→Go to nordvpn.com/pilotphotog to get the two year plan with an exclusive deal PLUS one month free. It’s risk free with NordVPN’s 30 day money back guarantee
@@PilotPhotog absolutely! I got to work on some really early prototypes for the program, and I really hope they decide to go with the new engine! It really is an amazing thing! And also, I like all of your videos, to be honest ha!
Hey, Jason. That's cool that you are involved with this new engine. My brother worked at GE Evendale till he retired. He worked with a Huffman grinder of some type, I believe. At that time it was the GE90 engine that they were building. Before it was GE it was Wright Aeronautical. My dad worked in the same plant during WWII.
I remember reading an article of two Nordic pilots and some Canadian pilots who had fallen in love with 16-18s and 15s and were skeptical in the first time they flew the f-35 they had nine kills before they were even spotted and that weekend they ended up with a 21 to 1 kill ratio if they can keep upgrading they have 35 especially the engine it will keep it relevant for another 30 to 40 years
@@greenmagic8ball198 Apparently the F-35 has been bullying aggressor squadrons so badly that they had to convert an aggressor squadron to F-35s so they could give the F-35 squadrons a decent challenge
@@hresvelgr7193 But! But!! But all I see and hear about the F-35 is that it’s an over budget piece of junk that isn’t any better than Block 1 F-16s!! All of the “experts” agree! It’s a waste of time and money and won’t EVER be even half as good as Lockheed claims! Just ask the Iranians! Israel has flown well into Iranian airspace and back home and they never even knew the Lightning’s were there. What’s the point of owning such expensive airplanes if the other guys don’t even know it’s there? You can be scary unless they see you! Honest to God, the only thing frightening about the F-35 is the thought that we may already have something flying that’s even better. I CANNOT WAIT to see how NGAD pans out. The F-35 is going to end up serving as the cornerstone of that entire family and the tactics they utilize.
Adaptive Engine: "Ah a natural evolution of jet engine!" Laser: "Finally this was planned very early in F-35s!" Hologram Countermeasure: (Eyeballs pop out)
@@dsdy1205 Good call! Read an article a few years ago about laser holograms being developed by the military. What better to test them on than a carrier out on a training exercise. Nobody ever brings this up as a possibility of these sightings.
The faster acceleration (with the new engine) also improves its ability to provide close air support as it can get to the target quicker if ground forces are pinned down
This sounds too good to be true. An all around no compromise improvement in all areas, that is available right now and isn't exorbitantly expensive. Not that I doubt American military engineering, but I'll believe this when I see it (read the confirmed reports).
Sounds like a cheerleading presentation given at weapons conventions concerning a weapon system that still hasn’t reached fleet-wide interoperability, combat capabilities or operational goals set decades ago. Who is going to pay for this? The American taxpayer. Kill the program now, learn what we can from it and move on.
@@markxfarmer6830the f35 is the greatest military plane on this entire planet and it has excelled in all areas with a demonstrably lower price than even the attempts at anything approaching it’s performance. (Also destroying a program after a few hundred planes have already been built is one of the stupidest wasteful knee jerk responses I have seen to this program and that’s saying a lot.
Nice video, great summary of all the up coming upgrades. The adaptive engine might give F-35 the ability to properly super cruise. The plasma projection hologram thing was really interesting, wanna find out more about that!
Terrific report! I’m guessing its cooling factor should also reduce its Stealth RCS, & much like the Raptor’s new RAMs (Chrome), it can asimílate the weather & sunlight as deviations.
The cooling aspect is entirely due to its bypass ratio increase over existing designs. Internal hot turbine guts are in fact nearly identical. The cooling factor required INSIDE the engine will be slightly lower so technically is a correct statement, but in reality is Hogwash.
@@w8stral the interior guts arent really the issue though. Its thermal loading and the hot gases exiting the plane. If it has just 10% more air bypassing the compressor then it should reduce the ir signature of the plume. Something that the f-35 could badly use.
@@GonzoDonzo IR plume signature is pointless with today's IR sensors. They have shape recognition of the actual aircraft. This is not the 1970's bud. The thermal loading is on the airframe, not the engine parts. This reduces amount of Titanium required and the systems on the outside of the engine will be more reliable.
Wicked. F-35 is a beast. How sweet it is to see the change in perception of this fine aircraft. My years of arguing and educating online haters was worth it :) Lots of red faces out there now but I've yet to see any of them admit they were wrong. How badass is that hologram projecting capability...yikes!
I saw a video with some plasma thing that could make sounds and even "speak" I might be misremembering, but it was also being considered for creating false radar returns. I think this is what he refers to. How cool would that be, a plasma projector that creates a false radar and ir return It didn't really create a hologram tho, so maybe that's still in the works
The reason it got it's butt kicked in fighting competitions at first was simple: it was a revolutionary aircraft that completely ditched the old way of fighting and that's why it NOW can take on what, a dozen by itself or so?
@@Hello_there_obi compared to what? Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale and F-15EX cost more per unit. And maintenance cost is only 10k more than an F-16, despite the F-16 not taking offboard sensors into account. The F-35 doesn't need any other offboard sensors, it has everything built in already.
@@apolloaero the f35’s development budget is a well known disaster and was around 5 times that of the typhoon. And there is no end in sight in terms of the huge list of issues and fixes that will run up the costs even further.
The Dagger and Dart had a 12-13 year service time, that`s nothing compared to SO many other aircraft, like the F-16, F/A-18, or the F-15 which are still in service after oh, about 50 years..? Or the B-52 which has served since 55` and is expected to run for 20-30 more years. Now THAT`S progression ;) But the F-102 was the first supersonic interceptor though, so that`s pretty special. Wonder if there`s any Willy`s jeeps around still hehe 🤔
@@afrog2666 "Morlock Motors" in Germany bought the last Willys Jeeps and rebuilds them on a on-demand-base, but focus on the Mutts. ...it's realy a shame; the Jeeps ARE still an icon.
Eeeeeeeeeyeah see it goes like this. Teething refers to what a 1 year old goes through. The fart 35 is 17 and close to 18 so teething is not expected or condoned. 100's of BILLIONS and 17 years and still trying to pull this piece of shit over the line. As an engineer trust me with all that time and $$ and your customer still won't put it into full scale production dump and move on past it. Curious to see what we get in the b-21 T-raider after the fart 22 and littoral combat shit fiasco. None of this matter as these pieces of future razor blade scrape metal serves only to enrich the military industrial complex. Of course it exists; you think you know more than 5 star general, Army Chief of Staff, led the allies to victory in Europe and, oh yeah, 2 term President of the United States Dwight Eisenhower. We have 850+ UNsinkable foreign military LAND bases completely surrounding the entire eurasian land mass. We need these gigantic missile magnets aka carriers why? A single carrier and it's 8-10 support ships cost about 50-60 BILLION every year and we have 12 I think. Know how much offensive punch they pack? 30 stinky little f-18's, that's it. The rest just like those 8-10 support ships are there to protect the main missile magnet. Completely useless and after we've incinerated say around 1 TRILLION over the lifetime for the carrier air group why we send it off to be scrapped and cut into razor blades at less than a penny on the dollar. In fact we're doing that right now with all the Nimitz class carriers. The entire class barely fired a single shot in anger. But, again they're not there to fight WW3 but to enrich the military industrial complex like I said before. 😎
I love the F-35's. I heard that the pilots call them Panthers. I hope that catches on! Badass planes that, hopefully, will reach their full potential in this decade.
Amazing developments, and a great report Tog I swear i fall in love with the f-35 more and more everytime i see pics and vids of them. I hope I’ll get to see one some time soon
@@PilotPhotog yeah i have heard that. I was hoping to go Warbirds over Wanaka becaise the Aussies were going bring one for a display as well as Super Hornet but covid put that on the back burner. Fast air is a rare delicacy in my part of the world
The F-35 just always looked "pregnant" to me. It looks "slow". And, although I understand the reasoning, I don't like a single engine airplane that costs that much money. Performance can make up for the aesthetics and mechanical risks quickly. Would I buy a Pilates, TBM or a King Air. Give me two engines, especially with auto-feather, every time. My only exception would be piston twins. There are no single turbojet/turbofan engine airliners in service. There's a reason for that. My Dad took primary, yes primary, flight training in a T-6. His first time in an airplane was his first flight lesson in a T-6. Standard procedure (SOP) for an IFR engine failure or over unsuitable terrain (no dry lake beds or flat, obstruction free, terrain that you were familiar with) was to bail out. Dad was considered more valuable than the airplane. I realize the F-35 has much more sophisticated software to assist a pilot with an engine failure to find suitable pre-programmed safe landing terrain. And it has a zero-zero ejection seat to allow an attempt at what appears to be great landing terrain under VFR conditions that looks bad when you get down to 100-200 feet. Ironically, the only single engine failure my Dad had was in a T-6 on a solo flight during Ptimary training. Right after takeoff with the canopy still open. He threaded through some trees and landed safely in a shallow swamp outside of Moultrie, Georgia. Covered in mud, he sat on the wingtip that was out of the water until the rescue cavalry arrived. He flew his second scheduled training flight later that afternoon. "Back on the horse." The airplane was barely damaged. It was repaired and returned to service. Dad went on to fly thousands of hours in the B-36 and B-52. He was the first 2LT Aircraft Commander in both airplanes. He flew B-52s the whole time Operation Chromedome was operating. He never had an engine failure in the B-52. The same couldn't be said for the B-36! But, it had 10 engines, so a single engine failure wasn't too much of a big deal.
Putin Bronk (RUSI) was with Ward Carroll last week. Justin stated the USAF should adapt the the larger Naval wing for an updated USAF fighter for Pacific operations. Time will tell.
