Engines of Innovation

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

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2770
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post01 Jul 2018, 23:07

More thrust is always a good thing. It allows shorter, and heavier takeoff weights, quicker acceleration, quicker climb rates, improved sustained turn performance, quicker regaining of energy. In addition to improved kinematics and staying ahead of weight growth, more power is available for avionics/directed energy weapons, etc.... Instead of playing catch up with competitors/foes, we're being proactive, and and staying ahead of the curve.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20860
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Jul 2018, 00:32

Then there are flat deck landings that could be improved by reducing Carrier Approach Speed and, as mentioned before, increasing bringback for VLs thus reducing requirement for SRVL perhaps and also reducing SRVL speeds. Who knows....?
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 912
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post02 Jul 2018, 00:56

If the A variant enjoys a X% combat radius increase, the impact on B could be bigger i.e X+%. The main complaint against the B has always been the shorter combat radius.

If the AETP goal of 30% increase in combat radius is achieved on the A, on official combat radius of 590nm, this would translate into 177nm increase in combat radius, some of which are already being seen in growth option 1. If its 177nm, there is no reason why this isn't the same for the B ie 450+177 = 627nm since the takeoff weight is the same.

VTO can already be done pre-enhancement, VTO performance will also improve much more with the thrust enhancements.
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 323
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post02 Jul 2018, 04:17

zero-one wrote:Yeah I think A is the reason. But what can they possibly add to the F-35 to make it heavier?
DAS and EOTS will be upgraded, so are the new hardware pieces substantially heavier?


For reference, the Band 2/5 EW kits alone were 120 - 140 pounds.
IIRC, there are still Bands 6 - 10 and probably higher that are likely
to make their way on to the aircraft.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7249
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post02 Jul 2018, 04:34

It would be an interesting exercise to see how much further beyond the 5% thrust increase in hover RR could squeeze out of the lift fan to accommodate AETP levels of power.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2770
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Jul 2018, 05:10

weasel1962 wrote:If the A variant enjoys a X% combat radius increase, the impact on B could be bigger i.e X+%. The main complaint against the B has always been the shorter combat radius.

If the AETP goal of 30% increase in combat radius is achieved on the A, on official combat radius of 590nm, this would translate into 177nm increase in combat radius, some of which are already being seen in growth option 1. If its 177nm, there is no reason why this isn't the same for the B ie 450+177 = 627nm since the takeoff weight is the same.

VTO can already be done pre-enhancement, VTO performance will also improve much more with the thrust enhancements.


It's not a 30-35% increase over 590nm, though. It's a 30-35% over the current actual combat radius (or 201 to 235nm increase in strike range, and 228 to 266nm increase in A2A range.) The B's demonstrated range is over 500nm.
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 912
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post02 Jul 2018, 07:59

wrightwing wrote:It's not a 30-35% increase over 590nm, though. It's a 30-35% over the current actual combat radius (or 201 to 235nm increase in strike range, and 228 to 266nm increase in A2A range.) The B's demonstrated range is over 500nm.


Just thinking out loud, if its 200-266nm increase for A, it should be at least 150-200nm for B at same fuel efficiency (B carrying 75% of the fuel of an A -13.5k vs 18k lbs). B should reach above 600nm combat radius.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20860
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Jul 2018, 05:20

USAF starts work on defining adaptive engine for future fighter
10 Jul 2018 Stephen Trimble

"US Air Force officials have taken the first concrete step towards defining a new class of adaptive jet engines to power the next generation of combat aircraft that come after the Lockheed Martin F-35.

A $437 million contract modification awarded to GE Aviation on 29 June also draws the first sharp line between an ongoing effort to develop a 45,000lb-thrust adaptive engine replacement for the F-35 fleet[/b] and a follow-on series of engines designed for the still-undefined aircraft that will replace the Lockheed F-22.

Pratt & Whitney, the powerplant supplier for the F-35 and F-22, also is expected to receive a similarly sized contract modification to develop a competing engine design for a future air superiority aircraft.

Both GE and P&W are already working on a related but separate development effort called the Adaptive Engine Transition Programme (AETP). The AETP was described when it was announced in 2016 as an effort to develop and test adaptive engines for a sixth-generation fighter propulsion system, with the possibility of re-engining the F-35 with a more powerful and fuel efficient alternative to the P&W F135.

But the new award clarifies that the competing AETP engines — embodied by GE’s XA100 and P&W’s XA101 demonstrators — are focused on a potential bid to re-engine the F-35 in the mid-2020s....

...In an interview with FlightGlobal, Dan McCormick, GE’s general manager for the Advanced Combat Engine Programme, agrees that the AETP demonstrators are “F-35 design-centric”....

...GE plans to deliver the XA100 demonstrator’s first engine to test next year under the AETP programme, McCormick says. In addition to adaptive bypass airflow, the XA100 will feature ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) in the rotating high pressure turbine blades, allowing GE to use higher temperatures or reduce cooling loads in the engine design...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ut-450053/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7249
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post11 Jul 2018, 05:57

So there's going to be another program to develop an engine for the 6gen jet? Curious to know what performance/capability levels the AF is looking for beyond what AETP provides?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Previous

Return to F-35 Engine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests