Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Defense News" channel.

  1.  @bukullaniciadi  No engine, no airplane. If you can’t make your own turbofans, then you have no real aviation industry that is relevant in the high speed, high altitude, kinematic weapons employment world. Next slide please...
    3
  2.  @mikemike768  Turkey doesn't have the industrial capacity to manufacture high temp, high pressure, high RPM turbine core blades, blisks, or stators. Not even Sweden can do it.
    3
  3.  @mikemike768  I've been in aerospace and defense since the 1970s. You can't 3D print high temp turbine blades, not if you want them to last long. The US makes them out of single crystals of molten alloy, which is extremely difficult to do. Only 4 countries in the world are capable of making quality high temp/high pressure turbine blades. US, UK, Germany, France. Russia and China using stolen US tech make them too, but they don't last as long. Boeing and Airbus use Pratt & Whitney, GE, or Rolls Royce turbofans. If you're talking turbojets in the year 2023, you're about 50-60 years behind the jet industry. The last US fighter to use a turbojet was the F-4 with J79.
    3
  4.  @romonvk0095  The exposed control surface actuators are terrible for aerodynamics and indicate this is only a very crude prototype.
    3
  5.  @mikemike768  Externally-mounted actuators are normal in the RC hobby community, but not in the defense sector. I'm trying to recall any design that used external actuators and I'm drawing a blank. I even looked back to 1960s drones like the .95 mach capable/60,000ft Firebee drone, which has very clean and elegant surfaces.
    3
  6.  @brokentombot  US has hardened critical electronic systems from EMP ever since we saw the effects of EMP during high altitude nuke tests in the 1960s.
    2
  7. They actually had Chinese spies at Pratt & Whitney, GE, and Rolls Royce stealing everything they can, then recalled them all simultaneously after their moles in the FBI warned them. They're spending billions on their jet engine programs trying to have their own fighter motor industry overnight.
    1
  8. Incorrect. F-35A/B/C have the lowest mishap rates of any previous fighter. They are safer than any other designs in the world.
    1
  9. Would have wasted billions trying to save millions. F135 turned out to be the best fighter engine ever produced. I'm sure an F136 would have been impressive as well, but for what? GE is likely flying ADVENT motors as we speak in the 6th Gen program, unless USAF structured it differently than the ATF motor options from late 1980s-1991. GE's YF-120L and N motors were the most impressive to the test pilots during DEMVAL, but the variable cycle feature represented risk to the program so Pratt was awarded, with the requirement that they match the YF-120 thrust, which they did with the production F119-PW-100. Both companies have been working on their 6th Gen fighter engine submissions with 3 airflow paths, variable cycle modulation, extreme core temps, additive manufacturing to cut parts count, and alloy-ceramics. I suspect we're going to see a 50,000lb thrust class fighter engine that can run at 32,500lb in mil power, which would be phenomenal. With advanced composites and heat-mitigating leading edges, we might be in the age where we see a Mach 2 supercruise-capable fighter, where no afterburner is used. Then again, a 50,000lb motor opens the possibility for the first time of having a large radome, high altitude, high endurance, Mach 3-capable interceptor....with a single engine. It's well within MiG-25 and F-111 thrust with 2 engines on them.
    1
  10. The point of the new core is to increase thrust to 46,100-47,300lb in max AB, and 29,960-30,800lb in mil, while increasing the fuel efficiency to extend the range/radius even longer. They're using different manufacturing techniques and ceramic-alloy combinations to achieve it. P&W already have demonstrated the capability without being asked to do it, and have a plan in-place to upgrade every F135 as they come in for depot-level overhaul during their mid-life inspections and refurb schedule. Pratt said the new core technology is so good that they've already changed their processes to the new system as a result. In layman's terms, we're living in an era where you will witness the progression into a 50,000lb thrust class fighter engine. Keep in mind the F-15 & F-16 have been flying with 23,770-29,160lb thrust class F100 variants. F-22A has been flying with 35,000lb thrust class F119. F-35s are flying with 43,000lb F135-PW-100/400. Even with the 46,100lb F135-PW-XXX, that will mean a take-off T/W ratio of .94 with internal bombs and missiles, and a combat T/W of 1.15 with 9,000lb of fuel remaining, still carrying 2x 2000lb JDAMs and 2x AIM-120C. If the bombs have been dropped, it would have 1.19 T/W. Think Raptor and slick Typhoon class climb rate.
    1
  11.  @KingKong-xp6so  I've been at this discipline well before the internet was born, but I watched it from birth to the present back when we in DoD could file-share with National Labs using big modem boxes in 1982 from West Germany. I posit that all my critiques of this hobbyist style drone are valid, based on decades of aircraft analyses.
    1
  12. Increase thrust from 43,000lb in max AB to anywhere between 46,100-47,300lb. Mil power will be 30,000lb. Range increases because it burns fuel more efficiently. F-35A already has really long legs and high T/W ratio, so it just makes it better.
    1
  13. I want half of all Medicare and Medicaid put into Defense. That would be far better for Healthcare and National security.
    1
  14. Nukes aren't as destructive as most people think, and certain targets require precision delivery of nukes due to hardening/depth.
    1
  15.  @MeMyselfI_69  It has a gun pod if you want it, but there is no real use for the gun for the Navy.
    1