Pratt Unveils Sixth-Generation Fighter Engine, F135 Upgrade

All about the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the (cancelled) General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post31 May 2017, 22:08

...in earlier speculations "to carry a sizable amount of heavy JDAMs, the B61 Mod 12 and the new Air Launch Cruise Missile, which will likely itself be in the 3500 LB range. So to carry 8-12 of those the B-21 needs a payload capacity of 38-42 thousands pounds.", and at subsonic what "Range" would 2 AETP -135s provide for a min-B-2 (w/ F-35 RAMish), relative to the legacy bombers, 3-5k nmi.?

B-52H Combat radius: 3,890 nmi.
B-1B Combat radius: 2,993 nmi.
B-2 Range: 6,000 nmi.

:)
Last edited by neptune on 01 Jun 2017, 02:34, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7838
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post31 May 2017, 22:22

B21, being a flying wing, would have a much better wing loading so it would not need as powerful engines as a fighter type of aircraft.

The 4 engines in the B2 provide a combined 68k lbs of dry thrust and two F135s provide 50k. With the above update it gets it to 55k lbs of dry thrust. Since we know that B21 will be smaller, it might be a nice fit.
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 31 May 2017, 22:59, edited 1 time in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4776
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post31 May 2017, 22:56

SpudmanWP wrote:IIRC they are keeping it subsonic and smaller than the B-2 so I think 4 is too much.


Exactly my point. Going for a medium bomber instead of a heavy one.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7838
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post31 May 2017, 23:01

sferrin wrote:Exactly my point. Going for a medium bomber instead of a heavy one.


I am thinking of a central rotary bay (ala B2 which has two) and two side bays of 8k each on traditional ejectors)
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7510
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post31 May 2017, 23:45

IMO it will be able to carry the MOP.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7838
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 01:45

popcorn wrote:IMO it will be able to carry the MOP.


Which is why I say that it should retain one of the B2's rotary launchers. This gives it enough space for a MOP. Each side bay should be enough to carry 8 AMRAAM class weapons (Meteor, AARGM-ER, SACM*2, etc) or 4 x 2k munitions (bunker busters, JASSM, etc or 6 x 1k bombs/JSMs or 24 SDBs, etc).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3255
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 02:41

I think a single bay is probably plenty. Bay doors are costly, and, if you really wanted hard points for missiles, you could pull the door hardpoint trick.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7838
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 02:46

count_to_10 wrote:I think a single bay is probably plenty. Bay doors are costly, and, if you really wanted hard points for missiles, you could pull the door hardpoint trick.


A single bay is only half the B2 capacity though. The B21 is supposed to be less than the B2, not half!!
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21765
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 05:33

Pratt & Whitney pitches souped up version of the F-35 engine [Best read it all at the URL]
31 May 2017 Valerie Insinna

"WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Pratt & Whitney is pitching a souped up version of the F-35’s engine that would add thrust and cut down fuel consumption, company officials disclosed on Wednesday. The upgrade, which the company is calling the F135 Growth Option 1.0, could be cut into the existing production line by the early 2020s, said Matthew Bromberg, president of Pratt & Whitney military engines....

...“It’s very attractive to the JSF [joint strike fighter] program for several reasons,” Bromberg told journalists during a media day in West Palm Beach, Florida. “It’s very common, so we could drop this upgrade into any one of the three variants. It would be compliant with the partner requirements and go to foreign partner countries. It would be cost neutral, so the upgraded JSF motor with Growth Option 1.0 would be the same price as the existing motor.”...

...Steve Burd, the company’s chief engineer for advanced programs and technology, explained that the company funneled capabilities from two technology development programs — the Navy’s fuel burn reduction effort and the Air Force’s Component and Engine Structural Assessment Research (CAESAR) program — into the Growth Option 1.0 configuration.

To upgrade the F135, only the power module would need to be swapped out for a new one with a more efficient compressor and improved turbine, including changes to the system’s cooling, he said.

The new configuration is not funded through current joint strike fighter program of record, but if the F-35 joint program office approves it, the engine could be ready for the second round of upgrades under the Block 4 modernization effort, Bromberg said. The cost of the enhanced engine would be roughly the same as the current F135, but the Pentagon would have to pay for further development and validation of the technology....

...The Pentagon could opt to skip the growth option and wait for the results of the Adaptive Engine Transition Program, an ongoing Air Force effort to advance engine technology by adding a third stream of air, which helps optimize the propulsion system’s fuel consumption and performance. Last year, the service awarded Pratt and General Electric Aviation a $1 billion contract each for further work on their engines.

Pratt’s entry for AETP, the XA1010, has been hitting its developmental milestones on time, said Bromberg, noting the company might be able to move faster on the program if directed by the Air Force."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/pra ... ne-upgrade
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4776
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 14:15

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ngine.html

"The engine testing, conducted at Pratt & Whitney's West Palm Beach, Florida, facility, verified this upgrade can provide a 5 to 6 percent fuel burn improvement and a 6 to 10 percent thrust increase across the F-35 flight envelope. "
"There I was. . ."
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 270
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 14:24

sferrin wrote:http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/184121/p%26w-ready-to-offer-growth-option-for-f135-engine.html

"The engine testing, conducted at Pratt & Whitney's West Palm Beach, Florida, facility, verified this upgrade can provide a 5 to 6 percent fuel burn improvement and a 6 to 10 percent thrust increase across the F-35 flight envelope. "


Wow, defence-aerospace and no sassy EDITORS NOTE about how this most assuredly proves that F-35 has insufficient thrust to begin with! :doh:
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4776
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 14:34

gideonic wrote:
sferrin wrote:http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/184121/p%26w-ready-to-offer-growth-option-for-f135-engine.html

"The engine testing, conducted at Pratt & Whitney's West Palm Beach, Florida, facility, verified this upgrade can provide a 5 to 6 percent fuel burn improvement and a 6 to 10 percent thrust increase across the F-35 flight envelope. "


Wow, defence-aerospace and no sassy EDITORS NOTE about how this most assuredly proves that F-35 has insufficient thrust to begin with! :doh:


I know, I almost fell out of my chair! :lol:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 245
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 14:42

gideonic wrote:
sferrin wrote:http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/184121/p%26w-ready-to-offer-growth-option-for-f135-engine.html

"The engine testing, conducted at Pratt & Whitney's West Palm Beach, Florida, facility, verified this upgrade can provide a 5 to 6 percent fuel burn improvement and a 6 to 10 percent thrust increase across the F-35 flight envelope. "


Wow, defence-aerospace and no sassy EDITORS NOTE about how this most assuredly proves that F-35 has insufficient thrust to begin with! :doh:

I'm getting that at BF4C's FB page.
Previous

Return to F-35 Engine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests