What engine will power the future F-35?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лип 2023
- Mike brings Matt back on the show to help unpack the raging debate about which engine should power the F-35 fighter jet into the future. This episode covers all the details about the technology at the center of the debate, as well as the politics, history, and strategy in play.
Links
● Sign up for our amazing newsletter www.themerge.co
● Support us on Patreon / the_merge
● Matt MacGregor’s LinkedIn / matt-macgregor77
● Defense Acquisition Substack defenseacquisition.substack.com/
----
Follow us on...
● Instagram / merge_newsletter
● Facebook / themergenews
● Twitter / mergenewsletter
● LinkedIn / themerge
● Website www.themerge.co
----
(00:44) intro
(02:15) the F-35 engine problem
(06:33) power & cooling
(08:38) cooling
(14:29) the 2 engine choices
(14:48) option 1: engine core upgrade
(19:32) sharks with lasers
(22:38) option 2: new adaptive engine
(33:16) adaptive engine history with the F-22
(35:12) 20 years of bad blood
(40:47) the feud goes public
(47:17) Congress weighs in
(49:26) impacts on industry
(50:36) 6th gen fighter engine program
(53:55) Mike's spicy take
(57:42) outro
For those who like #military #technology #airforce #aviation #aerospace - Наука та технологія
As a former military pilot and having been involved in Force Development, I can honestly say these Podcasts are excellent and very informative. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for the support! ❤
@@TheMergeMedia you're most welcome. Thanks for the great content.
@@TheMergeMedia @55:55 you talk about the physical size of the engine, and then go on about shrinking it. Great, but there are several limitations that are fundamentally limited by physics.! There are many areas in which the current engine is "bloated" and can be "de-bloated" that effect the total area of the F35 However there are physics constrained parts to an engine, such as the intakes and exhaust, and many engine designs are already "wasp waisted".
The GE Adaptive Engine may be going into something from the Skunk Works. Also, having two different manufacturers does not ground the fleet if one engine has a problem, this occurred in the 90's with the F-16's. Pratt had a bearing problem and grounded half the F-16's for about 6 months.
Great way to spend an hour! I worked on F-22 and F-35, and your trip down the history rabbit hole was a trip down memory lane for me. IMO it was really close between the YF-22 and YF-23, coming down to the high AoA capability of the YF-22. Originally, as you point out, the GE engine wasn't selected due to technical risk. But I also think everyone saw the writing on the wall and said that the dual engine provider capability that the F-16 had just wasn't worth the additional cost.
I learned a lot about the adaptive engine concepts, especially on the additional bleed air supply and the huge amount of weight on the aft end (yikes!); thanks for the education!
And thanks again for doing the work on putting this kind of content on YT; makes the platform that much better.
Thanks for commenting; notes like this make all the hard work worth it!
I love these talks, love The Merge
@@TheMergeMedia
Considering that the NGAD (and F/A-XX?) program is going with the adaptive cycle engine, I am wondering whether the increased demand for a new engine might complicate supply issues. By the end of the decade, there should be around 2000 F-35s. Otherwise, it would seem that strategic needs should take precedence, and that both the ECU (+EPACS) and the XA100 ought to be pursued, and deployed where needed, despite the higher costs.
Anyway, now that the JPO has concurred with the AF, perhaps we will revisit a possible re-engining of the F-35 by the mid to late 2030s?
Also, where did the figure for the XA100’s weight come from? GE makes it sound like it is ready to put in the plane as it was designed for the F-35.
Wonderful episode full of insight!
The answer to this situation is leadership management with a vision. Elon Musk has the ability to recruit a team of engineers to think outside the box. The current manufacturers like PW and GE have management that caters to Wall Street investors. the Pentagon should reach out to Elon Musk's engine division and ask for new engine developments.
As a long time fighter engine guy, I found this whole discussion riveting and in some cases jaw dropping. I've shared it to all my groups in social media that I administrate and look forward to the greater discussion. Great Podcast!!
Thank you! ❤
your spicy take is right on...need to stay alive to appreciate any cost savings...
F-15 engine guy and Pratt fanboy here, great discussion about defense acquisition, congressional spending, and how the stuff rolls downhill. Looking forward to the next Pratt/GE battle. Hopefully the best product wins for the war fighters sake!
Thanks for the support! As you can tell, it's a wicked complex topic!
Can't rule out Rolls-Royce. They were in the running with the F136 engine for the F-35 before
@Supra_Nova88 I highly doubt RR will have any real play in the engine game because in order for us not to be governed by something that is not on US soil Congress will demand RR has a US subsidiary and give us full patent rights and controls over everything to do with the program and Rolls plus the British Parliament would never agree to that because they would want some return on their investment.
