unifying) s
Competitions for new aircraft and engines between GE/Allison/PW are better. People likes money, always, even with monopoly.

>>64825384
>Meanwhile you're stuck in a fanfic
Your the one pretending that industrial engines are the same as aeronautical ones.

>>64825403
FCAS, easy. USN will get a (shit) ship as its future frigate, there will be no FCAS imo.

>>64825387
The 1980s improvements you mentioned were the result of decades of fail-fast physical testing by GE and Pratt & Whitney, testing that MTU and Siemens have never done for a high-performance combat core. Siemens builds world-class power plants, but a 400-ton turbine doesn't teach you how to build a 5th-gen stealth fighter engine.

>>64825414
>doubles down because he's here only to defend the mythical american "exceptionalism"
You're free to explain WHY aeroderivatives perform worse as stationary engines and all of them use the same reduced set of superalloys (some industrial gas turbines don't use or try to use as little of things like rhenium as possible and for obvious reasons, but all advanced SX alloys pretty much need Hf and Re...)

>>64825417
All that testing is meaningless if you can't turn it into something controlling the engines.
Measuring is meaningless if you can't use that data.

>>64825427
> Knowing how to read a thermometer is more important than knowing how to build a furnace that won't melt
lmao retard

You can't "use data" or "control an engine" if you haven't engineered a physical core that can survive the test stand long enough to provide that data. A FADEC is a control system. Control systems manage known variables. If Germany hasn't developed a high-pressure turbine (HPT) with 5th-gen cooling geometries, they don't have the variables to program into the FADEC.

The US, France, and the UK have the meaningful data because they spent 50 years breaking engines in flight. Germany has world-class engineers, but they haven't run those specific tests. Until you build the hot section and survive the testing, your control and modeling are just theoretical math. There's a reason the Eurojet EJ200 (the heart of the Typhoon) required a four-nation consortium: it’s because no single European country, including Germany, had the full stack of data and facilities to do it alone.

>>64825425
Fundamentally designed in different ways as the other has already explained, its like trying to force a bicycle wheel onto a car.

>>64825202
I love trains bros

>>64825443
Advanced cooling and isolation to achieve a ΔT of +700ºC isn't different for a aeroengine or a stationary gas turbine. Of course, you can show the evidence of the differences (and by that I'm implying worse conditions for aeroengines than industrial gas turbines burning low quality fuel/recovered gas with sulfur crap)

>>64825603
>Advanced cooling and isolation to achieve a ΔT of +700ºC isn't different for a aeroengine or a stationary gas turbine
It is

>>64825613
No evidence. As expected.

>>64825603
You are comparing corrosion (industrial) to fatigue (aero). Siemens deals with sulfur and crap fuel; that is a chemical/materials challenge. But a fighter engine deals with centrifugal loads that Siemens engineers never see. A fighter HPT blade spins at 25,000 RPM; a Siemens GT spins at 3,600 RPM. The mechanical tension on an aero-blade is orders of magnitude higher. Furthermore, a ΔT of +700ºC is easy to achieve when your turbine blade is 10 cm thick and weight doesn't matter. Try achieving that same +700ºC drop across a 2mm-thick blade wall while it's being pulled by 50,000 Gs of centrifugal force. That is why Germany doesn't have a domestic 5th-gen engine. Germany has the chemistry (Siemens), but they lack the aerothermodynamic integration (the ability to make it light, small, and stable under combat maneuvers). If it were the same, Siemens would be the world's leading jet engine supplier. They aren't. They don't even try, because they know their existing technology doesn't magically make an amazing jet engine too.

>>64825615
You're the one making the claim, and im not him. But the stress from the rapid temperature changes, as well as the stress from the maneuvers and the smaller/lighter footprint requires different cooling affects.

>>64825443
I'm not a materials scientist or aerospace engineer but did Japan have more experience designing jet engines than Germany did when they developed the xf9? Afaik both mainly produced foreign engines under license or supplied certain parts in joint ventures.

>>64825633
>did Japan have more experience designing jet engines than Germany did when they developed the xf9
Yes, why do you think its called the XF9 rather than the XF1?

>>64825619
>25000
A large military turbofan spins well below 20k RPM, 14,600 rpm for the F110-GE-129, even the experimental XFE66 (similar size than a F404 but considerably more advanced than the F135) didn't go beyond 22k RPM. You can check their whitepaper of small GT to see how high they can spin their turbines.
https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:ab8578bf-d86f-45d9-a26b-7ac7a274fadd/siemens-gas-turbine-portfolio.pdf

>a Siemens GT spins at 3,600 RPM
Power turbine is not the same as the turbine itself, the rotor of a Siemens GT spins at 6-12 k rpm depending on the model. You have no idea about the topic, lmao.

>>64825633
Yes, japan, and specifically Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries, has been building jet engines since the 1940s.

Ishikawajima Ne-20 during WWII
Ishikawajima-Harima J3 in the late 1950s and early 1960s
Ishikawajima-Harima F3 in the 1980s
IHI XF5 in the late 90's (didn't actually get used in an aircraft until ~2014)
IHI F7 in the early 2000s
IHI XF9 in the mid to late 2010s.

So yes, japan has had decades of experience.

>>64825658
Even at 14,000 RPM, the tip speed and centrifugal G-load on a lightweight, thin-walled fighter blade are radically different from a 10,000 RPM industrial rotor with heavy, thick blades. Stress is a function of mass and radius; Siemens designs for mass/durability, Aero designs for minimal mass/extreme stress.

Your Siemens SGT models take minutes to reach power to prevent thermal stress. A 5th-gen fighter engine does it in 4 seconds.

The SGT-100 weighs 40+ tons for 5MW. An F135 weighs under 2 tons for roughly 30MW.
If you think a 20x difference in power density doesn't change the physics of the hot section, then you don't understand engineering constraints. Germany has the best stationary tech in the world. But until MTU or Siemens builds a core that can survive a 5-second thermal spike to 1600ºC while weighing less than a Honda Civic, Germany lacks the domestic capability for a 5th-gen fighter.

File: HYPR2.jpg (243.6 KB)

243.6 KB JPG

>>64825675
They also were the main responsible for building the HYPR-90T and are a major contributor in the IAE V2500 program (as result of a joint program with RR).
>The HYPR-90T is a supercruising engine with variable cycle for their ~Mach 3 airliner program.

