The USAF has built and flown a full-scale Next Gen Fighter

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 23:02

See last para.
https://www.defensenews.com/training-si ... ine-stage/

There's a whole slew of docs over the years. AETP will drive NGAD/PCA.
Online

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1315
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 23:08



Feel free to look at the FBO solicitation rather than regurgitating some journalist's understanding.
AETP is a very specific F-35/F135 flight envelope, F-35 (mostly) SWAP-C compliant effort.

NGAP will leverage from that but it is its own program with its own capabilities, deliverables
and timelines. Which makes sense as NGAD might be a very different flight envelope and entail
some very different integration challenges.

Consider that the third stream usage in the F-35 will, after flow holding, mainly be used for
cooling whereas for NGAD is could be powered lift augmentation or fluidic thrust vectoring etc.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 23:51

Deputy Asst Secretary, USAF. See slide 8. Same was posted on the engines of innovation thread a while back.
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... tanley.pdf

AETP has 3 tracks including 1 for AS2030. Even budget docs (RDTE vol 2) states the same. I checked the FBO data and nowhere did I read it was only for F-35 only. Not sure where the impression was given but I haven't seen any links or docs provided by marauder so sauce please.
Online

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1315
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 00:26

weasel1962 wrote:Deputy Asst Secretary, USAF. See slide 8. Same was posted on the engines of innovation thread a while back.
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... tanley.pdf


Oh a slide. Right. I mean why consult the FY2021 budget documents or the relevant RFIs when we have pretty pictures.

weasel1962 wrote:AETP has 3 tracks including 1 for AS2030. Even budget docs (RDTE vol 2) states the same. I checked the FBO data and nowhere did I read it was only for F-35 only. Not sure where the impression was given but I haven't seen any links or docs provided by marauder so sauce please.


You failed to demonstrate the ability to post a non-stupid taxonomic basis for DOD acquisition terms.
There's only so much hand holding I can do for you.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 00:33

So I see its back to "invented" terminologies and no "sauce". lol. noted.
Online

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1315
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 00:34

weasel1962 wrote:So I see its back to "invented" terminologies and no "sauce". lol. noted.


Congratulations on being stupid. We've gone through this before where I lead you down the path
of your own destruction. I commend you on being impervious to "learnings."
Attachments
aetp-f35a.png
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 00:50

We see an unattributed paragraph with no context, which was written by.....

The worst part is like someone interpreting that sentence like saying SDB's design target carriage vehicle is the F-15E which means that every other aircraft won't carry it.
Last edited by weasel1962 on 17 Sep 2020, 00:57, edited 1 time in total.
Online

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1315
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 00:56

weasel1962 wrote:We see a unattributed paragraph which was written by.....


I see someone doubling down on stupid. Of course, the context.
Like there's any possible context for the above that would make you less wrong.

It was written by the people who run the program.

"Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) Q&A" 17 Oct 2014.
Attachments
20141017_-_Second_Industry_Day_AETP_Q-A.pdf
(160.33 KiB) Downloaded 55 times
Online

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1315
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 01:00

weasel1962 wrote:We see an unattributed paragraph with no context, which was written by.....

The worst part is like someone interpreting that sentence like saying SDB's design target carriage vehicle is the F-15E which means that every other aircraft won't carry it.


Because a 285 lb small glide weapon is quite comparable to a variable cycle propulsion system that requires
many billions to mature and exquisite platform integration.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 01:01

lol, going to back to "sauce". Firstly, this is an industry Q&A which is generally meaningless dribble.

Secondly this is written in 2014. Q1 clearly states "The final AETP acquisition strategy has not yet been approved, ". Clearly after all that hoo-ha about pre-2019....

Suddenly this becomes gospel even though its clearly misinterpreted.
Online

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1315
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 01:06

weasel1962 wrote:lol, going to back to "sauce". Firstly, this is an industry Q&A which is generally meaningless dribble.

Secondly this is written in 2014. Q1 clearly states "The final AETP acquisition strategy has not yet been approved, ". Clearly after all that hoo-ha about pre-2019....

Suddenly this becomes gospel even though its clearly misinterpreted.


Meaningless dribble? If you mislead industry there's huge grounds for a GAO protest. It's definitive and
consistent with NGAP being a separate propulsion program that's just coincidentally ramping up when
AETP is ramping down.

AETP is one element of a Next Generation Propulsion Campaign.


How is that open to misinterpretation?

AETP will focus on maturation/risk reduction of adaptive engine technology through design/build/test of multiple engines. The design target vehicle for this activity will be the F-35A because it has existing, well-defined requirements, installation constraints, and a performance baseline.


How is that open to misinterpretation?

And here's the finalized acquisition strategy:

For Adaptive Engine Transition Program, the Air Force has awarded two limited source, cost plus incentive fee contracts to General Electric and Pratt & Whitney due to their unique qualifications to design a high performance, flight-weight adaptive turbine engine in the thrust class for AETP. Incentive categories include engine weight, performance factors, and maintainability and supportability, with specific metrics for each area incentivized. The government agency
responsible for managing this program is the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Propulsion Directorate, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.


Happy? An acquisition strategy for a tech transition program is about who to fund and in what quantity.
Last edited by marauder2048 on 17 Sep 2020, 01:13, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 01:12

I have no interest in arguing claims that final contracts will always follow what was originally communicated pre-solicitation. I think this is going nowhere and will merely maintain my stand that adaptive cycle engines developed under AETP will drive NGAD/PCA.
Online

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1315
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 01:19

weasel1962 wrote:I have no interest in arguing claims that final contracts will always follow what was originally communicated pre-solicitation. I think this is going nowhere and will merely maintain my stand that adaptive cycle engines developed under AETP will drive NGAD/PCA.


Because my evidence is overwhelming, consistent, logical and impeccably sourced.

It is not amenable to misinterpretation or decontextualization.

I'm sorry if that upsets you.

But all you have to the contrary is some bizarrely stupid argument that the AF completely revamped their entire
next generation propulsion approach in between Industry Q&A and contract award.

Since you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this claim I would encourage you to stop
making utterly unfounded, irrational and just plain silly arguments.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 02:37

Source: Jeff H Stanley - Deputy Asst Secretary, USAF
USAF .jpg


TMRR = Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction
EMD = Engineering, Manufacturing and Development
Online

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1315
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 02:50

weasel1962 wrote:Source: Jeff H Stanley - Deputy Asst Secretary, USAF

TMRR = Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction
EMD = Engineering, Manufacturing and Development


Yes. AETP is a direct upgrade for the F135.

IT. IS. IN. THAT. FIGURE.


There would need to be an EMD effort, aka. a formal acquisition program to procure those
engines for the F-35 Block whatever.


That's entirely consistent with the Industry Q&A and absolutely contradicts what you've said.

There would also need to be (and there is) another dedicated TMRR and then an EMD effort to get an
adaptive engine for NGAD. It's called NGAP. It's many billions. It's in the FY2021 budget document.
PreviousNext

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests