After months of speculation, it looks like F35 isn't getting the GE’s XA100 and will be sticking with P&W F135 because europe whines about muhh supply chain
Its over
After months of speculation, it looks like F35 isn't getting the GE’s XA100 and will be sticking with P&W F135 because europe whines about muhh supply chain
What is GE's XA100 about?:
>Traditionally, engines designer will have to choose between high performance design or high efficiency design.
>GE's XA100 combine both of this, allowing the F35 to operate either at high performance or high efficiency also known as 'Adaptive engine'
>In high performance mode, GE's beats P&W by 20%
>In high efficiency mode, GE's extended f35's range by 30%
>It also has a 50% lower high signature than P&W F135
>GE XA100 has been in development for 2 decades
That's an extremely based upgrade and it's a shame the F-35 won't be getting it, but if we're being honest it's not like any F-35 competitors are close enough to performance parity for it to matter.
It's just the F-35's in Europe that won't be getting it.
>GE XA100 has been in development for 2 decades
in other words its vaporware
>20% more in 'high performance mode'
>30% more range
>50% lower signature
Mmm, delicious vapourware
>projected
As with all government-military contracts, the rule of thumb is to double the cost and projected time taken, and reduce the expected benefits by a third.
>According to GE, the engine can offer up to 35% increased range and 25% reduction in fuel burn over current low-bypass turbofans.
Wiki
Good. First, GE is way behind P&W in engine tech. they couldn't get their F135 competitor to work right, and P&Ws had a huge untapped safety margin even a decade ago.
Second, there's no point in installing a VCE on a jet that can't supercruise, as the variable bypass is only meaningfully better in those conditions.
GE should get their shit together for NGAD and maybe score some wins there.
VCE is helpful on subsonic part too. The increase in range is probably in part to the more higher bpr. And the increase in performance is on the lower bpr in the supersonic regime. And also, with higher bpr, the more cooling is added.
How does XA100 compare to XA101? And what of P&W's comments downplaying either ADVENT engine as a drop-in replacement for F135?
>And what of P&W's comments downplaying either ADVENT engine as a drop-in replacement for F135?
"Shit, this will lose us money."
P&W also have B version in mind. If we are going logistic wise, EEP should be logistically easier.
Or it's likely it'll be an optional available upgrade for current equipment and a choice for future planes. For foreign buyers, at least. It's not like F135s will go bad for a few decades, they'll just be less fuel efficient.
No, they will probably save it for the ngad. The F135 engine deal will be completed in 2029 which is around the time the new jet should be completed
NGAD is already flying
prototypes doesn't count
It does if you're Russian or Chinese, why the double standard?
They are too far behind and require a handicap
The fact that its a double standard is what makes it important
Its the difference between us and then
It's a humanitarian measure to prevent mass suicides in those countries
Or limit them, I guess
You cant apply the same standards to amerimutts as to countries living rentfree in their heads. Thats unamerican.
2029 is after WW3 has already concluded. That's way too late. The US is going into the conflict with no current-gen dogfight-capable aircraft in active production, which is extremely foolish considering how both sides using stealth will dramatically shorten engagement distances.
Do you have to work to be this moronic, or does it just come naturally?
Nice ad hominem, I see you have no counterpoints to anything I just said, so I must be correct.
No, it's because every single thing you said was so fricking stupid.
And that's not an ad hominem, it's just an insult. Ad Hom means I'm rejecting your opinion because of who you are. What I did was call you moronic because that's what your statements told me.
>2029 is after WW3 has already concluded.
Russia can't even fight Ukraine, they'll get curb-stomped if they actually pick a fight with NATO.
>The US is going into the conflict with no current-gen dogfight-capable aircraft
Aside from the fact that dogfighting is the worst way to fight these days, we're the only nation with a fleet of 5th gens.
> which is extremely foolish considering how both sides using stealth will dramatically shorten engagement distances.
Considering that only the US and allied F-35 buyers are the only countries with stealth, this isn't really a concern.
>reddit spaces
>doesn't know what an ad hominem is
>thinks russia will be the primary theater in WW3
>doesn't realize china has fielded more J-20s than we have F-22s
Fricking yikes. Even if the J-20 is a bargain-bin 5th gen, the F-35 is absolutely not designed to engage that kind of threat.
