Which countries make jet engines usable in a combat aircraft?

Rules:
1) Assembling a kit built by others does not count. You have to be able to build the whole engine, including things like the high pressure turbine.

2) It does not have to be super-modern. If it's no better than 1970s tech, that's fine. If it's a copy of someone else's design you stole, that's fine too.

3) It has to be useful in some sort of manned combat aircraft. Not transports, and not AWACS/ASW. Anything as good as a Mig-21 (and an M-346, T-50, etc are all good enough).

So far I can only think of (1) USA (2) UK (3) France (4) China (5) Russia and (6) maybe Ukraine if they can still build the Ivchenko-Progress AI-222. I assume Germany and Japan could, if they cared to spend the time and money. India is trying without current success.

kitplane01 wrote:

I assume Germany and Japan could, if they cared to spend the time and money. India is trying without current success.

Japan has built the XF5 afterburner turbofan for their X-2 technology demonstrator.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHI_Corporation_XF5

There is no other fighter jet engine around this size and thrust class. 100% made by Japan.

Taiwan also has the afterburning F125 engine. Entirely funded by Taiwan. Developed over 15 years in Taiwan and made specifically for their twin engine light fighter. The engine has since gone and powered western single engine trainer aircraft in a non afterburning variant.

kitplane01 wrote:

So far I can only think of (1) USA (2) UK (3) France (4) China (5) Russia and (6) maybe Ukraine if they can still build the Ivchenko-Progress AI-222. I assume Germany and Japan could, if they cared to spend the time and money. India is trying without current success.

Germany is building jet engines as well. They are building the Eurojet EJ200 engines for the Eurofighter.

duboka wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

So far I can only think of (1) USA (2) UK (3) France (4) China (5) Russia and (6) maybe Ukraine if they can still build the Ivchenko-Progress AI-222. I assume Germany and Japan could, if they cared to spend the time and money. India is trying without current success.

Germany is building jet engines as well. They are building the Eurojet EJ200 engines for the Eurofighter.

Spain and Italy (ITP Aero and Avio Aero) also produce components and have their own engine FAL. https://www.eurojet.de/innovation/

mxaxai wrote:

duboka wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

So far I can only think of (1) USA (2) UK (3) France (4) China (5) Russia and (6) maybe Ukraine if they can still build the Ivchenko-Progress AI-222. I assume Germany and Japan could, if they cared to spend the time and money. India is trying without current success.

Germany is building jet engines as well. They are building the Eurojet EJ200 engines for the Eurofighter.

Spain and Italy (ITP Aero and Avio Aero) also produce components and have their own engine FAL. https://www.eurojet.de/innovation/

Producing components and having your own final assembly line is not enough. You need to be able to make a whole engine. I don’t think Spain and Italy can reach this threshold.

Could Germany make a whole EJ 200 without needing significant components from another nation? Are they currently importing power turbines or compressor blades or such?

kitplane01 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

duboka wrote:

Germany is building jet engines as well. They are building the Eurojet EJ200 engines for the Eurofighter.

Spain and Italy (ITP Aero and Avio Aero) also produce components and have their own engine FAL. https://www.eurojet.de/innovation/

Producing components and having your own final assembly line is not enough. You need to be able to make a whole engine. I don’t think Spain and Italy can reach this threshold.

Could Germany make a whole EJ 200 without needing significant components from another nation? Are they currently importing power turbines or compressor blades or such?

But by adding these points, you can axe the UK and France from this list as well. I'm 100% sure that they are sourcing parts from MTU as a subcontractor (and there they don't have the knowledge transfer when they just source these parts from them as a subcontractor). But on the other side I guess they are having a full knowledge transfer in the Eurofighter engine and Tornado engine project. So every nation in this project has the full knowledge to build the full engine. That's at the moment one of the problems in the FCAS project between Germany, Spain and France. Dassault is not that happy to share the knowledge gained through the project as far as read in the news.

International Aero Engines, whose V2500 powers many of the classic Airbus 320, is a Swiss company.

MTU in Friedrichshafen can build their own engines, and they are also supplying parts for various engine types, including the V2500.

