Thomas Enders CEO from Airbus says: "Airbus will rethink investments in the Uk

[MarkusS]

I suggest you make plans with your French friends to see if there is anyway you can stop the Germans from totally dominating you in the EU now that UK has left.

yeah

But again, how do you guys cover this timespan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_blossom

 

[UKBengali]

yeah

But again, how do you guys cover this timespan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_blossom

I am not Chinese as you can see from my flags clearly.

 

[MarkusS]

I am not Chinese as you can see from my flags clearly.

That Bamboo stuff grows in china, india and bangladesh. It says your people see the bamboo blossom as bad omen and that you guys suffer horrible when it happens.

Like no new houses and because the large amounts of bamboo seeds you get rodents en mass and all kind of plaques.

 

[UKBengali]

That Bamboo stuff grows in china, india and bangladesh. It says your people see the bamboo blossom as bad omen and that you guys suffer horrible when it happens.

Like no new houses and because the large amounts of bamboo seeds you get rodents en mass and all kind of plaques.

Let us get back on topic.

UK cannot be dictated by an economically weak EU.

 

[MarkusS]

Let us get back on topic.

UK cannot be dictated by an economically weak EU.

1st world problems dude.

Now back to your topic: bamboo blossom.

Thats a bamboo hut from the city Sylhet in bangladesh:

So when all bamboo flowers at the same time you guys have a massive infrastructure problem.

This link says you cant build new bamboo huts then:

And the large amount of bamboo seeds create a rodent problem they eat all your food then:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7234213.stm

@flamer84 @mike2000 is back

do you think france and italy or entire EU should help those poor people?

 

[airmarshal]

Dude - who cares about the technicalities.

My point is that a significant proportion of Airbus planes are powered by UK engines so good luck with trying to sideline UK.

EU is no longer self-sufficient in making planes without UK and Airbus will now be like Bombardier or Embraer.

No they are not. CFM, Pratt & Whitney, GE and Rolls Royce power Airbus aircraft. It all depends on the airline which engines they want.

 

[UKBengali]

No they are not. CFM, Pratt & Whitney, GE and Rolls Royce power Airbus aircraft. It all depends on the airline which engines they want.

I used the word "significant".

That does not mean a majority btw.

 

[airmarshal]

fm

I used the word "significant".

That does not mean a majority btw.

Prove your 'significant' argument then. You cant say without backing it up with facts.

 

[UKBengali]

why do you debate with them?

I explained them how the contracts work. They are too stupid to understand that Airbus doesnt sell engines or bus engines but its a seperate contract between airline and engine producer. They dont get it.

You french, we italians and germany will go through that and i´m sure we will be fine.

So you claim to be a Airbus expert then?

The A330neo will only use the Rolls Royce Trent 7000 engine.

But then again, you are an Italian and not can be expected from someone who comes from a country that will go down in history as the first economy in modern history that will go from rich to medium income status.

fm


Prove your 'significant' argument then. You cant say without backing it up with facts.

Dude, do you think I care to waste my time with this?

Just google how important Rolls Royce is to the world civilian airliner engine market.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I believe France is a founding member of the EU.

The French firm Snecma has some thing to offer in this department you requested information


http://www.safran-aircraft-engines....le-aisle-commercial-jets/cfm56/cfm56-heritage




Why do you think the Galileo navigation system is a failure? Is China's Beidou system any more accurate? I believe it's the opposite. Galileo navigation system is more accurate in trials?



Snecma is a counterexample.

http://www.safran-aircraft-engines....le-aisle-commercial-jets/cfm56/cfm56-heritage




Can you clarify what you mean?
Which engine uses P&W core?




How did you make this absurd system of ranking?
What criteria did you use?
From space programme to nuclear programme, ballistic missiles to air defense systems, radars and optronics to most other civilian and military areas including transportation and even luxury products, France and the EU have an absolute dominance over the UK, and in many areas, also over the USA.



To the contrary, Snecma already engages in all segments of the civilian and military aero engine and space engine markets. Unlike your beloved Rolls Royce.

When your British Rolls Royce can develop a space engine for the market or your beloved UK reaches anywhere near the sophisticated history and culture of France backed by high tech and foremost scientific contributions in the backdrop of a beautiful warm Southern French areas, you can come back.



That is why the M-88 is more advanced, in reality.

Did you consider that the M-88 hides its infrared signature via added cooling measures better than all Anglo American aero engines. nevermind compared to results with third world Russian or Chinese engines? And M-88 engine has better thrust to weight ratio than old F-110 engine, rusty AL-31 engine or non-reliable WS-10 engine, as a start?

Of course, neither thrust to weight ratio nor total thrust is the cornerstone and defining feature of a low bypass aero engine. And you probably know that it is much more difficult to develop smaller engines with higher thrust to weight ratios than larger engines with higher thrust to weight ratios.




Name ten areas of civilian and ten areas of military superiority enjoyed by the UK over France, for a start.

I can give you twenty examples for both civilian and military sectors that France dominates the UK, if you wish.



1. What secret classified information on Barracuda SSN do you have that others do not? And for Type 093 SSN?
Come back when you enjoy the same success in weapons exports market as France has done over decades.
The last I checked, even your dearest ally Pakistan uses French submarines currently, not some Chinese submarines. Any other customers for your Chinese submarines?

France just recently won in the Australian tender.

And just supplied Egypt with its 4,5 gen Rafale omnirole fighter, FREMM frigate to Morocco and Egypt, Mistral helicopter carrier to Egypt that was destined for your P5 'superior technology' member Russia that is now eating mud and permafrost out of desperation from Western sanctions.

Your beloved Russia goes with a begging bowl to France for its Sukhoi Superjet's engine and thousands of other things.


2. What core technology is it? French M-88 and upgrades are decisively superior than all the listed old rust buckets and secretive most probably non-performing Chinese WS-10 engines.

That explains why French fighter jets operate around the world's continents including Republic of China and recently Egypt, as well as Pakistan, UAE, Greece, and more, whereas, Chinese 4th gen fighter jets are sold nowhere.

Not even to North Korea.

J-10 has found a customer yet?

3. It is only Russian and Chinese SLBMs that have always failed.

The UK has no SLBM of its own. It uses American Trident-II SLBMs.

Only the USA has a superior system in the underwater launched ballistic missile system.

http://missilethreat.com/legacy-of-failure-is-hard-to-shake/



Good read.

An encyclopaedia of SLBM failures from two third world countries.



It is the other way around.

Russian Sukhoi Superjet needs French guidance and aid.

That's why they come with begging bowls for their Sukhoi Superjet engines to Europe's doors, pleading in earnest as it were.

Know about the SaM146 engine?

- M-88 has lower thrust power than WS-13, this is the fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snecma_M88

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_WS-13

- Barracuda got difficulty in mass production, while China is producing the Type 093B and Type 095 like sausages.

- Since the failure of the 2013 launch, M51 has to restart everything from scratch, that's why it was launched from a water pool instead from a submerged SSBN.

JL-2 is becoming reliable and operational, and Russia not only relies on Bulava, but also on another reliable SLBM known as Sineva.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-29RMU_Sineva

 

[UKBengali]

- M-88 has lower thrust power than WS-13, this is the fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snecma_M88

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_WS-13

- Barracuda got difficulty in mass production, while China is producing the Type 093B and Type 095 like sausages.

- Since the failure of the 2013 launch, M51 has to restart everything from scratch, that's why it was launched from a water pool instead from a SSBN.

JL-2 is becoming reliable and operation, and Russia not only relies on Bulava, but also on another reliable SLBM known as Sineva.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-29RMU_Sineva

These French are funny.

They brag about having better quality than Russians/Chinese but the truth is that they are really not much better than Russia and China will surpass them in all technological fields by 2020-2025 time-span.

Let them have their last decade when they are able to sell their over-priced products as China/Turkey/Korea have not yet quite reached the levels to compete with them yet. In the 2020s, you will see their military export industry decimated when the technologies from China/Turkey/Korea have matured, and then they will have to massively reduce the price of their arms to have any chance of selling them.

Australia only brought their submarine as it was based off a nuclear design and the Australians really need a nuclear SSN as they have a massive coastline and surrounding oceans to protect.

 

[Vergennes]

Australia only brought their submarine as it was based off a nuclear design and the Australians really need a nuclear SSN as they have a massive coastline and surrounding oceans to protect.

Seems like you have reading deficiencies.

