BMC is no longer involved in the project, as it sold its entire stake in TRMotor, the developer of the engine for Kaan, therefore Qatar has nothing to do with the TF-35000. TAEC was simply no longer needed, although the intellectual property issues of Kale and RR were resolved back in 2022. The APU is a secondary part that was given to a conditionally allied state so as not to waste time and money, since the rights to the APU are still in the hands of TEI. So I say that Ismail Demir wanted to merge them in March 2022, but then changed his mind. Nonsense is the British experts who propose making Storm Shadow a tactical nuclear weapon, but apparently it will be a short-range ballistic missile under the Nightfall project. Britain's Trident, judging by a series of unsuccessful launches, is in poor condition, and the Trident itself has not been produced for a long time. Akinci are not new anymore, they use 3 engine options to choose from, TEI offers to develop a Turkish engine for it if Baykar needs it and pays for the contract. TF-6000 is needed for Kizilelma and Anka 3, but for the first batches of Kizilelma, AI-322F will be used until the production line and certification of TF-6000 are completed. Should I remind you of Safran's experience with PW, GE, RR? Should I remind you that Safran has 50% in CFM and had 50% in PowerJet before the war? Why doesn't MTU create a concern where it will have 50%, if even the "backward" Safran has as many as 2 such partnerships? There are not only engine parts, but also new lubricants, Safran also buys engine repair companies, that is, experience and capabilities are only growing.
Moreover, Safran produces the "cold section" and low-pressure compressors right now, right now it produces the "hot section" for the M88, before the war in Ukraine it produced the hot section of the SaM-146, in that case, who has more experience? Safran's role in CFM is those same low-pressure turbines and more that MTU "supposedly makes better".
You’re parroting headlines again and hoping nobody notices you’ve got the technical depth of a puddle. Yes, BMC dumped its TRMotor stake after RR flatly refused to continue if they didnt- nobody ever argued otherwise. That doesn’t magically make Qatar’s absence “proof” of program strength; it just means the state had to circle the wagons around TEI because RR/Kale (TAEC) collapsed. If “IP issues were solved in 2022” like you keep saying, then why did RR completely pull the plug in 2023? Newsflash: you don’t walk away from a multi-billion-dollar fighter engine if everything’s peachy. And of course, you just
love spewing Turkish propaganda, dont you? the same Turkey was chasing the ToT and IP of the EJ200, demanding full IP. RR couldn't agree to that, hence the deal fell through. Then, the Turks had to resort to an indigenous engine, which is currently a brochure. Which is when the Turkish government began its propaganda run, with people like I. Demir saying that 'IP issues were resolved', and that they had chosen to go with an indigenous engine because of technical superiority. After all, what can we expect from an authoritarian state? they wanna save face and avoid humiliation.
Your APU take is equally dumb. If TEI had full rights, they wouldn’t need Ivchenko-Progress at all. Outsourcing
basic APUs screams weakness, not pragmatism. And your “Demir merger” point? Empty talk. No legal framework, no combined entity, no IP transfers. Just words- like your posts.
Now onto the comedy show: nuclear Storm Shadows. That was never a real MoD plan, it was some armchair think-tank idea.- god knows why you keep parroting that. Britain’s actual deterrent is Trident D5, and despite one test failure you keep recycling, it’s still the backbone of NATO’s sea-based nuke force. The UK extended Trident’s life until 2042, with fresh contracts for warheads and submarines. If you think “failed tests = whole project finished,” then by that logic
every missile in the world should be scrapped.
Your Akinci/TF-6000 babble is even worse. Akinci is
turboprop-only. Period. The TF-6000 is a jet turbofan for Kızılelma and Anka-3. TEI dangling an “Akinci engine” is pure vaporware, no contract, no production, just marketing noise. Stop blending platforms like you’re stirring soup.
Now, the MTU vs Safran part- where you finally expose your ignorance completely. Safran’s “50%” in CFM and PowerJet doesn’t mean equal capability. Safran historically focused on the cold section, fans, and LPTs. The M88’s hot section you love bragging about? A tiny-volume, underpowered engine (75kN) that no plane outside France ever adopted. PowerJet SaM146? A complete fiasco, stranded after sanctions, and Safran abandoned the hot section when it went nowhere. Meanwhile, MTU isn’t chasing vanity projects- it has real stakes in Eurojet EJ200 (core modules), PW1100G (geared turbofan core modules), and the GE9X supply chain. MTU’s competence lies in turbine technology, durability, and services-not PR stunts.
So when you sneer “why doesn’t MTU make its own 50% consortium?” it’s because MTU doesn’t need to inflate itself. Safran inflates because its indigenous engines can’t stand on their own- every major French program (M88, SaM146, Silvercrest) has been low-thrust, low-volume, or a disaster. MTU quietly builds and services core sections of the world’s biggest engines, and unlike Safran, doesn’t leave behind a trail of failed “national engines” nobody wants. And you conveniently like to forget the fact that MTU
was one of the most important contributors to the EJ200- they
led the cold section development, LPTs, blisks, and the DECMU (the
brain) of the engine. Oh, and to put the nail in the coffin for your rhetoric? In the FCAS engine which is a co-dev between MTU and Safran,
MTU is leading the cold section development, and its niches of blisks and LPTs like I mentioned before- so stop publishing lies. Your favorite people, the French, themselves acknowledge that MTU's experience is
necessary. If Safran could do it themselves, they wouldnt need MTU for it.
In short: Safran has hype, MTU has credibility. MTU is
the world leader in niches like LPTs, blisks, and cold-sections, while Safran is a capable runner-up. You calling Safran “more experienced” is like saying Peugeot has more experience than Porsche because they both make engines. Delusional.