Sweden is license-building the F404 engine for their Gripen jets. It would surprise me if Switzerland didn't build military jet engines for the F/A-18, F-5 Tiger and the Mirage. We love to license-build everything, even if it turns out as more expensive. Technology transfer is a thing...

flyingturtle wrote:

International Aero Engines, whose V2500 powers many of the classic Airbus 320, is a Swiss company.

MTU in Friedrichshafen can build their own engines, and they are also supplying parts for various engine types, including the V2500.

Sweden is license-building the F404 engine for their Gripen jets. It would surprise me if Switzerland didn't build military jet engines for the F/A-18, F-5 Tiger and the Mirage. We love to license-build everything, even if it turns out as more expensive. Technology transfer is a thing...

An Saab Really build an F404 engine by themselves? I always assumed they were getting the hard to make parts like high temperature turbines from Pratt and Whitney? I would be super surprised if Switzerland can build a whole jet engine by itself. Final assembly lines do not count!

duboka wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Spain and Italy (ITP Aero and Avio Aero) also produce components and have their own engine FAL. https://www.eurojet.de/innovation/

Producing components and having your own final assembly line is not enough. You need to be able to make a whole engine. I don’t think Spain and Italy can reach this threshold.

Could Germany make a whole EJ 200 without needing significant components from another nation? Are they currently importing power turbines or compressor blades or such?

But by adding these points, you can axe the UK and France from this list as well. I'm 100% sure that they are sourcing parts from MTU as a subcontractor (and there they don't have the knowledge transfer when they just source these parts from them as a subcontractor). But on the other side I guess they are having a full knowledge transfer in the Eurofighter engine and Tornado engine project. So every nation in this project has the full knowledge to build the full engine. That's at the moment one of the problems in the FCAS project between Germany, Spain and France. Dassault is not that happy to share the knowledge gained through the project as far as read in the news.

I totally understand your point

I guess I want to change my rules and add the word “reasonable” here. The British clearly can build using current factories and current workers any part necessary to make a modern jet engine. Excepting things like CPUs that are commodity items.

Also the Adour is probably made entirely in the UK (minus things like the CPU if it even has one).

kitplane01 wrote:

An Saab Really build an F404 engine by themselves?

Saab never built jet engines. Saab fighters used engines produced by Svenska Flygmotor AB, later renamed Volvo Aero, and ten years ago sold to British company GKN Aerospace Engine Systems.

kitplane01 wrote:

I would be super surprised if Switzerland can build a whole jet engine by itself.

The world's very first turbofan engine - the Sulzer SM-1 - was made by Sulzer in Winterthur, Switzerland 70 years ago. It was intended to be used on the Swiss EFW N-20 Aiguillon fighter plane. The SM-1 engine can be seen at the Swiss Air Force museum in Dubendorf near Zurich.

Only few Sulzer SM-1 engines were made since the N-20 fighter program was cancelled. Hawker Hunter fighters were bought instead, since they were deemed to become developed faster, cheaper to build, and probably better than the N-20.

kitplane01 wrote:

Also the Adour is probably made entirely in the UK (minus things like the CPU if it even has one).

The Adour is a joint venture development with French company Safran Helicopter Engines (ex-Turboméca) and has at least one major supplier in Germany (for blades & guidevanes).

kitplane01 wrote:

Which countries make jet engines usable in a combat aircraft?
It has to be useful in some sort of manned combat aircraft. Not transports, and not AWACS/ASW. Anything as good as a Mig-21 (and an M-346, T-50, etc are all good enough).

Not used in "sort of manned combat aircraft" but on a tactical cruise missile AV-TM300 (or MTC300):
https://www.turbomachine.com.br/



"The TJ-1000 is a single spool turbojet engine capable of providing up to 1100 lbf of thrust. A very affordable choice for high performance UAVs, cruise missiles and air target drones. The large number of applications for this engine makes it very attractive and a key item within military aeronautical industries. It is currently being used as the main propulsion system of the AVTM300 Brazil cruise missile."

