Singapore's Next Generation Fighter
-
I'm not bashing, the JV is just untstable and hence this EF is just like another failure (Econimcally also... if you didn't know let me tell you, if the govt cut its defence spending, this most ex plane in the world "programme" will be affected hard) That's a reality which has popped out years back by BritianOriginally posted by duotiga83:i just wonder when the typhoon bashing be ended
-
since ever when fighter programs run smoothly? give me 1 example that runs complete smooth without a glitch
-
if EF Typhoon is such a failure as you have said.......what about F/A-22 Raptor? JSF has its own set of problems also...look at PANAVIA, SPECAT and other joint programs.......since when it runs smoothly 100%?
-
Would add the Anglo-Franco project.....aka the Concorde as well....Originally posted by duotiga83:if EF Typhoon is such a failure as you have said.......what about F/A-22 Raptor? JSF has its own set of problems also...look at PANAVIA, SPECAT and other joint programs.......since when it runs smoothly 100%? 
That said, most long tennured projects face problems, esp. cooperative projects as mentioned due to the following:
- Technologcial difficulties with respect to the project
- Political difficulties, differing and shifting needs and priorities
- Budgets (tied to different priorities, change in government, etc.)
Southpark
The Dude -
The tranche 2 is signed last week aft Germany was hostile to UK to stop its "nonsense" on wanting to have better ground precision weapons.
Nobody was hostile. There is a timetable:
That's for F-16 replacement.
Isn't F-117 *stealthy* as well?
But there might be US pressure to force Singapore to buy F-15 (Through weapons deal)
Tranche 1 block 2 (2003):
27mm Mauser(a2a), AIM-9L, ASRAAM, AMRAAM
Tranche 1 block 5 (2005): IRIS-T (analog), 27mm Mauser(a2g),Paveway II/GBU-16/GBU-10, MK-83/MK-84/MK13&20
Tranche 2 block 10 (2007): IRIS-T (digital), Lightning laser pod, Paveway IV, MK 13/18, GBU-32 JDAM
Tranche 2 block 15 (2009): AIM-120 C5, Meteor, Paveway III, GBU-24, BLU-109, Mk-84 on add. stations, Alarm, Taurus Kept 350, Stormshadow, Brimstone
Many of those ammunitions are already for UK only. (Mk-13/18/20), GBU-24,....
If they feel the need to integrate their Brimstone & Storm Shadow earlier, nobody will stop them. They are made in UK, and BAe Systems is responsible for their integration.
source: http://www.airpower.at/ -
Germany was unhappy as UK delibrately stopped it and made a fuss. That's why EADS was very unhappy. You see nowOriginally posted by Silat:Nobody was hostile. There is a timetable:
Tranche 1 block 2 (2003):
27mm Mauser(a2a), AIM-9L, ASRAAM, AMRAAM
Tranche 1 block 5 (2005): IRIS-T (analog), 27mm Mauser(a2g),Paveway II/GBU-16/GBU-10, MK-83/MK-84/MK13&20
Tranche 2 block 10 (2007): IRIS-T (digital), Lightning laser pod, Paveway IV, MK 13/18, GBU-32 JDAM
Tranche 2 block 15 (2009): AIM-120 C5, Meteor, Paveway III, GBU-24, BLU-109, Mk-84 on add. stations, Alarm, Taurus Kept 350, Stormshadow, Brimstone
Many of those ammunitions are already for UK only. (Mk-13/18/20), GBU-24,....
If they feel the need to integrate their Brimstone & Storm Shadow earlier, nobody will stop them. They are made in UK, and BAe Systems is responsible for their integration.
source: http://www.airpower.at/
US may be giving better deal as they have gave us quite a lot (The 1st to have colour screen for the F-16 in the world). If they manage to kick out the Europeans, they will be gone forever -
F-16Originally posted by duotiga83:since ever when fighter programs run smoothly? give me 1 example that runs complete smooth without a glitch
EuroFighter is the BIGGEST failure I have ever seen as all partners can't agree upon and delibrately stopped the project bloating the cost higher. What's more, how on earth a planned interceptor becomes a striker suddenly? All these are a mystery... -
F-16 go smoothly? My boy, you've just showed how much (or little) you know again. Until the Europeans stepped in with the initial order, the F-16 was in risk of total cancellation because the USAF was not interested in buying.Originally posted by sbst275:F-16
EuroFighter is the BIGGEST failure I have ever seen as all partners can't agree upon and delibrately stopped the project bloating the cost higher. What's more, how on earth a planned interceptor becomes a striker suddenly? All these are a mystery...
