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

[UKBengali]

Do you make clothes for TAKKo and KiK or Primark? Just asking.

Dude, please chill and go do something else if you cannot handle a harmless Internet discussion.

 

[MarkusS]

Dude, please chill and go do something else if you cannot handle a harmless an Internet discussion.

English? Do you speak it?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

You know, that you are comparing at the highest level? The most countries on this world doesn`t even know how to start such a project.

To build up a nuclear triad requires enormous amount of resources and lot of cumulative works.

The warheads and missiles do not represent everything, but it is very also very important to build up a huge network of fast counterattack measures such as the early warning systems based from the space to the ground.

Without spending trillion dollars in the total assets, it is impossible to build up a fully functional nuclear triad.

Because the lack of resources, both UK and France chose the minimal nuclear deterrence over the large scale nuclear triad deterrence. The UK has gave up on its indigenous SLBM program, they fully rely on the US Trident II SLBM. And France chose to build up their own SLBM, but they still couldn't put the same amount of resources as other larger nuclear powers.

 

[SMS Derfflinger]

I didn`t deny this, what are you saying, but France is at least able to do this and with the right funding it could accomplish this.

Btw. if I have this right in mind Russia`s Bulava has a long history of failures until it was deployable.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I didn`t deny this, what are you saying, but France is at least able to do this and with the right funding it could accomplish this.

Btw. if I have this right in mind Russia`s Bulava has a long history of failures until it was deployable.

Russia is walking with two legs, they still have Sineva which is a more reliable missile as a temporary substitution.

Even Sineva uses the liquid fueled propellant, not the mainstream solid fueled propellant, but at least they still have something with their naval nuclear deterrence.

The SLBM technology is also the diamond of the military industry, it is extremely hard to fully master it. Except USA who had already fully mastered it, you will be lucky to first cross this threshold.

Now France decides to put the missile back to the water pool, this means that they have to put everything together and rework it from scratch.

If you look at China, Russia, and now France's experience of developing the SLBM, it is definitely a long painful agonizing experience. No wonder that Britain just fully gave up and focused their available resources on something else.

 

[SMS Derfflinger]

If you look at China, Russia, and now France's experience of developing the SLBM, it is definitely a long painful agonizing experience. No wonder that Britain just fully gave up and focused their available resources on something else.

Of course, you are right, but I think you would agree if i say, a nation, who want to be a member in the nuclear club, should be able to handle all aspects of this technology, even it would be easier to buy the damn thing and therefore save money.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Of course, you are right, but I think you would agree if i say, a nation, who want to be a member in the nuclear club, should be able to handle all aspects of this technology, even it would be easier to buy the damn thing and therefore save money.

Well, Britain has some special relationship with USA, so they are allowed to purchase the Trident missiles from them. The only shortcoming is that USA will not selflessly allow Britain to touch the code of the Trident nuclear missiles or to inspect its technology.

From this perspective, the integration of the EU is indeed extremely important for the European nations, since nowadays if you want to become a powerhouse in all technological domains, you have to first become a large nation with large population and large territory.

Even the current EU is not a single large country yet, but more of a loose union, but it is still capable of building the mega engineering project like the Airbus 380. And this kind of mega project is absolutely unimaginable for a single European country.

But for now, the Brexit is definitely a huge setback for the integration of the EU. It is simply no way for the EU to become a powerful financial/technological entity if this kind of domino effect continues to spread. The damage control needs to take further action. Otherwise, all those efforts to make the EU a powerful entity will become fruitless.

 

[pts_m_h_2016]

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

1. Just listed this the other day for your other third world cheerleader
https://fullfact.org/europe/factcheck-are-british-workers-less-productive-germans-and-french/

It's true to say that on the basis of GDP per hour, British workers are less productive than those in Germany and France, so much so that they would finish by Thursday what a Brit would do by Friday.

2. Rolls Royce and Bentley are no supercars.

Aston Martin is ..meh. Lower end

Compare that with a Bugatti Veyron hitting 400 kmph+ or any of the Lamorghini top drawer models (Aventador, Gallardo) hitting 350 kmph with ease. Koenigsegg Agere passes 400 kmph quite easily too.

We don't even know what Bugatti's Chiron would be able to clock.

480 kmph? 500 kmph?


3. About engine tech, what is so unthinkably difficult aspect to this?

There is no Brit space engine firm, is there?