Great post Tog. I've been following the XA100 Adaptive Cycle Engine in AW&ST. A little difficult to learn precisely how cycles are managed. The thing I find interesting is changes in how the F-35 is rapidly upgrading avionics, sensor and other mission electronics. This I attribute to the incredible advancements in processing power, flexible system architecture and the software controlling them. Ya don't necessarily need to change out a box to execute major improvement, making upgrades cheaper and easier to implement (relatively). That in stark contrast to the much longer hardware development lifecycle of the ACE engine. Where the incremental improvements are more difficult to make cost effective. Exotic materials, new production technologies and extraordinary cost of R&D contributing in no small way.
Thanks Scott, this is also the advantage that a constantly in production aircraft brings, as more copies are built (and ordered) there are more funds for R&D making the platform better.
The F-35 was designed from Day One to be upgradable well into the future, almost like a desktop computer with plug-in slots for major components allowing better performance and more capabilities as they become available (and affordable). Previously fighter aircraft were designed for a given task and then as time passed new features were shoehorned into spaces in the airframes they were never meant to occupy, often causing issues with flight characteristics, performance etc. The Block 4 series of new features for the current operational F-35s mentioned in the video are the first big step in the F-35's roadmap, this future new engine is another. It's still to be flight-tested though if I read between the lines correctly, and that's a major hurdle it will have to climb.
This is a natural step from that Rolls Royce report of inconsistent power transfer in vertical power mode from P&W F135 in the lift fan configuration some years back.
In a report published in 2013, it is stated that defects in the fuel tank and hydraulic system make the F-35 much more vulnerable to lightning strikes and other sources of fire, including enemy fire, than which had been revealed previously, especially at low altitudes. The same 2010 report also noted degraded performance of all three variants; sustained turn rates have been reduced to 4.6g for the F-35A, 4.5g for the F-35B, and 5.0g for the F-35C, more in line with the performance of a third generation aircraft, McDonnell Douglas F-4 or Northrop F-5 than that of a fourth or fifth generation aircraft. The acceleration performance of all three variants has also been lowered, the F-35C takes 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower level of performance than was required of a fourth generation aircraft. On August 30, 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models had several complex maneuvers to reach their maximum speed of Mach 1.6, thus consuming almost all the fuel on board51,
I doubt top speed will change. M1.6 is probably not thrust limited. It's probably set there as a combination of intake geometry and to preserve ram coatings.
The intakes could be modified to have both the Divert less Inlet and a stealthy air vent system like on the YF-23. Placing the air vent on the Inlet bump to improve the removal of boundary layer air.
NEWS FLASH - - - Yet ANOTHER excellent video . Very informative and very well done . Congratulations bro , you raised the bar once again ! As always , two enthusiastic thumbs up from this camp 👍👍
Wow! such an incredible engine is a perfect for the Kingsnake! Even a upgraded current F16. A modded B1Bs nacells with these engines would allow supercriuse, greater than Mach 2.4 top speed.
@@neogenmatrix6162 how about those variable ramps with engine that produce 75% more thrust with 30% less fuel burn? Would you as a budget analysts turn this down in favor of the "good enough mantra"?
Upgrading to the new GE engine seems to make perfect sense to me. We're going to be counting on the F-35 for a very, very long time. So, extending its speed and range is unequivocally a massive strategic enhancement to the entire force. Making it a smarter and less vulnerable platform is also imperative. This latter piece must be a perpetual evolutionary process.
Very interesting I assume that the high efficiency mode adopts some of the 'high bypass' engine design elements found in commercial aircraft. As for adding a laser, the F-35B may be the best candidate. Start with the 'B', but trade the STOVL's giant lift fan for a LARGE generator, suitable for a LARGE laser.
These are just about to start rolling out across the UK Navy F35's. Love the mantra; "upgrades will only cost 58 Trillion but they will use less fuel".
this sounds like a complete new generation - a revolution in a way. If ofc it really is superior in every single way to the previous top of the line designs like F-135
Those engines sound similar to the Variable Geometry Turbo in some high performance Porsche 911's. Where they can control the angle of the turbine blades for max power or efficiency.
They've had variable stator vanes for a long time now, but watching this, I was just thinking would it be possible to have variable turbine and compressor vanes on all stages? Could you imagine?
I wonder if the top speed will really be affected, seeing as the F-35 is currently software limited for its top speed, iirc due to its inlets. Acceleration will be far better though if the weight doesn't increase significantly, that's for sure.
Im curious if the new engine will allow supercruise. AETP is able to lower its bypass ratio. Lower bypass ratio means the exhaust speed of the engine is much higher, which is favorable for supercruise
My understanding is that M1.6 is "official" top speed. In an emergency I'm certain it can do more, like pressing the Red button. May override software speed limits. Suppose it is moving at M1.6 at 50K feet elevation, then if it points the nose straight down, with full throttle, don't you think that it might pick up a little speed?
@@sevrent2811 that's a great question. IMO, it would be able to extract more range when going to Mach 1.1* or Mach 1.2* if your scenario don't pan out. *USAF uses Mach 1.5 as the base.
Interesting improvement, though I would prefer the airframe be modified to mount twin engines in case of flame out. A key consideration for Naval pilots over vast stretches of ocean is being able to function with one engine out. Sometimes its not about fuel savings but surviving the mission.
i dont think thats possible lol. it would be a complete redesign of the airframe and it would likely take just as long to complete as the original design. not to mention the cost. i do see your point about navy pilots though, but as i understand it, engines have become much more reliable since the days of the tomcat (at least during flight), so the navy dropped the requirement for 2 engines, since a flame out or a compressor stall is incredibly unlikely.
2 Engines may make it faster, and make the F35 rear end wider, then need a bigger fuel tank but may reduce fuel efficiency range, also it would be Heavier.. so it Might not be feasible with a F35 style plane for the navy.. but more feasible for Air base uses by USAF, an Marine Corp.
Great Stuff! Now we know why the F35 is a game changer that is only getting better with time. It’s reconfigurable architecture, smart avionics and adaptive engines are a powerful future proof platform and development. Brilliant.
Another reason to avoid the B! Our engine development doesn't seem to ever slow down! I can't wait to see what they're able to do with the next decade. :)
In a report published in 2013, it is stated that defects in the fuel tank and hydraulic system make the F-35 much more vulnerable to lightning strikes and other sources of fire, including enemy fire, than which had been revealed previously, especially at low altitudes. The same 2010 report also noted degraded performance of all three variants; sustained turn rates have been reduced to 4.6g for the F-35A, 4.5g for the F-35B, and 5.0g for the F-35C, more in line with the performance of a third generation aircraft, McDonnell Douglas F-4 or Northrop F-5 than that of a fourth or fifth generation aircraft. The acceleration performance of all three variants has also been lowered, the F-35C takes 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower level of performance than was required of a fourth generation aircraft. On August 30, 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models had several complex maneuvers to reach their maximum speed of Mach 1.6, thus consuming almost all the fuel on board51,
I live close to Luke AFB and I hear these planes fly over almost everyday. Compared to the F16, the F35 sound like monsters. They are loud and you can tell when an f16 flys over a f35. The F35 shakes the whole house. Amazing!!!
I've always doubted whether engine power was the limiting factor in the F-35's top speed. The airframe, or design factors of the air frame is usually the main limiting factor, with the engine often able to push the Air frame beyond the rated never exceed speed (VNE).
engine power doesnt correlate necesarily to top speed.. many more factors in there.. for example the Harrier is subsonic and its engine can provide clearly more than 1:1 weight to thrust ratio (or it wouldnt be able to VTOL) due to the engine being made for thrust but not for exhaust velocity , and then the F-5 can do MACH 1.5 with much less thrust to weight ratio.. or the F-14A being faster in top speed than the F-14B/D despite the later having lile 50% more thrust..again due to engine physics (exhaust velocity., bypass ratio, etc) So in the case of FatAmy maybe increasing thrust wont necesarily mean increasing Top Speed.. but better performance and aceleration
Yeah, the issue with the F-35 is: it is just too heavy, and thanks to the passive stealth not in the best aerodynamic configuration. While the new engine sounds great in theory, the main reason USAF wants to replace the P&W is the unreliability of that thing; it fails too much, too difficult to be built (40% of current 35A having no usable engine, acc. GAO-report from Jul 2021), and in the USN it is modus operandi to NOT use the afterburner for an extended period of time due to the engine developing failures otherwhise. ...so I ask myself what good the new technologys will do, if there is no measurable increase in reliability; OR what will the new technologys do in combat situation where the KISS-principle is even more important than in relative peace times! With all the things going wrong with the F-35, Gen5 should be EOLed, and Gen6 prioritised (which's far advanced, just google Japans Godzilla-project; 2035 comes very fast, while Block4 F-35 with the new engine will not come before 2028).
@@sparrowlt the F14 GE F110 top speed is entirely for to turbulence in the intake tract at high Mach. Grumman never got the funds to redesign the intake geometry and opted to weld the variable intake ramps into a position which favored more subsonic thrust and mid altitude thrust but made high Mach dangerous for the engine. The F110 could absolutely push the F14 faster... Grumman intended for just that in the ASF-14 and ST-21 design proposals. The former having the ability to super cruise. For a total mind trash, the F135 engine in the F35 is in the same size class as the GE F110... that means some tweaks and this new adaptive engine for the F35 could find its way into the 4th Gen aircraft of the USAF (Navy Super Hornets use a smaller size engine). If Lockheed and Boeing are paying attention, they'd be putting these engines in upgrade F15EX and F16 variants.
@@Whiskey11Gaming interesting.. i would swear that i had readed somewhere about the TF30 having less bypass and behaving like a turbojet at high speeds and that being the reason into the higher top speed.. but its true that i also readed about the ramps being fixed in later models...