It didn't become multirole overnight. It was a realisation over time that multirole aircraft are the order of the day that the strike role was added to the Typhoons repertoire. Again, please read up on facts before coming up with more of your nonsense.
Oh, its strike aircraft, strikers are a football term -
Germany was unhappy as UK delibrately stopped it and made a fuss. That's why EADS was very unhappy. You see now
And so did BAe Systems, the Austrians, the Italians, the Spanish and Edward George Nicholas Patrick Windsor, the Duke of Kent and anybody else that wasn't playing tricks and some decent knowledge of economics.If they manage to kick out the Europeans, they will be gone forever
Nonsense. The Eurofighter Typhoon is the largest contemporarely military aircraft procurement program of the world. The Rafale is backed by French orders.EuroFighter is the BIGGEST failure I have ever seen as all partners can't agree upon and delibrately stopped the project bloating the cost higher. What's more, how on earth a planned interceptor becomes a striker suddenly? All these are a mystery...
Nonsense once again. After the reunification of Germany, there was the question if a pure fighter still fits in the military environment of the 21st century. The answer was no. A study was worked out if the EF could be converted into a multirole fighter. The answer was yes. So the max. t/o weight raised around 2-3 metric tons, and the avionics where adapted for the new role.
This is nothing new. The Typhoon from WW 2 was projected as interceptor, and later converted into the only viable British weapon against German Tiger tanks. So the name is wisely choosen.
Since you love the F-16 so much, you should start reading something about the beginning of this fighter. It started as simple thing, only armed with sidewinders and 250 kg iron bombs. Or compare the Typhoon to the F-22. This super duper fighter took 4 more years and many billions more to develop, and they still got cellphones with them, to be able to call the base if their computer crashes and with it all the communication aids...
And to go back to the timetable: If Singapore wants all a/g weapons, then this timetable is more then sufficiant. The first deliveries are planed for 2008. That means JDAM, Paveway II & IV available. It takes at least 1-2 years to get pilots trained and things runnig. That means 2010. By 2010 you got everything it takes for a/g engagements. And now, since the British Government not longer jeopardises this timetable, everything is fine. -
F-16? is only F-16 that stop the F-20 program else by now most of the countries would buy F-20 instead of F-16. The export for F-16 is the low end F-16/J79 turbojet engine instead of the F100 engines.
do more reading and reasearch.....getting tired of this....... -
Thank goodness we didn get the tigershark. Anybody can tell me where is the tigersharks today? LOL.
-
From Warsaw Business Journal
by Kamil Tchorek Sean Lavelle ,
After months of bitter criticism from both the media and the government for its failure to meet its offset obligations, Lockheed Martin (LM) strikes back, claiming it has fallen victim to a mixture of prejudice and misunderstanding.
"Criticism of the program is often based on misunderstanding rather than fact," Philip Georgariou, LMÂ’s director for offset, told the Business Journal in an exclusive interview. "If the facts were known, we wouldnÂ’t be getting the criticism."
The $6 billion (zł.22 billion) Offset Program was designed to stimulate a decade of American investment into this country in return for PolandÂ’s choice of purchasing 48 LM F-16 fighters. And ever since the deal was announced, it has come in for criticism in a spate of media attacks.
Some projects have failed to materialize at an early stage, such as the Grupa Lotos refinery technology license project, while others have successfully resulted in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI), such as General Motors, (GM) relocation of production facilities from Germany to Gliwice in southern Poland. Still though, LM has managed to meet only 22.6 percent of its obligations for 2003.
Understandably, the American side is keen to shift the focus of the public debate on the program away from the dollar value of the projects underway.
"The value of the Offset Program is not measured in dollars, it is measured in business relationships," says a recent LM statement to the press. And in a recent interview for the Business JournalÂ’s Country Focus USA supplement (June 2
, the U.S. EmbassyÂ’s commercial counselor, Edgar Fulton, claimed to have computed that 1,000 sets of business relationships have been developed as a result of the offset deal.
But the media allegations are hard to ignore, with one of the strongest being that "there is no American offset, and the circumstances of wasting multi-billion dollar opportunities for the economy by Polish decision makers is the biggest scam in the short history [of post-communist Poland]." Such sentiment is often accompanied by claims that many projects would have been implemented anyway, regardless of the Offset Program, with U.S. engineering firm Pratt & WhitneyÂ’s investment in the countryÂ’s air industry being one frequently cited example.
