Air Force pushing ahead with adaptive engine technology

It's a little on the amusing side to read this article, but the Air Force is pushing ahead with the AETP program, to create a sixth generation fighter engine, based on tech improvements from the AETD program. The goal is to produce a 45,000 lb thrust class fighter engine suitable for further development and installation. The final RFP for the AETP program will be in December 2014, or early in 2015.

AETP is a direct follow on to the ADVENT program, in which both GE and Rolls Royce met the 25% efficiency improvement mark. GE currently has a full ADVENT engine ready to go, for a "bomber application" (the amusing part). The LRS-B contract is expected to be awarded in Spring of 2015.

If the 2016 sequestration cuts go through then the AETP engine will almost certainly be cut, under the $600B in cuts the Air Force will have to make.

Who wants to bet that they manage to pass something prior to then?

The US Air Force is moving ahead with plans to develop a sixth-generation fighter jet engine based on technological improvements achieved through an ongoing effort to produce a power plant for a future long-range bomber.

In a request for information released 19 August, the air force said it plans to release a final request for proposals for the adaptive engine transfer programme (AETP) in the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, “notionally December 2014.”

AETP is aimed at finding mature engine technologies that will feed into an engineering and manufacturing development program, according to Pentagon documents. The eventual goal is to design, build and test a 45,000lb-thrust-class fighter engine “suitable for further development and ultimate installation into combat aircraft.”

www.flightglobal.com...

Is this the way the ass is legally covered when an already developed technology is unveiled? Or maybe they are shooting for a R&D bonus, maybe get paid twice for doing the job once?

That "un-named flight test application" also peaked my interest.

My inturpitation is: We need more money for technology that's already obsolete based off what we have in skunk works and use but you public folk are on a need to know basis. But we still need the cash.

a reply to: StratosFear

When LRS-B rolls out with a fully developed ADVENT engine on board, they can say that development went faster than expected, and the technology matured much sooner than they hoped.

We've been 13 years now in the 21st century...

We want anti gravity NOW, stop hidding it from us...
We also want cars that don't run on gas and clean energy.

We know you have it, stop wasting the people's money

a reply to: Zaphod58

Isn't this based on the "bought" German development, that was put on ice and under locker. I'm assuming it's the engine, that can adapt itself to higher altitudes.

a reply to: bjarneorn

No, it's a third air stream engine. The third stream can be used as a bypass for increased efficiency, or into the engine for more thrust. The AETP well incorporate that, as well as the use of much more ceramic material to make it lighter and even more efficient.

It doesn't adapt to high altitudes, it adapts to the needs of whatever phase of flight it's in, be it range or speed.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

Who wants to bet that they manage to pass something prior to then?

I don't think I want to take that bet.

The future in aviation is UAV. On the ground soldiers will be able to launch mini-air strikes on their own without carrier support. They should put their money into long dwell craft that can bounce signals and gather intelligence.

My opinion, anyway. Right now the AF is looking to keep current funding and current methods to support an aging command infrastructure. They don't need all that rank, just some guys sitting at terminals.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Studies have identified increases of about 30% in range capability and 70% in loiter duration for a subsonic strike aircraft and 40% in range and 80% in loiter for a supersonic platform, according AFRL.

It will allow aircraft to go farther on a tank full of fuel and stay on target longer if needed. It should save the tax payer a pretty penny in fuel in the long run. Eventually when this tech drifts over to the civilian market it will mean lower ticket prices as jet liners get more fuel efficient.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: Maverick7

The problem as it stands now is that UAVs can't do everything. They're several years away from air to air combat with them, and farther from true autonomy.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Maverick7

The problem as it stands now is that UAVs can't do everything. They're several years away from air to air combat with them, and farther from true autonomy.

Yes, Air combat in the style of dog fighting or even stand back and shoot down from 12 miles. The way you do it is by 'swarm' battle. You launch a very large number of cheap UAVs for specific battle params, timed to self-destruct post-battle (among other methods).

a reply to: Maverick7

Except that they can't even do THAT right now. They are completely incapable of any kind of air to air combat at this point in time. Even targeting something and blowing themselves up.

Why not just go straight to the 5th Dimension power, and just release the triangles?
Why all this toying with ancient technology like huge rockets, jet engines and bad handling aircraft.

Well it is cheap tried tech I suppose.

DARPA and the Navy Space Command must be laughing their heads off.

a reply to: gort51


We need a Curtis Lemay back so bad it aint even funny. Whatever exists out there would have a big USAF on the side and it would be out in the open. One would be doing it's rotational orbit and the other on 24 hour alert with crew next door. None of this winky winky I gotta toy maybe, maybe not, bs. It would be since I have the means to win ww3 today I have decided that is what we are going to do.

It can say that the LRS-B will have ADVENT engine ?

a reply to: Zaphod58I had the thought maybe the ADVENT engine is too large for the airframe designers and engineers are planning on using. So from what was learned and developed from the ADVENT will go into a smaller, more powerful and more economical power plant.

Is that 45,000lb thrust estimate without an afterburner? Mach 2 supercruise?

a reply to: StratosFear

That will be wet thrust (afterburner), dry will still be upwards of 35,000 probably.

ADVENT as it stands now is to just a tiny bit too big for a fighter class airframe, but a bomber has extra room in the engine bay.

Seems like just a couple of weeks ago you were saying the specs for range and thrust of that engine were "drawing board" numbers..now it's fully developed...LMAO.

Too big for an F-35?...

a reply to: nwtrucker

It's about six inches too big as it stands right now. Fits a bomber perfectly, but gotta shave a few parts and pieces. Easy fix.