It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 12:26 PM
Here's something interesting.
I hear that Tony Blair has sent Pres. Bush a letter protesting the cancellation of the F-136 engine - Rolls Royce (UK) was apparently one of the main contractors and the British don't want to lose that revenue.

No link - will post when I find it.

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by intelgurl
Here's something interesting.
I hear that Tony Blair has sent Pres. Bush a letter protesting the cancellation of the F-136 engine - Rolls Royce (UK) was apparently one of the main contractors and the British don't want to lose that revenue.

Dear Intelgurl, you should visit my website more often

Blair bids to save Rolls-Royce contract

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
Dear Intelgurl, you should visit my website more often

Blair bids to save Rolls-Royce contract

as much as I try to point others to your website, it's amazing that I myself forgot to check it out...

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:13 PM
While I like the idea of competiton, IS Blair willing to foot the cost of building the second source engine? The budget is already being stretched and with the F-135 well along, I actually have to agree with the pentagon's request on this one. However, if the congressmen that are beholden to GE put up a stink it may get put back on the budget list.

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:46 AM
I think there is a good chance Rolls will be able to build the F136 engine after all, thanks to Blair. Remember the Brits are already very pissed off because the US keeps most of the technological know-how for themselves. (source).

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:50 AM
heres another one

if they cancel - will the brits pull out? they want the engine for the `B`and AFAIK have never had an american engine in any of there aircraft.

[edit on 5/1/06 by Harlequin]

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:07 AM
If they cancel, I dont think they'll pull out. The British carrier version of the JSF is already behind schedule.
The people of the Eurofighter program already told the UK government that the Typhoon could replace the air force version of the JSF.
Modifying the Eurofighter for carrier landings will be quite a challange, and will require the Navy to use the Harriers a couple of years more, which wont be cheap.

If the UK pulls out, what do you think the Dutch and Norwegians would do?

- Norway Goes Wobbly on JSF
- Dutch look to downsize JSF order
- Dutch blow to Joint Strike Fighter project

And dont forget the recent news from down under:

- Australian Defence Minister Hill denies fighter fleet cut (Jan 4th, 2006)

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zion Mainframe]

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:55 AM
It seems from some of these posts that the F136 is seen as being the engine for the UK STOVL version. I don't think thats the case is it? The way I understood it the F136 is only an alternative source engine. If I have it right then, patriotic considerations aside (sorry Rolls) I cannot see the sense in having a 'spare' engine programme gobbling up funds when the F135 works perfectly well.

I think that it is true that most of the prospective F-35 customer nations are having second thoughts about it, if only privately, due to the cost and complexity issues surrounding the aircraft. To be fair to the JSF team, this sould not really have come as a surprise as such issues are part and parcel of any modern combat aircraft. There is a large degree of irony therefore in Norways decision to consider the Typhoon as an alternative!

The strange thing about Norway is that they have already become industrial partners in the Typhoon without actually ordering it yet. I cannot imagine Norway buying BOTH types, nor can I imagine Eurofighter giving away workshares for nothing, and yet equally I cannot see a Norwegian pullout of the JSF going down well in the US. This is a situation that really intrigues me and I cannot tell which way it is going to go.

I think the Danish buy of Gripens is extremely significant here. Denmark signed up to the JSF programme in 2002. The Danes also have a very small defence budget by any standards and their participation in JSF was a surprise in the first place. No they have agreed to buy the Gripen but have said nothing about their JSF intentions. Does anybody see Denmark buying TWO new types of fighter in this decade? I don't.

The Danes it seems followed the rest of the 'F-16 club' by leaping into the JSF programme. Maybe after lurching from the F-104 (a bad buy all round) straight into the F-16 en masse 25 years ago made this decision seem logical?

Despite its being around for a a long time it seems that only now is the Gripen being recognized as the truly cost effective F-16 replacement it really is, as well as its suitability to small European defence budgets. The Danes may well turn out to be only the first European F-16 operator to go Gripen.

This may also have a little to do with the hassle that buying American seems to bring with it, not content with simply taking the money, the US also seems to want its customers to be beholden for the privelege of being allowed to spend all these millions on the US product, this is an attitude that has really grown since the 1980's and leaves a nasty taste among its global best friends of many decades standing.