And in a slightly less aggressive tone, Michał Kleiber, minister for science and IT, who is in charge of the Polish side of the Offset Program, said the government was disappointed with "the slow pace of launching many projects."
This is particularly true of IT projects that many say should be replaced with other investments, now on the so-called substitute list. Three such projects in particular created a lot of excitement at the time the list of investment projects was released a year ago and even served to bridge the gap between the two largest domestic IT firms, Prokom and ComputerLand.
These two IT competitors have a long history of rivalry that has on occasion turned somewhat acrimonious. But last year, they agreed to bury the hatchet and jointly establish Tetra, a special purpose company designated to serve one of the offset projects with regards to developing a telecommunications system for the police and the armed forces. Yet, despite recent media reports that Tetra was finally getting off the ground, the issue was not, as expected, on the agenda of last weekÂ’s government meeting, which effectively means it is not being launched at all.
And, in addition to the delays in the implementation of Tetra and the related medical registration system (RUM) and emergency services communications system (C2), allegations have been made that taxpayers will eventually have to foot the bill for the offset and for these three technology projects in particular. But Georgariou puts this allegation down to a misunderstanding.
"It is absolutely incorrect to say that the Polish government is being asked to pay for the development of Tetra/C2/RUM," he says. "They are being asked to commit to purchasing the services of those systems once they are developed. It has been said that Tetra has no Polish partners, but the reverse is true – it has only Polish partners."
The American contingent is also keen to stress that responsibility for many of the delays should actually be laid at the Polish door. Former U.S. Ambassador to Poland Christopher Hill cites the example of the deal to sell the M-28 Skytruck aircraft, made by the Polish Air Company (PZL) in Mielec, in the southeast of the country, in the USA.
Hill claims that LM spent significant amounts of money on creating the conditions for the aircraft to acquire the relevant American certificates in this country. But when LMÂ’s team of engineers arrived in Mielec to conduct the appropriate tests, they found that the Polish side was not ready for the procedure to start. And GeorgariouÂ’s reaction to the governmentÂ’s criticism echoes HillÂ’s remarks.
"There was a group of projects that I would like to have gotten done in 2003 but did not for a variety of reasons, all of which were out of LMÂ’s control," he says. "Projects can fail because of many factors. The business climate changes, companies go bankrupt, the law changes and taxes go up." These last words being a dig at the governmentÂ’s foot-dragging on legislation that would lift VAT on offset projects, which according to the American side is a major cause for delays. And he cites more examples of failure on the Polish side.
LM was intending to pay for technology licences at the Lotos refinery, but Lotos "has not reached an agreement about which technologies they were going to use," Georgariou says, the massive changes in world oil markets over the last two years being given as the key reason why the refinery was taking time to define its strategy.
In total, LM has dropped 12 projects, which if they had been carried through to completion would have had a combined value of $148 million (zł.534 million). However, Georgariou maintains that LM has offered nine replacement projects worth $2 billion (zł.7.2 million) if completed.
When projects do fail, there is a mechanism in place to reverse the setback. LM can choose a replacement project and request the removal of a failed project from their project listing, but they must apply for the approval of all new projects before they are implemented.
Conspicuously, one of LMÂ’s most high-profile successes was the movement of GM-owned Opel production from Poland to Germany. It seems a remarkable coincidence that GM chose to invest in this countryÂ’s Offset Program (and was prepared to undergo a row with German unions in doing so) just when LM experienced its most savage public beating anywhere in the world. However, LM sees such questions on this subject as something for GM, its worldwide industrial partner, to answer.
Another criticism heard in the press in recent months has been that LM dictates what projects it is going to undertake. LM officials argue that in the Offset Act there is no clause that is meant to guarantee investment by LM, nor can LM guarantee investment by anyone at all.
The fact is that the arrangement is more complicated: LM puts forward a list of recommendations, from which the Polish government has the final say. LM asserts that when it submitted its proposal for an Offset Program, there was a list of more than one hundred projects on it.
"Those recommendations were based on a wish list that was given us in the terms of reference for the multi-role combat aircraft tender," says Georgariou, adding, "The government of Poland picked 44 of those that they wanted to do. Any time we wish to replace one on the list, they get to say which one we replace them with."