>>64825684
>. An F135 weighs under 2 tons for roughly 30MW.
AI slop? both figures are wrong. It's heavier and considerably more powerful.

>>64825658
Why are you so obsessed with the idea of turning industrial engines into modern aircraft engines? Its clear it can't be done, and no one has ever made the claim that they could convert it.

>>64825694
> of turning industrial engines into m
I never said that, thus there's nothing to answer.

>>64825686
No, i was just using wide ballpark numbers that are far below the real F135 just to demonstrate how wide the difference is even when I downplay the F135 massively.

The fact is the same, stationary gas turbines cannot be directly compared to jet engines, and thinking that being able to make one means you can make the other is just moronic.

>>64825698
Then what are you claiming, if you agree that Siemens can't make aircraft engines? From what I read of your post you claim that Siemens is equivalent to GE while talking about aircraft engines.

>>64825709
Germany (country) has 2 companies and its contractors capable to cover every single stage to create and operate a modern turbofan, from design to manufacturing. It's not that complicated to understand.
And the core of a company doing gas turbines is manufacturing in general and in particular working with turbine blades. Germany is a major contributor of the aeroengines supply chain but people here seems to be obsessed with a supposed American exceptionalism related to the hot section (materials and manufacturing), their last nail to grasp at... Well, right now they can manufacture and sell GT with essentially the same specs as GE.

>>64825741
I mean, at the basic level yes, you're not WRONG. BUT in terms of a viable pathway to a domestic fighter aircraft? Sorry, but no. It isn't feasible for germany to spend the 15-20 years it would likely take to develop their own engine from the ground up. Yes they have the expertise and the knowledge to do so, but it isn't economically sensible to spend the billions of dollars and all the time required to do so when you can buy an engine. Or better, develop an engine WITH an ally.

We're talking about Germany needing an engine for a new fighter in the next 10-15 years they don't have 15-20 years to develop a new engine and then another 3-5+ years to get it in a 5th+ gen airframe.

>>64825741
But it doesn't, only has MTU that can cover some areas of a turbofan. Siemens has no experience with turbofans. So what is the second company?
Also Germany isn't a major contributor to aeroengines supply chain, their market share is basically nothing.

File: 544.jpg (15.3 KB)

15.3 KB JPG

>>64823793
>Franco German plane gets sabotaged by the cultureless USA wannabe self hating cumsock
>Italo-Anglo-Japanese gets sabotaged by the cultureless USA wannabe self hating cumsock
Who could had seen this coming?

>>64825785
>Also Germany isn't a major contributor to aeroengines supply chain
LMAO.

>>64823964
Argentina wins by default due to demographics, POC britons wont give a shit about the falklands and the minority of upper class natives is full on identity politics they will give them away for free as they did with chagos

File: turbofan-engines-market-share-by-company.png (72.4 KB)

72.4 KB PNG

>>64825791

>>64825812
>he doesn't know the difference between SUPPLY CHAIN and the finished product
Not surprising.
MTU is responsible for the LPT** of modern JT8D, PW4000, GP7000, PW1000G and EJ200 (also the RB199 in the past).
https://aeroreport.de/en/aviation/low-pressure-turbines-the-path-to-world-class-manufacturer
Both MTU and Safran are key companies for modern aviation.
>** they also make other parts, like the HPC for the modernized PW4000 and the PW6000 (Idk about its derivatives like the PW1000G)

File: 30%.png (42.9 KB)

42.9 KB PNG

>>64825871
Forgot pic

>>64825882
>30% of aircraft have MTU technology on board

that's a selective truth.

The 30% figure specifically refers to the global active fleet of mainline commercial and military aircraft. To make that number work, MTU is almost certainly ignoring general aviation (Small Planes). There are over 200,000 Cessnas, Pipers, and Beechcrafts worldwide. MTU has virtually zero footprint in the small piston-engine market. If they included these, their 30% claim would crash to nearly 0%.

They're likely also excluding helicopters and turboprops.

>>64825901
Small piston engines are irrelevant in this discussion, I'm talking about gas turbines, the large one (+10 kN, mostly +100 kN).

File: Top_Military_Engine_Manufacturers_122019.png (33 KB)

33 KB PNG

>>64825871
>SUPPLY CHAIN and the finished product
Sorry, but you've got that wrong, market share looks at revenue generated in the sector by all parts of the process. This is purely finished products and you can see MTU isn't listed.

>>64825920
I'm aware; I just get annoyed by shitty marketing like that.

If MTU marketers were honest, the TRUTH is more impressive than the fluffy bullshit blurb that is ultimately a lie when examined.

MTU has a critical stake in the engines of almost every major airliner you’ve ever stepped foot on, and MTU technology is on board nearly 100% of the German Air Force's combat and transport aircraft, and a dominant majority of the multinational European frontline fleet.


When you're already doing impressive shit, lying about obvious stuff like "30% of all aircraft" just comes off as retarded.

>>64825932
Good luck with running a TF without LPT...
Remove MTU and 30% of the airliners turbofan ends without a supplier (inb4 they're replaceable, everybody is replaceable). MTU is competitive and capable enough to (alongside Safran) being major contributors in that sector.

>>64825937
Playing with words is irrelevant if you're human and understand that their info and this discussion has a SCOPE.

>>64825939
Many companies make LPTs, it's far from the most complex part of the engine. In multinational collaborations it's usually given to the lesser partner.

>>64825968
> it's far from the most complex part of the engine
The main difference is the cooling because LPT use SX or DS superalloys and are coated. And they're heavy, the turbine disks of the low pressure stages aren't a trivial part, they're hard to make (better DT were one of the major changes that PW did to improve the F100). And as I mentioned above, Germany there's a company doing that cooling part too, for +1600ºC turbines.

>>64825990
It's the least advanced parts of the engine you can work on and still say you've contributed. For GCAP Italy has the LPT, Japan has the compressors and the UK has the combustor and the HPT. The LPT is the consolation prize

>>64825785
>Also Germany isn't a major contributor to aeroengines supply chain, their market share is basically nothing.
You trippin, nigga. I also don’t believe Germany can make a modern jet engine but they’re the second or third biggest exporter of airplane parts in the world

>>64823815
I mean, I understand both the UK position and the IT/JP one, you do need to protect your trade secrets, but in this situation with the US and China being what they are, doing this will just ensure this project or future projects will never come to fruition, and said countries will finally lose their ability to independently develop future jets.

