XA-100 engine

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I ran across an article about the new GE XA-100 engine being developed for the F-35. If I understand correctly, it's a pretty radical new design, it sounds like it should have the ability to do three useful things:

1) Cruise at much lower power, analogous to a GE TF 34, thus potentially greatly extending the operational range
2) Add potentially 10% more thrust
3) Improve cooling allowing for the greatly increased generation of electric power, which it is stated may be used in directed energy weapons in the future.

I'm not sure how all this works, especially #3. But it sounds like some potentially good news for the (to me) rather worrisome F-35 program.

I'm just wondering how real is this, and how likely are they to actually pull it off? Given the way geopolitics have been shifting lately, we may need an improved fighter sooner rather than later. The Wiki says that this engine will begin deployment 'not sooner than 2027' which isn't very promising to me. Any idea if this thing actually works?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Worrisome? What do you think is so worrisome on the F-35 compared to any other fighter that was developed during the past 50 years (as over 800 and counting have been built)?

I think this engine was first run in a test cell a few years ago and there was talk about applications into the F-16 as well.

Improvements are always welcomed on military aircraft but at what cost?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

we may need an improved fighter sooner rather than later.

What is needed is an eventual replacement for the F-22 that can be sustained and has growth potential. The F-15EX will be a great stopgap and asset for several more years. Lastly we need a CUAV that can be integrated into a "wingman" operation with all operational fighter/ strike aircraft being used by all branches of the military.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think the F-35 is trying to be too many things at once, they have clearly had some issues with it (no big secret) and isn't probably ideal for the air superiority role. I'm in particular concerned about Chinese aircraft like the J-20. Along the lines of (flying / operational) range, and striking range in particular. The F22 is more suited for the air superiority role but apparently there are serious computer and software problems with F22 which can't be resolved (at least, from what I read) which is basically why the program had a short production life and not too many are flying.

Where F-35 is potentially going to be prove to be exceptional is when the integration with un-manned / drone aircraft is working and fully functional. For all I know it already is and just not being publicized yet.

The XA-100, if it's really going to work as advertised, would confer extra range which would be extremely helpful, more thrust which I think F-35 could definitely use, and the extra electrical power could obviously come in handy for all the 'extra' things that F-35 is supposed to be capable of (which is supposed to be one of the key features of the design).

I see F-35 as having a fairly rough rollout, as we have seen with many other aircraft over the years, some of which ended up being great assets, often after a few tweaks. A new engine could be a major boost to the program I think. And as it looks like we may be heading into conflict over Taiwan in the not too distant future, and are already in a very fraught proxy war with Russia in Ukraine and elsewhere, not to mention other conflicts brewing (NK, Israel / Iran) I'd really like to see the US holding a significant Tactical advantage. It might even help prevent war.

The F-35 reminds me a bit of the SB2C. Initially, it was very disliked by crews and commanders, and had a ton of problems, partly related to the Navy wanting to cram a lot of capabilities into an aircraft that had to fit in a small WW2 aircraft elevator, partly due to problems that the manufacturer was having. The result was a plane that was too heavy, too short, and had a lot of stability and handling problems. They made a lot of changes, one of the most important of which was putting in a more powerful engine, the R-2600-20, with a new four bladed propeller. This gave it additional power which made the aircraft into a much more reliable strike asset, and allowed the planes other good traits (internal bomb bay, heavy armor and armament, relatively high speed) to prove telling. In the end it was effective for the US Navy and sunk a lot of Japanese ships.

I think we had some teething issues with some ultimately far greater aircraft as well, like the F4 phantom. I'm hoping the F-35 will follow a similar trajectory.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

What is needed is an eventual replacement for the F-22 that can be sustained and has growth potential. The F-15EX will be a great stopgap and asset for several more years. Lastly we need a CUAV that can be integrated into a "wingman" operation with all operational fighter/ strike aircraft being used by all branches of the military.

I agree but that seems to be a long way a way, right? In the meantime, if it's possible to enhance the capability of the F-35, I'm all for it.

Aside from the engine, we can help maintain an advantage by improving sensors (esp. radar) and missiles. But added range / flight endurance would be very helpful too IMO.

 

[GTX]

I think the F-35 is trying to be too many things at once, they have clearly had some issues with it (no big secret) and isn't probably ideal for the air superiority role.