This appears to be emphasised by a recent study into the fitment of the EJ 200 into the Gripen. Even though it was not followed up into the hardware stage (at least not yet) it does look like a serious attempt to remove any US control over any part of the Gripen that might affect future sales and operations.

Do I think JSF customers will desert the project en masse? No, not really, but the fact that real alternatives are being seriously looked at must raise concern in the US and they must realise that further 'will we, wont we' arsing about with the F-35 can only make the situation worse.

[edit on 5-1-2006 by waynos]

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 06:28 AM
I seriously can see Norway taking a long hard look at the Danish deal , and say `whats in it for us` - yes the Drakkon was a nightmare to run , which directly effected any potential sales of the Viggen - but now the Viggen has shown that the swedes can build cost effective plans AND that the order books are filling up for the gripen (unlike the rafale lol) denmark is joining an ever increasing list of operators.

So i can see Norway and maybe even finland going with the Gripen - and if regined with the EJ2000 then it`ll be even more kick butt than it is now (and if it is then hungary , czecg repulic , and SA etc will also want it re engined)

with an AESA radar , and a new engine , then i can even see brazil signing for it as well.

I also think the Danish deal is significant - i can see them cutting there loses and pulling out of teh F-35 , maybe even taking Norway with them.

That would open teh door for India to join IF they want to - but if MCA is any good , they might not even bother.

Naval Tyhpoon - Well IIRC , it was either waynos or maybe devilwasp that mentioned the allready-drawn-up plans for Sea Typhoon ; yes it would mean some reworking of some parts of the Typhoon but it is very feasable - especially since the french want a conventional carrier and the brits are allready looking long and hard about the same thing - with MagCats.

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:21 PM

Both have their pros and contras. The F-32 solution produces more hot gases, which is not very good for airfield/ship and is more maintance intensive.

A bigger fan means higher residual RPMs at-cruise and that effects SFC.

Also F-35 fared better in VTOL tests,that was the reason why it was selected. And the disadvantage can also turn to advantage as you know about the possibility to use the F-35 engine to charge laser/energetic weapons in A and C version.



The F-35 had NONE of the following:

1. Production landing gear, some 2 meters longer and buried in the wingroots. Which means that, with the 2,000lb JDAM well on one side and the landing gear on the other, your lapjoint has to be attached to some MASSIVE 'trestles' in the way of over-body frames. It's not small thing that the JSF has had it's wing root attachments redesigned TWICE with the aid of 'better CATIA tools' to bend the math.
2. No weapons bays.
Which means that not only are you further butchering the box frame with holes and gaps, but also that you can stuff the airframe auxilliaries anywhere you darn well please.
3. No mission equipment.
Specifically, no radar and no EOTS. Which added 7 inches forward and 5 aft and further 'loaded' the fan lift problematically.
4. No navalization features.
While this nominally applies more to the F-35C than anything, it also means things like drain holes, corrosion prevention features and a host of other goodies.
5. Non-production engine location. As I recall, to clear everything else they shifted the engine back by nearly 3 feet to make the lobster tail work better,
6. No LO. This alone, if the jet is 'truly stealthy' rather than simply 'Have Gold' also ran, will have added a minimum ton of dead weight.

Comparitively, the X-32 has a /major/ advantage in it's structural design which is closer to being a flying wing suspending a shipping container than anything else.

This design gives you a single, exceptionally rigid, 'hardback' which also acts as a massively overframes (lighweight at high density) integral fuel tank. Which in turn effectively allows you to cut as many holes as you bloody well wish in the fuselage whilst also tapering it for better side-LO faceting and aero-chine optimization because all aeroloads are as a lifting body, in compression, back up against the wing mounts.

There were some losses inherent to the readaptation of a tailed layout in the PWSC 'looks pretty' production variant but the result was still an airframe which weighed about 5,000lbs /less/ than the Lunchmeat monstrosity which itself (surprise surprise) turned out to be approximately 3,700-4,000lbs over it's limit weight growth of about 10%.