>>64823908
So they can further slow the project down and block all potential future customers like they did with both the Tornado and the Eurofighter?

>>64823856
Your comments would be more relevant if the US had something more than a CGI render. Especially when GCAP is set to actually take flight next year and the chinks already flew 3 prototypes.

File: arqaun90ov0d1.jpg (23.1 KB)

23.1 KB JPG

>>64825798
>Argentina wins by default due to demographics

>>64825202
>I don't get why Rail Baltica is getting all the attention when the EU is building rail infrastructure fucking everywhere.
When the local drunkard shows up without vomit on his shirt you usually are surprised, even if it's the bare minimum.

>>64826708
F-47 already flew. Where’s yuropoor adaptive cycle engine like the xa100? GCAP is a glorified fb-22, nothing more

File: 1769421317430654.jpg (28.6 KB)

28.6 KB JPG

>>64826718
>F-47 already flew.

File: 1768574353263478.jpg (94.2 KB)

94.2 KB JPG

Consider the following. Stealth Draken

>>64826709
argentina's population has almost doubled since then, while the UKs population has stayed the same

>>64826718
>F-47 already flew
May we see it?

>>64825619
>A fighter HPT blade spins at 25,000 RPM; a Siemens GT spins at 3,600 RPM. The mechanical tension on an aero-blade is orders of magnitude higher.
nta, but I hope you do know that those lower RPM are for a much larger diameter turbine (like 2.5-5m as opposed to the <1m of a fighter jet engine). Also, you rpm numbers seem off.

File: 1757081812942303.jpg (92.5 KB)

92.5 KB JPG

>>64823793
D-DELET DIS

File: file.png (82.8 KB)

82.8 KB PNG

>>64823793
>Italy announced an increase in 5 year spending on GCAP from 6B euro to just under 20B euro.
Funny how you change an actual poorly projected budget, ending in to the surprise of no one, delays and budget overrun, thus logically raising complaints, into a positive "Italy is pouring moar money, it's gud, all is bright rain,bow and sunshine!"
When the reality is it's going off-roads, and going fast.

>>64826769
Meant for
>>64823797

>>64826769
Find me a single fighter jet program that had its development costs stay within the initial projected budget.

File: Siemens SAGT05.png (768 KB)

768 KB PNG

>>64825778
>>64825741


Germany could make the jump to engine manufacturer but the question for Germans would be if it is economically viable.

Germany has high-end alloys, the required manufacturing companies, the engineering-staff, the knowledge, the integrators.

The question is if German's will find it economically viable. They carved out their niche as a high-end manufacturing supplier. Siemens going into aviation turbines is like Lamborghini going from tractor manufacturing into high-end sports cars. I am not sure if Germany's companies are willing to take the plunge.

They are more comfortable with "level-headed/sensible" collaborations rather than limelight integrations. On the flipside though, Germany still produces 40k mech. engineers annually which will need to do something after the car industry self combusted. Siemens is bursting at the seams with money and might look for new fields. USA's influence is waning to the point where turdies will rather fork 100m on a 4th gen fighter than buy a US 5th gen fighter for 80m.

Also everyone forgets about poor ITP Aero. They manufacture the hot parts for PW, GE and RR. They manufacture monocrystal aero turbine blades through Precicast Bilbao too.

At the end of the day I doubt we will see an Embraer Jetliner with a Siemens turbine. It is more likely that Safran will simply be a contractor to manufacture the hotparts of the German FCAS fighter.

>>64826826
>Germany could make the jump to engine manufacturer
It couldn't, it has a lack of vital experience which would need to be built up first which would take decades then they'd need to catch up with peers.
>Siemens going into aviation turbines is like Lamborghini going from tractor manufacturing into high-end sports cars.
That was 60 years ago in a lesson complex field, engineering has got much more advanced making the cross over even harder.

>>64826831
>would take decades
A wild exaggeration

>>64826861
Not at all, to enter jet engine manufacturing takes a long time.

>>64826831

>It couldn't
It could
>would take decades
Germany developed and advances the BR700. An engine that is still competitive today and bought up by RR because of it. They did that in 1990 from the same standstill subcontractor position they are now in.

>has got much more advanced making the cross over even harder
Self-contradicting none-sense. The manufacturing moves as a whole - suppliers and OEMs. If German suppliers couldn't design and manufacture complex state of the art parts they wouldn't be contracted. The "gap" always stays the same.

Also lets not forget that France is basically still slapping m88 derivatives on everything. Their manufacturing is in the same standstill position since the early 2000s.

What Germany mostly lacks is a good economic incentive. Dumping billions into an engine program is only viable if you are planing on going big. And going up against GE and RR seems suicidal. Not only because of their manufacturing capabilities but simply because of their advanced service network. The market is carved up.

>>64826831
t. clueless idiot

>>64826877
It couldn't, there is no company in Germany that has the relevant experience. Which company are you imagining could make a jet engine for the German FCAS?
>>64826891
You don't need to sign your posts.

>>64826911

A joint venture between MTU, Siemens and ITP Aero. Together they bring all the necessities:
- MTU: Domain specific knowledge of engines in high-G
- Siemens: Metallurgical knowledge and large scale manufacturing of combustors and turbine blades
- ITP Aero: Domain specific knowledge in designing high-G hot engine parts as well as manufacturing them.

Between these three companies there is more then enough knowledge to make a state of the art jet engine "hot-part".

Again: it matters little. If Germany will decide that contracting Safran for the hot parts is more economically viable than doing it domestically, they will go down that route. It will still not be the end of the jet engine.

>>64826943
Siemens has no knowledge of aerospace engines at all and ITP Aero isn't German. So you only have MTU which is built around assisting other prime contractors, which isn't a bad thing.

I do not understand the discussion on a German turbofan. MTU and Safran have a joint venture and have no issue working together unlike Dassault/Airbus. Safran would gladly help MTU build a turbofan for a German aircraft with or without the approval of the French government. It's a nothingburger.