@@sparrowlt The TF30 actually enjoys two advantages over the GE F110's... at low altitude and at high mach. In those two flight regimes the TF30's actually produce more thrust in afterburner due to air stacking in the intake. The GE's had more thrust static (which is why you only need military power to take off with the F110's, among the safety issues). The high Mach air stacking is a huge reason why the TF30's had a higher top speed, but that is contingent upon clean air hitting the engine. The F110's were very tolerant of turbulent air, but the lack of a variable intake to smooth out the air at high Mach causes compressor stalls and can damage the engine at those high Mach numbers... the F110's DEFINITELY had the oompf to push the F-14 well beyond 2.34, but money, etc...
just a big S. :In a report published in 2013, it is stated that defects in the fuel tank and hydraulic system make the F-35 much more vulnerable to lightning strikes and other sources of fire, including enemy fire, than which had been revealed previously, especially at low altitudes. The same 2010 report also noted degraded performance of all three variants; sustained turn rates have been reduced to 4.6g for the F-35A, 4.5g for the F-35B, and 5.0g for the F-35C, more in line with the performance of a third generation aircraft, McDonnell Douglas F-4 or Northrop F-5 than that of a fourth or fifth generation aircraft. The acceleration performance of all three variants has also been lowered, the F-35C takes 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower level of performance than was required of a fourth generation aircraft. On August 30, 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models had several complex maneuvers to reach their maximum speed of Mach 1.6, thus consuming almost all the fuel on board51,
An Excellent and comprehensive piece on the Block 4 upgrade to the F35 Lightening, as it has been patchy to say the least, in finding any decant sources or written pieces on this. I feel that the adaptive cycle engine upgrade will go along way to dealing with the range and thermal management weaknesses of the F35, experienced at the top end of it speed envelope, particularly around Mach 1 and above. Weaknesses unfortunately inherited from its troubled early design compromises I suspect. However, one thing that this is piece has highlighted, unless I have misheard, is the lack of a Super Cruise capability designed into the new engine, of which as far as I am aware the current F35 engine doesn’t have. For along time now, I have wondered why Super Cruise wasn’t a requirement for the F35 despite its design being optimised as an ultra low observable aircraft from the outset. Despite this, I think that with its unrivalled sensor and avionics package, a dedicated Electronic Warfare version could fulfil a much required niche mission set, that if developed, F35 would excel at, essentially combining the EW and SEAD/DEAD capabilities of the EA-18G Growler with ultra low observable airframe of the F35. I would be interested to know if anyone has any thoughts on this?
Yeah the F-35 can't supercruise in the traditional sense, however once it reaches the speed with afterburners it can throttle back and cruise at supersonic speeds. If the reports are true for this engine I imagine 20% thrust increase should enable it to push through to supersonic without afterburner. The dedicated EW F-35 idea would be good especially when all those external stores would pull the EA-18G's speed right down
YOU ARE SO LUCKY ! ... An F35 did a solo pass in front of the crowd at our show and they said it was in that 700 mph range at about 500' AGL... the sound followed WAY behind..🤗 Oshkosh in a few days.... RENO soon !
@@robertlafnear9115 EAA is 45 min from my house, I’m going for a day on my up to the family cabin in Vilas County. As I’m typing this I can hear that PW135. I’m heading down to the local beach on Lake Michigan now to watch, it’s always empty and that cold water on a day like today will be great.
There is no greater earthly privilege than to live close to OSHKOSH, Wisconsin.....you are so lucky ( in the summer lol).... I have front row seats to Reno Sec I .. still a 6 hr. drive ...but well worth it !🤗 made it to OSH. in 2018 sure hope I can do it again soon.
Its exciting to think of the F35 with more power. The one area it isn't quite at the level of some 4-4.5 gen competitors is thrust-to-weight. With that improvement it has no weaknesses.
Good memory! I was going to post a comment along these lines too. The variable bypass engine was probably seen as a greater risk at the time, but now they want to use it after all. I imagine that the YF-23 with the YF-120 engine would have been the best combination ever, had they chosen it. Instead they dialed it back a couple of notches with the YF-22 and the P&W YF-119 engine.
@@SanjaySingh-oh7hv I own Paul Metz's book on the YF-23. The top super-cruise speed of the 23 with the GE engine remains classified. That should tell us something about their engine.
@@thefrustratedtheologian6238 - There have been attempts on discussion boards to estimate the top speed of the YF-23 taking into account other factors such as erosion of the radar absorbent materials on the skin of the plane, which would limit the speed even if the engines were capable of more. If they are smart, they will "back-port" the GE variable cycle engine to the F-22 eventually.
@@SanjaySingh-oh7hv It took me a moment to find the quote (page 59): "The PW powered YF-23A achieved a standard day supercruise speed of 1.43 while the GE powered YF-23 achieved a higher top speed which remains classified but was shown publicly as 'Very Fast.' It was indeed."
I have been waiting for this topic for a while now....Thanks for doing this....And BTW...do you know what is going to replace the C 17 fleet?.....since it's production line has stopped?
If the engineers can figure out a way to stuff the new adaptive cycle engine into the "B" model the marines could go from a STOVL to a VTOL. That would be another super kick-butt achievement. Too cool !
Good to see this new information. I was a bit disappointed to see pictures worked into this video with both a vertical tail and back seat, meaning clearly not a F-35.
This is very promising news for the f35, which is proving all the criticism directed at it to be premature. One of the big criticisms of the airframe was its lackluster dogfighting skills, but this new engine's characteristics may very well make the f35 much more lethal in the merge. The f35 embodies such an enormous tactical paradigm shift that it was going to take much more time than older 4th gen platforms to fully come into its own. It's turning out to be one of the most formidable weapons systems ever built. Can you imagine the possibility of the NGAD having two of these new engine's? It'd be a beast!
Except some dubious claims from Israel, the F-35 has not any air combat victories in a real world environment. Ask yourself, if it's so good why wasn't it deployed to help the Ukrainians (the answer is that in the real world it's not that good)
@@yonghominale8884 That's a ridiculous assertion. No NATO aircraft are going into Ukraine to engage with the Russians. If I remember correctly, Israel has struck ground targets in Syria. The kill rate of the f35 in Red-Flag training exercises is off the charts. I imagine not a few were BVR air kills. It's more of an attack aircraft than a dogfighter, though it's sensor fusion makes it deadly air to air beyond visual range. In the merge it may have issues, but it can avoid that scenario without much trouble. That's one of the benefits of stealth; first look, first shoot, first kill. My point is this new engine may make it able to hold it's own in a dogfight. And almost everybody that flies it has disagreed with your last statement.
@@alexcraig8543 "That's a ridiculous assertion. No NATO aircraft are going into Ukraine to engage with the Russians". The F-35 has been sold as the ultimate fighter, why can't it establish a no fly zone UNLESS IT CAN'T. If it really has a 20 to 1 kill ratio (which is BS since it can only carry like 6 missiles and will be chewed up if it uses it's gun) an entire wing could destroy the entire Russian Air force in a week.
@@yonghominale8884 🤦 It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the f35. The fact of the matter is NATO is unwilling to risk WW3 by escalating the conflict in Ukraine and engaging directly with Russia. That could have catastrophic consequences for the whole world. Hello? It's kill rate wasn't from just one aircraft on a single sortie! It's pointless to continue this debate with you. Good day.
No update on the remaining F-35 15K+ bugs remain in 2019! Talk of getting digital helmet to that cost $250+K each in 2017! They were talking about switching all the analog gauges into digital and having a modern 3” X 5” LED 480i screen resolution in the new cockpit controller controls back in 2018ish.
If, for whatever reason, one of the US or US Allied partner states' F-35 Lightning were to be in the unfortunate position of having to perform a crash landing or be forced to land (mechanical difficulties or maybe lack of fuel, etc.) in a country that is unfriendly are there any safeguards to destroy sensitive hardware on board or systems software? I realize you probably can't press a self-destruct button to vaporize the aircraft but was wondering about any safeguards to mitigate the danger of these countries discovering 5th generation technologies that make it so advanced.
This platform should have always had 2 engines for Navy/Marine services. I used to be an F-14 A/B Aviation Electronics Tech(AT). Watched an E-2C & a Tomcat land on a carrier with 1 engine😳 Fouled engine during take off/landing in a F-35😱 Just saying🤔
We had an 18 fod out mid cat shot (constellation, late 90s), and dude brought it back around for a hands on landing. If that happened with a single engine plane, he would have dove like a lead sled right in front of the ship.
I have always preferred alternative dual F414 F-35 variant and F-35B as separate airframe. But one high diameter engine gives better opportunities to create 3 flow engine - unexpected advantage.
@@JB-kk4pv true but the F-15EX is suppose to be the weapons truck for the fifth gen fighters. f-35 detects the SAMS while f-22 takes out enemy aircrafts. from there the F-15EX destroys all remaining enemies with a shit ton of missiles.
@@JB-kk4pv It is not about the top speed, the Eagle would rip itself apart somewhere north of Mach 2.3 (depending on the altitude), the rear stabilators would pull apart (we had one F-15 that nearly tore the whole thing off and it was peeling back the metal from the leading edge along with other damage - it was moving and had some test engines in it). The real edge would be the ability to dump and regain speed more quickly (along with thrust vectored performance).
+PilotPhotog *General Electric Project XA100 and United Technologies Pratt & Whitney Project XA101 were developed for U. S. Air Force Adaptive Engine Transition Program.* Target thrusts are in the 135kN class for supercruise, 200 kN class for flank power with core and fan afterburners. General Electric already has experience with variable-bypass turbofans with the YF120 and YF136, and Project XA100 adds a third variable-bypass air routing. Judging from published YF120 and XF136 specs, Project XA100 should use a three-stage fan, three-stage intermediate compressor, and three-stage final compressor, all with digital stator-pitch control; and three single-stage turbine rotors.
When it became apparent that the F35 in all its variants could be enhanced by software updates, my imagination shifted into overdrive. Every aspect of this versatile airframe will be improved. Be it as a potential stealth air dominance fighter or ground attack bomb truck. Since my son is a premier software engineer working for the US government. I'm aware of the potential for rapid development, also the steady increase in CPU GPU capability. Combined, they will improve performance, efficiency and cross platform integration. Without the need for extensive engine upgrades. Give them a new engine to work with and things suddenly develop exponentially. The F35 is going to prove itself the most versatile aircraft ever produced.
