It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-35's F-135 engine to have 43,000 lbs of thrust; its now the world's most powerful engine

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Yes, there is all that but I still feel that using a separate lift component that is just shut down in forward flight is an inherently inferior arrangement. Even the X-32 arrangement is a step backwards from that used in the Harrier. If you are not using 100% of the engine in 100% of the flight regime you are being inefficient, and that has to be inferior.

I admit that is only a theoretical position however, the F-35 system has much actual merit, but I think its supremacy is more to do with engineering difficulties and failings on the part of the competiton rather than any supremacy in the concept itself.




posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I don't know much how exactly Harrier VTOL system work, but doesn't Harrier need quite a lot of water in order to cool the engine? Such water tank can take a lot of space too.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
You make a good point by being practical again longbow
Actually I'm not sure how much space the water requirement takes up in the Harrier but if it is quite a lot then you would obviously be right. Doesn't the F-35 engine require the same sort of cooling in the vertical?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
You make a good point by being practical again longbow
Actually I'm not sure how much space the water requirement takes up in the Harrier but if it is quite a lot then you would obviously be right. Doesn't the F-35 engine require the same sort of cooling in the vertical?


Don't know it for sure, but I never heard about something like that. The only things I read said lift fan concept performs better against Pegasus and X-32 solution especially it has more power in vertical mode, but no word about water needed. I think the lift fan is also used to cool the engine with cold air, but I am not sure. Certainly it's diameter (both fan and upper inlet) and power is impressive, so it may be capable to do that.

[edit on 23-12-2005 by longbow]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
The water used (demineralised) in the Harrier was primarily to provide extra thrust in the hover and only provided cooling as a secondary measure.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
And Migs were certainly not better (if they were)


Do you watch documentories? History channel? Read Books?

Because I don't know how it's possible not to know that Migs were better than US planes during the cold war - significantly better.

As for the engines, I think you are seriously underestimating them.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
Do you watch documentories? History channel? Read Books?

Because I don't know how it's possible not to know that Migs were better than US planes during the cold war - significantly better.

As for the engines, I think you are seriously underestimating them.


Whoooaaaa there nelly!

Better? Yes, they may have had some advantages, but they were hardly "significantly better".

On the whole, they were more manueverable, but didn't have the "energy" in dogfights. As pilots like to say, "energy is life".

You mention the history Channell, but every doc on there I have seen emphatically states that US aircraft were better.

The numbers don't lie. If Russian aircraft were "significantly better" then US aircraft, we wouldn't have "significantly dominated" them in every war they were matched up against each other.

Russian aircraft were very cost effective, but their quality was well below that of US aircraft.

In any case, Russia never had the high end stuff the US had, from the B-17, to the U-2, to the SR-71, to the F-117, to the B-2. In fact, they haven't equaled the SR-71's achievements in half a century, and they still haven't put out a first gen stealth aircraft - much less a third.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   


F-136 dead

Wonder how Britian and Rolls Royce would react to that after all the drama that has alredy taken place ...

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Rolls Royce still have their share of the P&W engine to fall back on, though I think its a much smaller share than the 60-40 split cited in the link for the F136. Besides, has anybody shown any interest in using this engine at all? As far as I can tell designing a back up engine for it was a bit of an expensive luxury.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Better? Yes, they may have had some advantages, but they were hardly "significantly better".


Every doc. I watched and every book I read all say the same - the Migs were always much better.

And I don't even live in the northern hemispheere.


Originally posted by American Mad Man
On the whole, they were more manueverable,


Also faster, higher altidute, higher payload.


Originally posted by American Mad Man
You mention the history Channell, but every doc on there I have seen emphatically states that US aircraft were better.


It would wouldn't it? I assued they would tell the truth.


Originally posted by American Mad Man
The numbers don't lie. If Russian aircraft were "significantly better" then US aircraft, we wouldn't have "significantly dominated" them in every war they were matched up against each other.