The sound of silence — why Germany lost its subs bid

It was the smallest of sounds, too soft for human ears but deemed loud enough to potentially doom an Australian submarine.

Two weeks ago, behind closed doors in a shipyard in the German port of Kiel, the secrets behind Australia’s $150 billion submarine decision were finally revealed. It was a moment that left the Germans stunned. They were told for the first time that they had lost the bid because their proposed Australian submarine had an “unacceptable’’ level of “radiated noise’’.

In the world of submarines, noise equals potential detection and death, but when the Germans pressed the Australian officials in the room that day to explain further they were rebuffed. That information was classified, the Australians told them.

In a short and testy exchange, the truth became clear — France had won the largest defence contract in the nation’s history because it had best achieved the sound of silence. As a spying platform against China, and in the case of war, the proposed French submarine was seen to be more stealthy than those proposed by Germany or Japan.

But this is a $150bn judgment call — the construction phase is worth $50bn, with the sustainability of the submarines running to an extra $100bn over the life of the vessels — that the Germans fiercely contest, at least in private. It is also one that threatens to undermine relations with Berlin in the same way as the rejection of Japan’s bid has harmed Canberra’s ties with Tokyo.

The confidential debriefing for the failed German submarine bid took place inauspiciously on Friday the 13th this month, inside the historic Kiel shipyards.

Five Australian defence officials, led by the director-general of the Future Submarine Program Commodore Mike Houghton, stood in front of 11 senior representatives of German shipbuilder TKMS and representatives from the German ministries of defence, economic affairs and the foreign office. The presence of the government officials reflected what Germany had invested in the bid, up to and including lobbying by Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The Australian delegation, which one German observer described as “sheepish in their body language’’, handed out a document marked “PROTECTED — Sensitive”, summarising the reasons for its decision.

At the same time, on the other side of the world, the head of the Future Submarine Program, Rear Admiral Greg Sammut, was leading an Australian delegation on May 12 and 13 around various ministries in Tokyo, including the Ministry of Defence, to tell Japan why its bid failed.

Stealth issues also played a key role in Japan’s defeat.

If the Australian officials in Kiel hoped the Germans would be a passive audience, they were quite mistaken.

Led by TKMS deputy chief executive Dieter Rottsieper, the Germans doggedly questioned every key assumption the Australians had made. The Australian delegation began the two-hour debrief by assuring the Germans that the decision to reject their bid was not swayed by politics, the media or other factors. It was based entirely on the need to choose a regionally superior submarine that could be sustained through its life in Australia.

But, they said, the truth was that despite Germany putting forth an excellent plan for the local defence industry to sustain the boats, the submarine itself was not good enough.

The Germans were told that the “critical issue’’ was that their submarine was too noisy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sub...9b49a8371e9837ed59e4f0faac2&memtype=anonymous

How can you remain in such denial ?

They brag about having better quality than Russians/Chinese but the truth is that they are really not much better than Russia and China will surpass them in all technological fields by 2020-2025 time-span.

This is based on your opinion,and so is irrelevant.

 

[UKBengali]

Seems like you have reading deficiencies.

The sound of silence — why Germany lost its subs bid




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sub...9b49a8371e9837ed59e4f0faac2&memtype=anonymous

How can you remain in such denial ?



This is based on your opinion,and so is irrelevant.

German and Japanese are better engineers than French and so no need to say anymore.

 

[pts_m_h_2016]

- M-88 has lower thrust power than WS-13, this is the fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snecma_M88

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_WS-13

- Barracuda got difficulty in mass production, while China is producing the Type 093B and Type 095 like sausages.

- Since the failure of the 2013 launch, M51 has to restart everything from scratch, that's why it was launched from a water pool instead from a submerged SSBN.

JL-2 is becoming reliable and operational, and Russia not only relies on Bulava, but also on another reliable SLBM known as Sineva.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-29RMU_Sineva

M-88 generates lower thrust than older M-53 used to power Mirage fighters, both engines come from same producer Snecma. Does this mean that Snecma is dumb to carry out extensive R&D and shelve billions of euros on a worse engine?