>>64826943
You're describing a PowerPoint engine. Having three companies with adjacent skills is not the same as having a proven, domestic 5th-gen core.
You mentioned ITP Aero. While they are world-class, their expertise is primarily in the LPT and nozzles. Designing the HPT, where the 1,600ºC+ physics we've been discussing actually happens, is a specialized black box that none of those three companies has developed independently for a 5th-gen platform.
Siemens has metallurgical knowledge for stationary creep; MTU has knowledge for maintenance and compressors. None of them have the 50 years of thermal mechanical fatigue data required to make a core that doesn't disintegrate during a 5-second combat transient.
If this dream team were capable of making a state-of-the-art hot section today, Germany wouldn't be in a political deadlock with France over the FCAS/SCAF engine.

Engineering isn't a game of "could we if we wanted to." It's a game of "have we done it?" and Germany hasn't done it.

>>64826957
I see two potential issues, the first being that Safran will be focused on developing the SCAF engine for the French fighter. I'm unsure if they want to develop a second different engine, and if so they would likey quote a high price. Secondly, while they can borrow concepts from the French engine, I'm unsure if they have the spare design capability to design two next generation engines at the same time. Also, if the breakup between France and Germany is bad, Germany could say we don't want a French engine in our national fighter which is understandable.

>>64826953

>Siemens has no knowledge of aerospace
???

There is a reason why IHI and GE are gas turbine manufacturers and Aero Engine manufacturers. There is a MASSIVE amount of cross over between these domains. A jet engine is a gas turbine manufactured to different specifications. Specifications that MTU can deliver.

It's not an apple to oranges situations situation. It's a Honeycrisp to Pink Lady situation.

There some catching up to do for sure but it's not leaps and bounds beyond these companies capabilities.

>ITP Aero isn't German
You are observant. But you might also be observant enough to know that Spain will stick with Germany and ITP Aero will certainly not say no to collaboration. They are already prime contractor in the EUMET.

>MTU which is built around assisting

MTU has designed and manufactured all parts except hot-components from the RB199 to the EJ200 to civilian engines. They might not be able to do an afterburner or a combustor but they know all the requirements such a component would need to fulfill in the jet fighter engine context and how to integrate them.

Crystal blade works is the last unlock in the Civilization tech and skills tree.

>>64826984
>Siemens
There's a crossover from aero engines to industrial engines not the other way around due to the higher complexities and tighter requirements
>ITP AERO
We are just talking about German national capabilities at this point, as the claim is that Germany could shit out a next generation engines for the FCAS.
>MTU
As I said, they support prime contractors, good at what they do, but they need a prime contractor like Safran.

>>64826963
>Germany wouldn't be in a political deadlock with France over the FCAS/SCAF engine.
EUMET is proceeding smoothly though? It's NGF-bit that's the issue
>Engineering isn't a game of "could we if we wanted to." It's a game of "have we done it?" and Germany hasn't done it.
That makes no sense, Messerschmitt had no practical experience making jet fighters when they developed the 262 and Lockheed had no practical experience making stealth fighters when they developed the 117.

>>64826984
Technology flows from Aero to Industrial, almost never the other way around. When GE or Rolls-Royce build a new industrial turbine, they are essentially taking "yesterday's" fighter jet technology and de-tuning it for durability and mass. Trying to go from a Siemens power plant to a 5th-gen fighter engine is like trying to build a surgical scalpel using the experience you gained from forging a sledgehammer.

Your honeycrisp to link lady comparison is more like paper airplane vs the space shuttle. Sure they both fly by that's about the extent of their similarities.

Knowing the specifications for a 5th-gen combustor is a math exercise. Building one that doesn't melt, crack from fatigue, or flame out during a 9G turn is a testing and data exercise. Germany hasn't run those tests in 40 years.

>>64827041
Comparing the Me 262 to a 5th-gen fighter is like comparing a paper map to a GPS satellite constellation.
The Me 262 had a 10 to 25-hour engine life. If that’s your standard for success, then sure, Siemens could build one tomorrow. But a modern 5th-gen engine requires 4,000+ hours of reliability under extreme transients. You don't get that from a textbook; you get that from 50 years of blowing up test cores, which Safran and GE have done and MTU has not.
Before the F-117, Lockheed had the SR-71 and decades of classified low observable research. They had the echo 1 algorithm. Germany does not have a domestic equivalent of the skunk works black projects history to pull from. You are confusing publicly known projects with actual engineering lineage.
In the 1940s, you could innovate with a slide rule and a wind tunnel. In 2026, 5th-gen and 6th-gen tech is a walled garden of proprietary data and supercomputer modeling that takes decades to build. Germany didn't just skip the 5th generation; they haven't been the Lead Prime on an indigenous fighter through the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generations either. You can't just jump into the 5th or 6th-gen final exam when you haven't been the lead architect on a fighter airframe or a high-performance engine core since 1945.

>>64827061
Wow, Germans are so backward! Probably you'll find shocking the fact that PRATT & WHITNEY had to ask MTU for a new HPC for their PW6000 (derivative of the PW5000, aka, the F119) after the original design failed to meet the efficiency required for the engine.

>>64827072
Jesus Christ that's some cope. Just accept Germany, while having a very strong defense industry, they can't do modern fighter engines alone. This is Germany is bad, it's that they just don't have this national capability.

>>64827075
>This is Germany is bad,
Isn't

>>64827075
Like talking to a wall...
Btw, if it's highly probably that the B-21 will have a few MTU's blisk stages in its HPC

>turbines are magic objects that take decades of experience and have no overlap with any other sort of turbine

>>64827075
>This is Germany is bad, it's that they just don't have this national capability.
Why not. Germans knows how to build turbines.

>>64825312
Anon why are you embarrassing yourself with your arrogance and ignorance?

>>64827095
Wanna see a retard? see: >>64825619
Now gfys.

>>64827101
No thanks anon you're a special kind of retarded for thinking "Scania makes great trucks, I bet they can make weight weenie road bikes because their trucks are solidly designed and they both have WHEELS. Did you know they both have BALL BEARINGS in their WHEEL HUBS?"

>>64827080
I know, I don't get why he's so obsessed with Siemens being able to do something they never have. Maybe national ego?
>>64827092
Because they don't have any companies that have built up the required expertise in these areas.

>>64827106
>seething like that
So that post was you, lmao.
Before posting your retardation you should know that GT have multiple rotors.

>>64827114
I'm another anon who stumbled onto your profound stupidity.

>>64827136
Sorry for not validating your magical thinking

>>64827147
Go and reply to all of us and see how many people think you're a tard anon.

can i get a tldr? why are all these european countries struggling to come to an agreement when they've done so multiple times in the past like with the tornado or the eurofighter?