And again you're full moron. I love how morons bust out that stupid "durr reddit spacing hurr" bullshit when faced with a decently formatted post they can't refute.
And if you believe the J-20 is stealth I have a bridge to sell you.
go back moron, adults are trying to have a conversation here
>no argument
I accept your concession.
I don't argue with redditors that don't understand basic concepts like what an ad hominem is. You're too dumb to use this website and probably underage too. Go back.
Says the guy who thinks an insult is an ad hominem.
Jesus christ, that's literally what it means. Am I being baited?
You were insulted because of your stupid claims, not to ignore your claims.
>you are a Black person, thus your opinion is stupid
This is ad hominem
>your opinion is stupid, you Black person
This an insult, but not an ad hominem.
Anon, Chinese army isn't in a better state than vatnig army, it's just bigger
Note that Chinese officers spend more time doing political training than they do learning tactics.
And they put more effort into parades than they do combat training.
>muh ad hominem but I don't understand the term
>muh reddit spaces
>muh using a reddit picture
>yikes
Frick off back to re**it, homosexual.
>muh reddit spacing
Dividing text into paragraphs allows even Black folk like you to read it.
The J-20 is precisely the kind of threat the F35 was built from the ground up to engage.
It's an expensive, high end dogfighter with limited BVR capability AKA a high value target that cannot detect the F35 in time to fight back, especially if the aircraft that is actually engaging it is not the one providing targeting data
>high end dogfighter with limited BVR capability
you're a fricking moron and that's a fricking fact
>china has fielded more J-20s than we have F-22s
>50 is more than 185
Are shills not required to have basic math skills?
https://airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Research/CASI%20Articles/2022-01-31%20Third%20Combat%20Brigade%20of%20PLA%20Air%20Force%20Likely%20Receives%20Stealth%20Fighters.pdf
>doesn't realize china has fielded more J-20s than we have F-22s
kys you shrimp dick chink
>comparing the J-20 to the most sophisticated piece of military technology ever crafted by mankind
the F-22 is the last golden gift of the White Men of America to their nation
do not think for a moment the J-20 can compare
>overcomplicated read overpriced supply chains
thats the whole point of this scam
>Says a Vatnik whose country can't even afford to build any fighters
>Or new tanks
>Or supply their troops with ammunition
>Or feed them
Give it another month and you can add
>can't afford to have soldiers
Hasn't this upgrade been in the works for awhile now? This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone involved in the program.
You can tell from the shadow the top has a different jet painted on it
The jet painted on top is an F16XL
I'm sure the NGAD fighter or something special is under it though
Ha! I can't tell for sure, but the overlap of the rear wingspan of the plane and the painted cover is possible to make out. Pretty clever idea to make it look like the building is see through so a plane can be pictured, but be something else actually within the hangar.
They know that everyone looks at satellite images of Area 51 and know when those satellites are overhead, I'd wager most of the testing gets done under clouds or at night if at that location at all. No way they would "accidentally" show their new top secret jet on the runway while a satellite was overhead. At this point I'd be more interested in the comings and goings at Tonopah test range, Plant 42 in palmdale, and Dugway.
Also I've heard that at Nellis that they have these kind of covers for other aircraft
The thought and planning that probably has to go into this shit must take hours and dozens of noggins.
I remember hearing something (maybe on the skunkworks podcast?) that it was discovered the Russians had a general understanding of the dimensions of the SR-71 from satelites - not because the planes were left outside, but because they managed to image the thermal footprint the fricking plane left on the concrete when it was in cool-down after testing and before it was shuttled off into a hangar.
After they found out about that they apparently started hosing down the entire runway and apron constantly.
Maybe it's a painting of the actual NGAD, as a double fake to make anyone think real leaks are related to the "false" painting
God the XL was a sexy aircraft.
All the concepts of NGAD show it as a delta wing fighter with no vertical stabilizer
I'm sure when we finally see it, it will be cool as frick
Another 'stealth' aircraft that can only hold 4 internal missiles?
Looks like another way it will be inferior to the SU-57...
How can it be inferior to a plane that isn't being built?
A Cesna with guns bolted on is superior to no aircraft at all, anon.