LM claims that the complexity of the Offset Program is inherently easy to misinterpret, since in the public eye a ‘failure’ looks like a ‘failure,’ and not a rigorous selection process. And, indeed, unfair criticism of the offset is often used by many as a means of attacking the government by proxy. But while LM’s arguments sound plausible enough and may one day even be accepted by the country’s media, the fact is that this is hardly likely to happen as long as the implementation of the firm’s offset obligations remains below a quarter of the agreed value. -
Saw MIW webpage talking quite abit on Rafale. Any idea if MINDEF is leaning in that direction?
-
In Sept AFM, it got an article on Eurofighter Typhoon on trip to Singapore, plus in BaE point of view
-
Well this seems to confirm the Typhoon as the best AtoA fighter for sale in the world.(From Western Daily Press)
The Chairman of UKIP Exeter chooses to attack the Eurofighter, or Typhoon as it is called in RAF service, not because it is a bad, expensive warplane but because it is a way of attacking European co-operation (WMN, August 24).
There have been problems with the development of this aircraft, due to the changing nature of combat and the shift from a single Cold War enemy to multiple threats from hot-spots around the globe.
This is true also of many other major defence programmes. David Challice fails to mention that the US-led Joint Strike Fighter is overweight and is suffering cost and schedule overruns. Nor does he address fears that the US is squeezing the UK out of involvement in key technologies on the project. Despite investing US2 billion in JSF development, the UK is still the junior partner on JSF, not the equal partner it is in European co-operation.Mr Challice is too scathing about Typhoon. It is a very capable aircraft and better than the American F16 he champions. In a recent competition run by Singapore to find a replacement for its F16 fighters, Typhoon was up against the American F15E and the French Rafale. Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests. According to one observer, neither competitor aircraft could claim the same (Defence Analysis August 2004).
Cheers -
According to one observer, neither competitor aircraft could claim the same
this is very vague
all this article looks like spinning to me.Typhoon was up against the American F15E and the French Rafale. Typhoon won all three combat tests...
This sentense is quite triky... it makes you believe that the typhoon have made combat tests against rafale and won them...which is obviously untrue.
In the meantime, however, Singaporian pilots are in france with their F-16 and i'm sure they are not just there to see mirages.
http://www.foxalpha.com/forums/download.php?id=4621
http://www.foxalpha.com/forums/download.php?id=4624
http://www.foxalpha.com/forums/download.php?id=4625
http://www.foxalpha.com/forums/download.php?id=4626 -
Hi,
I think the Eurofighter is the best choice for Singapore:
Main reasons:
1. Eurofighter will have an extensive weapons suite which Singapore could use (e.g. ASRAAM, Meteor, AMRAAM, IRIS-T, Brimstone, ASPIDE, STORM SHADOW, Taurus, etc.).
This is larger than Rafales or F15s arsenal, I think.
2. It has a great defensive suite, e.g. DASS.
3. Eurofighter kicked the F15s ass in an "engagement" in the UK.
4. Maintenability is supposed to be minimal indeed.
5. EJ200 is better than M88-2 and it still can be upgraded.
6. With supposedly 638 orders from the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and Austria it is a larger programme than the Rafale and you won't be the only foreign customer of the plane.
7. Eurofighter through life cost has been claimed to be the lowest of the three. -
Rob > Do you want me to bring who you know here ?
-
BTW, here is may answer
1. Eurofighter will have an extensive weapons suite which Singapore could use (e.g. ASRAAM, Meteor, AMRAAM, IRIS-T, Brimstone, ASPIDE, STORM SHADOW, Taurus, etc.).
With the Rafale Singapore will have access to exclusive weapons such as the mica-IR, Apache/scalp cruise missiles, the AASM GPS/IIR bomb familly, the exocet block 3 and the meteor too. The mica BVR missile will allow singapore to be independent from the US in the air superiority area until the meteor is ready.
This is larger than Rafales or F15s arsenal, I think.
Moreover the NATO standard bus of the rafale weapon system make it compatible with all NATO weapons data com...That means easy integration of most NATO missiles/guided bombs2. It has a great defensive suite, e.g. DASS.
So does the Rafale with its SPECTRA integrated system3. Eurofighter kicked the F15s ass in an "engagement" in the UK.
Typhoon kicked the (very) heavy F-15E in a dogfight...not a tremendous achievement IMHO.
The rafale prove itself in dogfight against F-16 MLU, mirage 2000-5, F/A-18C, F-14A and F-15S4. Maintenability is supposed to be minimal indeed.
