>25% better efficiency = 30% more range
>10% greater thrust = 20-40% higher acceleration
>50% lower thermal signature
I don't really get the other buzzwords but It sound pretty based to me. I also read about the pratt and whitney's version of this but they aren't as good. What do you think about f35's next gen engine?
Pretty sure adoption got scrapped, hope they pick it up eventually though
source?
This new wonderwuffle engine won't be adopted in the f-35 because there's no way all the international f-35 users will switch to it. However, it's probably going to be used in the successor to the f-35, which is coming in 2030.
Pretty much. While the winner (if the program goes ahead) will likely be the chosen engine for the NGAD fighter, it is simply too big of an investment for international partners, during peacetime anyway.
EEP upgrade may be more appealing to certain nations, however, if the USAF does decide that the new engine is worth the split engines and angry international partners, I can see a couple other countries adopting it in the future, like Australia.
In 10-20 years I bet many F35 operators will choose to get the new engine instead of getting a new fighter/bomber.
its easier to just say you made it up
The video isn't a month old and there are guys in the comments working at the plant where this engine is manufacturered. The frick are you talking about?
There's still debate on whether they're actually going to re-engine the F-35. Currently it's just the Air Force that plans to do it, so they'd be losing the commonality with the Navy and the rest of the F-35 countries. In addition the Navy isn't super interested because the currently developed AETP engines don't actually fit in the B models with the lift fan. So they'd have to spend development money and scale down the engine with resulting reduced effectiveness.
The Air Force will probably do it because the engines can be used in the Raider. What the Navy wants to do is sort of irrelevant for this discussion because they pigeonholed themselves with the moronic fan that they never use anyway.
Navy only operate the Cs. f35-b are for the marines
They are very unlikely to reengine the F 35. P&W, the other competitor for AETP, isn't very unlikely to use their X101A on the F 35 because the risk would be too high. Not just the development risk, but the risk of integrating a completely different engine into an airframe that was never built for it. And since only the USAF is ordering it, it's going to be much harder to get to LRIP.
Isn't very likely*
youtube video like this is the bottom of the barrel for info which is at best re-narrated articles cut short with royalty free footages and sponsor ads, often time recycling old ones, and in the end you still don't know the overview on how the cycle adapts for this engine.
For outlets like this is already 3 month old.
https://www.airforcemag.com/the-latest-adaptive-cycle-engine-testing-is-a-significant-step-forward/
Whooooa there, I had no idea the PW engine could be deployed as a mod kit for existing engines. That might put it over the top. The GE engine is amazing though.
What? The PW engine is not deployed as a mod for the existing engine. The X101A is a new adaptive engine, the Enhanced Engine Package is an offering to upgrade existing F 135s. P&W are not putting X101As in F 35s because they think it would cost too much and take too long.
>the GE engine is amazing
The GE engine is claimed by GE to be amazing if they're given billions of dollars.
>P&W are not putting X101As in F 35s because they think it would cost too much and take too long.
I'm not sure what you mean. They are trying to win the contract to replace the F135 engine with their XA101, should the USAF choose to replace the engine.
It's a convoluted story, but here it goes
>DoD starts the AETP program for the next gen of fighters and as with everything DoD, they bundle in as many requirements as possible for political reasons
>GE jumps in because they want a piece of very juicy JSF pie
>DoD sells it to Congress mainly as a cost cutting measure by creating a competitor to break P&W's monopoly monopoly
>P&W participates in the AETP but is refusing to put it in the JSF, intending it to be for NGAD
>they point out putting radically new tech into an existing airframe not engineered for it is a massive risk
>they also point out fielding two different engines (X101A and F 135) for 3 different variants (F35A-B), would exponentially increase the complexity, maintenance of engines and reduce the economy of scale, making the most expensive jet engines ever already more expensive
>offer an F 135 upgrade instead to pacify the DoD
P&W doesn't really have much of a monopoly; rather, they're about the only thing keeping GE from having one. Don't forget that P&W won the engine contracts for the F-15 and F-16, only to have GE offer a superior engine as a mid-life replacement for both. I wouldn't call GE the underdog, here; they have tons of financial and political capital to throw at any given competition.
yeah, the us would never buy a new engine for its fighter and not care about foreign sales
they totally didn't do that with the f-16 or anything
I'm more excited to see how good the Enhanced Engine Package upgrade for the existing engine is.
