F135 upgrades, reengining considered in new F-35 propulsion

It reads like a P&W sponsored add for congress.

And?

Many of the other ACE / AETP engine articles read like ad copy written by GE. IMO it's about time P&W public relations got on the stick.

But whatever...

It wasn't a criticism of P&W, it was an observation on the article being an ad. Australia will more than likely get the P&W update, if the cost benefit is there. I would think when major overhauls fall due. I can't see us scrapping 80 engines for the GE. Even though on paper, the GE has better numbers.

Yeah, it's going to be hard to sell engine change for those that already got F135. Since an alternative engine has no chance of making Block 4, which might be the config by which around 50% if not more of F-35 will be ordered, it's going to become a very expensive MLU engine or for something for the new F-35 operators.

Since Blocks are so overstuffed and late, it might ultimately be what makes most settle for EEP rather than new engine.

Some F-35 buyer industrial partnerships have tied hundreds of millions if not billions into P&W engine infrastructure, which is another thing that makes change costly. It doesn't need to be just a good improvement, it needs to be vital for enabling new capabilities that the current operators must deem necessities.

If ACE/AETP's other use case is something that the foreign F-35 users can't buy, then it's less likely to be adopted by them. If they could, then it might be thought as more of foundation costs for the new system, but also benefiting the old F-35.

I'm thinking they need to stay the F-35 course.

If they want to deviate from the plan, find new money for it.

It wasn't a criticism of P&W, it was an observation on the article being an ad.

Fair enough.

Australia will more than likely get the P&W update, if the cost benefit is there. I would think when major overhauls fall due. I can't see us scrapping 80 engines for the GE. Even though on paper, the GE has better numbers.

Oh? The GE XA100 has better numbers than the P&W XA101? That's news to me. Thought that competition is still ongoing.

Someone needs to do a pretty serious trade study on ACE/AETP vs F135 EEP. The ACE/AETP motors do seem like they may offer significant fuel savings. Question, though -- is that fuel savings across the entire flight envelope? Or only in a smaller fraction of the flight envelope? If a smaller fraction, then 20-25% fuel savings across the board may be an erroneous a$$umption.

It also needs to be determined if ACE/AETP will work in both the -A and the -C. Is there any hope of an ACE/AETP motor working in the -B? Perhaps the GE won't, but do I recall somewhere P&W stating the XA101 could work in the -B? (I may be misremembering.) If the ACE/AETP is persued... then what of the -B? The -B operators just have to suck it up and deal with the fact they will never get full Block 4 functionality? (Will the USMC / UK / Japan let that stand?) Or do you go ACE/AETP in the -A (and maybe the -C), but F135 EEP for the -B? (Sounds expensive. Maybe cancelling the F-15EX gets you the money to do that?)

Then there is risk. How to quantify risk? To put dollar figures on it? A 3-stream motor would appear to be a LOT more complicated than the conventional F135, which is kind of the pinnacle of afterburning turbofan gas turbines. EEP gets you +10% thrust, on the order of 10% fuel savings, same or better reliability, and is cost-neutral on new motors. Existing aircraft would get EEP during a regularly scheduled depot service.

But what happens if the increased complexity of ACE/AETP has "issues"? Do you really want to risk teething issues that could cause readiness rates to plummet? That would be the ultimate irony... after 30 years, "they" finally have the F-35 humming along... and they decide to put a brand new technology motor in the jet... and then it suddenly don't work so good no more.

KISS (cue Spaz finding a good music video...)

Keep things simple; do not increase complexity at this point.

OR, pursue EEP for Block 4 functionality and -B capability. Let NGAD pay for ACE/AETP. If NGAD proves the ACE/AETP performance, durability, and reliability and you can still stuff it in a Panther... then let customers down the road choose if they want to switch over to ACE/AETP on their new aircraft.

Just MHO.

It is all too complicated for my tiny brain. Music calms me down. KISS are just execrable muzos. Sock it to ya.

Geez once upon a time this print text could be read with the page up on youse eyeballs. Now screen gets a forehead hit.

SIX page PDF with text almost unreadably small about new engines for the F-35. GOOD LUCK. AIR International pages of PRINT text must be HUGE these days for this idiotic text to be readable. Long may their eyeballs burn in hell.

ADAPT and overcome
Jun/Jul Tim Fish

"ln an effort to provide a new generation of engines for current and future fighters, the USAF is committed to its Adaptive Engine Transition Program..."

Source: AIR International June/July 2022 Vol 102 No 6

Three column publishing on a PDF. Them bastages.

Oh? The GE XA100 has better numbers than the P&W XA101? That's news to me. Thought that competition is still ongoing.

Better numbers than the upgraded F135.

Oh? The GE XA100 has better numbers than the P&W XA101? That's news to me. Thought that competition is still ongoing.

Better numbers than the upgraded F135.

I missed the part where the XA100 is the defacto winner of the AETP / ACE competition? Link please?

It's not a case of being the winner. It may lose. There would be other factors to consider. Even though the GE has better numbers. You have compared them, haven't you?

Oh? The GE XA100 has better numbers than the P&W XA101? That's news to me. Thought that competition is still ongoing.

Better numbers than the upgraded F135.

I missed the part where the XA100 is the defacto winner of the AETP / ACE competition? Link please?

There isn't one. The point being made was that the XA100 has better numbers than the upgraded F135, not that a competition has occurred, or that the XA101 was being compared.