@GoldPicard I'm talking RR LibertyWorks, which is here in Indianapolis and completely separated from RR proper. We already developed and implemented the lift fan on the F-35
@@TheMergeMediaI don’t want to sound like a Debbie Downer, but I’m a bit of a World War War II historian & it seems to me that the 21st century military-industrial complex has inexplicably decided to adapt all of the worst engineering practices of early/mid-century practices of the Japanese, Germans AND possibly the Italians. From the Japanese we’ve acquired an overly expensive, sluggish production line and a crack-like addiction to bad & misunderstood ideas & philosophies. We borrowed the German’s artisanal approach to front line weapons, an approach that ensure that even the shit we have that works is 10 times more finicky and complex than it needs to be. And from the Italians, well, we’ve stolen The Rule of Cool: If a ship/plane/tanks looks sexy it must be awesome! (Hint: There isn’t a lot of correlation between sexiness & effectiveness when it comes to war-fighting.) I hope I’m being unfair but I don’t think I am.
Your thoughts?
As a Merge newsletter recipient I find this discussion fascinating and I'm not even a pilot! Way to go Merge!
If it was just for pilots, they wouldn’t have much hope for growth.
P & W made similar claims for the F-15 and the F-16 programs in the early 80s. I expect them to be as successful with this one as they were with the F-100 Engine package. . Dual source is the answer if not adding Rolls Royce to the sources as well.
Great point. We didn't even discuss the Rolls Royce angle
It makes sense for Pratt to continue supplying the F-35B version, and the B-21. Primarily for cost and compatibility. The GE engine really does need to go into the F-35 A and C versions. Especially the C version for the necessity of high altitude efficiency and performance. In the Indo-Pacific arena, the Navy needs the best range and performance possible for the larger winged aircraft that will inevitably need to carry more munitions at longer distances.
You're assuming the GE engine would be able to match the current F135 performance and that the development cycle would be worth the squeeze. There were a lot of premises of this argument that I disagree with, and the numbers support my objections.
The biggest one is that the F135s have had all kinds of problems, when in reality, this is the most problem-free mass-produced fighter engine in history, which also happens to be the most powerful.
@@LRRPFco52 Understandable. However, Pratt has admitted that the design of the F-135 upgraded version still won't be able to provide the level of additional power for all future equipment. One major piece being a solid state laser as a standard close in weapon system, replacing the 25mm. I believe there is also some future EW equipment that will become standard as well, which will require much more than the upgraded version can handle.
@@Condor1970 Advancements in semiconductor technology will enable the current power generation to be overkill. Something is fishy about how all of these "sky-is-falling" alarms are being sounded.
For starters, the demands on EW are in reference to using the AESA as a Multi-Function Array, where you simultaneously search, track, and jam.
F-35 Block 4 is getting a whole new AESA/MFA called APG-85 with much higher efficiency Transmitter Receiver Modules, which means you have a dramatic improvement in electron mobility for the same or less power output.
That works for both AESA Radar functionality and stand-in jammer capability.
Keep in mind the F135 already delivers 270V DC, which is something it takes 2x F119s to generate on the F-22. The electrical power output in the F-35 ECS and electrical architecture is massive and unprecedented for a single engine.
The P&W F135 ECU improves engine performance significantly along with the Collins generator.
The current Honeywell IPP is an amazing piece of hardware that integrates legacy EPU, APU, and ECS into a turbine that runs on jet fuel, simplifying the overall electrical systems power generation compared to the federated F-16 APU and hydrazine-driven EPU.
If you listen to DOT&E, JPO, and GAO reports, they make the F-35 series sound like a piece of trash. If you read the operator/end-user rebuttals, they contradict the JPO and GAO reports at almost every bullet point or conclusions.
But if you really want to cut through all the BS, simply look at MMHPFH, sortie gen rates, mishaps, and fatalities. 945 airframes delivered, over 700k flight hours, maybe 7 total losses and 1 fatality. Yeah, that's never happened before. No USAF, USMC, USN, UK, AUS, RoNoAF, Italian, Dutch, Belgian, fatalities in 17 years of flight so far. We've never seen anything like this.
@@LRRPFco52 ..From what I've read, the Solid State Lasers being developed by Raytheon and Lockheed are in the range of 150-300kw class. The F-135, even in its advanced version is not physically capable of producing enough power to provide repeated use during an engagement. That's why adaptive design will most likely end up in future aircraft when these capabilities are placed online.
Pratt is also working on an adaptive engine design, but there work is not as far along as GE. A lot of this will depend on how quickly DoD wants/needs these new capabilities to be operational.
As much as I absolutely love the F-22 and its capabilities, it will most likely to be decommissioned over the next 10-20 years, in favor of NGAD with these newer engine designs and capabilities. It's possible, if the F-22 airframes are still needed, they may figure out how to replace the F-119 engines and upgrade the LO coatings as well. However, upgrading the F-22 to reach that level of capability may get so costly, it would make more sense to simply build more NGAD airframes.