Yeh did dominate, especiall in Vietnam.


Originally posted by American Mad Man
Russian aircraft were very cost effective, but their quality was well below that of US aircraft.


How was their quality below the US aircraft when they were better?
They could also take off and land off rugged surfaces, whereas US fighters couldn't (and still can't I believe?)


Originally posted by American Mad Man
In any case, Russia never had the high end stuff the US had, from the B-17, to the U-2, to the SR-71, to the F-117, to the B-2.


Those planes were engineered from Nazi technology.
The reason US can even compete today is because they stole over a hundred nazi scientists and everything they could get their hands on.


Originally posted by American Mad Man
In fact, they haven't equaled the SR-71's achievements in half a century


Foxbat.


Originally posted by American Mad Man
, and they still haven't put out a first gen stealth aircraft - much less a third.


Plasma Stealth - they invented it first, before anyone else.

And even right now - MIG 35. best plane.
Why? It's the only plane with 3d thrust vectoring and multi axis nozzles. Much more manueverable than anything else.

The the standard high altitude, high speed, high weight max.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Yeah, that foxbot sure showed those SR-71s what was up. Must have looked like specs of dust going in reverse to SR-71 pilots whenever they tried to intercept them.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Manincloak...
If you would actually read your own links then you would see the Yakovlev designs were purchased for evaluating the swivel exhaust and control nozzle technology, not the engine itself. So, apart from that probably noone on this board knows to what part exactly these plans influenced the Pratt and Whitney design, your claim that the "F-35 runs on a russian engine" is factually incorrect.

This would only be the case if they directly took the Yak design, maybe modernized and modified it to american engineering standards.



"The MiGs were always much better"


Also not correct. Infact this is claim that can very rarely be made, be it US or russian planes - because many of them were not designed to similiar design goals. And while specific russian designs undeniably excelled in certain areas, the technological fallback of Russia vs. the USA became more and more evident in the latter stages of the Cold War after the Russians had slight advantages in the very first years of the bloc struggle.



"Also faster, higher altidute, higher payload. "


And at the same time less reliable, less range, less accurate. Generalizing is fun, isnt it?



"They could also take off and land off rugged surfaces, whereas US fighters couldn't (and still can't I believe?) "


...which is of dubious relevance if you have a tightly knitted airfield inventory. Also a more rigid landing gear implies a weight- and subsequently performance penalty.




"Those planes were engineered from Nazi technology.
The reason US can even compete today is because they stole over a hundred nazi scientists and everything they could get their hands on."



Thats an absolutely pointless statement. Are you implying that the Russians didnt use salvaged knowledge? For example the russian ballistic missile program also started with a copy of the V-2, and similarly they captured hundreds of german scientists. But unlike the americans who offered good payments for their services, the Russians initially FORCED these scientists to work. So who exactly "stole" foreign human capital here? And unlike the western allies the Russians plundered virtually all valuable industrial assets in the east German regions, and even today operate certain machinery from that time.

And though of course the german knowledge initially had a great influence on both the Russian and US developments, the aircraft American Mad Man cited are indigenous designs and apart from the B2 had no real counterpart in the german "Wunderwaffen" designs.




Originally posted by American Mad Man
In fact, they haven't equaled the SR-71's achievements in half a century


Foxbat.


The Foxbat is a tremendous aircraft in itself, but not in any way a counterpart to the SR-71.


Originally posted by Manincloak

Originally posted by American Mad Man
, and they still haven't put out a first gen stealth aircraft - much less a third.


Plasma Stealth - they invented it first, before anyone else.

And even right now - MIG 35. best plane.
Why? It's the only plane with 3d thrust vectoring and multi axis nozzles. Much more manueverable than anything else. ...


And can you please point out the operational aircraft that uses this Plasma stealth? All these fancy concepts are nice and well, but until the Russians put them into use they are not more than hot air.