I wonder how much of the F35s lack of speed is a result of the airframe or the engines. Maybe with a new souped up engine they might introduce a proper air superiority F35 variant that directly outperforms the F22
F-35 is capable of 1.6 mach, the issue isn't any of that. The F-4 was the last time we really cared to make a stupid fast fighter because the speed was never used inside of combat, planes rarely ever went supersonic and when carrying a full load of munitions externally (which significantly increases drag) many aircraft aren't even capable of supersonic flight anymore.
There was a podcast someone posted a while ago between two former fighter pilots (I think both F35 pilots, but I might be wrong), and they discussed that speed was a meme and went into an in-depth discussion about where the future of the fighters is headed towards. It was interesting.
you mean speed doesn't matter as much when you're in a stealth fighter lobbing missiles at aircraft 250 km away? Stop the presses!
Yeah, but trying to explain that to people is hard.
Better thrust and fuel consumption allow smaller engines, better logistics, the same plane to load heavier, use from shorter runways, and a dozen other real advantages.
And with a plane, better time to target and range are always, always a benefit that you want more of.
The F-35 is the progenator of the new continuous upgrade lifecycle idea. They will most certainly be building them with an AETP type of engine within the decade, and the adaptive cycle technology is a definite future standard.
Speed is also a meme because people are too stupid to understand what speed is. Like claiming a F/A-18C is faster than an F-35A. The F-35 Block 4 can go that Mach 1.6 only in the stratosphere, but it can do it with 6x AIM-120 and a full tank. Put the same 6x AIM-120 and a drop tank to match the range on an F/A-18C, and it won't reach even that Mach 1.6 because the external stores cause significant drag on it. Every time you see people make comparisons thinking an F-15 can fly Mach 2.5 at a low altitude while banking, when it needs to fly in a straight line in the stratosphere on full burner for a very long time to reach that max speed. And it needs to be naked and at 50% internal fuel.
There's also the Mach issue. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any production plane breaking the sound barrier *without* using afterburners. In fact, only the F-22 can *maintain* supersonic speeds without afterburner (the F-35 at least takes a while to fall below Mach 1 once it shuts off its afterburner). And no afterburner ever made has been remotely fuel-efficient.
So, most planes spent most of their lives at strictly-subsonic speeds. Going supersonic is used to rapidly achieve a certain position: traditionally, an intercept, but also to get into an advantageous position against an opponent, or to defend against a missile. Thus, it's nice to have, but not critical except for the air superiority role.
So, in short, supersonic flight can be enormously useful, but generally only in niche (but vital!) applications. Don't ignore it, but don't obsess over it, either.
It has been a meme in the past 20 years because all the USAF has been doing is dropping bombs and ragheads. Even if speed wasn't a meme, they wouldn't know.
what an exceptionally stupid fricking take. Here's your (you).
Ah yes, because I remember the famous Air to air battle of 20xx
F-14 had similar speed requirement because it was meant to intercept soviet bombers and anti ship missiles, which both could fly quite fast by the late 70s.
>The F-4 was the last time we really cared to make a stupid fast fighter because the speed was never used inside of combat
It is useful to get to the combat quicker. This is a noted benefit of the F-15E and B-1B in responding to distant CAS requests in a timely manner, versus the slower AV-8 and A-10
>carrying a full load of munitions externally (which significantly increases drag) many aircraft aren't even capable of supersonic flight anymore.
The faster a plane is clean, the faster it is loaded with stores. It's not about being able to go mach 2+ fully loaded, it's about having enough thrust to maintain high subsonic while fully loaded. That just happens to result in airplanes that can do mach 2+ clean.
It's a result of the air intake. it hasn't got any flaps to adjust the shape (to reduce RCS), so the speed is limited to M1.6 as the air has to enter the engine subsonic
>Muh speed
Majority of the air combat happens at mach 1.4 at max
Keep in mind that the F-35 is basically a 1 engine F-22.
>X in its name
it is cursed.
Well the xm177 was cursed but now everyone has one
>Well the xm177 was cursed but now everyone has one
>but now everyone has one
Yes anon, everybody has a 3-stamp historical rifle. Just like you.
He's probably referring to the carbine length gas system
It's a government funded project.
>half the expected improvements
>double the cost and delivery time
This is what will actually happen.
It's already being manufactured.