>>64823964
>They're afraid Argentina might try something again
They're an American ally, why would they do that?

>>64827175
>France and Germany want different specs
>Germany wants equal workshare with some French IPs shared
>France wants the best company to work on each part(making it mostly French) to make the best plane
>Cant agree
>Argue since 2024~
>FCAS is dead now (2026)
>France and Germany are looking to build their own fighter(not confirmed but they've both made multiple comments to this affect)
>Might still keep FCAS alive as a shared technology basis

>>64827192
Honestly those last development kinda give me hope for the whole project FCASsisters.
Like sure Dassault and Airbus can't get along for shit but it seem that Safran, MTU, Thales and the rest get along just fine.
Let just have some shared technologies and production on some parts and split up on the others. Twice the airframes, twice the fun and you still get some cost reductions done out there.

>>64827192
>>France and Germany want different specs
how different are we talking here?

>>64827175
>eurofighter
development wasn't exactly smooth for the Eurofighter
France was initally a member but left early because they demanded the jets to be carrier-capable
Germany demanded a lot of workshare and was anal about exports
I don't recall a lot of drama surrounding Italy, Spain and the UK on the Eurofighter project. I think there might've been something about the UK prioritizing the F-35 program but I might be misremembering.

As for FCAS, it was originally a joint project with France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK but the project was eventually split into FCAS (France, Germany, Spain) and Tempest (UK and Italy, later japan too when they Merged Tempest with Japan's program).
There are multiple reasons why the project was split up but ultimately it comes down to the rivalry between the UK and France, the two countries with the most aerospace expertise in Europe. It was absolutely vital for both sides for their domestic champions to be the prime contractors of the project so whoever lost would've left the project either way.
Don't know much about Spain or Italy but Germany decided to stick with France mainly because the UK left the EU and France & Germany were looking to strengthen EU bonds.
Sweden initially joined GCAP as an observer but left shortly after. Now they're just kinda there doing their own thing, I think they're mostly interested in making a cheap 5/5.5th gen fighter as a successor to the Gripen.

>>64827235
It is and could be cool if it does happen that way. But I do worry about the engine, as the two FCAS planes would be very different sizes meaning they couldn't share an engine.
>>64827251
France wants a smaller, nuclear capable, carrier fighter. Germany wants a long rage fighter-interceptor. One is designed to rule over the skies of Europe, the other is to be an expeditionary force. Going from memory France wants their fighter to be 15T and Germany wants 19T, so 30% larger.

>>64827251
The usual, France wants a lighter, carrier-capable jet while Germany wants a bigger, heavier jet with a lot of range.

>>64827273
>I think they're mostly interested in making a cheap 5/5.5th gen fighter as a successor to the Gripen.
Right now they are currently more focused on UCAVs from the statements I've read.

>>64827072
Citing the PW6000 as proof of German 5th-gen capability is a massive self-own.
The PW6000 is a subsonic commercial engine for regional jets. The F119 is a supercruising stealth engine for the F-22. Sharing design philosophy is not the same as being a derivative. You’re comparing a regional bus engine to a fighter jet engine.
Further the PW6000 was a failure. It was a commercial disaster that was retired early because it couldn't compete with the CFM56. If that’s Germany's entry into the core market, it’s not a very strong one.
Yes, MTU designed a great 6-stage compressor (HPC). But as we've discussed for the last ten replies, the HPC is not the HPT. Even on the PW6000, Pratt & Whitney kept the High-Pressure Turbine and Combustor for themselves. MTU won the silver medal for the cold parts of the core; they didn't even get to play in the hot section league.

>>64827273
>As for FCAS, it was originally a joint project with France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK but the project was eventually split into FCAS (France, Germany, Spain) and Tempest (UK and Italy, later japan too when they Merged Tempest with Japan's program).
Wrong

FCAS/SCAF (Germany/France/Spain) was always just them, FCAS (UK/Italy) was just poor naming by the brits as it used the same name as the french/german/spanish program. FCAS would internally be called Tempest, and that name stuck in the media to differentiate it from the german/french/spanish FCAS program. Later Sweden would join Tempest as an observing member (they just wanted to see what the studies were showing and what tech was being discussed).

The UK and France DID have some MUCH earlier studies together on new airframes, but the UK left before it became FCAS for real.

At no point was FCAS made up of Germany/Spain/France/Sweden/UK/Italy in one singular program.

File: 1599554491621.jpg (56.2 KB)

56.2 KB JPG

>turkey and pakistan are going to get 6th gen jets before europe

>>64827374
The Kaan & J-35 are 5th gens and the former has no domestic engines while the latter isn't even Pakistani.

>>64827393
pakistan is just going to buy them from china

>>64827337
>e PW6000 is a subsonic commercial engine for regional jets.
It's obvious you don't understand the concept of common core that PW began to use after the 1970s and GE was using since the early 1960s.
The PW6000 and the related PW7000 core is very similar to the PW5000 core, the problems of the PW6000 were commercial (and the MBA retards announcing it before the engineering work even began and deciding to invest more in the JSF program) not technical and that engine was used as basis for the PW8000 that after changes PW created the successful PW1000G (still using MTU HPC blisk stages).

BTW, the CFM56 and F110, F101 and F118 all have exactly the same core (both the original GE14 or the newer core developed for the 2nd gen CFM that was transplanted in F110/F101 engines to extend their service life). You have no idea about the topic, retard.

Germany has access to all the metallurgy, machining and advanced casting for hot parts, they are nearly matched (in current year as MHI took a lot of market from GE vernova) in market share with GE that is by far the largest maker of advanced cores in the US. If the company with most experience in reliable engines (just check the reliability advantage of the CFM LEAP vs the PW1000G) can't make something far better than a German company then it simply means the US isn't exceptional and Germans have the framework for advanced jet engines, their reasons aren't technical but political (in the end the gov are the source for financing a military jet engine)

>>64827407
The F119 is not a PW6000: The F119 (PW5000) core is a low-bypass, supercruising powerhouse designed for Mach 1.8. The PW6000 is a subsonic regional bus engine. They have different pressure ratios, different mass flows, and different thermal gradients. Just because they both have 6 stages doesn't mean the blades are interchangeable.