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Type: Single spool turbojet
Length: 1180 mm
Diameter: 350 mm
Dry weight: 70 kg
Maximum uninstalled thrust: 4.44 kN @SSL (1100 lbf)
Specific fuel consumption: 1.16 kg/kgf/hr

COMPONENTS

Compressor: 4 axial stages
Combustor: Annular
Turbine: Single axial stage

About the tactical cruise missile AV-TM300 (or MTC300):
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-TM_300

Excerpt:

The AV-TM 300[Tactical Missile or MTC-300 (Míssil Tático de Cruzeiro) is a Brazilian cruise missile developed by Avibras for the Astros II system. Nicknamed Matador ("killer"), it is projected to be a less expensive alternative to the American Tomahawk (missile). The missile is equipped with a central computer that combines a Ring laser gyroscope, connected to an active GPS navigation device that uninterruptedly supplies positioning information for course correction. Apparently there also will be a naval version called X-300. The missile can use a single warhead of 200 to 500 kg high explosive or cluster munition warhead with 64 submunitions for anti-personnel or anti-tank targets.

EMBSPBR wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Which countries make jet engines usable in a combat aircraft?
It has to be useful in some sort of manned combat aircraft. Not transports, and not AWACS/ASW. Anything as good as a Mig-21 (and an M-346, T-50, etc are all good enough).

Not used in "sort of manned combat aircraft" but on a tactical cruise missile AV-TM300 (or MTC300):
https://www.turbomachine.com.br/



"The TJ-1000 is a single spool turbojet engine capable of providing up to 1100 lbf of thrust. A very affordable choice for high performance UAVs, cruise missiles and air target drones. The large number of applications for this engine makes it very attractive and a key item within military aeronautical industries. It is currently being used as the main propulsion system of the AVTM300 Brazil cruise missile."

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Type: Single spool turbojet
Length: 1180 mm
Diameter: 350 mm
Dry weight: 70 kg
Maximum uninstalled thrust: 4.44 kN @SSL (1100 lbf)
Specific fuel consumption: 1.16 kg/kgf/hr

COMPONENTS

Compressor: 4 axial stages
Combustor: Annular
Turbine: Single axial stage

About the tactical cruise missile AV-TM300 (or MTC300):
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-TM_300

Excerpt:

The AV-TM 300[Tactical Missile or MTC-300 (Míssil Tático de Cruzeiro) is a Brazilian cruise missile developed by Avibras for the Astros II system. Nicknamed Matador ("killer"), it is projected to be a less expensive alternative to the American Tomahawk (missile). The missile is equipped with a central computer that combines a Ring laser gyroscope, connected to an active GPS navigation device that uninterruptedly supplies positioning information for course correction. Apparently there also will be a naval version called X-300. The missile can use a single warhead of 200 to 500 kg high explosive or cluster munition warhead with 64 submunitions for anti-personnel or anti-tank targets.

Totally interesting.

I wonder what it does in a GPS-denied area.

Still cool to read about.

kitplane01 wrote:

EMBSPBR wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Which countries make jet engines usable in a combat aircraft?
It has to be useful in some sort of manned combat aircraft. Not transports, and not AWACS/ASW. Anything as good as a Mig-21 (and an M-346, T-50, etc are all good enough).

Not used in "sort of manned combat aircraft" but on a tactical cruise missile AV-TM300 (or MTC300):
https://www.turbomachine.com.br/



"The TJ-1000 is a single spool turbojet engine capable of providing up to 1100 lbf of thrust. A very affordable choice for high performance UAVs, cruise missiles and air target drones. The large number of applications for this engine makes it very attractive and a key item within military aeronautical industries. It is currently being used as the main propulsion system of the AVTM300 Brazil cruise missile."