So what does the future hold for NGAD ? GE has almost 30 years of Adaptive Cycle experience. The thing you didn't mention about GE's ceramic matrix composites is the weight; less than 1/3 the weight of steel. How much more of the engine can be built with CMCs ? P&W is working on a sub-sonic inlet fan that should greatly increase engine efficiency. Rolls Royce is working on a power generation system that eliminates the PTO and embeds magnets on to the main shaft. What do you think the future holds ?
Absolutely BADASS content. GE needs to hire you for their marketing. I hope this is all actually effective and put into use by the US Military. We have to stay the most superior military in the world for all the right reasons in this changing theatre of potential combat/war.
Just like all the great fighters before it, after several years of upgrades it will be a much better fighter than the Mark 1 design. A lot of history's best aircraft weren't nearly at their potential until they were on the 'D" version. Nowadays, we use the Block XX designation. The F-16 is on about the block 70 version. When it was new, it really couldn't do much except launch and burn turning circles in the air and launch sidewinders. Now it's a potent multi-role fighter. F-35 was multi-role from the beginning, but now it is adding more and more weapons systems and if they pursue the adaptive engine technology, it looks like that will enable even more performance and power for "Star Wars" type capabilities. Thanks for the info!
If the GE engine works as planned, it would be a great asset to the F-35's capabilities. One aspect that might also improve the performance of the A-version is to adopt a -C variant size wing (non folding) for extra internal fuel and improved wing loading/maneuverability characteristics while also improving fuel efficiency (due to better wing loading) or enabling more engine power to be used to use for high energy lasers, powerful jammers or radar and EOTS.
The C-model is sacrificing SOMETHING by having the bigger wings. I assume it is just stealthiness but there may be other aspects that are negatively affected by the larger wings. Why? Because if the larger wings were NOTHING BUT an "upgrade" over the A-model's smaller wings, then the A-models would've been designed with the larger C-model wings from the start. The A-models wouldn't need the folding wingtips because space on a carrier is not a concern, so they could maintain the internal cannon while also carrying more internal fuel. So, again, there has to be a reasonably significant DOWNSIDE to the larger C-model's wings or else Lockheed Martin would've just put the bigger wings on the A-model in the first place.
The XA-100 G.E. engine has got to be implemented into the F-35 No Doubt! Forget Pratt & Whitney until they can come up with something better.. GOOD LUCK!
I would just like to note that, assuming weight gain with the new engine is negligible (might not be true), a 20% increase in thrust will raise the F-35's thrust-to-weight ratio to the top of the class except for one. The F-15 is STILL king of thrust-to-weight, specifically the F-15E model. For the F-15E, afterburning thrust / dry weight = 1.830 TTWR. A 20% increase in thrust will give the F-35A a TTWR of 1.761, which is better than the following aircraft: F-15C; Eurofighter; MiG-35; F-22; Su-35; Rafale; F-18C; Su-27; F-16; MiG-29; MiG-31.
The new GE engine is THE best upgrade for the F-35 because it is currently slower than "near peers". My 2019 MAZDA CX-5 is getting "BLOCK 2" Cork Sport upgrades -> !.) oil catch can, 2.) high flow intercooler 3.) high flow intercooler piping PLUS 4.) ScanGauge II OBD II monitor information center 5.) wider 245/50/19 Michelin Cross Climate 2 tires (all season WITH snow tire capability) Look out AUDI A-3 SUVs!
Super cool, imagine if your plane was damaged and you were trying to reach an abort landing strip. The pilot reaches down and puts the engine into emergency range mode to make it home. Or emergency thrust mode (beyond BF override or WEP power)...Probably save a lot of pilots and planes.
Good but was hoping you would include description of the new engine layout...compressor / turbine stages / shafts / etc...and maybe more info on ceramic coatings?
I have a f35b.But I crashed it in my garage messing around hovering it is the best remote control jet I've ever owned.Its been repaired since then I set it down to hard.
So much for the GE design, Pratt Whitney got the contract yesterday. Hopefully their numbers were more impressive than the GE ones, but likely they were just acceptable while also being a lower production cost.
I'd be more concerned with the fact P&W has traditionally made engines with pretty shite life spans and with tons of teething issues. The F135 engine in the F35 was no exception... the TF30 of the F111 and F14 fame and the F100 of the F15 fame have all had massive issues over their lives. There was a saying about Pratt & Whitney engines and needing Martin Baker ejection seats.
Pratt & Whitney introduced a hardware modification to engine blades in *spring 2020* that is being incorporated in the production line and in engines going through sustainment, the company said in a statement.
One of the largest hurdles for jet engine makers in the last decade has been the development of the Adaptive Cycle engine. There are a few good videos on TH-cam. Being able to print combustion chambers and thermal control components using a ceramic metallic alloy. The next hurdle is to be able to change airflow and convert from a turbo jet to a ram jet on the fly. A prototype called Chimera is currently undergoing testing. The last challenge is to change to scramjet operation for speeds above mach five. The NGAD is being designed to handle these extremely high velocities. The next several years are going to be a technical joy ride beyond compare.the United States already has working ramjets and scramjets. The big problem is to build one engine that will go from turbojet, to ramjet, to scramjet. Then at the destination convert back to a turbo jet for landing. Scrambler cruising between mach 5 plus and say mach ten could put any point on the globe within a few hours reach. I only wish I were about forty years younger.
have not heard of the problem with afterburner use being limited in time of use, to prevent structural damage to horizontal control structures at rear of plane. Also damage to some of the senors located at the rear of plane. Fixed yet?
The bit about the a10 is interesting. I wonder what it's top speed would be with an adaptive engine. Seems like that would solve the complaints about it being too slow. And an updated avionics package would solve the other main concerns.
→Go to nordvpn.com/pilotphotog to get the two year plan with an exclusive deal PLUS one month free. It’s risk free with NordVPN’s 30 day money back guarantee
I MISSED YOU WERE IN DARWIN SORRY - WERE YOU STATIONED THERE ?
@@robot336 no worries - I visited there way back in ‘99
@@PilotPhotog YOUR AN OLD FART LIKE ME 🤤
Sounds like F35 needs this new engine.
What's with the crazy missile just missing the plane at 06:36 ?? WHOA
I’m an employee at GE Aviation here in Cincinnati, and I gotta say, great video! Our engine is a beast for sure! Unbeatable
Awesome, glad you liked the video and thank you for your dedication on building something incredible!
@@PilotPhotog absolutely! I got to work on some really early prototypes for the program, and I really hope they decide to go with the new engine! It really is an amazing thing! And also, I like all of your videos, to be honest ha!
eyyyy i know where that is, i live in Cincinnati!!!
Hey, Jason. That's cool that you are involved with this new engine. My brother worked at GE Evendale till he retired. He worked with a Huffman grinder of some type, I believe. At that time it was the GE90 engine that they were building. Before it was GE it was Wright Aeronautical. My dad worked in the same plant during WWII.
I hope its faster way faster.f35 slow as trash atm.
I remember reading an article of two Nordic pilots and some Canadian pilots who had fallen in love with 16-18s and 15s and were skeptical in the first time they flew the f-35 they had nine kills before they were even spotted and that weekend they ended up with a 21 to 1 kill ratio if they can keep upgrading they have 35 especially the engine it will keep it relevant for another 30 to 40 years
Hey stealth is cheating! >:(
Canadian pilots have flown the F35? We don't even have any yet?
@@Danster87 yes multiple Canadian pilots actually
@@greenmagic8ball198 Apparently the F-35 has been bullying aggressor squadrons so badly that they had to convert an aggressor squadron to F-35s so they could give the F-35 squadrons a decent challenge
@@hresvelgr7193 But! But!! But all I see and hear about the F-35 is that it’s an over budget piece of junk that isn’t any better than Block 1 F-16s!! All of the “experts” agree! It’s a waste of time and money and won’t EVER be even half as good as Lockheed claims! Just ask the Iranians! Israel has flown well into Iranian airspace and back home and they never even knew the Lightning’s were there. What’s the point of owning such expensive airplanes if the other guys don’t even know it’s there? You can be scary unless they see you!
Honest to God, the only thing frightening about the F-35 is the thought that we may already have something flying that’s even better. I CANNOT WAIT to see how NGAD pans out. The F-35 is going to end up serving as the cornerstone of that entire family and the tactics they utilize.
Honestly that hologram stuff sounds like science fiction to me. If that's even just mildly effective in tests, that's a total game changer.
I've seen lesser small scale stuff IRL, iffy on if it can be scaled but it's not entirely Scifi
Adaptive Engine: "Ah a natural evolution of jet engine!"
Laser: "Finally this was planned very early in F-35s!"
Hologram Countermeasure: (Eyeballs pop out)
holy crap!! i didn't know the F-35 even had eyeballs!
I guess now we know what those tic tac sightings were
@@andyman8630 The eyeballs are classified. You never 'saw' it!
@@dsdy1205 Good call! Read an article a few years ago about laser holograms being developed by the military. What better to test them on than a carrier out on a training exercise.
Nobody ever brings this up as a possibility of these sightings.
"nervous dog panting meme" face.....
The faster acceleration (with the new engine) also improves its ability to provide close air support as it can get to the target quicker if ground forces are pinned down
If the F-35 is this scary good, I can't begin to imagine what kind of sorcery the NGAD would be capable of.
NGAD and F-35 Block 4 will be an amazing pair!
NGAD?
@@lancerkind NGAD is the in-development Generation-6 replacement to the F-22
@@lancerkind Next generation air dominamce.
@@TylerF35A Most F-35 wont get the block 4
I’ve been reading articles about this subject for quite some time, it’s nice to see you summarize it, in this informative video. Excellent work!
Glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for being a supporter of the channel - you help make this content possible.
This sounds too good to be true. An all around no compromise improvement in all areas, that is available right now and isn't exorbitantly expensive. Not that I doubt American military engineering, but I'll believe this when I see it (read the confirmed reports).