Mind you the jet could have been even better if they had reduced the vertical depth of the design by moving the weapons bays down to the belly and shifting the engine aft (which would have allowed a vertical serpentine and lessened the inlet:compressor face massflow:shock reduction distances).

But the TRUE sadness lies in the fact that the STOVL metric was allowed to rule the JSF outcome at all.


1. The USAF has /always/ ruled the production numbers game with an original 2,350 desired airframes and even now an 'official' 1,763.
2. The USMC which at first desired 648 JSF Bug'n'Bee replacements, is now down to about 210. Which will (if they follow the much smaller AV-8B's precedent) deploy in 'detachments' of about 6-8 jets per LHA/LHD. Not enough even to support a beachead operation or FADF VID mission. Let along both.
3. The USN which wanted some 450-480 CVTOL airframes with particular emphasis on the fighter mission and 'absolute LO' performance levels (neither of which the F-35C will achieve thanks to cheapening of the technology baseline and rising navalization penalties), And _had to have them_ if they were to yield Lot III production options on the worthless ultrabug. Even as the Corps was allowed to back out of the RAG mission by shifting to STOVL centrism in it's airpower mode. Now has about 170 airframes planned. Less than 10 per deck with a training/attrition/PDM/ reserve force component.

The JSF is not a jet, it's a joke. And it always has been J/ust S/o F/arcical with CBO and GAO analyses (backed by Beltway Bandits like Heritage's O'Hanlon) stating, right from the start, that the USN 'expensive' version would cost between 65 and 77 million. Not the 35 million first stated as justification for program start. Not the October 2001 SDD award promise of 50 million.

Now, with the war in Iraq in it's third year with no end in sight and NO PURPOSE for a supersonic+AAM capable F-117 in such conflicts. Production cutbacks to 'support the war effort' have raised even the baseline F-35A sticker shock to about 80 million 'adjusted' (just like they screwed up the F-22, with R&D addons) to 100 million over a 20 year production period at reduced annual buy numbers well below the initial 100-110 jets per annum planned.

This is why I called Lockheed Martin 'Lunchmeat Inc.'. Because they sell baloney to the air services who promptly proceed to whack the poor taxpayers over the head with false promises built upon unnecessary premises.


posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 01:10 PM
What utter and complete BLATHERSKATE.

1. The F-35A, even at it's lightest, will weigh over 50,000lbs (30,000lbs empty equipped, 19,000lbs fuel, 5,000lbs munitions) at takeoff.
2. Burn off half your gas and you are STILL looking at 45,500lbs which means 'at combat weight' (where an F-16 with the GE engine is at about 1.19/1.21:1 and the F-15A was at 1.4 or better) you have only about a .94 T/Wr or roughly similar to a Tomcat or Phantom.
3. You _can't_ ditch lift-at-drag penalties by jettisoning fuel because none of it is in drop tanks and a 5 mile long streamer of flash-frozen JP is not something you want to 100mile cue the tally with. Which means that you cannot go high where 'thrust minus drag' evens things out because-
a. Your wingloading is up around 108lbs per square foot on that dinky little 460 square foot wing.
b. Your inlets are likely in full Mach choke or buzzing up LONG before you stabilize at a throttle:KIAS point where you can sustain a dry climbup profile, let alone 'cruise' at FL 45-50.
4. Take the thrust down to _military_ levels which common state a thrust level around 117kN or 26,300lbst and your are re in fact looking at a T/Wr of about .48:1. Which is around the same level as a fully loaded A-10 can achieve.

Never let the sales hype get in the way of THE FACTS.