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Type: Single spool turbojet
Length: 1180 mm
Diameter: 350 mm
Dry weight: 70 kg
Maximum uninstalled thrust: 4.44 kN @SSL (1100 lbf)
Specific fuel consumption: 1.16 kg/kgf/hr

COMPONENTS

Compressor: 4 axial stages
Combustor: Annular
Turbine: Single axial stage

About the tactical cruise missile AV-TM300 (or MTC300):
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-TM_300

Excerpt:

The AV-TM 300[Tactical Missile or MTC-300 (Míssil Tático de Cruzeiro) is a Brazilian cruise missile developed by Avibras for the Astros II system. Nicknamed Matador ("killer"), it is projected to be a less expensive alternative to the American Tomahawk (missile). The missile is equipped with a central computer that combines a Ring laser gyroscope, connected to an active GPS navigation device that uninterruptedly supplies positioning information for course correction. Apparently there also will be a naval version called X-300. The missile can use a single warhead of 200 to 500 kg high explosive or cluster munition warhead with 64 submunitions for anti-personnel or anti-tank targets.

Totally interesting.

I wonder what it does in a GPS-denied area.

Still cool to read about.

Well, it is literally in the excerpt. It uses its gyro.

EMBSPBR wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Which countries make jet engines usable in a combat aircraft?
It has to be useful in some sort of manned combat aircraft. Not transports, and not AWACS/ASW. Anything as good as a Mig-21 (and an M-346, T-50, etc are all good enough).

Not used in "sort of manned combat aircraft" but on a tactical cruise missile AV-TM300 (or MTC300):
https://www.turbomachine.com.br/



"The TJ-1000 is a single spool turbojet engine capable of providing up to 1100 lbf of thrust. A very affordable choice for high performance UAVs, cruise missiles and air target drones. The large number of applications for this engine makes it very attractive and a key item within military aeronautical industries. It is currently being used as the main propulsion system of the AVTM300 Brazil cruise missile."

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Type: Single spool turbojet
Length: 1180 mm
Diameter: 350 mm
Dry weight: 70 kg
Maximum uninstalled thrust: 4.44 kN @SSL (1100 lbf)
Specific fuel consumption: 1.16 kg/kgf/hr

COMPONENTS

Compressor: 4 axial stages
Combustor: Annular
Turbine: Single axial stage

About the tactical cruise missile AV-TM300 (or MTC300):
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-TM_300

Excerpt:

The AV-TM 300[Tactical Missile or MTC-300 (Míssil Tático de Cruzeiro) is a Brazilian cruise missile developed by Avibras for the Astros II system. Nicknamed Matador ("killer"), it is projected to be a less expensive alternative to the American Tomahawk (missile). The missile is equipped with a central computer that combines a Ring laser gyroscope, connected to an active GPS navigation device that uninterruptedly supplies positioning information for course correction. Apparently there also will be a naval version called X-300. The missile can use a single warhead of 200 to 500 kg high explosive or cluster munition warhead with 64 submunitions for anti-personnel or anti-tank targets.

As the saying goes 'from small acorns grow great trees'.
Not the first expendable engine, this one started that way and went on to have many applications and decades of production;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Siddeley_Viper

Nicoeddf wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

EMBSPBR wrote:

Not used in "sort of manned combat aircraft" but on a tactical cruise missile AV-TM300 (or MTC300):
https://www.turbomachine.com.br/



"The TJ-1000 is a single spool turbojet engine capable of providing up to 1100 lbf of thrust. A very affordable choice for high performance UAVs, cruise missiles and air target drones. The large number of applications for this engine makes it very attractive and a key item within military aeronautical industries. It is currently being used as the main propulsion system of the AVTM300 Brazil cruise missile."

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Type: Single spool turbojet
Length: 1180 mm
Diameter: 350 mm
Dry weight: 70 kg
Maximum uninstalled thrust: 4.44 kN @SSL (1100 lbf)
Specific fuel consumption: 1.16 kg/kgf/hr

COMPONENTS

Compressor: 4 axial stages
Combustor: Annular
Turbine: Single axial stage

About the tactical cruise missile AV-TM300 (or MTC300):
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-TM_300

Excerpt:

The AV-TM 300[Tactical Missile or MTC-300 (Míssil Tático de Cruzeiro) is a Brazilian cruise missile developed by Avibras for the Astros II system. Nicknamed Matador ("killer"), it is projected to be a less expensive alternative to the American Tomahawk (missile). The missile is equipped with a central computer that combines a Ring laser gyroscope, connected to an active GPS navigation device that uninterruptedly supplies positioning information for course correction. Apparently there also will be a naval version called X-300. The missile can use a single warhead of 200 to 500 kg high explosive or cluster munition warhead with 64 submunitions for anti-personnel or anti-tank targets.