You are absolutely right monk
WHO WOULD LISTEN TO A FELON???
comprise is cost
Sounds like a cheerleading presentation given at weapons conventions concerning a weapon system that still hasn’t reached fleet-wide interoperability, combat capabilities or operational goals set decades ago. Who is going to pay for this? The American taxpayer. Kill the program now, learn what we can from it and move on.
@@markxfarmer6830the f35 is the greatest military plane on this entire planet and it has excelled in all areas with a demonstrably lower price than even the attempts at anything approaching it’s performance. (Also destroying a program after a few hundred planes have already been built is one of the stupidest wasteful knee jerk responses I have seen to this program and that’s saying a lot.
Nice video, great summary of all the up coming upgrades. The adaptive engine might give F-35 the ability to properly super cruise. The plasma projection hologram thing was really interesting, wanna find out more about that!
Terrific report! I’m guessing its cooling factor should also reduce its Stealth RCS, & much like the Raptor’s new RAMs (Chrome), it can asimílate the weather & sunlight as deviations.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed the video and agreed
The cooling aspect is entirely due to its bypass ratio increase over existing designs. Internal hot turbine guts are in fact nearly identical. The cooling factor required INSIDE the engine will be slightly lower so technically is a correct statement, but in reality is Hogwash.
@@w8stral why thank you, Einstein!
@@w8stral the interior guts arent really the issue though. Its thermal loading and the hot gases exiting the plane. If it has just 10% more air bypassing the compressor then it should reduce the ir signature of the plume. Something that the f-35 could badly use.
@@GonzoDonzo IR plume signature is pointless with today's IR sensors. They have shape recognition of the actual aircraft. This is not the 1970's bud. The thermal loading is on the airframe, not the engine parts. This reduces amount of Titanium required and the systems on the outside of the engine will be more reliable.
Wicked.
F-35 is a beast. How sweet it is to see the change in perception of this fine aircraft. My years of arguing and educating online haters was worth it :)
Lots of red faces out there now but I've yet to see any of them admit they were wrong.
How badass is that hologram projecting capability...yikes!
I saw a video with some plasma thing that could make sounds and even "speak"
I might be misremembering, but it was also being considered for creating false radar returns. I think this is what he refers to. How cool would that be, a plasma projector that creates a false radar and ir return
It didn't really create a hologram tho, so maybe that's still in the works
The reason it got it's butt kicked in fighting competitions at first was simple: it was a revolutionary aircraft that completely ditched the old way of fighting and that's why it NOW can take on what, a dozen by itself or so?
It still deserves criticism for how much it cost.
@@Hello_there_obi compared to what? Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale and F-15EX cost more per unit. And maintenance cost is only 10k more than an F-16, despite the F-16 not taking offboard sensors into account. The F-35 doesn't need any other offboard sensors, it has everything built in already.
@@apolloaero the f35’s development budget is a well known disaster and was around 5 times that of the typhoon. And there is no end in sight in terms of the huge list of issues and fixes that will run up the costs even further.
Just as the F102 progressed so far with the F106, the F35 looks like it has a big future
😎 👌
The Dagger and Dart had a 12-13 year service time, that`s nothing compared to SO many other aircraft, like the F-16, F/A-18, or the F-15 which are still in service after oh, about 50 years..?
Or the B-52 which has served since 55` and is expected to run for 20-30 more years.
Now THAT`S progression ;)
But the F-102 was the first supersonic interceptor though, so that`s pretty special.
Wonder if there`s any Willy`s jeeps around still hehe 🤔
@@afrog2666 Maybe a country like Iran or another former ally has a 102 IDK.
@@aauwhatitdo1582 lol F-102 have only been exported to Greece and Turkey, and have been decommissioned for well over forty years.
@@afrog2666 "Morlock Motors" in Germany bought the last Willys Jeeps and rebuilds them on a on-demand-base, but focus on the Mutts. ...it's realy a shame; the Jeeps ARE still an icon.
Eeeeeeeeeyeah see it goes like this. Teething refers to what a 1 year old goes through. The fart 35 is 17 and close to 18 so teething is not expected or condoned. 100's of BILLIONS and 17 years and still trying to pull this piece of shit over the line.
As an engineer trust me with all that time and $$ and your customer still won't put it into full scale production dump and move on past it.
Curious to see what we get in the b-21 T-raider after the fart 22 and littoral combat shit fiasco. None of this matter as these pieces of future razor blade scrape metal serves only to enrich the military industrial complex.
Of course it exists; you think you know more than 5 star general, Army Chief of Staff, led the allies to victory in Europe and, oh yeah, 2 term President of the United States Dwight Eisenhower.
We have 850+ UNsinkable foreign military LAND bases completely surrounding the entire eurasian land mass. We need these gigantic missile magnets aka carriers why? A single carrier and it's 8-10 support ships cost about 50-60 BILLION every year and we have 12 I think.
Know how much offensive punch they pack? 30 stinky little f-18's, that's it. The rest just like those 8-10 support ships are there to protect the main missile magnet. Completely useless and after we've incinerated say around 1 TRILLION over the lifetime for the carrier air group why we send it off to be scrapped and cut into razor blades at less than a penny on the dollar.
In fact we're doing that right now with all the Nimitz class carriers. The entire class barely fired a single shot in anger. But, again they're not there to fight WW3 but to enrich the military industrial complex like I said before. 😎
A better engine will also make the F-35 and NGAD less dependent on tanker planes. Engine efficiency all the way.
Just un another aircraft can fly in operation look th f35 south corean , ....i hope he didn't count on them to defend taiwan
Love the F-35! One of my favorite sounds is them flying overhead. Greater speed is wonderful; but better range is golden.
This is an amazing technological advancement- thumbs up
I love the F-35's. I heard that the pilots call them Panthers. I hope that catches on! Badass planes that, hopefully, will reach their full potential in this decade.
Amazing developments, and a great report Tog
I swear i fall in love with the f-35 more and more everytime i see pics and vids of them. I hope I’ll get to see one some time soon
Thanks Logan, I hope you get to see one soon too, trust me they are LOUD!
@@PilotPhotog yeah i have heard that. I was hoping to go Warbirds over Wanaka becaise the Aussies were going bring one for a display as well as Super Hornet but covid put that on the back burner.
Fast air is a rare delicacy in my part of the world
@@LogieT2K here’s hoping to them coming your way!
The F-35 just always looked "pregnant" to me. It looks "slow". And, although I understand the reasoning, I don't like a single engine airplane that costs that much money. Performance can make up for the aesthetics and mechanical risks quickly.
Would I buy a Pilates, TBM or a King Air. Give me two engines, especially with auto-feather, every time. My only exception would be piston twins. There are no single turbojet/turbofan engine airliners in service. There's a reason for that.
My Dad took primary, yes primary, flight training in a T-6. His first time in an airplane was his first flight lesson in a T-6.
Standard procedure (SOP) for an IFR engine failure or over unsuitable terrain (no dry lake beds or flat, obstruction free, terrain that you were familiar with) was to bail out. Dad was considered more valuable than the airplane.
I realize the F-35 has much more sophisticated software to assist a pilot with an engine failure to find suitable pre-programmed safe landing terrain. And it has a zero-zero ejection seat to allow an attempt at what appears to be great landing terrain under VFR conditions that looks bad when you get down to 100-200 feet.
Ironically, the only single engine failure my Dad had was in a T-6 on a solo flight during Ptimary training. Right after takeoff with the canopy still open. He threaded through some trees and landed safely in a shallow swamp outside of Moultrie, Georgia. Covered in mud, he sat on the wingtip that was out of the water until the rescue cavalry arrived. He flew his second scheduled training flight later that afternoon. "Back on the horse." The airplane was barely damaged. It was repaired and returned to service. Dad went on to fly thousands of hours in the B-36 and B-52. He was the first 2LT Aircraft Commander in both airplanes. He flew B-52s the whole time Operation Chromedome was operating. He never had an engine failure in the B-52. The same couldn't be said for the B-36! But, it had 10 engines, so a single engine failure wasn't too much of a big deal.
Sounds like a great improvement in engine technology for our fighters
Damn, the naval version is gonna have insane range.
Putin Bronk (RUSI) was with Ward Carroll last week. Justin stated the USAF should adapt the the larger Naval wing for an updated USAF fighter for Pacific operations. Time will tell.
@@BV-fr8bf na. The Air Force needs the highest performance versions of jets. If they need extra range they have tankers for refueling
@@John_Redcorn_ Did you say the Air Force have 'targets for refueling?' I am certain the Chinese would order 1 way strike missions to destroy tankers
@@BV-fr8bf tankers dont operate inside hostile airspace my friend
@@BV-fr8bf I'm sure the F-35 pilots would love to rack up some kills on J-20s looking at tankers
Great post Tog. I've been following the XA100 Adaptive Cycle Engine in AW&ST. A little difficult to learn precisely how cycles are managed. The thing I find interesting is changes in how the F-35 is rapidly upgrading avionics, sensor and other mission electronics. This I attribute to the incredible advancements in processing power, flexible system architecture and the software controlling them. Ya don't necessarily need to change out a box to execute major improvement, making upgrades cheaper and easier to implement (relatively). That in stark contrast to the much longer hardware development lifecycle of the ACE engine. Where the incremental improvements are more difficult to make cost effective. Exotic materials, new production technologies and extraordinary cost of R&D contributing in no small way.
Thanks Scott, this is also the advantage that a constantly in production aircraft brings, as more copies are built (and ordered) there are more funds for R&D making the platform better.
@@PilotPhotog Great point.
The F-35 was designed from Day One to be upgradable well into the future, almost like a desktop computer with plug-in slots for major components allowing better performance and more capabilities as they become available (and affordable). Previously fighter aircraft were designed for a given task and then as time passed new features were shoehorned into spaces in the airframes they were never meant to occupy, often causing issues with flight characteristics, performance etc.
The Block 4 series of new features for the current operational F-35s mentioned in the video are the first big step in the F-35's roadmap, this future new engine is another. It's still to be flight-tested though if I read between the lines correctly, and that's a major hurdle it will have to climb.