@@Condor1970 If you know anything about Airborne Laser, it took a 747 platform to support that program. I don't think expecting a Direct Energy Weapon in a fighter-sized platform is realistic at this point, and pretty much everything I've read in reference to F-35 with DEW is speculative, not a program of record.
The main power demands for growth are for stand-in jamming and systems cooling.
Informative and very pleasant in delivery. Enjoyed the show thank you.
This has been so interesting and insightful. Thankyou so much, much food for thought.
Great show always look forward to your shows. Thanks
Just found the channel and super excited to watch past vids.
Video topic suggestion -- Robin Olds at the end of his book "Fighter Pilot" gives a long recommendation of how to fix procurement.
How about a review of Olds's suggestions and implementation in 2023.
Really enjoyed that discussion, thanks.
53:50, love the spicy take
Is it just me or is this like the never ending story, P&W gets there first but usually with issues abound & than finally someone in the Gov't says enough & GE than gets to due it right & put out a generally superior product. I agree get GE funded & let's put the best of the best into our aircraft.
Agreed
GE saved the F-14
@@greeber18 Absolutely! The F110 was the best thing that ever happened to the F-14.
The engine wars of the 1980s helped both companies make far superior motors. The F100-PW-229 is more reliable than the F110-GE-129, for example.
The F119 is even better, and the F135 is even better than the F119 in terms of reliability.
The premises of this episode are fundamentally flawed. You can confirm this for yourself by looking at the mishap rates. All 3 F-35 variants have dramatically-lower mishap rates, airframe losses, and fatalities than any of the aircraft they're replacing, and even the F-22, Typhoon, Rafale, and Super Hornet.
@@LRRPFco52 Yeah I see your point. I still agree wholly that the USAF needs to throw GE and its engineers a bone with a contract to develop an alternate variable cycle engine that does all the things, better fuel efficiency when needed, high performance on demand & the supporting kit baked in from the get go to deliver the power needs that will be coming with 6th Gen tech once it's more formalized.
This was the best yet! 👋👍
😎😎😎😎😎😎
Great final thoughts!
have you read "the great engine war" surrounding the P&W/GE engine selection strategy for F-16 Block 30 and beyond? It resulted in 2 Viper fleets/supply chains distinguished by engine type installed.
Cool discussion!
Always great interviews, brilliant information
Much appreciated!
Thank you! This talk was informative and entertaining. Hopefully, we’ll have adaptive engines in our F-35s and others soon!
I'm here because I've seen you on Ward Carroll's channel... and this podcast is great!
Thanks for the support ❤❤
I'm hugely skeptical on what EPACS promises to deliver, but if its increased cooling capacity is correct... we lost hundreds of man-hours in the desert trying to ops check stuff that needs 6-9 minutes to time in, using AGE carts that quit after 5 minutes. And the IPP doesn't have the oomph to handle the load by itself. EPACS would save you a *lot* of time if it's beefy enough to deliver what Collins says it will. The time we save would demonstrably cut down on maintenance hours and increase fleet availability.
Good insight, thanks for sharing
Love the content, I have seen you on Ward Carol's you tube channel keep it up !!!!!
Awesome! Thank you!
Love your channel.
Outstanding presentation, thanks !
Love the discussion & data.
Thanks for the support!😎
This was such an informative video. Actually, I watched the entire video, and I seldom watch entire videos! You have a new subscriber.
Awesome! Thank you!
I completely agree with your point, both XA100 and XA101 should be developed
Became aware from the Ward Carroll channel, glad I tuned in... former non-military pilot but love all things aviation! You guys rock, especially Navy / Marines (j/k... well maybe).
The history/grudge between Pratt & GE was fascinating - heard about the F-23 being much better but unselected. Adaptive seems like the better choice, but as you pointed out still a lot of unknowns (weight/maturity/cost). On spicy take - agreed the tech downflow is essential to stay ahead and catching up isn't cheap either.
Something about the engine. The YF-120 had more thrust than the YF-119 simply because the initial requirement was 30,000 lbs of thrust but was later raised to 35,000 lbs.
Both Pratt and GE developed 35,000 pound class engines but only GE installed their new engine on the YF-23 and YF-22. Pratt installed their older 30,000 lbs class engine on the prototypes and kept the 35,000 lbs class YF-119 on the ground for extensive testing
During test, what they found was Pratt’s engine had better control of thrust than the GE engine, thats why whenever you see a photo of both ATF fighters, the one on the wing was always the Pratt powered one, this is due to the difficulty the pilots had when fine controlling the GE the engine. When taxiing the GE engine had lag when going on idle
Great details. Not everything comes up in a conversational format, thanks for including it here😎
@@TheMergeMediaPaul Metz said aerial refueling with the YF-120 was so hard, you had to idle one engine to get the fidelity needed to mirror the speed of the tanker.