Totally interesting.

I wonder what it does in a GPS-denied area.

Still cool to read about.

Well, it is literally in the excerpt. It uses its gyro.

It's gyro will give it a heading. But that won't compensate for wind, nor tell you how far you've traveled. There are inertial reference units that can do this, but they are not typically called gyros.

I don't think a gyro will get you within 50 feet on a 50 mile trip.

kitplane01 wrote:

It's gyro will give it a heading. But that won't compensate for wind, nor tell you how far you've traveled. There are inertial reference units that can do this, but they are not typically called gyros.

I don't think a gyro will get you within 50 feet on a 50 mile trip.

Going off-topic here but an INS contains gyros and accelerometers. An accuracy of 100-200m over a 50 mile trip is achievable given a high enough speed (as the error grows with time, not distance). Further improvements are possible with external sensors like altimeters, cameras, magnetometers and external velocity sensors.

kitplane01 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Totally interesting.

I wonder what it does in a GPS-denied area.

Still cool to read about.

Well, it is literally in the excerpt. It uses its gyro.

It's gyro will give it a heading. But that won't compensate for wind, nor tell you how far you've traveled. There are inertial reference units that can do this, but they are not typically called gyros.

I don't think a gyro will get you within 50 feet on a 50 mile trip.

No, one won’t. A couple do with some enhancements you can expect in a modern cruise mission. Pretty sure that’s what the „excerpt“ meant as they surely weren’t talking about „one gyro“ but a gyro System aka IRS.

I think the comparison by country / nation is a bit meaningless.

The whole EU functions as one market for all of their member states + EEA, just like the US functions as a single market for all of it's states.
If the a fan blade was built in Texas and a gasket in Nebraska, it's one market. I'm arguing the same goes for a part made in Germany and one made in France.

JetBuddy wrote:

I think the comparison by country / nation is a bit meaningless.

The whole EU functions as one market for all of their member states + EEA, just like the US functions as a single market for all of it's states.
If the a fan blade was built in Texas and a gasket in Nebraska, it's one market. I'm arguing the same goes for a part made in Germany and one made in France.

Very sensible argument.

Except when Germany decides you can't export this or that to such and such country...

Aesma wrote:

Except when Germany decides you can't export this or that to such and such country...

Within the EU + EEA are no restrictions. Just if the producer wants to export it outside of EEA/EU, they have to get a license. So just building and using it there is no problem.

duboka wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Except when Germany decides you can't export this or that to such and such country...

Within the EU + EEA are no restrictions. Just if the producer wants to export it outside of EEA/EU, they have to get a license. So just building and using it there is no problem.

France might want all of its aircraft built in France. If the engine contains significant German parts … the Saudi export market becomes impossible.

kitplane01 wrote:

duboka wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Except when Germany decides you can't export this or that to such and such country...

Within the EU + EEA are no restrictions. Just if the producer wants to export it outside of EEA/EU, they have to get a license. So just building and using it there is no problem.

France might want all of its aircraft built in France. If the engine contains significant German parts … the Saudi export market becomes impossible.

No it doesn’t. Where do you get all these ideas from?
Do you even know what France has sent to Saudi? In the 80’s in terms of combat aircraft they tried hard but were beaten by.........Tornado.
Don’t you think that Saudi buying large numbers of Tornados in the 80’s and 90’s, a UK/German/Italian program, across the board, engines too, ditto with their participation in Typhoon, again large numbers to Saudi from the 2000’s, rather proves that anything with German components can be exported there, within reason.
Not to mention all the other military equipment, from Heckler and Koch firearms upwards.