Siemens has market share in stationary power. That is a game of cost-efficiency and steady-state metallurgy. A fighter engine is a game of power-to-weight and cyclic fatigue. If Germany had the technical capability, they wouldn't be handing the FCAS hot section lead to Safran. No government politically decides to give away the most valuable IP in a $100 billion project if they could do it themselves.

>>64827428
And never said that, it's similar and a related development (essentially a downscaled engine by 25% iirc).
>) core is a low-bypass,
It's obvious you don't know what a engine CORE is, a discussion about TF engines is a waste of time if you don't even know the basic terms.
Try a better chatSlopper to grasp the basics.

>>64827449
>a downscaled engine ...
an engine core downscaled by 25% iirc*

>>64827449
>>64827454
You can't downscale a 5th-gen fighter core by 25% to make a regional jet engine. Aerodynamics and cooling flow at the microscopic level (like the film cooling on an HPT blade) do not scale linearly. If you shrink the core, you change the Reynolds number of the airflow, meaning you have to redesign the entire cooling geometry from scratch.
The commercial core (PW6000) is designed to drive a high-torque fan for fuel efficiency. A fighter core (F119) is designed for high-velocity exhaust and supercruise. The pressure ratios and turbine inlet temperatures are fundamentally different. They aren't similar; they serve two different laws of physics.
Knowing what a core is doesn't give you the ability to build one that survives thousands of hours of combat. Germany is world-class at parts, but they aren't the lead for the hot section for a reason: they lack the integrated flight data that only comes from decades of building indigenous fighter cores. You can call it political or economic all you want, but Safran's lead is based on technical sovereignty, something Germany gave up decades ago.

>>64827501
It's literally what PW did for the PW7000-6000 (they intended to make a new core for smaller engines).
And as I mentioned already the current F101 and F110-SLEP have a commercial core originally made for airliners.

>>64827512
Pratt & Whitney attempted to apply F119 design philosophy (low stage count, advanced aerodynamics) to a commercial engine to save costs. It failed. The original P&W design didn't meet the fuel-burn specs. They had to call in MTU to design a more traditional 6-stage High-Pressure Compressor. And even with that fix, it was a commercial failure.

GE can move tech between the CFM56 and the F110 because they have 50 years of data on how that specific core reacts to both a 10-hour airline cruise and a 5-second afterburner spike. Germany has the airline data; they have zero indigenous afterburner spike data for a modern core.

>>64827175
>can i get a tldr? why are all these european countries struggling to come to an agreement when they've done so multiple times in the past like with the tornado or the eurofighter?

Euro 1 "Hey man how much monies do you have?"
Euro 2 "Mmmm maybe I have some. Why are you asking?"
Euro 1 "I need to do a fighter project"

Now, imagine that they all are in the "hey man how much monies do you have I need to do a fighter project" stage. They want this and that, but cant pay for it so they are looking for someone to foot the bill for them. So at best, there will be only 1 project, which may not necessarily end in something that flies.

File: GE1 p1.jpg (395.8 KB)

395.8 KB JPG

>>64827547
GE was using the same base core to develop fighter engines (turbojet, turbofan) and HBP engines for airliners with a core that was still experimental. It's blatantly obvious that you don't understand the "common core" concept.
PW began to do the same in the late 1970s to 1990s, mostly to reduce cost and share development cost between military and civilian engines.

>>64827573
Look kiddo, here is a real-world example you might learn something from.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/south-korea-commits-34-billion-to-indigenous-fighter-engine/165800.article#

South Korea has jet aspirations (KF-21); instead of trying to build an indigenous engine, they're using the GE F414 for the foreseeable future. Their current plan for an indigenous engine is going to run from 2027 to 2040.

South Korea has Doosan Enerbility, which produces gas turbines with 1600°C+ temps, specifically the new DGT6-300H 380MW turbine, a direct competitor to Siemens gas turbines.

And Hanwha Aerospace has a similar role to MTU with P&W and GE, if smaller and only more recently.

But even with Hanwha Aerospace and Doosan Enerbility, AND the state goal and vision to build a new indigenous engine core, they're still saying it'll be 2040 if everything goes to schedule.

So if you want to say germany could build a german jet engine by the 2040s, then yeah maybe. They're not doing it by 2030 or 2035 though, which is what would be needed for a new jet to enter service in the 2040s.

>>64827599
>Can't give a direct answer
Really nothing to discuss when you don't know the basics.
The End.

>>64827600
My guy you've been talking wayyyyy above your technical pay grade for the ENTIRE thread, then claim anyone who disagrees doesn't know the basics, when it's clearly not the case.

You're just smart enough to understand how this shit works and how the technologies are very similar and related, but you're apparently too retarded to understand. If it were a simple thing, Germany wouldn't have been cucked by the US and France for decades.

They're apparently just leaving 10s of billions on the table for the rest of europe and the US because germans are just so nice.

>>64827599
>So if you want to say germany could build a german jet engine by the 2040s, then yeah maybe
They could but it wouldn't be a modern engine, it'd be a generation behind competitors.

>>64827617
Siemens is his bull husbando after all. He was too much of a coward to reply to me thinking he's arguing with one guy and not several that think he's dumb.

The hubris in this thread, incredible.

>>64827748
Armatard found out about chatgpt, this was inevitable. At least it has ended up being more civil than I expected but his entrenched biases and inflexibility of thought have still exposed him.

>>64827840
Is he the pro-jap guy as well?

>>64827925
He's kind of obsessed with being anti-UK and will be pro anything he thinks make them look bad or somehow minimises their achievments (you can see it here where he's been trying to say the UK should get rid of their carriers), so if you're on about the threads a while back where someone was trying to start a UK vs. Japan naval shitflinging contest, yes that was him. Similarly with the GCAP thread recently where he was trying to 'prove' most of the expertise was coming from Japan and that the UK were contributing basically nothing technologically to GCAP, that was also probably him.

Honestly I don't get his obsession, a Brit must have fucked his mom or something for him to be this obsessed year on year; he's been doing this for the best part of a decade now.

>>64827962
At least I don't pretend the UK is leading a program they're currently unable to fund.

>>64827374
TÜRKYIV will get 6th+ gen fighters before decadent USA

>>64827994
Stay mad; stay obsessed. Doesn't make a difference to me, I just think it's weird as fuck that you're essentially shilling for Russia for free. They're the only ones who really care making the UK look weak.

They'll find the money for GCAP, even if they have to give up their last tanks or something. Navy and Airforce always come first for Brits

>>64828078
Well, currently they're burning whatever patience Japan has for them.