Both Dassault and BAe claim to have the lower maintenability
5. EJ200 is better than M88-2 and it still can be upgraded.
Better ? Well it has more thrust yes, but the typhoon is heavier. And what about low altitude efficiency ? BTW, Aren't Dassault offering the M88-3 to Singapore ?6. With supposedly 638 orders from the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and Austria it is a larger programme than the Rafale and you won't be the only foreign customer of the plane.
With only 294 units to be ordered by France, The rafale is less expensive than the typhoon. Moreover, the rafale is already delivered in a multirole block while the typhoon is still dreaming of its Air-ground capabilities.
As the first and only (for now) rafale export customer, Singapore will have the full support and attention from Dassault.7. Eurofighter through life cost has been claimed to be the lowest of the three.
Dassault clames the same.
-
Old mates eh Kovy.
BTW, here is may answer Very HappyWith the Rafale Singapore will have access to exclusive weapons such as the mica-IR, Apache/scalp cruise missiles, the AASM GPS/IIR bomb familly, the exocet block 3 and the meteor too. The mica BVR missile will allow singapore to be independent from the US in the air superiority area until the meteor is ready.
That is of course an impressive arsenal, though you don't have options of the similar weapon for example for a short range air to air missile: ASRAAM and IRIS-T or for a cruise missile: Storm Shadow and Taurus.
Moreover the NATO standard bus of the rafale weapon system make it compatible with all NATO weapons data com...That means easy integration of most NATO missiles/guided bombsSo does the Rafale with its SPECTRA integrated system
I always wanted to know if it had a Towed Radar Decoy?Typhoon kicked the (very) heavy F-15E in a dogfight...not a tremendous achievement IMHO.
Can I have a link?
The rafale prove itself in dogfight against F-16 MLU, mirage 2000-5, F/A-18C, F-14A and F-15SBoth Dassault and BAe claim to have the lower maintenability
Didn't know that, I guess we will find out.Better ? Well it has more thrust yes, but the typhoon is heavier. And what about low altitude efficiency ? BTW, Aren't Dassault offering the M88-3 to Singapore ?
Well the Typhoon is 23.5 tons (metric ones) and Rafale is 24.5 tons.
The EJ200 is also better thn the M88-3.
http://eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/specs.html -
always wanted to know if it had a Towed Radar Decoy?
No it doesn't. This is a nice feature of the typhoonCan I have a link?
umh, those exercices are repported in aeronautical french magazines. I can give you the references if you want.Well the Typhoon is 23.5 tons (metric ones ) and Rafale is 24.5 tons.
Don't cheat Rob
The EJ200 is also better thn the M88-3.
http://eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/specs.html
We both know that the rafale is lighter than the typhoon if they take exactly the same payload and fuel
Exemple : 4 BVR missiles, 2 short range missiles, 2 scalps, 6 tonnes of fuel
Rafale :
- rafale C empty weight = 9,100 kg
- 4 mica-EM = 112 * 4 = 448 kg
- 2 mica-IR = 112 * 2 = 224 kg
- 2 scalps = 1300 *2 = 2,600 kg
- 6 tonnes of fuel = 6,000 kg
Total rafale C = 18,372 kg
Typhoon :
- typhoon empty weight = 11,000 kg
- 4 aim-120 = 161.4 * 4 = 645.6 kg
- 2 ASRAAM : 2* 88 = 176 kg
- 2 scalps = 1300 *2 = 2,600 kg
- 6 tonnes of fuel = 6,000 kg
Total typhoon : 20,421.6 kg
rafale M88-3 full PC : 8,880 *2 = 17,760 kg
Typhoon EJ-200 full PC: 9,200 *2 = 18,400 kg
the typhoon is 2,049.6 kg overweight for the same payload as the rafale
The Typhoon only have 640 kg more thrust than the rafale+M88-3
Conclusion : the Typhoon lack 1,409.6 kg of thrust compared to the rafale
BTW you have focused on an interesting point : the rafale can carry more payload than the typhoon with less thrust -
Originally posted by Kovy:
Firstly the thrust your useing for the Typhoon Ej200 seems wrong.