Demonstrator engines have been manufactured. The info graphic is not saying it has been achieved, those are the AETP program's goals. If you're unfamiliar with how the military industrial complex works, here's what will happen
>project underperformance, manufacturing issues, under performance
>def contractor asks DoD for more money and time
>reliability issues, sub standard performance, turns out specs were over promised
>too much money sunk in here and def contractor owns all IP, so more money and time poured in
>meets most specs, DoD cuts out the rest and labels it as non essential faults
>integration time
>integration faults, real world conditions exhibit subpar reliability, production is more expensive than promised
>DoD forces to buy commit to buying hundreds of units or production lines won't be set up
>in the end, spent twice as much and took twice as long
This isn't a common scenario. Why are you running a demoralization op on /k/?
leave him alone. if he shits posts enough he will personally stop the development of the 6th gen fighters the US is developing.
>isn't a common scenario
>Ford class
>F 35
>Zumwalt
>Future Combat System
>Joint Radio Tactical System
>Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
And these are only the recent ones
Oh its going to happen. Its just going to take much longer, cost much more, and have the manufacturing spread like lard over 48 states to pour money into congressional districts.
Both of you have clearly never been anywhere near the military or government procurement. Ask anybody who works in it, it's a shit show.
ok moron
You left off LCS.
Also, one thing that all of those programs have in common is that the services didn't have the either the requirements, the technology, or both nailed down correctly, and just assumed that it would all work out in the end.
F-35: Horribly mismanaged by the joint project office until most of the staff gets promoted/transferred and new guys come in to get things back on track. Software still takes several years longer than planned (which is obvious if you've ever worked in software).
Ford: Too much unproven technology all at once; anything that came in behind schedule slowed the whole thing down, wasting billions. They honestly needed to build 1-2 more Nimitzes first while maturing the new tech.
Zumwalt/LCS: Horrible requirements from the USN. Yes, the MIC messed up in places, but most of the blame goes to Big Navy. I'd blow through the character limit if I didn't stop there.
FCS: The Army's version of LCS. Bad requirements, a delusional goal (1 brigade in combat anywhere on the planet in 96 hours, the rest of the division 24 hours later), too much sacrificed in attempting to meet that goal. Cost us both Crusader and Crusader's backup plan in the process.
EFV: USMC couldn't make up their minds as to what they wanted or how they could afford it. They seem to have accepted that contested beach landings against serious opposition are no longer viable, though, and are finding different ways to be useful.
JRTS: Poor requirements AND based around a massive software project. Unsurprisingly, the commercial world has probably eclipsed most of its capabilities by now (e.g., Starlink has demonstrated software-defined waveforms that are resistant to Russian jamming).
So, yes, the MIC was at times more than willing to say "Sure, whatever you want, we can do that," when they really couldn't; however, the bigger problem was the services themselves. If you want to point fingers, look to the Peace Dividend and all of the lost procurement staff.
>If you want to point fingers, look to the Peace Dividend and all of the lost procurement staff.
Damn, I never thought of that but it makes perfect sense, a full decade of not buying anything and you completely lose all institutional knowledge of how to buy things.
>this isn’t a common scenario
Ah, you’re very new to mil procurement lmao
Bullshit
Yes, the Adaptive Cycle engine is a generational leap forward. It attains the best of both max thrust and high efficiency worlds. The tech in this engine is way beyond China's industrial capabilities to reproduce.
>building on ADVENT's successful three-stream demonstration
uhh bros???
The US is going to have to select this engine if they want to match the intended strategic goals they have for the pacific.
The area naval and air force jets will have to cover in a confrontation with the PLAAF and PLAN is absolutely massive, so they need to squeeze every ounce of performance out of the new and existing airframes.
Thank you gwairo for designing nice engine me of taking now
It's incredible how we can STILL make leaps in engine tech this wide. I bet if feds weren't trying to kill ICEs, we would have a reliable 2.0L I4 that could put out 400 HP in the next decade.
Smokey Yunick made prototype Adiabatic engines for several US manufacturers in the 1980s. all of these cars were crushed with the exception of one (known) It was a 4 cylinder from which he squeezed ~250 horsepower and 50-60mpg
For all the development in efficiency that has been made on the ICE, you're still only getting about 20% efficiency even today. well over half of the gas you put in anything is just being thrown out the exhaust unburnt.
It's not going to happen
Looks like we're only 1/4 of the way to the most we could squeeze out of it, then.
didnt they say they cant get components to build em?
XA100 Fleshlight when?
Ceramic Matric Composits are cool af. https://youtu.be/is1BBilkyUM
I wish I could find some pictures of that Israeli designed drop tank for the f-35. I assume it occupies the same space as the gun pod on the f-35c.