One of the most overlooked things about ATF was that YF-22 PAV1 with the GE YF-120L set the best climb rate and max V0, achieving Mach 2.2 and set some time-to-climb records on the same flight. YF-23 never went past Mach 1.8 due to boundary layer inlet problems and cracking windscreens.
Great content and insights.
Much appreciated!
Great interesting program!
Excellent discussion...
Just stumbled across this. Have seen you on mooch's channel I think.
Excellent discussion.
Subscribed :)
Yep, that's me :)
Great topic. Ive been looking for an in depth primer on this subject matter.
Upgrade the engine vs new (adaptive/3rd stream "transition") 5th gen engine vs 6th gen (adaptive/3rd stream) engine... & what the difference in the latter 2 and between the first 2 as well.
Congress seems confused as well.
The new (adaptive transition) 5th Gen engine appears at risk of total cancelation.
Will the new (adaptive) 6th Gen fit the F-35, when ready ?
Great presentation
Appreciate the f35 lecture. Learnt zo much in one hour than the bags of hours spent on other channels.
One of the things everyone misses is that if GE got on the wing, P&W will still profit. It has to do with the nozzle and certain applications that go on it 🐿️🐿️🦨🦨. Although I am not sure Pratt would be interested in spraying GE’s $hit.
I have seen F136 nozzles at my facility hooked up to a F135 running SL AMTS, and the FBR. I swore we were going to get a F135-220 but anyways, we are gearing up for full dev-ops with ECU.
It's way more than nozzles... its the entire system from hollow blades to ecm's to tolerances and pressures.. GE is producing good numbers, but failing because they are superheating the combustion chambers and they are burning out at 1/4 the time of and average f135 engine..
You guys at PW shouldn't get too comfortable with the ECU. Its the stop gap final iteration of the F135 before we move on to the XA100.
@@TylerF35A ok, lol
Yeah, the same prototype that got turned down in the first place... btw, we "PW" guys submitted a similar engine as the 100... but the military didn't want that either.
And not to mention it can never support the shaft drive for vtol operation.. so how is ge winning?
Great vid
Damn that sunshade offers more than it's intended purpose. I think thats a HUGE benefit im MANY ways. Like you mention for maintainers, but longevity/where and tear from just sitting and even not mentioned hiding the planes from satalites. Km sure that last bit is why they expanded to non f35 stationed bases.
I vote for 53:55 Mike's spicy take
Great discussion guys. With these highly complex engines, how susceptible are they in combat (especially the Marine version of the F35)? Anyway, good stuff ....a cross pollenization here from Ward's channel.
Love the insight
Lovin' me some Merge! Padlocked!
Thanks!! 😎
Pratt's claim "no re-engined single-engine USAF fighters" is a little fishy. GE F110's were put into the F-16's replacing Pratt F100's. I'm only about 2/3 of the way through the video, so maybe you say more about this later. Anyway, I enjoy listening to the discussion.
I have a feeling that both will happen, as GE needs some new contract after the 110 and 414s. but the marine corps will probably have to use the upgrade option or just accept the B model is going to fall behind which will affect the international buyers that wants STOVL capabilities.
Love the show. Iam on board with you mike. Make them work together! No matter who they work for they’re all Americans!
But wasn't Lockheed Martin's F-16C/D reengined with a new engine? Initially being powered by PW's F100 and upgraded with GE's F110, which is why we have two different Block lines (GE Block 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 and PW Block FSD, 5, 10, 20, 25, 32, 43, 52, 72) "In 1982, the Air Force began the full-scale development of the F101 DFE as an option to compete with the F100 for application in future F-15 and F-16 production; the engine was eventually selected for the F-16 and designated the F110-GE-100." Or does it not count because the F101 was fielded on the B-1A Lancer?
Well, that was designed before Lockthemup Martin bought General Dynamics.. GD made those F16 you mentioned. And GD was involved with GE, not Lockthemup Martin.
Hmm, good point! I'd have to dig into that; missed it in my research.
@@TheMergeMedia
Please update us...
That's my understanding as well.
AFAIK the GE engine on the F16 had oil leaks among other fitting issues for the first several years before it buffed out. I'm not sure if it was ever cheaper than the PW engine but it made less power at altitude and increased the empty weight such that it somewhat negated the power increase. A bit of this is from memory though so I may be wrong; re-engining is certainly possible but it comes with it caveats and likely requires the new engine to already be established in some form. Case in point, the Gripen E is re-engined from the F404 to the F414
One of the best defense related podcasts available. They did a great job talking to all the issues/considerations for a re-engine program. I can’t see any way the F-35 goes to the end of its lifecycle with the F135 engine and stays relevant. The services should move forward with an F-35 adaptive engine demonstrator program to better understand the risks and benefits of moving forward with an adaptive engine in the F-35.