An OV-10 Bronco is superior to the SU-57, anon. An F-35 going up against an SU-57 would be like a 14th century samurai fighting a 21st century femboy to the death in honorable melee combat.
You're implying that it would even reach combat.
Realistically it's gonna be sold off by some corrupt government official for vodka money, who will then be poisoned by monkey man, the other 3 in service will crash shortly after takeoff.
True. A better way to describe the match up would be a 14th century samurai arriving for his expected duel to the death with a 21st century femboy only to be told that said femboy has been hospitalized because he overestimated just how big his new dragon dildo was.
Bad example anon because the nips are weak to femboys
All our zoomer freind has to do is allow himself to be overpowered by his samurai opponent and then stab him in the neck during his post-coital slumber
Do you feel any shame for typing that comment and hitting post?
No, but I did feel slightly aroused
Reminder that there are more than 10x as many F-35s in service currently around the world as there are plans to build Su-57s
>US uses new engine
>Euros use old engine
I fail to see the problem here.
the return on the investment would only be great enough to cover it if the euro states would be costumers, the US alone can't make it back on its own.
I doubt there would be any customers looking to upgrade their engines so soon, with the vast majority of customers not receiving their full orders yet anyway. Also, I doubt customers would order half-half batches of F35's with different engines.
Perhaps, but maybe a suitable upgrade in 10-20 years time.
Sounds like Euros aren't getting the engine, the US has been planning on buying them for over a decade.
Come home, white man.
That's a damn good replacement aircraft for Korea's low in their low/high mix of aircraft.
*subdues your entire country*
I hate that the addition of the B variant (at Navy's adamant demand) made the the airframe so much fatter and reduced the capabilities of the craft.
The ability the equip the almost 20 of the US and allies' LHDs, helicopter carriers and catapult less carriers with F-35s makes this worth it.
Even just 4 or so F-35Bs per ship can provide:
Significantly wider AWACS like radar coverage to a small task group
Airborne ECM/Jamming
The ability to identify unknown planes / ships at significantly longer ranges
Long range naval / ground strike either themselves or by directing tomahawks
The ability to reach a trailing drone / plane that is purposely staying out of SM-6 range
Ability to detect and interdict incoming strike packages from significantly larger ranges....
Harder, Boss!!!
>$35,000 a hour to fly
More like the F-35000
So, will tech from P&W's XA101 be used instead? Or are they just sticking with the stock F135? And if so, will the US be implementing either ADVENT engine by itself?
The outdated russian military is to the united states as the outdated US military is china. These are facts.
Why do morons think the F-35 cant dogfight, do they still believe the myth that it lost to a F-16?
Well, for starters, it has a much worse G-rating and thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-16. And the F-16 isn't intended to be a frontline air superiority fighter, while the cancellation of the F-22 has forced the F-35 into the air superiority role that it wasn't designed to fill.
>Well, for starters, it has a much worse G-rating
Same 9G max
>and thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-16
Not by much, and makes up for it with far greater high-alpha performance.
> And the F-16 isn't intended to be a frontline air superiority fighter, while the cancellation of the F-22 has forced the F-35 into the air superiority role that it wasn't designed to fill.
This is a weak claim. It's an excellent dogfighter. The majority of pilots surveyed think it would win most setups against the F-16.
But the who dogfighting crap is a red herring anyways. Real modern air to air is a long-range sensor battle with missiles.
It's a 25mm cannon designed to take out light armor with APEX rounds. 20mm Vulcans use incendiary rounds. Guns haven't mattered in air to air since Vietnam.
>Guns haven't mattered in air to air since Vietnam.
underage redditor pls go
Prove me wrong, state your source that they've mattered.
I won't wait because you know you can't.
Only an underage child could type those words together in that order. The lesson that was learned in Vietnam is that, no, you can't delete the gun off of an aircraft and still have it be a viable dogfighter.
How's the air up on Mount Stupid that you think dogfighting matters? I see you can't actually back your claims.
Dumb people who thought the age of dog fighting was over in Vietnam got a lot of US pilots killed. What did the US do?
- Put guns back on fighters
- Started Top Gun, Red Flag, etc to teach pilots how to dog fight again.