Don't cheat Rob
We both know that the rafale is lighter than the typhoon if they take exactly the same payload and fuel
Exemple : 4 BVR missiles, 2 short range missiles, 2 scalps, 6 tonnes of fuel
Rafale :
- rafale C empty weight = 9,100 kg
- 4 mica-EM = 112 * 4 = 448 kg
- 2 mica-IR = 112 * 2 = 224 kg
- 2 scalps = 1300 *2 = 2,600 kg
- 6 tonnes of fuel = 6,000 kg
[b]Total rafale C = 18,372 kg
Typhoon :
- typhoon empty weight = 11,000 kg
- 4 aim-120 = 161.4 * 4 = 645.6 kg
- 2 ASRAAM : 2* 88 = 176 kg
- 2 scalps = 1300 *2 = 2,600 kg
- 6 tonnes of fuel = 6,000 kg
Total typhoon : 20,421.6 kg
rafale M88-3 full PC : 8,880 *2 = 17,760 kg
Typhoon EJ-200 full PC: 9,200 *2 = 18,400 kg
the typhoon is 2,049.6 kg overweight for the same payload as the rafale
The Typhoon only have 640 kg more thrust than the rafale+M88-3
Conclusion : the Typhoon lack 1,409.6 kg of thrust compared to the rafale
BTW you have focused on an interesting point : the rafale can carry more payload than the typhoon with less thrust [/b]
its 22,500lbs.. ~10227kg x2 = 20454kg
And why are you comparing the M88-3 with the EJ200, you should be comparing it to the EJ230 at least.
The M88-3 is the last growth varient proposed at this time, the EJ200 is the first generation of the growth program,
See here for details on the Typhoon engine.
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html
Use the menu tabs at the top of the page to get around the site
Even without any modification the present ej200 engines can be operated at a +15% dry and +5% reheat (afterburner) war rating, however this comes with an associated reduction in engine life.
This equates to 19330kg thrust in reheat!!!!, but there are improvements that are already planned to increase thrust and engine life.
The first stage (Stage-1 due in 2000-2005 timeframe) of engine growth would equal 21000kg of thrust
The final version (Stage-2 due 2005-2010 timeframe)would have 27,000lbs of thrust = 12272kg x2 = 24545kg.
So you have to compare current engines with current engines for your arguements to make any sense.
See the website for some useful data.
Cheers -
Firstly the thrust your useing for the Typhoon Ej200 seems wrong.
Both The link you give and Rolls-Royce data sheet rate the EJ200 at 20,250 lbf with reheat.
its 22,500lbs.. ~10227kg x2 = 20454kg
20,250 lbf (pounds force) = 90,076 KN (KiloNewton) = 9.18 metric tonnes force = 9,180 Kg force
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence_aerospace/downloads/combat/ej200.pdfAnd why are you comparing the M88-3 with the EJ200, you should be comparing it to the EJ230 at least.
Is the EJ230 offered to Singapore ?
-
Kovy I will have to defer to your figures for now, as I can't find any open source figures to support my 22,500lbs claim (other than our website).
My only defence is industry and media comments and inferences do tend to support the higher claim.
If I find a good source for the higher figure I will post it here. As for whats been offered to Singapore, I can't honestly say, I doubt the EJ230 has been offered, I don't think theres even a 'real' EJ230 yet, what exactly is the M88-3 status?.
Which EJ200 is offered to Singapore would affect these TW figures, but as the deliveries are slated for 2006 onwards it seems that IMHO the stage 2 varient would be possible/probable.
cheers -
Just a quick update, its not conclusive but Brassey's all the world 1999/2000 aircraft list the Ej200 as
13,500lbf (60kN) dry, 20,250lbf (90kN) with afterburning, rising to 23,000lbf (102.31kN)
It all depends on the EJ200 model IIRC there are EJ200-01 through to production 03Z models (I'm willing to be corrected on this), the 20,250lbf figure was the figure originally used for the XG-40 (ej200 predecessor engine), in December 1986 it was run for the first time and exceeded 20,000lbf, this is the figure thats been used since, its a nice round figure!.
Then in 1997 it was quotedThe EJ200 engines used in the prototypes are currently at the 01 standard. The more powerful 03A version has just completed certification tests on the test benches and the assembly of six engine prototypes is well advanced. A continuous run test-engine, integrating the most advanced parts such as the all-blisk fan and the new digital control (DECU C2), is just prior to completion. This engine will be the last step before reaching production standard.
The 03A standard engines have also been superceeded (they were the models on the DA6 aircraft), to 03Z standard in 1999, upgraded yet again for the first flight of IPA4, you'd have to assume from these statements that the engine has improved.
OK thats enough for now.....
Cheers