Japan has a hard 2035 in-service date, and the UK's continued delaying of signing the final contract with Edgwing is causing that timeline to potentially slip.

>>64827192
>>Germany wants equal workshare with some French IPs shared


That's the french tldr anyways.
From a German perspective:

>Dassault is the "best athlete" for the NGF
>Dassault says it should be able to choose all the suppliers and who works on what
>Airbus DS says no because they fear being relegated to designing the landing gear and cupholders


While Dassault tried to paint the situation like it knows Colonel's 11 secret spices and Germany tries to rug pull them, Airbus has successfully convinced the German government that France wants to relegate them to a supplier.

To be fair the German General Inspector already warned the German Chancellor in 2021 that this project will fail because:

1. Technologically unambitious: essentially 5th gen technologies which will be out of date by 2040
2. The technology demonstrator "will be Rafale+" with an upgraded m88 with no growth potential. Especially since the m88 is already lacking power and would not support 6th gen radars.
3. IP Trapping Germany/Spain. All the sexy tech that comes out of the project will be Franco/German/Spanish sponsored but only Dassault will reap the benefits since they are the main contractor of the system.
4. The combat cloud part is deliberately underfunded since the NGF is the only exportable part of the project and the only one economically interesting from Dassault/Frances perspective.

Seems like he was proven right. Just wished they could've ended the shit show earlier. Germany should just take the money and develop an army of 1000 high end drones - a much more sensible move.

The only chance of survival for this project would've been that Dassault gets folded into Airbus DS.

>>64828372
>That's the french tldr anyways.
I gave it from a neutral point of view, I'm not saying either is right but those are the shortened form of their views.

File: 1769985817069863.jpg (407.8 KB)

407.8 KB JPG

>>64823793

The UK needs to shut up and commit to building this DEATH MACHINE.

>>64828372
>3. IP Trapping Germany/Spain. All the sexy tech that comes out of the project will be Franco/German/Spanish sponsored but only Dassault will reap the benefits since they are the main contractor of the system.
Are they not setting up a joint venture for the project where all the IP for the fighter is shared among the members like what they did for the Tornado and the Typhoon?

>>64829069
There are degrees of it in the Typhoon, France was complaining that Germany is so bound by it they are not performing.

>>64827374
>turkey
The KAAN isn't even 5th gen. And the pakis will get at most the j35

>>64823793
That post is complete bullshit

>>64830329
What part?

>>64830525
Everything but Italy increasing their fund allocation. Run it with ChatGPT and then checking everything myself and not a single claim of:
>The UK was already balking at $12B
> the UK seemingly wants to slow the program down
>GCAP treaty was written to allow the partner nations to take sovereign IP from a nation that isn't paying/contributing
was true

>>64826719
kek

>>64830541
NTA but there is a sort of half truth in there that we're waiting until the publication of the defence investment plan before signing the contract:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/02/01/starmer-risks-diplomatic-row-uk-dithering-delays-fighter/

But it's really just bureaucratic treacle rather than a pure funding problem. The UK has committed to a huge defence budget increase over the next few years so Tempest isn't getting cut, but the gov also are apparently not willing to sign it off until the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted and for some reason that's impenetrable to my non-politico brain it's taking them a long time to do it.

>>64830541
>the UK seemingly wants to slow the program down
The contract was supposed to be signed in December. The UK said they need to finish the Defence Investment Plan (DPI), which is the $$$ behind the Strategic Defense Review (SDR), and it'll be done by the end of 2025. That didn't happen, but they said it would probably happen in January, and that didn't happen either, so now they said it'll be done by March.

So yeah, the UK just keeps kicking the can down the road on the DPI, which keeps delaying the contract signing for GCAP, which is going to delay the entire GCAP program by ~3-4 months at this point, potentially more.

And this is before the elephant in the room that is the Italy funding increase, which japan said they're increasing to match, and the UK hasn't said anything about increasing their contribution.

A big reason the DPI has been delayed is BECAUSE the UK politicians are worried about the GCAP program cost; even if it is a necessity, if they're worried about 12B they're sure as fuck going to worry about 20B+.

As for the GCAP treaty/IP stuff, the treat does have the "Freedom of Action" principle; any IP "generated within the program" (jointly funded) is accessible to the GIGO. If the UK were to drop out or stop paying, Japan and Italy would retain the rights to use the data and technology developed up to that point to finish the plane themselves. The UK can't develop IP for GCAP and walk away with it.

What is FAR more likely is japan steps in, covers funding shortfalls (or allows Saudi Arabia to become a junior funding partner) and asks the UK for extra workshare on the software side of things to be moved to japan as compensation. Though i'm sure the public media friendly optics will be framed as the UK and Japan strengthening their software ties by setting up a new joint development center in Tokyo or some such BS. To pretend it's not just Japan getting an extra 3-5% workshare.

>>64830883
>DPI
DIP my autocorrect hates me

>>64830883
The DIP is being delayed for Ajax reasons, not Tempest afaik.

Iirc from one of the spending reviews last year or the one before the UK has had >£12 Bn committed for a good while now and the JA & IT are just finally catching up with the program requirements as until now they've only had £2 Bn or so committed on paper for the initial studies. We're just seeing journos getting confused by the budget/implementation interface.

I do find it a bit weird Starmer didn't use the recent Japan visit to sign it off with a big song and dance though as after the Dreadnoughts & next gen deterrence Tempest is the highest priority on the list. Great for UK industry and diplomacy too so it should be an easy one for the PM to justify commitment to outside of the DIP.

>>64830952
>I do find it a bit weird Starmer didn't use the recent Japan visit to sign it off with a big song and dance though as after the Dreadnoughts & next gen deterrence Tempest is the highest priority on the list. Great for UK industry and diplomacy too so it should be an easy one for the PM to justify commitment to outside of the DIP.
That's, I think the most concerning part. it SHOULD'VE been an easy thing to commit to it outside the DIP and get it signed; the fact they're delaying it again when japan was already getting upset about it being delayed into January seems like there must be some internal conflict regarding GCAP funding that's tied to the DIP.

Currently japan is concerned, if the DIP gets delayed again beyond March japan will start ringing alarm bells and the whisperings of the US offering japan the F-47 might get louder.

Cringe should have a limit, lmao.