If the adaptive engine is selected. What is the tech refresh limits on the Marine aircraft?.
The risk of funding both or forming an alliance is that they never go away.
Australia's experienced this in Rail and what eventually happens is cost overruns, delays and occasional commissioning early.
The industrial base won't go away, the workers will migrate to the other company, but what really needs to be done is award contracts to a third company - perhaps for the loyal wingmen/drones to accompany the fighters since there's less risk to trialling new technology.
Wow! Super interesting!
Thank you! 😊
Would that p&w adaptive engine be compatible with the vertical fan? Also did the yf-22 used a ge adaptive engine with a vertical fan?
Great program. Given the long history of the adaptive engine and the competition the U.S. now faces, the 'spicy take' option sounds timely, if not overdue.
It's likely pure fantasy, but what I'd really like to eventually hear would be a Skunkworks style announcement where NGAD leapfrogs past adaptive cycle to somehow integrate elements of a 'Rotating Detonation (Rocket) Engine' into a jet engine for better speed and efficiency. Something beyond adaptive engine is needed to realize the speeds (Mach 5?) some people suggest may appear.
Good Stuff. I think you're right. cant afford to let Pratt or GE atrophy, and we do need a new engine.
FYI I have seen you on Ward's channel. I did not know you had your own, all Ward mentions is you newsletter. Got to get your UA-cam plug in.
Thanks. Its a journey!
Its interestingto note that the GE F110 and the Pratt F100 are twin spoolers as most fighter airgraft engines are and not triple spoolers.
The twin spool config has faster throttle response and also has less friction than the triple spool.
Three drive shafts and more bearings means more friction, hence more fuel consumption.
I agree, fund them both (adaptive transition and 6th Gen adaptive). These engines can ultimately be used on multiple and different platforms, including UAV platforms.
Also, the F135 core upgrade option needs to be funded as well for the JSF international partners' fleets (either that or create a F136 swapout alternative), in order to maintain them into the future without the cost . We need them for the F-35Bs and F-35Cs anyway, right ?
There needs to be a divergence between US and allied capabilities. Yes we need interfunctionality but we don’t need identical capabilities.
Does the 5th Gen adaptive transition program inform the 6th gen adaptive program as well ?
Why is there not at least a 3rd option/alternative ?
I had a debate in law school in my M&A class with 5 big time executives on this subject, about how many players can an industry space support. The consensus was 5 max, but only 3 can compete & survive long term, as #4 & #5 will get pushed out or fall behind. I argued otherwise, that there should be room for more to drive innovation.
I don’t think those 5 top execs would disagree that having only 2 industry players is healthy at all, & if your procurement decision reduces it to just 1 as a practical matter - then WTF are you thinking & doing ?
Even communist Soviet Union had 2 options to design & build jets.
A capitalist society ought to foster competition, not kill it.
They need more domestic options, not fewer.
Maybe one of these domestic defense contractor companies needs to buy Rolls Royce and make it into a 3rd option on engines, either that or fund a third startup - for national security reasons.
My main debate counterparty in that debate was Richard Rainwater. I forget who the other 4 were now, but one guy was Michael Milken's right hand man at the time (before Milken went down for securities fraud). The other 3 guys were CEOs of major corporations, one, I think, was CEO of United Gas at the time.
I was arguing that GM should be busted up into its constituent marketing component parts and made into separate companies. We then got into further discussions about what to do with the engine components manufacturing - who makes the motors ?
There were a lot of parallels.
Fast forward several decades and we almost experienced a collapse of the automotive industry- because they won the debate in the real world. Our government had to bail the auto industry out along with the banks.
I think at the time Ross Perot had a large stake in GM and was making waves on the board of directors, threatening to shake things up, then they paid him to go away (I think, as I recall). I later met him and his nice wife at a cocktail party but I wasn't able to discuss this with him (though I did discuss it with her at bit).
These are major national security issues. Redundancy & competition in a national industrial base are critical to maintaining the necessary edge to keep us safe and secure from the other communists & dictators. I say "other" because we're basically now a communist oligarchy and they will protect their turf & market shares until it kills us all.
Fortunately, I think the Russians consolidated Sokoi & Mig, so they don’t have diversity either right now.
Dad joke warning: When MiG and Sukoi merged they should have called it MiGSuks
@@TheMergeMedia Good one !!!
