I'm just wondering, since all of the modern destroyers seem to be using LM-2500, what could possibly be available to China (since US government is unlikely to allow GE sell LM-2500 to China). I know for sure that if gas turbine with enough power is available from Europe, China would definitely not buy Ukrainian or Russian ones.I'm certainly aware that Euro GT's are available for China - but I'm unsure of whether there is an output limitation.
I know that there is a strong preference for german maritime diesels over ukrainian - and the ukrainian prices are absolutely silly prices - almost a 1/3rd of an equiv german in output.
You pay for it however in through life support. The Russian/Ukrainian low entry prices are a false economy. They typically (without exageration) have a 3-400% higher maint cycle - and the user will get caught by the consumable prices.
There is no such thing as a cheap jet engine, or a cheap maritime engine.
Russian Navy plans to build 4 new Aircraft Carriers
- Thread starter Francis
- Start date
tphuang
This is one (major) of the reasons I have reservations on Chinese fighters. I recieved quite a lot of flak for it; but it seems to me that perhaps the major reason for indigenious development of turbine engines is not so much getting the best; but getting engines that work - at all.
If the Chinese are smart - as I think they are - they will keep things simple.
They have now had the opportunity to see for themselves that the restriction on jet engine core technology that is/was imposed upon export to the Soviets/Russians worked.
This is one (major) of the reasons I have reservations on Chinese fighters. I recieved quite a lot of flak for it; but it seems to me that perhaps the major reason for indigenious development of turbine engines is not so much getting the best; but getting engines that work - at all.
If the Chinese are smart - as I think they are - they will keep things simple.
They have now had the opportunity to see for themselves that the restriction on jet engine core technology that is/was imposed upon export to the Soviets/Russians worked.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Actually it works the other way.gf0012: There is an aside to this:
Traditionally weapons export has increased the quality of the weapons for domestic consumption. The coustoumers generally have ideas for add-ons, extras and so on. Some of them are a good idea for the launch costoumer at home.
In this context: If Russian exports leaves something to be desired, what is the quality they deliver to the Russian Navy?
Whe exporting, the demand is usually for same quality as that offered on the domestic market because the domestic client can take a greater scope of letigation against defective performace then the foreign client.
Are my the only person here young enough to remember first Japanese car exports in the late 60s and 70s?! In fact I was in school at that time, and the worst insult is to tell someone was that they were only fit to drive a Japanese car because they could not go over 60 for fear of something coming loose!
The story of QA is an interesting one. There is a bit of a start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_control, but the contribution made by Soviet designers is to increase QA through elimination of as many parts as possible. In the US the approach was to install QA supervisors. The difference was in labour availability, particularly in heavy industries during wartime. Soviets had to include considerations of pruduction skill availability into the engineering design, while in US this was less of a problem.
The outcome is that in the West in general the designs are produced with excuisite QA, but they are very complex, and therefore expensive, lead to decreased budgets and therfore smaller number of units purchased. To maintain profits the manufacturers sell add-on enhancements to the military, often as post-production upgrades.
When US used to publish its Soviet Power assessments, they famously conducted Soviet defence manufacturing capability assessment using US practice, i.e. design, production and QA, as well as US production accounting standards.
Hence when one looks at the Soviet equipment, it seems crude and almost bare by comparison to Western examples. This is across the board, because this is part of philosophy Soviet engineers were educated in that good engineering design reduces need for QA in manufacturing, rather then requiring application of QA during manufacturing.
I have been on Soviet Ships of the Black fleet, and also on visiting US vessels in Australia (as well as Australian vessels), and the difference is profound of course. However it is only profound when the QA philosophy that underlies their construction is not taken into consideration.