Hints for you:

Turbine inlet temperature

Thrust to weight ratio

Mean Time before overhaul in Total Accumulated Cycles

For some handy information
http://all-aero.com/index.php/contactus/64-engines-power/13288-lyulka-al-31-saturn-al-31-umpo-117

Specifications:
AL-31F
Type: Two-shaft afterburning turbofan
Length: 4,990 millimetres (196 in)
Diameter: 905 millimetres (35.6 in) inlet; 1,280 millimetres (50 in) maximum external
Dry weight: 1,570 kilograms (3,460 lb)
Compressor: 4 fan and 9 compressor stages
Combustors: annular
Turbine: 2 single-staged turbines
Maximum thrust:
74.5 kilonewtons (16,700 lbf) military thrust
122.58 kilonewtons (27,560 lbf) with afterburner
Overall pressure ratio: 23
Bypass ratio: 0.59:1
Turbine inlet temperature: 1685 K (1,412 °C (2,574 °F))
Fuel consumption: 2.0 Kg/daN·h
Specific fuel consumption:
Military thrust: 0.67 lb/(lbf·h)
Full afterburner: 1.92 lb/(lbf·h)
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 4.77:1 (dry), 7.87:1 (afterburning)

http://all-aero.com/index.php/component/content/article/64-engines-power/9884-general-electric-f110

Specifications:
F110
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 182.3 - 232.3 in (463 - 590 cm)
Diameter: 46.5 in (118 cm)
Dry weight: 3,920 - 4,400 lb (1,778 - 1,996 kg)
Compressor: 2 spool: 3 fan and 9 high pressure compressor stages
Combustors: annular
Turbine: 2 low-pressure and 1 high-pressure stages
Maximum thrust: 27,000 - 28,000 lbf (120 - 125 kN)
Overall pressure ratio: 29.9:1 - 30.4:1
Turbine inlet temperature: 2750F (1510C)
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 6.36:1

http://all-aero.com/index.php/contactus/64-engines-power/13617-guizhou-ws-13-woshan-ws-13-taishan

Specifications:
WS-13
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 4.14 metres (13.6 ft)
Diameter: 1.02 metres (3 ft 4 in)
Dry weight: 1,135 kilograms (2,502 lb)
Compressor: Two-spool 8-stage axial
Combustors: annular
Maximum thrust: 51.2 kilonewtons (11,500 lbf) dry; 86.37 kilonewtons (19,420 lbf) with afterburner
Bypass ratio: 0.57:1
Turbine inlet temperature: 1650 K (1,377 °C (2,511 °F))
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.8

http://www.safran-aircraft-engines.com/military-engines/training-and-combat-aircraft/m88

M88
Technical characteristics
Thrust with afterburner (lbf) 16,860
Dry thrust (lbf) 11,240
Specific fuel consumption with afterburner [(lb/lbf.h)] 1.66
Specific fuel consumption without afterburner [(lb/lbf.h)] 0.78
Airflow rate (lb/s) 143.30
Turbine entry temperature (K) 1,850 (2,870.6°F)
Pressure ratio 24.50
Bypass ratio 0.30
Length (in) 139.29
Inlet diameter (in) 27.40
Weight (lbs) 1,977.55

2. Heh?

M-51 has had successful launch since 2013.

http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/programmes/m-51-juy.html

Five first test flights of the missile successfully took place in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010.

I wonder what you would call russian or Chinese SLBMs if they had 5 consecutive successful launches.

http://defence-blog.com/news/video-france-successfully-test-fired-m51-slbm.html

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...letes-underwater-test-launch-of-m51-slbm.html


Sineva and JL-2 has had many more failures than M-51, which has only 1 failure so far.

That's it?

Let's hope you are nothing like the other third worlder that whose intellect considers bamboo-sticks as technologically sophisticated weapons for his villages made of bamboo.

 

[mike2000 is back]

First question uses false assumption.

There are plentiful options for the EU even if the UK were to be abandoned.

Second question, EU has bigger and better of everything to think of.

The EU enjoys greater leverage over tiny UK that hardly has any significance in the world on its own except for legacy of its colonial days in your historically colonized countries.

At start, you will feel the pinch when your Eurotunnel comes to a halt, London's role in the global economy is snatched away, no luxury goods (examples: supercars, like French Bugatti, Italian Lamborghini and Ferrari, or Swedish Koennigsegg) or fine cuisine or haute couture can make its way to the UK.