@@TheMergeMedia Pfffft. Good one lol
An interesting perspective but I would like to highlight the fact that there are also numerous manufacturers among your allies and start-ups within the US. At the end of the day, warfighters (regardless of their nationality) want and deserve the best possible product that gives them the most potent capabilities, and industry must evolve to accommodate that regardless of tender outcomes. It has worked out in the past, and it can still work out today. Capitalism is about allowing companies to be as competitive as possible, so the best solutions can emerge, and a big part of this is also about allowing new start-ups to find success and disrupt markets - it is the latter part that many countries struggle to accomoate these days.
At the end of the day, the start-up doesn't even have to be successful in winning contracts to benefit the industry as they can spur the established giants into funding more innovation or create IP that big companies (or the government) purchase. So long as new start-ups continue to receive opportunities from authorities and / or the economy is big enough to accommodate them, this cycle can continue.
You can see these principles in action in the drone and supersonic sectors today. In the automotive sector, Tesla is another great example to consider. It has driven the rapid emergence of electric vehicles and quickly became the most valuable car manufacturer in the world. It is increasingly dominant in Europe and is the only Western automotive manufacturer with virtually unfettered access to the Chinese market. Today, GM and others are racing to catch up but a couple of decades ago, Tesla didn't exist.
We can't forget the ability of corporations and billionaires to enter new sectors like Elon Musk has done. During World War 2, the famed freedom ships relied on a construction industry mogul to come into existance and he not only prepared manufacturing sites in a fraction of the time required by the big established shipyards but also employed lessons learned from automotive assembly lines to find success.
Russia seems to be floundering in terms of manufacturing at the moment but China is a major rival for the Free World and unlike Russia, they promote multiple state-owned companies and government departments to develop rival projects. You're quite right; none of us can afford to lose this ability.
Y'all raised a good point about cooling requirements.
New forms of power supply (batteries/capacitors) are inching towards significantly diminished hear generation. Graphene/aluminum batteries, for example, essentially require no cooling. Some electronics can benefit from the tech use to build those batteries and, if the S. Koreans actually HAVE made a room temp/pressure superconductor, the offshoot technology would make it possible to even decrease the cooling capacity of f-35 but still run all the new toys, plus more.
Great video! Watching while I fish
Awesome channel
Thank you!❤❤
It would be fantastic if that adaptive engine from GE could be used in the ngad program but be cross compatible on f35 to make reduce development and research cost
Excellent prospective!
The Merge never disappoints!
True, except when the Merge goes beta male, brings on corrupt or dumb bearded glasses beta mediocre mind guy. “Great spirits are always violently opposed by mediocre and corrupt minds”. That is why he trashed, in any easy to see through clever way, dumping on GE. See my post. See if you agree with its context.
❤❤❤
I wonder whether the Air Force has considered foregoing some of its future F-35As in favor of a longer range version of the F-35 (perhaps called F-35D or F-35R) that has: GE’s adaptive engine, an extra fuel tank in place of the F-35A’s gun, and an unfoldable version of the larger wings of the F-35C (assuming I'm correct in thinking that larger wings improve range). It might also include fittings to optionally attach external, conformable fuel tanks that are relatively stealthy and/or that can be dropped. Another possibility might be to include fittings in the weapons bay to optionally attach missile-sized fuel tanks for use in situations in which extra range is so critical that it even outweighs some amount of payload.
It's important to think of the engine as the limiting factor for every other component and capability. If they are even developed but don't have the engine to support it, then they're not going in the jet.
I guess this was implied, but I'll point it out here in the comments. If we don't fund a major new engine development program now, a lot of the engineers that did major developments will be gone and a lot of the engineers that dealt with the limitations of the current engines will be gone. This was a problem with the F-35 and one that's playing out at Boeing with them hiring back employees after layoffs and years of shedding talent. Talented engineers that want to keep working in that specific space may go to manufactures in other countries. Companies and their business leaders often fail to invest in their employees and long term knowledge base. Management at the top can often cycle in and out frequently and haven't dealt with extremely large and extremely technically challenging aerospace projects that take decades. They are also highly motivated for short term gains to add to their resume as it's more likely their tenure won't be more than five to ten years.
Range is extremely important considering the increasing range of area denial, likely threats, and lack of tankers. There's a lot more as well. I believe tanking capable drones may help though. A new engine would definitely help with the range of current and future aircraft and drones. Energy will always be a problem. Even as components continue to consume less power and produce less heat we will still be trying to jam more equipment into any jet.
You can also think of the engines as a limiting factor for everything else. It's the key to unlock the door to other capabilities. There may be many technologies we'd like to add to a jet if only we had more power, cooling or efficiency. If we need those components but don't have the power or cooling, we'll have to spend more to make those components more efficient and smaller or not have the capability at all. They could provide a larger weight budget overall as well. So basically we're already handicapping our future aircraft and ability to protect pilots, soldiers and national interest by not investing now.