There are limits, attitudes change too, Leopard 2 tanks or German AFVs, if used by the Saudis to prosecute their hugely controversial and destructive campaign in Yemen are the sorts of things that would cause embargo’s. It was easier to do it in the 70’s and 80’s but as the Tornado and later Typhoon sales show, far from impossible.
As it is this is a controversial subject in the UK too, plus the general highly repressive society now being run with the journalist dismembering MBS, a sort of Saudi Royal Caligula.

GDB wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

duboka wrote:

Within the EU + EEA are no restrictions. Just if the producer wants to export it outside of EEA/EU, they have to get a license. So just building and using it there is no problem.

France might want all of its aircraft built in France. If the engine contains significant German parts … the Saudi export market becomes impossible.

No it doesn’t. Where do you get all these ideas from?
Do you even know what France has sent to Saudi? In the 80’s in terms of combat aircraft they tried hard but were beaten by.........Tornado.
Don’t you think that Saudi buying large numbers of Tornados in the 80’s and 90’s, a UK/German/Italian program, across the board, engines too, ditto with their participation in Typhoon, again large numbers to Saudi from the 2000’s, rather proves that anything with German components can be exported there, within reason.
Not to mention all the other military equipment, from Heckler and Koch firearms upwards.

There are limits, attitudes change too, Leopard 2 tanks or German AFVs, if used by the Saudis to prosecute their hugely controversial and destructive campaign in Yemen are the sorts of things that would cause embargo’s. It was easier to do it in the 70’s and 80’s but as the Tornado and later Typhoon sales show, far from impossible.
As it is this is a controversial subject in the UK too, plus the general highly repressive society now being run with the journalist dismembering MBS, a sort of Saudi Royal Caligula.

Of course I know Germany exported to Saudi Arabia generations ago. But these days, if your airplane (the Typhoon, A400) contains significant German parts, you cannot export it to Saudi Arabia. And maybe the French don't like that. They already export to Egypt and Qatar.

I get these ideas from reading: "Germany’s halt in exports to Saudi Arabia is preventing Britain from completing the sale of 48 Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes to Riyadh, and has delayed potential sales of other weapons such as the A400M military transport, a top Airbus official said Friday." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1Q41VK

kitplane01 wrote:

GDB wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

France might want all of its aircraft built in France. If the engine contains significant German parts … the Saudi export market becomes impossible.

No it doesn’t. Where do you get all these ideas from?
Do you even know what France has sent to Saudi? In the 80’s in terms of combat aircraft they tried hard but were beaten by.........Tornado.
Don’t you think that Saudi buying large numbers of Tornados in the 80’s and 90’s, a UK/German/Italian program, across the board, engines too, ditto with their participation in Typhoon, again large numbers to Saudi from the 2000’s, rather proves that anything with German components can be exported there, within reason.
Not to mention all the other military equipment, from Heckler and Koch firearms upwards.

There are limits, attitudes change too, Leopard 2 tanks or German AFVs, if used by the Saudis to prosecute their hugely controversial and destructive campaign in Yemen are the sorts of things that would cause embargo’s. It was easier to do it in the 70’s and 80’s but as the Tornado and later Typhoon sales show, far from impossible.
As it is this is a controversial subject in the UK too, plus the general highly repressive society now being run with the journalist dismembering MBS, a sort of Saudi Royal Caligula.

Of course I know Germany exported to Saudi Arabia generations ago. But these days, if your airplane (the Typhoon, A400) contains significant German parts, you cannot export it to Saudi Arabia. And maybe the French don't like that. They already export to Egypt and Qatar.

I get these ideas from reading: "Germany’s halt in exports to Saudi Arabia is preventing Britain from completing the sale of 48 Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes to Riyadh, and has delayed potential sales of other weapons such as the A400M military transport, a top Airbus official said Friday." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1Q41VK

You don’t think objections were raised before, with the original Typhoon deal? They do have plenty of them already. There was and is a body of opinion, including political, in the UK that objects to arms to Saudi, the first tranche in 2006 had to be approved by the Prime Minister. The Saudi regime is massively unpleasant, 80 executions in one a day, a woman sent to prison for many years for using Twitter. Birthplace of 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, chief fundraiser for extremist grooming schools all over, Pakistan in particular.