From what I know, the only Western European missile engine maker is French.

Your Storm shadow cruise missiles which are just renamed from SCALP also use French engines and all components.


4. Space programme, nuclear civilian and military programme, fighter aircraft and unmanned fighter research, spy satellites and high speed transportation, supercars and fine cuisine. All these and more fields, France alone defeats Britain. No need of EU.

- Barracuda has smallest tonnage among the modern SSNs, and it cannot pack a load of ammunition, then that's the problem.

- Yet they didn't build anything close to that benchmark.

- Compared to the 160/160 benchmark of the D5, the M51 is by far the least experienced SLBM.



The most impressive French products to the world are the merchandizes like L'Oréal and Lancôme.

And you should aim to win a second world cup instead of touting yourself as a technological powerhouse.

1. Do you know what was the displacement of your friend third world Russian Kursk submarine?

14,700 t surfaced, 24,000 t submerged.

And it met a very sad end.

This shows bigger is not better for stealth platforms like submarines.

Submarines are meant to take enemies by surprise by delivering weapons and even special forces troops.

Longevity, reliability, functionality are more important than simple tonnage.


2. What benchmark?


3. The Trident II had its failures, too. None of the 4 SLBM manufacturing countries experienced 100% successes, only France experienced the least number of failures over multiple decades.

Example.

[video]

Another example Trident II failure.

[video]

The most failed SLBM. in world.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/bulava.htm

Failures: 4

And many many more as with all third world Russian and dictatorial countries' rocketry and aerospace programmes.

Not like France, the Chinese programme met with a string of failures with its earlier JL-1 programme
See http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jl1.htm

Failures: 1. Success Rate: 83.33%. First Fail Date: 1985-09-28. Last Fail Date: 1985-09-28. Launch data is: continuing. Standard warhead: 600 kg (1,320 lb). Maximum range: 1,702 km (1,057 mi). Number Standard Warheads: 1. Warhead yield: 250 KT.

Same as JL-2

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Ballistic-Missiles.html

The JL-2 is a variant of the DF-31 deployed on the Type 094 SSBN, and was originally expected to achieve IOC in 2010. The DoD reports that the JL-2 has suffered a series of flight test failures, and as such the weapon is unlikely to reach operational status in 2010.

Compared with France?
http://www.astronautix.com/fam/msbs.htm

1981? - . Launch Site: Biscarosse. Launch Complex: Biscarosse BLB. LV Family: MSBS. Launch Vehicle: MSBS M4. LV Configuration: MSBS M4 2.
Test mission - . Nation: France. Agency: DMA. Apogee: 800 km (490 mi).
1981 - . Launch Site: Biscarosse. Launch Complex: Biscarosse BLB. LV Family: MSBS. Launch Vehicle: MSBS M4. LV Configuration: MSBS M4 3. FAILURE: Failure.
Test mission - . Nation: France. Agency: DMA. Apogee: 0 km ( mi).
1981? - . Launch Site: Biscarosse. Launch Complex: Biscarosse BLB. LV Family: MSBS. Launch Vehicle: MSBS M4. LV Configuration: MSBS M4 5.
Test mission - . Nation: France. Agency: DMA. Apogee: 800 km (490 mi).
1981 - . Launch Site: Biscarosse. Launch Complex: Biscarosse BLB. LV Family: MSBS. Launch Vehicle: MSBS M4. LV Configuration: MSBS M4 4.
Test mission - . Nation: France. Agency: DMA. Apogee: 800 km (490 mi).

Only 1 one failure in all launches from 1966 to 2010.

And one more failure in 2013 with the M51.

In all these 50 years, only two (!) failures and you castigate the French SLBM as the weakest of the four.

Just today, the M51 SLBM launched was a success.

http://www.directmatin.fr/france/20...sai-de-missile-m51-depuis-le-finistere-733374

France is fine. they are pretty advance from what I can tell


SSBN Barracuda is on schedule for 2017 trials and induction in late 2017, and from I read it's actually better the Virginia Class sub in technology and performance

French are fine with the Snecma M88 and could build a engine in the class of the F-110/AL-31 if it needed too

Thanks.

The French have already built an engine in the class of F-110/AL-31 if you mean by class it is the generation of the engine or the era of built and operation.

That engine is the M53 used in Mirage-2000 fighters.

Similar thrust to weight ratios, better turbine inlet temperature, and better bypass ratio.