>>64831019
Yeah I think everything is well funded until the end of the financial year and so even the delay to contract signing shouldn't cause any disruption, but after that things get less certain. It's a shame because the program has been going really quite well and there's no real reason as far as I can see for this delay.

Hopefully it's not some Musk/Cummings bright spark that's pushing manned airpower as obsolete behind the scenes.

>>64831115
At the moment I believe edgewing/GIGO are kinda playing fast and loose, starting contract work that hasn't ACTUALLY been signed/paid for yet. So it's not a complete cluster fuck yet, but if the contract gets delayed beyond March it starts potentially causing problems.

>>64831139
My understanding is a lot of the early work is well funded as they're dual use systems for RAF/Aeronautica Eurofighter upgrades that will be pivoted to baseline Tempest systems.

Edgewing has already set up offices as well so there must be funding to keep them open for at least a year which will have come from somewhere.

Edgewing is an incorporated company in the UK so they'll have to publish some accounts eventually though. A quick look at Companies house says they're not due until 2027 however.

My read is it'll probably be fine, but i'd be getting a bit annoyed with the UK gov if I was BAE or Leonardo right now.

File: file.png (3 MB)

3 MB PNG

>>64823905
This is you.
Proper, history shaping nations, have carriers.
You are a yellow son of a bitch afraid to sell jeets down the river to fund them. Elect them to government? ELECT THEM TO FERTILIZER.

>>64825169
carriers are irrelevant if you own the ice

>>64829715
You mean Trappier grunting noises to convince the French senate that Dassault solemnly must be charge over who works on what and what the supply chain looks like?

>>64828958
Any source on the fact that Airbus wants to steal French IP? It's a claim parroted by the French press. Surely it is not unfounded. Just like the claim that Dassault wants to trap and lock Airbus DS out of the crucial subsystems, thereby essentially eliminating their main competition in Europe Brain-Wise.

>>64829069
No, there was no formal JV set up.

Eurofighter JV:
Every company produces their part. Each part is their IP to some extent. No direct moderator who puts the foot down when the weapon pylons don't fit the aerodynamic requirements, only NETMA (consortium of all the governments). All the infighting stalled the EF tremendously, especially since design decisions became political and not industrial.

GCAP JV (not too informed about this one):
Edgewing Consortium which is 33% Jap,It and UK makes all the design decisions and is staffed by industry reps. All the IP of the project is pooled their and everyone participating can use it in the way they see fit. If there is a pylon not fitting a weapon the Edgewing Consortium will make final decisions.

EUMET JV works similarly. However the cold and hot part IPs will stay with MTU and Safran. New IPs will be shared.

For the NGF Dassault wants essentially the same structure as nEUROn. There Dassault played the Kindergardener, "best athlete". It had a lot of participating countries with little to no expertise. Hell, the left and right wing were split between to companies. So it makes sense to have a central shot-caller. On the flipside though Dassault had access to all the IPs so it can "arbitrate" on decisions. The whole setup falls apart though if Dassault essentially takes the position of the Edgewing Consortium solemnly and its only underling is also it's biggest rival.
Airbus would essentially be trapped.

>>64827840
He's been play testing his arguments with AI for a while and you can tell. He still doesn't know why it's not applicable IRL.

>>64828219
Your fanfiction is useless

The UK is not going to participate in anything because they are virtually bankrupt and that wont change for the next ten years. That argument applies on other Euro countries too.

>>64833337
You just keep whining without providing any reason to think you're right.
The other poster is at least explaining what they think is happening.
You're just a retard coming in to say "nope that's a lie, I won't tell you the truth, but that's all lies".
Super convincing.

>>64833707
They aren't they are spending more than ever, just on gibs.

The top priority for UK right now is their new Dreadnought class SSBNs. Unless that project is on track, the GCAP won’t be taken seriously

>>64823793
>So abosolute worst case, Japan and Italy tell the UK to fuck off, invite Saudi Arabia in for funding
Please god let this happen because it would be so fucking funny.

>>64823837
>There is zero reason the UK should have a naval airforce in 2000+.
It's because of the Falklands. The government is concerned about defending obscure overseas territories without US assistance

>>64835203
GCAP is the priority, only thing not affected by the spending freeze

>>64836302
No, the SSBNs are number 1, AUKUS is number 2, GCAP is number 3.

>>64836529
Not how the government see it, the government can allow dreadnought to slip as its only national while GCAP is collaborative.

File: 1755946949138588.png (101.4 KB)

101.4 KB PNG

>>64836747
If you're correct, then they lied on the SDR.

SDR puts SSBN first, AUKUS sub in 2nd.

GCAP technically didn't even make top 3, but realistically, it is.

>>64835190
>They aren't they are spending more than ever, just on gibs.

Because of monetary debasement, which is known as inflation, the government spends more than ever every year because the amount of pounds in circulation is larger than ever. And here is a neat trick - if you undercount inflation, you get GNP growth! Thats how America can outsource just about everything to China and still show positive GNP growth.

>>64836795

This is just bullshit. The fundamentals in Bongland are awful, which means that they will have to pay a higher interest rate on the bonds the Bongland government constantly needs to reissue to roll over their loans. Its like this: the bongs have gone all in on all types of retardness. Green energy, mass importation of swarthoid criminals, services instead of industry, etc etc. F.ex you cant have a tourist industry with tons of criminal swarthoids on the street. The tourists just stop coming. You cant have a manufacturing economy with green energy. Financial industry is fundamentally parasitic, meaning that it shifts investment from real world production to making money with money. Much of "financial industry" consists of nothing more than gambling under another name. The bongs have gone all in on "financial industry".

The bongs will have to get used to having a lot less purchasing power than before, and that means in turn that the internal bong economy will shrink, and since there are no alternatives to imports in many cases (f.ex the bong island is severely overpopulated, meaning that they need to import food or starve) they will hemorrhage money abroad with no recourse, since their are also in a state of energy starvation while also having to pay a much higher rates on their rollover bonds because they are utterly skint. So that island is on a solid downward trajectory and they will have to give up their nukes, their subs, their carriers and their next gen jets. Not tomorrow, but within 10 years. All of it.

>>64836918
>Because of monetary debasement
If the inflation rate is greater than being claimed, to a large degree, then that means I can't disprove your statement. But doesn't that assume all foreign financial institutions are in on it? Otherwise there'd be a noticeable affect. So all we can do is take official figures.