- Once again started building “Air Supremacy” fighters with both long range AA and dog fighting in mind
- fricked your israelite asiatic mother
No, most of what got pilots killed in Vietnam was that the Air Force thought they could use any pilot in a fighter, couldn't give them enough training for proper familiarity with the F-4 and its weapons, and bad tactical doctrine, especially the 4-ship formation that made the Phantom blind to rear attack. The Navy never put guns in its F-4s and did a lot better the entire war because they specifically didn't have those faults.
Top Gun was about learning to fight in general, not just dogfighting.
Red Flag was about putting pilots into a realistic training scenario that simulated actual combat, not dogfighting.
And you still haven't presented evidence for your claim that gun fighting matters in modern combat.
>B-52
>Migs thought they were being sneaky behind the bombers and got ripped up by the tailgunners
Then why did missiles achieve more kills than guns in Vietnam?
Why didn't the Navy put guns on their F-4s?
How did the Navy keep loosing fighters ( non SAM / AA kills? = MIG-15/17s gun kills
What got developed in a hurry? = a gun pod for F-4
Read
https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/more-than-missing-guns-why-america-lost-dogfights-over-vietnam/
https://etd.auburn.edu/xmlui/handle/10415/595
Learn your history better. The guns were a crutch for undertrained Air Force pilots.
The guns really were a problem back then, the missiles of the time were very unreliable and would fall prey to flares.
While the only reason we have flare today is that your enemy might be using its store of 30 years old badly maintained missiles.
Sparrows didn't track flares at all, and were still the majority of kills. The difference is that Navy pilots had better success rates with them because they actually knew how to use them properly.
Early Sparrow of the time had pretty low Probability of Kill (pK) in the 50% before involving counter.
That's why they still needed guns.
A modern, last generation missile pK is essentially 100% save more and more advanced counter. Nowadays we want drones simply so they can be targeted instead.
They needed guns because Air Force pilots were poorly trained and didn't know how to fire the missile inside its optimum envelope.
That is bullshit, they certainly knew exactly how to use them, the AIM7 was wasn't designed to take on fighters and was latter developed to be more suited to the role, even then semi active guided missiles are garbage for dealing with fighters. And even the aim9s which always worked well took time to get a lock that you simply won't get in a one circle fight which was very common and why the gun is still important on 5th gen fighters. These days if you merge you need to min range the HOBS fox twos or you'll both die.
Close, the no escape zone depends entirely on both aircraft airspeed and altitude. Not when the rocket when runs dry. In the case of fox ones though, they'd usually end in a merge because you can't keep the bandit in radar gimbal and defend an on coming missile. It's why they don't really exist anymore.
Dude, I refer you back to
They did not have the training needed to use it well.
>the gun is still important on 5th gen fighters.
Just dropping in from the catalog to call you an immensely moronic Black person
At the time that optimal envelop was small and the probability of Kill still 50% but I'm sure the enemy would have cooperated to help you line up a good firing solution, that's what we do in war.
Now you're just being arrogantly ignorant.
Listen, I'm not saying stupid things like dodging modern missiles but at the time the reliability of missiles was low and you didn't have fancy 180-360° off-boresight lock from someone else targeting data.
You wanted missiles for those one-shot wonder but discovered the hard way guns were still needed in the case you expended your missiles and didn't want to make the plane a free-target.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/what-couldnt-f-4-phantom-do-180953944/
Which was why it was so important to know how to properly use them, and when you were pretty much guaranteed to send it at nothing instead of your target. Navy pilots had the training to fire them when they had a chance to hit. Air Force Pilots did not. Navy pilots hit their targets a lot more often.
This part:
>but I'm sure the enemy would have cooperated to help you line up a good firing solution,
Is fricking stupid bullshit.