Germany also has this controversy, each time any arms sale there with German components is mooted, so far on a multi national project it has not prevented, ultimately, a sale.
We have seen with Ukraine even after a huge u turn in policy of arms supply, aimed purely to allow it to happen, still hits delays and snags as even after a fundamental policy change organizations habits don’t change overnight but they are getting there.

Maybe they are right about Saudi? After all the US really regretted selling F-14’s to Iran when the corrupt and brutal regime they helped to install in 1953, was overthrown by another repressive one, only one very firmly not a US/Western ally, provoking concern that the F-14’s unique radar and Phoenix missile system would be compromised.

GDB wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

GDB wrote:

No it doesn’t. Where do you get all these ideas from?
Do you even know what France has sent to Saudi? In the 80’s in terms of combat aircraft they tried hard but were beaten by.........Tornado.
Don’t you think that Saudi buying large numbers of Tornados in the 80’s and 90’s, a UK/German/Italian program, across the board, engines too, ditto with their participation in Typhoon, again large numbers to Saudi from the 2000’s, rather proves that anything with German components can be exported there, within reason.
Not to mention all the other military equipment, from Heckler and Koch firearms upwards.

There are limits, attitudes change too, Leopard 2 tanks or German AFVs, if used by the Saudis to prosecute their hugely controversial and destructive campaign in Yemen are the sorts of things that would cause embargo’s. It was easier to do it in the 70’s and 80’s but as the Tornado and later Typhoon sales show, far from impossible.
As it is this is a controversial subject in the UK too, plus the general highly repressive society now being run with the journalist dismembering MBS, a sort of Saudi Royal Caligula.

Of course I know Germany exported to Saudi Arabia generations ago. But these days, if your airplane (the Typhoon, A400) contains significant German parts, you cannot export it to Saudi Arabia. And maybe the French don't like that. They already export to Egypt and Qatar.

I get these ideas from reading: "Germany’s halt in exports to Saudi Arabia is preventing Britain from completing the sale of 48 Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes to Riyadh, and has delayed potential sales of other weapons such as the A400M military transport, a top Airbus official said Friday." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1Q41VK

You don’t think objections were raised before, with the original Typhoon deal? They do have plenty of them already. There was and is a body of opinion, including political, in the UK that objects to arms to Saudi, the first tranche in 2006 had to be approved by the Prime Minister. The Saudi regime is massively unpleasant, 80 executions in one a day, a woman sent to prison for many years for using Twitter. Birthplace of 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, chief fundraiser for extremist grooming schools all over, Pakistan in particular.

Germany also has this controversy, each time any arms sale there with German components is mooted, so far on a multi national project it has not prevented, ultimately, a sale.
We have seen with Ukraine even after a huge u turn in policy of arms supply, aimed purely to allow it to happen, still hits delays and snags as even after a fundamental policy change organizations habits don’t change overnight but they are getting there.

Maybe they are right about Saudi? After all the US really regretted selling F-14’s to Iran when the corrupt and brutal regime they helped to install in 1953, was overthrown by another repressive one, only one very firmly not a US/Western ally, provoking concern that the F-14’s unique radar and Phoenix missile system would be compromised.

Maybe they are right. But also maybe France want to be the ones making the decision for the Rafale.

You wrote "each time any arms sale there with German components is mooted, so far on a multi national project it has not prevented, ultimately, a sale". I'm not sure that's still true. The UK would like to sell to Saudi Arabia, and it has not happened yet because of Germany. Neither of us knows the future, but unless something changes this will be a very significant arms sale stopped by Germany.

JetBuddy wrote:

I think the comparison by country / nation is a bit meaningless.

Ding Ding.

The technology for manufacturing of jet engines do not belong to any individual country but the multinational corporations that builds them.

Things like single crystal casting of the turbine blades, to the superplastic forming titanium fan blades can be basically be done anywhere the corporation decide advantageous. It does require that the local fabricator be able to build to the speciic processes and tolerances of the engine components.