Also the MiG-35 is a non-operational scrapped aircraft, and all that is known about its capabilities are assumptions, simulations and claims by its developers. So it still is true: the Russians have not fielded a single stealthy aircraft as of now - and that more than 40 years since the SR-71 and over 20 years since the F-117 were born.

So basically the difference between the advanced concepts the Russians and Americans thought of is: the Russians managed to develop prototypes and technology demonstrators; the Americans managed to get those operational - which is the only valid argument concerning the effectivity and quality of the respective national industries.

[edit on 1/1/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I've been away for a while, but I thought I'd mention some items here.

1. Russian (Soviet) designs are good, even excellent. Where they lack in abilities, is with technologies in metallurgy and manufacturing processes. The result is good/excellent designs that are larger, and heavier, than their Western equivilents.

2. Engine Designs. The Western Allies got most of the propulsion scientists from Germany after WW2. The result was having the Russians(Soviets) fall behind in aircraft engine designs. Oddly enough, the United States sent engine design engineers to the Soviet Union in the 1950's, to help improve their aircraft engine designs. The Soviets purchased engines from Great Britain. My thoughts, were that the West was leveling the playing field with the East. Basically it's not good to have a big technology gap in a Cold War atmosphere.

3. F-22's ground attack capability. there's been a lot of buzz lately about F-22 ground attack. I won't say a whole lot about it here. I have read that F-16 pilots are being vetted for F-22 squadrons now, for their ground attack experience. I doubt that it's the ordinary "ground attack" of the past, we have F-16's for that.

4. F-35 is still an unknown to me. qualifying flights and pilot reports make or break a design. I hope it turns out to be a great aircraft.

5. Recently in the news: F-22 pilots in air-to-air training report that a single F-22 can take on six F-15s without hardly trying. that's amazing.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Regarding the F-22 attack capability and the F-16. You might find this interesting;


Flight International - 20 Dec 2005

The US Air Force is celebrating the F-22 Raptors service entry, but US troops on the ground in Iraq are unlikely to feel as joyous

Theres something discomfiting about spending tens of billions of dollars more on a weapon that virtually everyone realises is useless in the ongoing war against faceless insurgents and terrorists. [snip]

USAF Chief of Staff Gen Michael Mosely agrees "In the role that we're in now with F-15E's carrying 2,000 pounders and F-16's carrying 500 and 2000 pounders, does the F-22 bring us something significantly different to this fight this afternoon? The answer is no."

[snip]

Calling it the F/A-22 for three years might have been a shrewd marketing gimmick by the air force brass but it cannot overcome the reality that the Raptors being delivered today are not optimised for ground attack missions............the first multi role capability will not arrive until at least the end of this decade.



So those older types will have to carry on for a while yet it seems.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Due to the success of the F-135 engine, the F-136 engine that was also being developed for the F-35 has been cancelled. (Dec. 30, 2005)

Edit: Nevermind - I see that Stealth Spy beat me to it!

[edit on 1-1-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Here's something for you F-35 followers...

I have not found a source on the internet yet, but I understand from personal sources that the first F-35 is nearing completion with the exception of engine installation.
They say it's running way ahead of schedule which if true is rather bizarre for a DOD project.


[edit on 1-3-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Great! I'm really looking forward to see how the rel F-35 looks. I wonder if the changes from the X-35 will be as drastic as those between the YF-22 and F-22 proper? Maybe even more so?



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
well waynos how good are u wtih your imagination? They have posted a new pic on the JSF website with the plane mostly together(to provide proof for intelgurls post as well
. heres the link. www.lockheedmartin.com...
personally im going to go find a pic of the test model and see if i can notice any major difference.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by Canada_EH]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Thanks, I haven't spotted any changes yet but it is difficult with it in that condition. Maybe when it rolls out we'll see some?



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
changes the only thing that i can maybe see is the shape of the Eleavons
(new)
www.jsf.mil...
(old)
www.wpeu.net...

looks like the width has been cut back
ofcourse with so many types i need to double check what type this actually is.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by Canada_EH]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join