>The lack of an internal gun "was the biggest mistake on the F-4", Chesire said; "Bullets are cheap and tend to go where you aim them. I needed a gun, and I really wished I had one." Marine Corps General John R. Dailey recalled that "everyone in RF-4s wished they had a gun on the aircraft."[19] For a brief period, doctrine held that turning combat would be impossible at supersonic speeds and little effort was made to teach pilots air combat maneuvering. In reality, engagements quickly became subsonic, as pilots would slow down in an effort to get behind their adversaries. Furthermore, the relatively new heat-seeking and radar-guided missiles at the time were frequently reported as unreliable and pilots had to fire multiple missiles just to hit one enemy fighter. To compound the problem, rules of engagement in Vietnam precluded long-range missile attacks in most instances, as visual identification was normally required. Many pilots found themselves on the tail of an enemy aircraft, but too close to fire short-range Falcons or Sidewinders. Although by 1965 USAF F-4Cs began carrying SUU-16 external gunpods containing a 20 mm (.79 in) M61A1 Vulcan Gatling cannon, USAF wienerpits were not equipped with lead-computing gunsights until the introduction of the SUU-23, virtually assuring a miss in a maneuvering fight. Some Marine Corps aircraft carried two pods for strafing. In addition to the loss of performance due to drag, combat showed the externally mounted cannon to be inaccurate unless frequently boresighted, yet far more cost-effective than missiles. The lack of a cannon was finally addressed by adding an internally mounted 20 mm (.79 in) M61A1 Vulcan on the F-4E.[59]
Wiki
This still isn't proving anything against what I said, that guns have been useless in air to air AFTER Vietnam.
Not him. I'm just posting information for you both.
The Gun immune to electric warfare, minimum range is zero, most planes will only have two HOBS fox twos if at all, (all AMRAAM aren't uncommon) and is still the most reliable too in the merge. Yes there is a reason 5 gen planes still have guns, hell the Iranians had to use the shit out of them with Tomcats.
You know, what you cited doesn't refute nor address what the first anon you quoted have said.
Information for both of you, I'm not taking a stance on whether guns were important or practical in reality on the F-4.
It wasn't the lack of a gun that caused them to have terrible performance in a dogfight it was a lack of training. The airforces K/d didn't change after putting a gun on their F4s but the navy's shot up after creating TOP GUN even though their F4s remained gunless.
vietnam was sixty years ago anon, it is closer to the second world war than it is to the modern day.
War has undergone multiple fundamental changes since then and aerial warfare has changed with it, planes simply do not fight with machine guns anymore and they never will again
>majority of pilots surveyed
Uniformed aircrews will speak the truth they are told too. Peer Pressure is real for the miltiary pilots. Publicly you will hear glowing reviews. When the truth is more mundane. The F-35 will be used differently than gen 4 fighters.
>They're lying because derp derp derp
>G-rating
>Thrust to weight ratio
doesn't matter when a s-300 missile is coming at you at mach 6
All s-300 missiles utilize semi-active homing meaning the faster you break line of sight with the engagement radar the sooner you are safe. Higher thrust to weight can help recover energy much faster after a dive to break contact and can be used to lob home-on-radar missiles from further distances.
Also an s-300 missile only reaches such high mach numbers if it burns all it's propellant to get the perfect ballistic trajectory. This little room for maneuver. The more menouverable the target, the lower the effective range of air defense.
Most /k/ has no understanding of how anti-air missiles work. All missiles have No-Escape Zone, the envelope in which the missile can maneuver under thrust; it’s named that because no piloted aircraft can pull more Gs than a missile under full thrust. The NEZ range is much lower than the maximum range. At longer ranges missiles attempt to maneuver into their targets using the built-up inertia energy from the powered flight envelope. The S-300 is no exception. Missiles are still capable of pulling hard turns but doing so severely bleeds their residual energy. So a competent pilot can often beat a missile fired at long range.
Good luck getting a targeting track in the first place.
The B and C variants don't even come with an internal cannon. They can carry one in an external pod, but then it's not a stealth aircraft anymore. It wasn't designed to dogfight.
>muh guns
No one says it can't dogfight, but yes, I can believe it lost to an F-16, I also believe it can win against an F-16.
I’m not sticking up for “Fat Amy”… however- The whole Reddit-famous “F-35 lost to a F-16” incident’s real story is that the F-35 and F-16 would set up certain merges with ever changing handicaps on each fighter trying to get data. I heard a podcast with both the F-16 and F-35 pilots from that test, and they both laughed at how moronic people are
Why do we care about a multirole missile truck's ability to dogfight?