The higher up the assembly tree, the higher skilled work force. Train them enough, then they can build them . it's just a matter of cost.


bt

bikerthai wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I think the comparison by country / nation is a bit meaningless.

Ding Ding.

The technology for manufacturing of jet engines do not belong to any individual country but the multinational corporations that builds them.

Things like single crystal casting of the turbine blades, to the superplastic forming titanium fan blades can be basically be done anywhere the corporation decide advantageous. It does require that the local fabricator be able to build to the speciic processes and tolerances of the engine components.

The higher up the assembly tree, the higher skilled work force. Train them enough, then they can build them . it's just a matter of cost.
bt

The corporations are very careful which countries to have facilities, in particular the respect for intellectual property. Notice that there is little of the highest tech engine production in China. Between sanctions and the respect for IP they are off limits, but India is not. The foundries, machine shops, and component manufactures often work for several of the engine supply trees, agreeing to not reveal trade secrets of one manufacturer to another. So far, the "West" has prevented this technology from being stolen by the Chinese, at least from actual production to date.

Chinese cars are still a generation behind the West in terms of build quality, it will be scary when the obtain that build quality. Just imagine how great it would be to buy a fuel pump for your 10 year old car and the pump actually fits and works. Our local lawn mower repair shop still doesn't repair Chinese engines because the parts (beyond the spark plug) don't fit up, much less be built to actual tolerances. We are 150 years into making interchangeable gun parts, but that ability to have interchangeable parts seems beyond the Chinese so far.

Internal combustion engines have tight tolerances, efficient turbines have 10 fold tighter tolerances coupled with crazy high temperatures, the resulting thermal expansion messes all the more with things. That blade clearance needs to be in effect at temperature and applies to all angles of the casing. Really tough tech.

This is where we are today, in 1 or 2 decades there will be Chinese engines that will be competitive, that is when their fighters obtain parity with the West.

JayinKitsap wrote:

This is where we are today, in 1 or 2 decades there will be Chinese engines that will be competitive,

Only if they ditch their current political system. A centrally controlled economic system that cater to the politburo will be able to make jet engines, yes, but to say competitive? Maybe in the areas other than efficiency and performance.

With the pending India "Western" fighter bid and the requirement for industrial partition, I can see India assembling jet engines 2 decades down the road.

We are talking about top line fighter jet engines right? Cause I see jet engines for UAV being an easier path to pursue.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I think the comparison by country / nation is a bit meaningless.

Ding Ding.

The technology for manufacturing of jet engines do not belong to any individual country but the multinational corporations that builds them.

Things like single crystal casting of the turbine blades, to the superplastic forming titanium fan blades can be basically be done anywhere the corporation decide advantageous. It does require that the local fabricator be able to build to the speciic processes and tolerances of the engine components.

The higher up the assembly tree, the higher skilled work force. Train them enough, then they can build them . it's just a matter of cost.


bt

Er ... no.

Neither China nor Russia nor have access to the best technology to build jet engines. They have money, but the technology is just not available to them, regardless of size-of-checkbook. And this has been true for over a decade (and even more).

kitplane01 wrote:

Neither China nor Russia nor have access to the best technology to build jet engines.

See ground rule 2 on the original post.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Neither China nor Russia nor have access to the best technology to build jet engines.

See ground rule 2 on the original post.

bt

I remember (I wrote it). I was just arguing what you wrote, not that China and Russia cannot make jet engines.

kitplane01 wrote:

I was just arguing what you wrote, not that China and Russia cannot make jet engines.

Fair.

Of course it would also be true for China as well as Russia that their capability for making jet engines, belongs to the private companies. China have their oligarchs as well.

My point is that export restriction aside, if the western multi-national decides that it is advantageous to build jet engines in India, they probably can do it within a decade, if not sooner.

bt

Honeywell, nee Garrett, and Taiwans AIDC together as ITEC produce the afterburning F125 (FI Ching Kuo IDF) and non afterburning F124 (L159, M346, T5 Brave Eagle). IIRC AIDC was responsible for the afterburner, gear box and many low pressure components.
https://aerospace.honeywell.com/us/en/p ... gines/f125