This is a natural step from that Rolls Royce report of inconsistent power transfer in vertical power mode from P&W F135 in the lift fan configuration some years back.
The F-35 ARE DEFINITELY AT THE TOP OF THEIR GAME they’re the best in vertical lift for a jet replacing the harriers there definitely here to stay
F35 DEFINITELY A BIG S. .....
In a report published in 2013, it is stated that defects in the fuel tank and hydraulic system make the F-35 much more vulnerable to lightning strikes and other sources of fire, including enemy fire, than which had been revealed previously, especially at low altitudes. The same 2010 report also noted degraded performance of all three variants; sustained turn rates have been reduced to 4.6g for the F-35A, 4.5g for the F-35B, and 5.0g for the F-35C, more in line with the performance of a third generation aircraft, McDonnell Douglas F-4 or Northrop F-5 than that of a fourth or fifth generation aircraft. The acceleration performance of all three variants has also been lowered, the F-35C takes 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower level of performance than was required of a fourth generation aircraft. On August 30, 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models had several complex maneuvers to reach their maximum speed of Mach 1.6, thus consuming almost all the fuel on board51,
@@chtipalepoulpe2039 however, that report was in 2013, that may be out of date now
also, source?
I doubt top speed will change. M1.6 is probably not thrust limited. It's probably set there as a combination of intake geometry and to preserve ram coatings.
ram coatings will also evolve, as will intake geometry and engine air induction speed/temp
If you want high speed single engine, then copy Gripen … or just buy Gripens
@@douginorlando6260 why buy a less capable aircraft that cost the same?
Bill, your 100% correct, the airframe is what limits the speed of the F-35, more power will let them accelerate faster, but not go faster.
The intakes could be modified to have both the Divert less Inlet and a stealthy air vent system like on the YF-23. Placing the air vent on the Inlet bump to improve the removal of boundary layer air.
Thanks Tog, you rock!
Just saw this Cap, you’re quite welcome!
NEWS FLASH - - - Yet ANOTHER excellent video . Very informative and very well done . Congratulations bro , you raised the bar once again ! As always , two enthusiastic thumbs up from this camp 👍👍
Much appreciated Duncan! I'm glad you like the video and thank you for being a channel member!
*IMPRESSIVE TO SAY THE LEAST, AND IT COMES AT A CRITICAL TIME!!* 👍👍👍
Also, Block 4 upgrades include the ability to deliver the B-61 mod. 12 ground-penetrating, laser-guided, variable yield thermonuclear weapon.
Wow! such an incredible engine is a perfect for the Kingsnake! Even a upgraded current F16. A modded B1Bs nacells with these engines would allow supercriuse, greater than Mach 2.4 top speed.
All they have to do with the B-1B is give it back it's variable intake ramps and it can go back to a Mach 2.2 max speed.
@@neogenmatrix6162 how about those variable ramps with engine that produce 75% more thrust with 30% less fuel burn?
Would you as a budget analysts turn this down in favor of the "good enough mantra"?
@@phillm156 It would be very nice, nice indeed. However the F-101 in the B-1B from GE is a much larger engine.
Expensive. The really need to modify the F-16 airframe if they want to install but it will cost a lot more.
@@tristanpau1p that’s the question. Is it cheaper to upgrade an existing airframe or start a new aircraft development program?
Upgrading to the new GE engine seems to make perfect sense to me. We're going to be counting on the F-35 for a very, very long time. So, extending its speed and range is unequivocally a massive strategic enhancement to the entire force. Making it a smarter and less vulnerable platform is also imperative. This latter piece must be a perpetual evolutionary process.
There's no doubt needed that this is a beast on Arnie steroids wtf
Amazingly informative, as usual!
Very interesting I assume that the high efficiency mode adopts some of the 'high bypass' engine design elements found in commercial aircraft.
As for adding a laser, the F-35B may be the best candidate. Start with the 'B', but trade the STOVL's giant lift fan for a LARGE generator, suitable for a LARGE laser.
These are just about to start rolling out across the UK Navy F35's. Love the mantra; "upgrades will only cost 58 Trillion but they will use less fuel".
Thank you Mate, Always love your videos, amazing content, addictive narration....
Thank you much appreciated - I put as much work into my narrations as I do my animations.
this sounds like a complete new generation - a revolution in a way. If ofc it really is superior in every single way to the previous top of the line designs like F-135
Those engines sound similar to the Variable Geometry Turbo in some high performance Porsche 911's. Where they can control the angle of the turbine blades for max power or efficiency.
They've had variable stator vanes for a long time now, but watching this, I was just thinking would it be possible to have variable turbine and compressor vanes on all stages? Could you imagine?
Wow!! Great video! Great work! I just shared this to my stealth fighter magazine.
I wonder if the top speed will really be affected, seeing as the F-35 is currently software limited for its top speed, iirc due to its inlets. Acceleration will be far better though if the weight doesn't increase significantly, that's for sure.
It said the engines are lighter so it sounds like its getting a slight weight reduction
Im curious if the new engine will allow supercruise. AETP is able to lower its bypass ratio. Lower bypass ratio means the exhaust speed of the engine is much higher, which is favorable for supercruise
My understanding is that M1.6 is "official" top speed. In an emergency I'm certain it can do more, like pressing the Red button. May override software speed limits. Suppose it is moving at M1.6 at 50K feet elevation, then if it points the nose straight down, with full throttle, don't you think that it might pick up a little speed?
@@sevrent2811 that's a great question. IMO, it would be able to extract more range when going to Mach 1.1* or Mach 1.2* if your scenario don't pan out.
*USAF uses Mach 1.5 as the base.
@@sevrent2811 Nope.
“Hologram” sounds dope!
Interesting improvement, though I would prefer the airframe be modified to mount twin engines in case of flame out. A key consideration for Naval pilots over vast stretches of ocean is being able to function with one engine out. Sometimes its not about fuel savings but surviving the mission.
i dont think thats possible lol. it would be a complete redesign of the airframe and it would likely take just as long to complete as the original design. not to mention the cost. i do see your point about navy pilots though, but as i understand it, engines have become much more reliable since the days of the tomcat (at least during flight), so the navy dropped the requirement for 2 engines, since a flame out or a compressor stall is incredibly unlikely.
2 Engines may make it faster, and make the F35 rear end wider, then need a bigger fuel tank but may reduce fuel efficiency range, also it would be Heavier.. so it Might not be feasible with a F35 style plane for the navy.. but more feasible for Air base uses by USAF, an Marine Corp.
Great Stuff! Now we know why the F35 is a game changer that is only getting better with time. It’s reconfigurable architecture, smart avionics and adaptive engines are a powerful future proof platform and development. Brilliant.
Another reason to avoid the B! Our engine development doesn't seem to ever slow down! I can't wait to see what they're able to do with the next decade. :)
The F35 adaptive platform and capabilities are definitely the future. Nicely Done 🍻
It will not increase the top speed by all that much but it may give the F-35 super cruise which would be a big deal
In a report published in 2013, it is stated that defects in the fuel tank and hydraulic system make the F-35 much more vulnerable to lightning strikes and other sources of fire, including enemy fire, than which had been revealed previously, especially at low altitudes. The same 2010 report also noted degraded performance of all three variants; sustained turn rates have been reduced to 4.6g for the F-35A, 4.5g for the F-35B, and 5.0g for the F-35C, more in line with the performance of a third generation aircraft, McDonnell Douglas F-4 or Northrop F-5 than that of a fourth or fifth generation aircraft. The acceleration performance of all three variants has also been lowered, the F-35C takes 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower level of performance than was required of a fourth generation aircraft. On August 30, 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models had several complex maneuvers to reach their maximum speed of Mach 1.6, thus consuming almost all the fuel on board51,
Just a big s.
@@chtipalepoulpe2039 the good thing is, those problems are a thing of the past.
I live close to Luke AFB and I hear these planes fly over almost everyday. Compared to the F16, the F35 sound like monsters. They are loud and you can tell when an f16 flys over a f35. The F35 shakes the whole house. Amazing!!!
I've always doubted whether engine power was the limiting factor in the F-35's top speed. The airframe, or design factors of the air frame is usually the main limiting factor, with the engine often able to push the Air frame beyond the rated never exceed speed (VNE).
engine power doesnt correlate necesarily to top speed.. many more factors in there.. for example the Harrier is subsonic and its engine can provide clearly more than 1:1 weight to thrust ratio (or it wouldnt be able to VTOL) due to the engine being made for thrust but not for exhaust velocity , and then the F-5 can do MACH 1.5 with much less thrust to weight ratio.. or the F-14A being faster in top speed than the F-14B/D despite the later having lile 50% more thrust..again due to engine physics (exhaust velocity., bypass ratio, etc)
So in the case of FatAmy maybe increasing thrust wont necesarily mean increasing Top Speed.. but better performance and aceleration
Yeah, the issue with the F-35 is: it is just too heavy, and thanks to the passive stealth not in the best aerodynamic configuration.
While the new engine sounds great in theory, the main reason USAF wants to replace the P&W is the unreliability of that thing; it fails too much, too difficult to be built (40% of current 35A having no usable engine, acc. GAO-report from Jul 2021), and in the USN it is modus operandi to NOT use the afterburner for an extended period of time due to the engine developing failures otherwhise.
...so I ask myself what good the new technologys will do, if there is no measurable increase in reliability; OR what will the new technologys do in combat situation where the KISS-principle is even more important than in relative peace times!
With all the things going wrong with the F-35, Gen5 should be EOLed, and Gen6 prioritised (which's far advanced, just google Japans Godzilla-project; 2035 comes very fast, while Block4 F-35 with the new engine will not come before 2028).
@@sparrowlt the F14 GE F110 top speed is entirely for to turbulence in the intake tract at high Mach. Grumman never got the funds to redesign the intake geometry and opted to weld the variable intake ramps into a position which favored more subsonic thrust and mid altitude thrust but made high Mach dangerous for the engine.