Who is it going to dogfight? Supercruising mega-stealth interceptors that magically appear within visual range to engage with their laser weapons?
This. The smart play is to have internal weapons only planes up front followed by full external weapons loadout planes behind.
That or use Loyal Wingman or other scouting drones up front.
It it can carry six JDAM's how many small diameter bombs will it fit?
I think the pylon mounts are 4:1 for SBDs. I don't know how much the rack weighs and if replacing all of them overloads. But I'd guess you can get at least 16 SBDs.
It has six points that can mount a 4-bomb rack for a total of 24.
whoever buys the f35 for dogfights or even bvr is a fricking stupid country and i dont want to visit them
just buy f15ex load them with 30 amraams and let them be in the wild
the f35 has a worse sustained turn rate than a mirage2000 and we know this since the greeks started their iniohos exercises
having said that David Archibald was always critical of the f35 perfomance because he knew the bullshit lm was trying to sell when they compared the f35 to the f16 and f18 two planes it cant even replace what so ever
instead he suggested to the dod to do a tech transfer of the gripen and load it with american tech
Lel. Also, dubious claims regarding the Greeks.
And let's not forget that even F-16 pilots themselves have a high regards re F-35 even on BFM/ACM.
It can easily defeat the F-18 since the F-35 is more powerful when it comes to thrust and ITR which the latter is the F-18's regime.
Gripen have the worse performance and the biggest performance penalty when adding weapons because of its small airframe. And performance isn't the Gripen's strength. Do we need to bring up the Swiss report of how poor the Gripen is even on Hornets?
>Lel. Also, dubious claims regarding the Greeks.
if there is anyone i would ask about dogfights are either greeks or israelis and thats a fact end of story
>And let's not forget that even F-16 pilots themselves have a high regards re F-35 even on BFM/ACM.
we all know its just pr bullshit and you wanna know why? because lm created the f-21 for india
>It can easily defeat the F-18 since the F-35 is more powerful when it comes to thrust
come again? from which universe you jumped in?
>Gripen have the worse performance and the biggest performance penalty when adding weapons because of its small airframe
mirage and rafale are calling
> Do we need to bring up the Swiss report of how poor the Gripen is even on Hornets?
yes please lets take the word of a country that claimed they gonna increase the flight hours because of the f35 simulator...........................
1. Because I like things sourced(should be credible source tho and easy to verify) and I give a skeptical eye to unsourced claims. I've been searching but the search is null.
2. One of the most prominent charts that is cited have pilots not reveal themselves. One of the things that Swiss have revealed is that on performance basis, things got interesting when you have realistic things put in(this is on their Air2030 conference results).
3. Read the materials on their thrust rating and their T/W. It becomes plainly obvious and the twin canted tails is one of the reasons of higher ITR(there are other reasons too like the chines and strakes).
4. The Swiss have a very telling result. The performance gap isn't as strong(in competition with their old Hornets). Rafale still doesn't have the higher AoA and great ITR that F-35 have.
5. How is that relevant? That's their doctrine and not about performance. If you don't like it then let's see the results of the HX Challenge. Remember, only the F-35 got above 4 points and none got 4 points. And remember, the criteria have a big chunk(in relative terms) of A2A dedicated to it.
It uses different tactics. It's like an F-4 verse a MIG-17. Different aircraft require different tactics. The quality of the training and the aircrew matters. Also you need to understand that USAF pilots will not public speak without PR involved. The F-35 will be spoken about in positive tones from all uniformed personnel.
??? That's not connected. If you bother to read, the engine upgrade is still on the table and the decision will come out on FY 2024 budget.
Source: your ass.
In real news the F-35 program has resolved 1 out of 4 Category 1B deficiencies. The other 3 are expected to be resolved by the end of the year.
Based. What is it up to now, 800 planes delivered?
The Iranians got loads of them with Tomcats, the israelites with eagles, and other than that there hasn't been much in the way of air to air combat since. There wasn't any in the gulf war after the 4 or so mig 29s were delt with, there was no sense in closing to guns range with mig 21s and 23s.
P&W is better than GE overall, GE has the upper hand at commercial airline engines.
>t. materials engineer / supplier for both
Except for the whole F100 frickery.
Well, except for the F35 engine where the XA100 beats the F135