A. The X-35, in full afterburner with an 'Edwards load' of about 8-10,000lbs of fuel, was said to perform about as well as the F-22 does, in military thrust alone. This basically a prototype hotrod with no military equipment aboard at all.
B. Absolute performance at maximum augmented thrust is ONLY useful when you are fighting WVR macho games. Which, given the F-35 has but two AIM-120 and (will) cost about 100 million dollars, means the numbnuts in the cockpit has clearly screwed the pooch somewhere a long time further back in an airframe designed _exclusively_ to avoid combat whereever possible. Indeed, a UCAV with a ram-AAM like Meteor is probably a better Air Combat Platform than the JSF, if only because it can both carry and shoot more without damaging the sortie statistics for DMPIs per day.
C. Thrust Levels are highly inidividuated by a engine tune/altitude band/inlet:nozzle performance regimes. As far back as the mid 90's there were rumours that the Israeli's got as much as 38,000lbs of thrust from F110-GE-100 engines by combat tuning them up to exceptionally hot core:afterstage levels and basically burning the liner out of the augmentor, at need. Of course the Israelis are morons (fighting idiots) who bomb well defended point targets through the HUD while dropping flares by the truckload.
D. If _persistent_ thrust is your goal, it can only be for two purposes:
i. To get from home to the target and back again, quickly, so that you can turn the airframe and do it again for a maximum sortie count per day, without killing your aircrew with fatigue. The problem here is that the F135 is not a supercruise optimized (titanium front end ala '22,800/39,000lbst' [after the fan upgrade] F119) engine. And thus is not able to soak long periods of supersonic cruise. What it is is CHEAP. Cheap enough in fact that you can afford to buy more of them than you will ever need as a Mach .9 strike asset with 'both bombs today I tell'ya!' dated weapons bay design metric for heavyweight interdiction munitions.
ii. To energize your munition kinematic to outrange a threat weapons system before crossing it's detection threshold. Except, with only a pair of GBU-31 or AIM-120C, the likelihood is high that any acceleration to 'attack speed' will not only show up on threat IRST as a burner plume spike. But also put you in the thick of the WEZ without enough clean-up shot secondary kills to wade back out. Indeed, at maximum radius /any/ attempt to drive the fight geometry, whether A2G or A2A, with burner time is risking a 'mission kill' as you run out of gas or put a tanker at risk to save you from a very long E&E RTB.

The JSF is a joke. Utter and complete. It is designed to employ fighter pilots on a federal dole that is utterly unnecessary (given multishot small-IAMs) and indeed /incompatible/ (coming DEWs/hunting weapons and micro/fleeting target sets) with modern doctrine. It will make the U.S. 256 BILLION WITH A B dollars poorer. And do a worse job _as a bomber_ than an A-45C with 10,000lbs of fuel feeding 7,000lbs of thrust on a 30,000lb (gross) airframe. Believing that individual technology markers
are important, militarily, is giving in to the notion that it is those markers, not their integration (series + or - streaming accounting) into a synergized weapons /system/ which makes the difference.

As is, the Russians could easily make a couple tweaks to the D-30F6 or AL-41F and stuff them into a J-10 class airframe to thoroughly hang out to dry both the installed thrust and Energy Maneuver graphs of the JSF. GE could do the same with the F110-GE-132 EFE on an F-16. Heck, at full weight, a /JAS-39/ could likely dance circles around the F-35.

The difference is that the representative manufacturers know better than to brag about such a baseless comparisons. Because they know that the true definition of victory is not in comparitive stats. But in a _contempt of engagement_ by which platform X can fly it's mission without ever testing it's maximum performance limits against platform-Y.


posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:12 PM

In a move that echoes past budget maneuvering, the U.S. Navy says it can't afford to keep developing an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The U.S. Air Force, staring at shouldering the $3.4 billion F136 engine program
alone, at a cost of about $400 million per year, is expected to go along with the move.

The British, who want the new engine for aircraft carrier operations, are already mounting a counterattack, and they expect help from the U.S. Congress.British industry and government officials have been lobbying in Washington for the last two weeks to get the program back into the budget. The engine content is 50 percent General Electric, 40 percent Rolls-Royce and about 10 percent other international partners. GE officials contend that British users are particularly keen to have the large-combuster, higher-thrust engine on the JSF for their aircraft carrier operations.
Because the F136 engine is largely the product of the U.S. Congress - which aimed to keep engine competition alive - it is expected by both Pentagon and aerospace industry officials that lawmakers will step in and add money to keep the program in existence.

The F135 and F136 are designed to be completed interchangeable, so any F-35 can accept either engine, with the aircraft computer management system automatically detecting the engine change and making the required software adjustments.

Full Article >

So the F-136 might not be dead after all.