The F110 could absolutely push the F14 faster... Grumman intended for just that in the ASF-14 and ST-21 design proposals. The former having the ability to super cruise.
For a total mind trash, the F135 engine in the F35 is in the same size class as the GE F110... that means some tweaks and this new adaptive engine for the F35 could find its way into the 4th Gen aircraft of the USAF (Navy Super Hornets use a smaller size engine). If Lockheed and Boeing are paying attention, they'd be putting these engines in upgrade F15EX and F16 variants.
@@Whiskey11Gaming interesting.. i would swear that i had readed somewhere about the TF30 having less bypass and behaving like a turbojet at high speeds and that being the reason into the higher top speed.. but its true that i also readed about the ramps being fixed in later models...
@@sparrowlt The TF30 actually enjoys two advantages over the GE F110's... at low altitude and at high mach. In those two flight regimes the TF30's actually produce more thrust in afterburner due to air stacking in the intake. The GE's had more thrust static (which is why you only need military power to take off with the F110's, among the safety issues).
The high Mach air stacking is a huge reason why the TF30's had a higher top speed, but that is contingent upon clean air hitting the engine. The F110's were very tolerant of turbulent air, but the lack of a variable intake to smooth out the air at high Mach causes compressor stalls and can damage the engine at those high Mach numbers... the F110's DEFINITELY had the oompf to push the F-14 well beyond 2.34, but money, etc...
just a big S. :In a report published in 2013, it is stated that defects in the fuel tank and hydraulic system make the F-35 much more vulnerable to lightning strikes and other sources of fire, including enemy fire, than which had been revealed previously, especially at low altitudes. The same 2010 report also noted degraded performance of all three variants; sustained turn rates have been reduced to 4.6g for the F-35A, 4.5g for the F-35B, and 5.0g for the F-35C, more in line with the performance of a third generation aircraft, McDonnell Douglas F-4 or Northrop F-5 than that of a fourth or fifth generation aircraft. The acceleration performance of all three variants has also been lowered, the F-35C takes 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower level of performance than was required of a fourth generation aircraft. On August 30, 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models had several complex maneuvers to reach their maximum speed of Mach 1.6, thus consuming almost all the fuel on board51,
An Excellent and comprehensive piece on the Block 4 upgrade to the F35 Lightening, as it has been patchy to say the least, in finding any decant sources or written pieces on this. I feel that the adaptive cycle engine upgrade will go along way to dealing with the range and thermal management weaknesses of the F35, experienced at the top end of it speed envelope, particularly around Mach 1 and above. Weaknesses unfortunately inherited from its troubled early design compromises I suspect.
However, one thing that this is piece has highlighted, unless I have misheard, is the lack of a Super Cruise capability designed into the new engine, of which as far as I am aware the current F35 engine doesn’t have. For along time now, I have wondered why Super Cruise wasn’t a requirement for the F35 despite its design being optimised as an ultra low observable aircraft from the outset. Despite this, I think that with its unrivalled sensor and avionics package, a dedicated Electronic Warfare version could fulfil a much required niche mission set, that if developed, F35 would excel at, essentially combining the EW and SEAD/DEAD capabilities of the EA-18G Growler with ultra low observable airframe of the F35. I would be interested to know if anyone has any thoughts on this?
Yeah the F-35 can't supercruise in the traditional sense, however once it reaches the speed with afterburners it can throttle back and cruise at supersonic speeds. If the reports are true for this engine I imagine 20% thrust increase should enable it to push through to supersonic without afterburner.
The dedicated EW F-35 idea would be good especially when all those external stores would pull the EA-18G's speed right down
Great report! 💛🙏🏽
Glad you enjoyed it!
I just drove 600 miles round trip to see an F35 Demo team fly one of these..... wow.😀 I want one !
It really is amazing when you see it in person - thanks for commenting!
They’re above my house practicing for the Air Show this weekend
YOU ARE SO LUCKY ! ... An F35 did a solo pass in front of the crowd at our show and they said it was in that 700 mph range at about 500' AGL... the sound followed WAY behind..🤗
Oshkosh in a few days.... RENO soon !
@@robertlafnear9115 EAA is 45 min from my house, I’m going for a day on my up to the family cabin in Vilas County. As I’m typing this I can hear that PW135. I’m heading down to the local beach on Lake Michigan now to watch, it’s always empty and that cold water on a day like today will be great.
There is no greater earthly privilege than to live close to OSHKOSH, Wisconsin.....you are so lucky ( in the summer lol).... I have front row seats to Reno Sec I .. still a 6 hr. drive ...but well worth it !🤗 made it to OSH. in 2018 sure hope I can do it again soon.
Great news from the USA AND to the world 👍👍👍😁
Though it had a rocky start, I have been an F-35 fan since its inception🤩
A lift fan, perhaps?
Its exciting to think of the F35 with more power. The one area it isn't quite at the level of some 4-4.5 gen competitors is thrust-to-weight. With that improvement it has no weaknesses.
The idea of an adaptive engine goes back to the ATF program: GE YF-120 engine. It was much more powerful than the PW engine, but much more complex.
Good memory! I was going to post a comment along these lines too. The variable bypass engine was probably seen as a greater risk at the time, but now they want to use it after all. I imagine that the YF-23 with the YF-120 engine would have been the best combination ever, had they chosen it. Instead they dialed it back a couple of notches with the YF-22 and the P&W YF-119 engine.
@@SanjaySingh-oh7hv I own Paul Metz's book on the YF-23. The top super-cruise speed of the 23 with the GE engine remains classified. That should tell us something about their engine.
@@thefrustratedtheologian6238 - There have been attempts on discussion boards to estimate the top speed of the YF-23 taking into account other factors such as erosion of the radar absorbent materials on the skin of the plane, which would limit the speed even if the engines were capable of more. If they are smart, they will "back-port" the GE variable cycle engine to the F-22 eventually.
@@SanjaySingh-oh7hv It took me a moment to find the quote (page 59): "The PW powered YF-23A achieved a standard day supercruise speed of 1.43 while the GE powered YF-23 achieved a higher top speed which remains classified but was shown publicly as 'Very Fast.' It was indeed."
That charged plasma hologram is crazy!
I have been waiting for this topic for a while now....Thanks for doing this....And BTW...do you know what is going to replace the C 17 fleet?.....since it's production line has stopped?
Thanks for commenting and glad you liked the video, not sure about the replacement for the C-17s I will see what I can find out.
@@PilotPhotog Thanks so much🤩🤩🤩....Big fan...
@@dreamhunter2973 thank you! More content on the way
Thanks....Will be eagerly waiting for more......
If the engineers can figure out a way to stuff the new adaptive cycle engine into the "B" model the marines could go from a STOVL to a VTOL. That would be another super kick-butt achievement. Too cool !
20% more thrust?
That's a massive benefit.
I wonder if the intake will need to be enlarged to take full advantage of the new engine.
The rear fuselage is the real issue.
Good to see this new information. I was a bit disappointed to see pictures worked into this video with both a vertical tail and back seat, meaning clearly not a F-35.
now this is the stuff
Excellent content, keep up the good work!
This is very promising news for the f35, which is proving all the criticism directed at it to be premature. One of the big criticisms of the airframe was its lackluster dogfighting skills, but this new engine's characteristics may very well make the f35 much more lethal in the merge. The f35 embodies such an enormous tactical paradigm shift that it was going to take much more time than older 4th gen platforms to fully come into its own. It's turning out to be one of the most formidable weapons systems ever built. Can you imagine the possibility of the NGAD having two of these new engine's? It'd be a beast!
Except some dubious claims from Israel, the F-35 has not any air combat victories in a real world environment. Ask yourself, if it's so good why wasn't it deployed to help the Ukrainians (the answer is that in the real world it's not that good)
@@yonghominale8884 That's a ridiculous assertion. No NATO aircraft are going into Ukraine to engage with the Russians. If I remember correctly, Israel has struck ground targets in Syria. The kill rate of the f35 in Red-Flag training exercises is off the charts. I imagine not a few were BVR air kills. It's more of an attack aircraft than a dogfighter, though it's sensor fusion makes it deadly air to air beyond visual range. In the merge it may have issues, but it can avoid that scenario without much trouble. That's one of the benefits of stealth; first look, first shoot, first kill. My point is this new engine may make it able to hold it's own in a dogfight.
And almost everybody that flies it has disagreed with your last statement.
@@alexcraig8543 "That's a ridiculous assertion. No NATO aircraft are going into Ukraine to engage with the Russians". The F-35 has been sold as the ultimate fighter, why can't it establish a no fly zone UNLESS IT CAN'T. If it really has a 20 to 1 kill ratio (which is BS since it can only carry like 6 missiles and will be chewed up if it uses it's gun) an entire wing could destroy the entire Russian Air force in a week.
@@yonghominale8884 🤦 It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the f35. The fact of the matter is NATO is unwilling to risk WW3 by escalating the conflict in Ukraine and engaging directly with Russia. That could have catastrophic consequences for the whole world.
Hello? It's kill rate wasn't from just one aircraft on a single sortie!
It's pointless to continue this debate with you. Good day.
No update on the remaining F-35 15K+ bugs remain in 2019! Talk of getting digital helmet to that cost $250+K each in 2017! They were talking about switching all the analog gauges into digital and having a modern 3” X 5” LED 480i screen resolution in the new cockpit controller controls back in 2018ish.
If, for whatever reason, one of the US or US Allied partner states' F-35 Lightning were to be in the unfortunate position of having to perform a crash landing or be forced to land (mechanical difficulties or maybe lack of fuel, etc.) in a country that is unfriendly are there any safeguards to destroy sensitive hardware on board or systems software? I realize you probably can't press a self-destruct button to vaporize the aircraft but was wondering about any safeguards to mitigate the danger of these countries discovering 5th generation technologies that make it so advanced.
That's a really good question...I would love to find out myself..