Finally, if we invest in this new engine technology it will give our companies an advantage as they design new commercial aircraft engines. There's at least some things they will or develop on the military side that they wouldn't otherwise learn that can help them on the commercial end as well. The engine is one thing that the commercial side will not really help develop on its own. It's also something that takes the longest and delays entire projects the most.
Great comment
OMG, VTEC for turbines. 1st iteration of VTEC, which used one intake valve for cruise and the 2nd intake valve for power. IVETC (Block 2) was for efficiency, which considered the engine load as well. Then came VVT (Block 3) which could alter valve timing on both intake and exhaust, used 1st by VW (I think), and later by everyone. Really quite simple compared to requirements for a turbine though. I would recommend a new engine.
Some contractor/Pentagon similarities, I worked on the Raytheon Patriot / Thaad IDP. Though we met all the "stated requirements" and "shoot off" events we lost the contract to a last-minute change of requirements. Clinton Administration Politics played a big part in the program decision.
Super cruise 1.7? Wow! I learned jets in the 70s and while they are still the same yet they are way different. My military time was Navy jets flying strait jets, turbojets. My civilian time has been still mostly Pratts but some GE and some Rolls fans. They are all damn fine engines and it amazes me what they have done. The change from sliderules to computer design and modeling has allowed for different things and metallurgy that was impossible in my military time. I have to say though, I am a Pratt fan forever. MD and Pratt were and will always be my favorites. I guess I gave away my age but hell this is all very cool for this old jet mech. I worked a few cost plus contracts. They are expensive but the quality is there. On fixed cost with the money saving pressures, quality is promised but not always obtained. Corners tend to get cut. I am not a fan of fixed cost contracts, atleast not from my hangar floor point of view. Thank you and be safe.
Your information about the YF119 and YF120 performance was roughly correct, but it is just part of the story. In fact BOTH engines were variable cycle, but they way they accomplished this was very different. The YF120 mechanically changed the airflow between the fan and core to vary bypass ratio whereas the YF119 manipulated the bypass aft of the turbine section. The YF120 represented greater risk because changes in flowpath upstream of the core introduces variable aeroelastic drivers that could cause unknown and difficult issues with high pressure compressor high cycle fatigue. Reportedly the YF120 bypass was not operated as variable in flight during the prototype flying program because of the risk, but fixed for each specific flight point. The YF119 did not represent that risk because of its design. Another fact is that the YF119 was not very similar to the production F119. The designs were quite different and the subsequent F119 not only looked different but had significantly better performance than the YF119. We do not know what a production F120 would have looked like. One more key point is that the YF119 was built for the original ATF spec. At some point very close to the flying stage the spec changed to require bigger engines. At the same time, a key requirement of the prototype ATF was to have the prototype engines match the predicted performance numbers which was considered more important than YF ultimate performance. GE took a risk and upsized their YF120 closer to the later spec prior to the prototype flying program. PW did not upsize, but instead focused on accurate predictions based on the program's stated requirements. It was no surprise that the larger YF120 had higher performance, nor was it a surprise that the YF119 nailed its predictions, represented lower risk, and thus was chosen the winner of the ATF propulsion contract.
I wonder if Lockheed thinks they can make a bigger airframe modification to fit the adaptive engine to the F-35B. If so, it would make sense for them to support that engine so they would be contracted to make those airframe modifications.
With the weight disparity, I think it’s just a different plane. I’m wondering if we should just admit that it would be a new plane and go in that direction, if we’re so stuck on needing an adaptive engine.
F-16 was built to use the J-79 as well as the F-100 and the GE F-110 from day 1 block 1 at Hill AFB
Great callout
No. The F-16/79 was heavily modified with a smaller inlet and heavier engine with less thrust at aft CG. The F101DFE/F110 was a special program to fit the larger engine. It ultimately required an inlet redesign.
Solar PV parking for all jets might be a win win for cooling and sustainability and electricity costs
me like lots. thank you Mike
super interesting :)
Rolls Royce makes Engines too. See the B-52 and V-280
When you're on Ward's channel, have him mention that you have a channel as well.
Very good report. Thanks!
I have been hearing that the engine in the F-35 has been running to hot.
When this is being said is the temp of the combustion that is to hot or is it not being able to provide enough bleed air to cool other things as needed or is when a lot of bleed air is pulled out to cool other things does that cause the combustion temp to get to high?
Great question - something we didn't do too well explaining. The aircraft ended up requiring more bleed air than the engine was designed for, so in order to put out the bleed air the engine has to run hotter
@@TheMergeMedia
OK, so because so much bleed air is being pulled out that means less air is available for combustion and that cause the combustion temps to be higher than they should be shortening the service life of the engine. Did I get that right?