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:21 PM

The next generation of jet fighter aircraft could fly farther and faster thanks to a new high-strength aluminum alloy prepared at the U.S. Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory. The new alloy is one material being developed for use in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a cutting-edge aircraft that will see widespread use as the primary fighter for the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Marines as well as U.S. allies abroad.

Researchers at Ames Laboratory's Materials Preparation Center will produce about 400 pounds of an aluminum-yttrium-nickel alloy over the next few months that will serve as a benchmark for testing and to help refine commercial production techniques. The material is being developed in conjunction with aircraft engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney and a number of other public and private partners to replace heavier or costlier components in the "cool" sections of jet engines. The material also could be used in other parts of an aircraft such as wing spars.

If the new material performs up to expectations, it could have a dramatic impact on the performance and efficiency of both commercial and military aircraft. Jones said that Pratt &Whitney engineers estimated that replacing various components in one particular jet engine with the Al-Y-Ni alloy could potentially lighten the engine by 350 pounds. That's an astronomical weight reduction in aircraft design, where engineers are typically happy to reduce the weight of components by a few pounds here or there.

Full Article >>

Impressive to say the least


posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 01:20 PM
Some what on topic. I didn't want to start a new thread for this but, I read somewhere else on this site some one saying, "ive seen pictures while at a airshow of a f 22 with a single vertical port underneath." I assumed he ment the F-35. I don't know how a VTOL F-22 would work. Has such a concept been proposed and I just missed it or what?

posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 05:39 AM
The most important thing - F-135 is not the worlds most powerful fighter engine! It is russian Sojuz R179-300, rated at 200,1 kN of thrust.

200,1 kN x 101,97 kg/kN / 0,454 kg/lb = 44 943.165 lb

Russia is still a LEADER

english link

more pics on my web

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:54 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite British objections President George W. Bush's 2007 budget request scraps a $2.4 billion deal with General Electric Co. and Britain's Rolls-Royce to develop a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a top program official said on Monday.

The move prompted personal appeals from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who unsuccessfully pressed Bush to reverse the decision in two videoconferences and a letter.

That's not a great message to send to your most loyal international business partner and best friend in an uncertain world," said CBI director Digby Jones.

Full Article >>

UK pulling out of the JSF programme might become a reality, after this last nail.

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:25 PM
Yup, they're quite pissed:

Reacting to the decision by the US Government to cancel the General Electric / Rolls Royce engine variant for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft programme, CBI Director-General Sir Digby Jones said:

"Short-term cost-cutting puts this important programme at risk in the longer-term and sends out all the wrong signals about America’s attitude to collaboration on aerospace and defence projects. That's not a great message to send to your most loyal international business partner and best friend in an uncertain world. I thought better of America's attitude to the UK."

Source and earlier: CBI boss in US hypocrites blast

[edit on 2-7-2006 by Zion Mainframe]

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:30 PM

Originally posted by xmotex

The F-22A, more oriented to bombing than air-to-air combat, is seen as a key partner to the F-35 in the nation's air arsenal through the mid-21st century.


I think they got this part backward.
The F-22 is an air superiority platform first and everything else second.
The author needs to do a little more homework.

Yup, The F-22 is the Air Supremacy Fighter, and the F35 is the Strike fighter, echoing the tandem of F-15 and F-16.

One must wonder though, how transferable the F135 is? Imagine a twin F135 engined plane...

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:58 AM
The first response by Digby Jones (see my earlier post) was quite mild, compared to this one:

CBI director general Sir Digby Jones last night stepped up his vitriolic attack on America, saying it was time to abandon the special relationship.

Speaking at the Birmingham Law Society President's Dinner, Sir Digby said it was time for the "ending of a myth". Two issues in particular have upset him.

He was bitterly critical over a decision this week by George Bush to cancel a £1.36 billion contract for a second engine which Rolls-Royce and US firm General Electric were to have developed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The question is, how much of an influence does he have on UK MP's and the MoD... I'm sure the discussion about the cancellation of the RR engine will not be over for a while, the opposition is mounting!

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 01:35 PM
Hey guys I just checked out the F-35 site and they have some pictures of the first engine on the 35 being installed. the newest pics are at the bottom.


[edit on 16-2-2006 by Canada_EH]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in