Uh you realize they have ejector seats for a reason? You don't crash land a fighter jet lol
Quite possibly your best video yet!!! And that’s saying a lot👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
This platform should have always had 2 engines for Navy/Marine services. I used to be an F-14 A/B Aviation Electronics Tech(AT). Watched an E-2C & a Tomcat land on a carrier with 1 engine😳 Fouled engine during take off/landing in a F-35😱 Just saying🤔
Didn't the Carrier aircraft A4 Skyhawk, the A7 Corsair, and the F8 Crusader all have single engines, and served for decades?
I think it's supposed to replace the F16, which has done just fine with 1 engine. That being said, I'm a 2 engine person myself.
@@stargazer2504 give it 3 Engine
We had an 18 fod out mid cat shot (constellation, late 90s), and dude brought it back around for a hands on landing. If that happened with a single engine plane, he would have dove like a lead sled right in front of the ship.
@@stargazer2504 F16 unsurprisingly has more than double the "total loss" accident rate of Twin-engine aircraft like the F15& F18
I have always preferred alternative dual F414 F-35 variant and F-35B as separate airframe.
But one high diameter engine gives better opportunities to create 3 flow engine - unexpected advantage.
From “Fat Amy” to “Fast Amy”
The decoy projector reminds me a lot of the Nulka decoy used on US and Australian warships.
Now put two of these engines in the F-15EX with 3d nozzles, it would be amazing to see the Eagle with around 90,000 lbs of vectored thrust.
fully loaded F-15EX at those speeds would be a killing machine.
it would be seen before it saw the enemy though
@@JB-kk4pv true but the F-15EX is suppose to be the weapons truck for the fifth gen fighters. f-35 detects the SAMS while f-22 takes out enemy aircrafts. from there the F-15EX destroys all remaining enemies with a shit ton of missiles.
@@JB-kk4pv It is not about the top speed, the Eagle would rip itself apart somewhere north of Mach 2.3 (depending on the altitude), the rear stabilators would pull apart (we had one F-15 that nearly tore the whole thing off and it was peeling back the metal from the leading edge along with other damage - it was moving and had some test engines in it). The real edge would be the ability to dump and regain speed more quickly (along with thrust vectored performance).
Like that will happen! Just measure the diameter of a F-135 compared to the F-101 or F-110 and you see why that would be impossible!
What is that cable that shoots out? I saw something this cable is released and it trials behind the jet and spoofs missiles three different ways.
+PilotPhotog *General Electric Project XA100 and United Technologies Pratt & Whitney Project XA101 were developed for U. S. Air Force Adaptive Engine Transition Program.* Target thrusts are in the 135kN class for supercruise, 200 kN class for flank power with core and fan afterburners. General Electric already has experience with variable-bypass turbofans with the YF120 and YF136, and Project XA100 adds a third variable-bypass air routing. Judging from published YF120 and XF136 specs, Project XA100 should use a three-stage fan, three-stage intermediate compressor, and three-stage final compressor, all with digital stator-pitch control; and three single-stage turbine rotors.
When it became apparent that the F35 in all its variants could be enhanced by software updates, my imagination shifted into overdrive. Every aspect of this versatile airframe will be improved. Be it as a potential stealth air dominance fighter or ground attack bomb truck. Since my son is a premier software engineer working for the US government. I'm aware of the potential for rapid development, also the steady increase in CPU GPU capability. Combined, they will improve performance, efficiency and cross platform integration. Without the need for extensive engine upgrades. Give them a new engine to work with and things suddenly develop exponentially. The F35 is going to prove itself the most versatile aircraft ever produced.
So what does the future hold for NGAD ? GE has almost 30 years of Adaptive Cycle experience. The thing you didn't mention about GE's ceramic matrix composites is the weight; less than 1/3 the weight of steel. How much more of the engine can be built with CMCs ? P&W is working on a sub-sonic inlet fan that should greatly increase engine efficiency. Rolls Royce is working on a power generation system that eliminates the PTO and embeds magnets on to the main shaft.
What do you think the future holds ?
That chrome Raptor looks like my jets in GTA Online.
Absolutely BADASS content. GE needs to hire you for their marketing. I hope this is all actually effective and put into use by the US Military. We have to stay the most superior military in the world for all the right reasons in this changing theatre of potential combat/war.
Just like all the great fighters before it, after several years of upgrades it will be a much better fighter than the Mark 1 design. A lot of history's best aircraft weren't nearly at their potential until they were on the 'D" version. Nowadays, we use the Block XX designation.
The F-16 is on about the block 70 version. When it was new, it really couldn't do much except launch and burn turning circles in the air and launch sidewinders. Now it's a potent multi-role fighter.
F-35 was multi-role from the beginning, but now it is adding more and more weapons systems and if they pursue the adaptive engine technology, it looks like that will enable even more performance and power for "Star Wars" type capabilities.
Thanks for the info!
If the GE engine works as planned, it would be a great asset to the F-35's capabilities.
One aspect that might also improve the performance of the A-version is to adopt a -C variant size wing (non folding) for extra internal fuel and improved wing loading/maneuverability characteristics while also improving fuel efficiency (due to better wing loading) or enabling more engine power to be used to use for high energy lasers, powerful jammers or radar and EOTS.
The C-model is sacrificing SOMETHING by having the bigger wings. I assume it is just stealthiness but there may be other aspects that are negatively affected by the larger wings. Why? Because if the larger wings were NOTHING BUT an "upgrade" over the A-model's smaller wings, then the A-models would've been designed with the larger C-model wings from the start. The A-models wouldn't need the folding wingtips because space on a carrier is not a concern, so they could maintain the internal cannon while also carrying more internal fuel. So, again, there has to be a reasonably significant DOWNSIDE to the larger C-model's wings or else Lockheed Martin would've just put the bigger wings on the A-model in the first place.
@@johnnytyler5685 probably G limits, iirc the F-35A has a 9G limit whereas the F-35C only has 7.5G.
The XA-100 G.E. engine has got to be implemented into the F-35 No Doubt! Forget Pratt & Whitney until they can come up with something better.. GOOD LUCK!
Great vid.
Thank you!
Well done!
Thanks!
I would just like to note that, assuming weight gain with the new engine is negligible (might not be true), a 20% increase in thrust will raise the F-35's thrust-to-weight ratio to the top of the class except for one. The F-15 is STILL king of thrust-to-weight, specifically the F-15E model. For the F-15E, afterburning thrust / dry weight = 1.830 TTWR. A 20% increase in thrust will give the F-35A a TTWR of 1.761, which is better than the following aircraft: F-15C; Eurofighter; MiG-35; F-22; Su-35; Rafale; F-18C; Su-27; F-16; MiG-29; MiG-31.
The new GE engine is THE best upgrade for the F-35 because it is currently slower than "near peers".
My 2019 MAZDA CX-5 is getting "BLOCK 2" Cork Sport upgrades -> !.) oil catch can, 2.) high flow intercooler 3.) high flow intercooler piping PLUS 4.) ScanGauge II OBD II monitor information center 5.) wider 245/50/19 Michelin Cross Climate 2 tires (all season WITH snow tire capability)
Look out AUDI A-3 SUVs!
Super cool, imagine if your plane was damaged and you were trying to reach an abort landing strip. The pilot reaches down and puts the engine into emergency range mode to make it home. Or emergency thrust mode (beyond BF override or WEP power)...Probably save a lot of pilots and planes.
Good but was hoping you would include description of the new engine layout...compressor / turbine stages / shafts / etc...and maybe more info on ceramic coatings?
Ok, you’ve convinced me; I want one. Do you have the Amazon link?
I have a f35b.But I crashed it in my garage messing around hovering it is the best remote control jet I've ever owned.Its been repaired since then I set it down to hard.
Great video. I'm assuming your channel is pretty new from the views but looks like you're going to do good man👍 keep it up
Thrust vectoring also gives you the ability to look down and hit a standing targets.
The helmet can target anything you look at. No need for extra component, weight at the price of fuel.
What about the coating? Thought it couldn’t go to fast cause it hurts it?
Get another SU 57 video ready. You're at 55.5K now... you'll hit 57 in no time!
So much for the GE design, Pratt Whitney got the contract yesterday. Hopefully their numbers were more impressive than the GE ones, but likely they were just acceptable while also being a lower production cost.
I'd be more concerned with the fact P&W has traditionally made engines with pretty shite life spans and with tons of teething issues. The F135 engine in the F35 was no exception... the TF30 of the F111 and F14 fame and the F100 of the F15 fame have all had massive issues over their lives.
There was a saying about Pratt & Whitney engines and needing Martin Baker ejection seats.
@@Whiskey11Gaming eh, beside the sand problem, F135 have been fine on reliability.
Thanks!
Pratt & Whitney introduced a hardware modification to engine blades in *spring 2020* that is being incorporated in the production line and in engines going through sustainment, the company said in a statement.
One of the largest hurdles for jet engine makers in the last decade has been the development of the Adaptive Cycle engine. There are a few good videos on TH-cam. Being able to print combustion chambers and thermal control components using a ceramic metallic alloy. The next hurdle is to be able to change airflow and convert from a turbo jet to a ram jet on the fly. A prototype called Chimera is currently undergoing testing. The last challenge is to change to scramjet operation for speeds above mach five. The NGAD is being designed to handle these extremely high velocities. The next several years are going to be a technical joy ride beyond compare.the United States already has working ramjets and scramjets. The big problem is to build one engine that will go from turbojet, to ramjet, to scramjet. Then at the destination convert back to a turbo jet for landing. Scrambler cruising between mach 5 plus and say mach ten could put any point on the globe within a few hours reach. I only wish I were about forty years younger.
have not heard of the problem with afterburner use being limited in time of use, to prevent structural damage to horizontal control structures at rear of plane. Also damage to some of the senors located at the rear of plane. Fixed yet?
Start using these ASAP
Can we get them for UK models ? how long ??
The bit about the a10 is interesting. I wonder what it's top speed would be with an adaptive engine. Seems like that would solve the complaints about it being too slow. And an updated avionics package would solve the other main concerns.
Seems like the engine the -35 should have had from the start, I guess it wasn't ready yet. Excellent!