@@Gadget0343 It sounds like maybe they're having to run the engine at higher power levels to increase the amount of air passing through the compressor and provide enough bleed air for the aircraft, although that's just my guess rather than based on any solid info.
hi Mike,
I just searched Spotify for your podcast, your logo shows up but there is no content or way to subscribe to it...FYI
Hmm, well that's weird. It works on my phone. 🤔
This is like your “Deep Intel” guest spots on Ward. Fantastic.
BTW, just a note that might provide encouragement. Another channel like yours stayed at just a few thousand subscribers for almost a year and then all of a sudden they grew to 100k+ subscribers in just a few months. That’s how YT always works.
Anyway, next time you to appear on Ward’s show, he needs to guilt trip his audience over how few have subscribed over here. His channel is how I found you.
Thanks for the encouragement!
Your ears must be ringing....I'll be back with Ward sooner than you think 😉
Just subbed. Blame Mooch!
You say I don’t know with a smirk 😂. Mmmhmmm 22:20 . The info is out there if you know where to look 😅. To be fair, the F136 was P.U. Stinky. They couldn’t even get it to run off idle from what I hear 😎. It was junk.
Big top shelters make great hanger/sunshades
Seen you on ward Carroll 👍
GE engine = Vtec just kicked in yo
🚗!
Remember GE has deep ties to SNECMA/Airbus/CFM, so they have a lot of cross-pollination on engine tech. Pratt, not so much.
You already said the point in the first 2 minutes.. were going on block 4... They asked for a engine for the firsts rendition of the aircraft, with now it being a concern. I work at pratt, we all know whats going on and where we are going on the requirements asked now.
Um....use the outside air to cool the processors?
Bringing a second engine into the F16 helped the F16. They aren't identical, but better for the force.
Pratt and Whitney did have a huge success with the J-58's - the engines of the SR-71 BlackBirds. Yes I know the 2 planes are very different and have very different mission's and requirements but that gives them some extra headway.
GE had their own Mach 3 turbojet - YJ-93 which powered the XB-70 Valkyrie and would have powered the F-108 Rapier long-range Mach 3 interceptor. I don't know if it could operate at the same speeds as the J58, but some of the difference could be due to the intake design on the A-12/SR-71 rather than inherent performance differences between engines.
Would this be an issue, or as big of an issue if it was a dual engine aircraft?
The engine with the built in stator and rotor and A.C.
1. Will the new engine (which ever make) be used on any new developments that are not related to the f-35?
2. Will the level of parts used on the new engine have great compatibility with all 3 versions?
3. Will NGAD use a variation of the f-35 agile designed engine or will it be totally different design?
4. If there was a known cooling issue with the engine then who was responsible and was there a fine for failing to deliver a viable engine. Or was the cooling system compatible with the current CPU requirements for the f35. If feels like the designer and Manufacturer did not provide a jet engine that met the specific requirements of the time.
5. If the fuel cools the engine, onboard CPU, AI, sensors, Laser systems then why don't the use an additives that helps cool the fuel faster to the fuel? rather than a full design review?
PW appears to have failed to provide an engine that can allow the f-35 to loiter long enough and China and Russia appear to know this. The need to have Refuelling jets closer than the military would like to the enemy is a real risk. Which ever jet engine which offers the greater range must be the correct option.
6. Will the Military learn to have n+1 solutions? Surely when designing jets two jet manufactures should work together to field two compatible engines so if one is a dud you have a backup.
7. I cannot understand why the f-35 frame design failed to create space for expansion. When you see a Russian or Chinese jet fighter they are huge in comparison. Block 1 could be a competition, Block 2 could then be a competition etc... as both manufactures would be forced to not only work together to develop an engine that fits the frame but it would force greater efficiency as they get apathetic once they get the main contract.
8. The money wasted by allowing a manufacturers to dictate over spend is no longer an option! Speak to UK designers and QS who can show the US how to create cost effective military systems. E.g ACCs
call Skunk Works and Rolls Royce!
F-35 is an amazing jet but i feel US designers failed on the KISS (keep it simple stupid)
Mike made a really good point...The NGF will probably be powered by the contractor losing this F-35 Upgrade. The military need to keep these contractors healthy.
I don’t think GE is anywhere close to being in trouble.
P51 and F14A both needed a new engine to make them really great so not a new issue
1 he said jets and 2 he said single engine otherwise "great" listening ability...
@@w8stral I was not being THAT literal. My point was “ Flying Weapon Systems” that went from good to Legendary with a power plant upgrade. But otherwise great hair splitting
Its not the Newest Gripen E is or the Tejas
Hopefully the future engine will go faster than a paltry mach 1.6.
How about an intensified gravity wave propulsion engine the special access groups are holding hostage? Just sayin.