And yet its operators are happy with it. Don't believe too much the garbage often posted in the media re the F-35. Instead, possibly read/listen to what the pilots themselves are saying:

DA #8: F-35 Test Pilot Billie Flynn Destroys Myths about the Joint Strike Fighter Program - Defence Aviation

You can stream using the player above or download the mp3 to your computer or handheld devices. Right-click here to download the MP3.

www.defenceaviation.com

USAF F-16 Pilot explains why he would Rather Fly the F-35 in combat than the F-22 (even in a War against Russia or China) - The Aviation Geek Club

USAF F-16 Pilot explains why he would Rather Fly the F-35 in combat than the F-22 (even in a War against Russia or China)

theaviationgeekclub.com

F-35: Capabilities, Missions, Kinematics, Role In Ukrainian Crisis And Beyond. Interview With Billie Flynn

"The F-35 was designed to operate in highly contested airspace, with capabilities precisely focused on what we have been seeing in Ukraine today." We have

theaviationist.com

more thrust which I think F-35 could definitely use

The aircraft already has the most powerful military fighter engine producing up to 43,000 lbf and meets the design specification. Even if the GE XA-100 enters service, the F135 will be developed to match.

I'd really like to see the US holding a significant Tactical advantage.

It already does.

The F-35 reminds me a bit of the SB2C. Initially, it was very disliked by crews and commanders, and had a ton of problems,

Got any facts to back up such comments??

I think we had some teething issues with some ultimately far greater aircraft as well, like the F4 phantom. I'm hoping the F-35 will follow a similar trajectory.

Well in on part you are possibly correct - I predict we will eventually see 5000 odd F-35s produced.

 

[SaparotRob]

Those F-35s will be a force multiplier. The 4th gen fighters that have superior aeronautical capabilities will be let loose with the F-35 as quarterback.
I make no claim to knowledge of all things aviation but I've been convinced. It ain't the Red Baron anymore. It's Skynet.

 

[GTX]

Aside from the engine, we can help maintain an advantage by improving sensors (esp. radar) and missiles. But added range / flight endurance would be very helpful too IMO.

It already sets the standard in terms of sensors and related. It already has a combat radius equivalent to or better than contemporaries:

F-35A​	F/A-18E/F​	F-22​	F-16C Blk 50/52​	Typhoon​	Rafale​	F-15E​	Gripen E/F​
1,239 km​	722 km​	850 km​	546 km​	1,389 km​	1,850 km​	722 km​	1,500 km​

Note that most of the contemporaries can either only get such ranges in clean condition or if they are armed, the external carriage severely reduces actual performance vs the F-35 by virtue of its internal carriage is in the same full capability condition. That said, with A2A refuelling such numbers are meaningless and pilot endurance becomes the more important measure.

 

[GTX]

Those F-35s will be a force multiplier. The 4th gen fighters that have superior aeronautical capabilities will be let loose with the F-35 as quarterback.
I make no claim to knowledge of all things aviation but I've been convinced. It ain't the Red Baron anymore. It's Skynet.

Indeed. Here's one measure: remember the Radar tracking of Iraqi vehicles by E-8 JSTARS back in 1991:

That took a 707 derived platform:

With a crew of 4 plus up to 18 specialists managing the radar and analysing/reporting the information.

Today, every single F-35 can do better and with just 1 pilot!

 

[SaparotRob]

I had no idea that the F-15 and F-16 are so short legged compared to their contemporaries.

 

[GTX]

I had no idea that the F-15 and F-16 are so short legged compared to their contemporaries.

It may come down to how things are measured and who includes what on the aircraft/in the measurements. It's not like there is an international standard applied. I was only trying to show that the F-35 isn't bad when compared. But again, I will emphasise that:

1. In the era of aerial refuelling the measure is increasingly irrelevant
2. The F-35 meets its design requirements.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

And yet its operators are happy with it. Don't believe too much the garbage often posted in the media re the F-35. Instead, possibly read/listen to what the pilots themselves are saying:

DA #8: F-35 Test Pilot Billie Flynn Destroys Myths about the Joint Strike Fighter Program - Defence Aviation

You can stream using the player above or download the mp3 to your computer or handheld devices. Right-click here to download the MP3.

www.defenceaviation.com

USAF F-16 Pilot explains why he would Rather Fly the F-35 in combat than the F-22 (even in a War against Russia or China) - The Aviation Geek Club

USAF F-16 Pilot explains why he would Rather Fly the F-35 in combat than the F-22 (even in a War against Russia or China)

theaviationgeekclub.com

F-35: Capabilities, Missions, Kinematics, Role In Ukrainian Crisis And Beyond. Interview With Billie Flynn

"The F-35 was designed to operate in highly contested airspace, with capabilities precisely focused on what we have been seeing in Ukraine today." We have

theaviationist.com

What makes you assume I haven't?