Pound will falter in value, capital flight from UK exchanges would take place. Investor confidence would plummet. UK's role as a global financial centre would be reduced. The pound would lose its attraction more than now as a currency of choice, and it was never in competition with the Euro any case.

No civilian airlines except Boeing for you?
The London Underground would have little in the way of choice.
Maybe your air defence destroyers would be left without any 'eyes and ears'?
Or your civilian nuclear energy industry left with zero if EDF of France withdraws? Since EDF controls 100% of all British nuclear reactors?

And so on.




Some of the information and ideas being peddled about British superiority in engine technology and all other forms of technology by third worlders had to be debunked. Don't you think so?

WTF are you people on about ?
U.K has ZERO influence in the world compared to France and other E.U countries ? The tiny U.K (never mind that we are economically bigger than any country in Europe bar Germany) produces nothing ?
Old boyyyyy......... i would have seen it all on PDF

I can see our brexit is making many of our European brothers very emotional.

As for your point about Britain not producing any luxury cars, you have definitely not been in a Bentley, Rolls Royce or Aston Martin.
Plus if you think we will no longer be a world leader in finance and our currency will collapse into oblivion then you are even more funnier than i thought, another project fear all over again. Lol . As i said before have you ever wondered why we are world leaders in finance now for over a century ? Think its because of the E U ? Lol. Then why is Paris or Frankfurt or Madrid not the capital of world finance ? Lol
As for the engine part, i wont even waste my time there sunce its a useless futile debate to educate some if you about our engine tech, capabilities, and world reach. Carry on with your France is the world leader in engine tech and everything else. Lol

You people should calm down and stop talking nonesense just because you are pissed we left. Its not the end of the world, plus we are still part of Europe and NATO , nothing much will change except that we will have more control of our borders,laws and foreign policy. Nothing bad about that. So chill.

First of all.......The logic in this thread quite honestly, sucked........

He claim Airbus will not consider using RR engine anymore, then he go on and say Airbus is not an Airline and care the shit out of whichever engine they (The airline) use on their aircraft. Then he go on and claim it does not matter..........

What is the point to say airbus "PUNISH" UK or RR and then proceed to say both Airbus and RR care less about who get what engine??

Look, RR is bound to lose some business after leaving EU, EU Member will probably need to pay tax or other fee to use RR Engine, they can out of spike and go for GE or CMF or whatever that make those engine, but that is independent between Airbus, RR, Airlines and other Engine Manufacturer.

Both RR and Airbus don't really care what aircraft use which engine, because both RR and Airbus have more than one choice than the other. Hence it actually balance out the act.

Bear in mind, UK leaving EU will have economic impact, but talking about Airbus and RR is simply not the way to go.

By the way, my brother just got back from the UK and train under RR for the new Trend 1000 series engine,. FI that count anything?

Its just emotion bro. Dont mind some of our European brothers here. The E.U has only itself to blame as its bureaucrats dont want any reforms at all, they are too complacent and dont give a shit about member countries complaints, our exit will be a wake up call for them, which is good for Europe.

Yes, and the Messerschmitt 262 got its engine core from which of the countries above?

We invented the turbojet engine itself. It was invented by frank Whittle an engineer with the RAF. His jet engines were developed some years earlier than those of Germany's Hans von Ohain who was the designer of the first jet engine to be used to actually power an aircraft. We invented so many things that is used in the modern world today including modern capitalism itself.

Granted our German anglo saxon brothers also contributed to many science and engineering projects in the world.

http://www.touleco.fr/Decu-par-le-Brexit-Tom-Enders-va-revoir-la-strategie-d-Airbus,19586

Airbus overthinks its investments in the UK and propably will leave completly. Meanwhile first banks start to close down in London and start to transfer their HQ to Frankfurt and Dublin:

@Vauban @mike2000 is back

I think thats good news. Airbus is a european project and the UK leaving the EU now becomes mostly a security risk. Since Airbus openly announced to "rethink" its investments in the Uk its most likely that the core production of the wings will be moved to Germany or Italy and Spain.

Only a fool will think Airbus will leave the U.K. if they would have left, then they would have done so already what are they waiting for ? Why are they 'rethinking' its either you leave or stay, not hard to decide. Lol. RETHINKING.
They are here in the first place for a reason. Lol As i said before business is business, nobody is doing anyone any favours. Its win-win.