The aircraft already has the most powerful military fighter engine producing up to 43,000 lbf and meets the design specification. Even if the GE XA-100 enters service, the F135 will be developed to match.

The F-35 has one engine which means thrust is less than a lot of 4th gen fighters, and it's very heavy.

It already does.

I'm not certain about that and I doubt you are either.

Got any facts to back up such comments??

About the SB2C?

Well in on part you are possibly correct - I predict we will eventually see 5000 odd F-35s produced.

I hope you are right.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Those F-35s will be a force multiplier. The 4th gen fighters that have superior aeronautical capabilities will be let loose with the F-35 as quarterback.
I make no claim to knowledge of all things aviation but I've been convinced. It ain't the Red Baron anymore. It's Skynet.

There is still the issue of weapon and sensor range, and the claims that 'dogfighting' and equivalent are over have been made before.

But I'm more concerned about the former rather than the latter.

 

[GTX]

The F-35 has one engine which means thrust is less than a lot of 4th gen fighters, and it's very heavy.

Remember that 2 engines mean much more weight - both in engines and structure + fuel consumption.

About the SB2C?

No, the F-35.

 

[SaparotRob]

I believe there are a few capable dogfighters in NATO's hands right now and for the foreseeable future. They will have F-35s around too.

 

[GTX]

There is still the issue of weapon and sensor range, and the claims that 'dogfighting' and equivalent are over have been made before.

Dogfighting the way Hollywood and equivalent like to emphasise has rarely been a key to successful aerial warfare even going back to WW1. If you look at the histories of most of the successful pilots/aces, more often than not their opponents rarely even knew what hit them. The analogy I have used before is that aerial combat isn't so much to chivalrous knights dueling but more of someone walking up behind someone and hitting them from behind with a bottle. It ain't chivalrous!

 

[SaparotRob]

Depends on the label on the bottle.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It may come down to how things are measured and who includes what on the aircraft/in the measurements. It's not like there is an international standard applied. I was only trying to show that the F-35 isn't bad when compared. But again, I will emphasise that:

1. In the era of aerial refuelling the measure is increasingly irrelevant
2. The F-35 meets its design requirements.

That isn't actually true. Most 3rd -4th Gen fighters have extremely short legs, especially if they engage in combat. An afterburner is basically like a fire-hose of fuel directed into the exhaust stream. It's very hard to carry enough to use one for very long. That is why the innovation of this engine is very interesting, as well as other innovations like the 'supercruise' of the F-22 (though that isn't exactly fuel efficient).

Air to air refueling helps, but it definitely doesn't make the fuel capacity of fighter planes 'irrelevant' by any stretch. Tanker planes are vulnerable, so are fighters while refueling. Refueling takes time. yada yada.

F-35 had some well deserved bad press, some of which probably went a little too far. As a result, now there is a ferocious backlash to the backlash, to where you aren't allowed to acknowledge any problems or issues with the jet. I am not of the school that "problems we ignore aren't really problems"' or that "patriots don't see problems with anything we do / use / buy".

But I'm not here to start yet another argument about whether the F-35 is good or not. It is what it is. I am eager to see it improved. Even if it really was as good as say, the corporate sales brochure says it is, we have to keep improving it so that we can keep abreast of our potential rivals because they are constantly improving their kit.

This thread isn't about bashing the F-35, it's about learning about the A-100, how close is it to the projected capabilities, how soon will it be available, etc.

 

[SaparotRob]

I think the F-22 can be used for dogfighting though I might be wrong.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Dogfighting the way Hollywood and equivalent like to emphasise has rarely been a key to successful aerial warfare even going back to WW1. If you look at the histories of most of the successful pilots/aces, more often than not their opponents rarely even knew what hit them. The analogy I have used before is that aerial combat isn't so much to chivalrous knights dueling but more of someone walking up behind someone and hitting them from behind with a bottle. It ain't chivalrous!

That derives from a quote by Eric Hartmann and while there is some truth in it, it has been exaggerated. Maneuverability, performance, climb and dive, roll, all mattered a great deal to WW2 fighter pilots and did decide the outcomes of many engagements. They took the guns out of the fighters in the 50s and damn sure had to put them back in during Vietnam, and they created the Top Gun school for a reason.