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 post17 Sep 2020, 03:21

This portion has nothing to do with the F-35 whatsoever
USAF (zoom).jpg


Both GE & PW were awarded $437m contract mods each in Jul 2018 for the adaptive cycle engine of which there were ZERO mention of any F-35.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... cle-engine
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 09605.html

Whilst some people may believe the 2014 Industry Q&A applies to this as well....I don't.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1314
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 04:18

weasel1962 wrote:This portion has nothing to do with the F-35 whatsoever

Both GE & PW were awarded $437m contract mods each in Jul 2018 for the adaptive cycle engine of which there were ZERO mention of any F-35.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... cle-engine
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 09605.html

Whilst some people may believe the 2014 Industry Q&A applies to this as well....I don't.


You can't even comprehend the contract you cited:

The contract modification is for the execution of next generation adaptive propulsion
risk reduction for potential air superiority applications.


aka *NGAP*

Yes. Those awards were the separate TMRR awards that have become NGAP. It's clearly spelled out in the
Fy2021 Budget document. And you can trace the contracts back to that effort.

It is a separate effort from AETP with a separate budget line with separate timelines, and deliverables.

You can't even comprehend your own figure.

If AETP was directly intended for NGAD why would they need another TMRR effort for it?
Because AETP is intended as a drop in replacement for the F135. That's why JPO could begin an
EMD effort *DIRECTLY* without TMRR.

NGAD cannot. That's why they have NGAP.

ALL OF WHICH GOES BACK TO THE INDUSTRY Q&A which states:

AETP is one element of a Next Generation Propulsion Campaign
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 08:58

Pre-FY 2021, weren't all those monies incl for the FY 2018 contract mod funded under AETP? Last I heard, a contract mod is still part of the original contract.

Suddenly the budget split in FY 2021 is used to wag the dog by claiming it reflects the original intent? I'd say more to protect budgets just because of the risk of a budget cut.
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 707
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 15:51

Looks like some are building their own "Next Gen Fighter" here :roll:

Perhaps Mr. Roper wasn't jesting when he was talking about the possibility of a new "Century Series" approach to building fighter planes.
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 202
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 19:19

You can tell its a good aviation news day, when the forum gets a good old fashioned aviation geek bar fight.
Its been pretty quiet lately.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1314
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 19:53

weasel1962 wrote:Pre-FY 2021, weren't all those monies incl for the FY 2018 contract mod funded under AETP? Last I heard, a contract mod is still part of the original contract.

Suddenly the budget split in FY 2021 is used to wag the dog by claiming it reflects the original intent? I'd say more to protect budgets just because of the risk of a budget cut.


The reason they did NGAP under a contract mod was sheer convenience. But they explicitly called
out what that mod was for: it was not for the 45,000 lb thrust engine that AETP is developing for the F-35A.

Feel free to explain away why the 2018 contract was for "next generation adaptive propulsion
risk reduction." Why would you need another risk reduction on a risk reduction contract like AETP?

Feel free to explain away the different timelines and deliverables.

Feel free to explain away the industry Q&A and absolutely everything that's been revealed about
XA100 and XA101.

Congress said that the Air Force had to explicitly break out what was for AETP and what was for NGAP rather
than having everything under "Advanced Engine Development"

It's clear that since 2014:

AETP is one TMRR with the design target vehicle of the F-35A.

NGAP is another TMRR with the design target vehicle of whatever NGAD is.

If you want backfits for the F-16 or F-22 etc that would be yet another TMRR effort.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1314
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Sep 2020, 20:27

jessmo112 wrote:You can tell its a good aviation news day, when the forum gets a good old fashioned aviation geek bar fight.
Its been pretty quiet lately.


It's more of a massacre than a fight.

I've never seen someone vomit up the most bizarro world, reality distorting explanations in
an attempt to defeat primary source documents. Including RFP clarifications communicated to industry
that have a binding Federal Acquisition Regulation quality on which many a GAO protest has been sustained.

And of course those clarifications are borne out by all of the contract types awarded to date
(a different risk reduction for a different named effort) and confirmed by the FY2021 budget
(not to mention everything P&W, GE and the Air Force have said about XA100 and XA101), which
has NGAP and AETP as separate efforts. Because they always were.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post18 Sep 2020, 02:06

lol. I am not the one ignoring inconvenient facts no do I need to resort to attacks to distract. Rather I would choose in this case make my points thru the provision of documentation to maintain the following facts:

1) The new next gen flight demonstrator is a prototype. This is proven by definition.
2) The AETP (he misspelled it as ATEP) was not exclusively an F135/F-35A compatible engine as marauder claimed.

a) The NGAP program was reflected as a new program element under AETP in FY 2019. This is factual per FY 19/20 budget docs as the doc states "this is an administrative alignment only and not a new start"

FY20_PB_RDTE_Vol-II pg 185-190.pdf
(1.23 MiB) Downloaded 20 times


This is conveniently ignored despite being highlighted.

b) This is also supported by Jeff Stanley's presentation which clearly reflects AETP on a 3 track approach.

This has not been directly disputed. This clearly showed that the USAF regarded NGAP as part of AETP which is consistent with budget documents in FY 19 & 20.

c) The contract mod which occurred in FY 2018 is part of the original contract

This is conveniently ignored despite being highlighted. If the Industry Q&A applies, then how does one explain the contract now includes NGAP which is clearly NOT for the F-35?

d) The FY 21 budget documents does not reflect how the 3rd track will be managed. If still under AETP, it does not validate that the AETP is an exclusively F-35 compatible engine effort.

P.s. to avoid others trying to put a false spin on what I'm stating, I'm not claiming the NGAP track is the same as the F-35 AETP track. Imho, the difficulty some have in understanding the original 3 track approach clearly justifies why the DoD now chooses to reflect NGAP separately.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1314
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post18 Sep 2020, 02:43

weasel1962 wrote:1) The new next gen flight demonstrator is a prototype. This is proven by definition.


You've yet to furnish a definition despite some really stupid m-w.com and other linkage to irrelevancies.
Here's a hint: a prototype in DOD parlance can have residual operational utility and be subject to operational testing.
A technology demonstrator has none and cannot be subject to operational testing.

weasel1962 wrote:2) The AETP (he misspelled it as ATEP) was not exclusively an F135/F-35A compatible engine as marauder claimed.


It's exclusively an F-35A engine as reflected by the original solicitation, the industry Q&A and the award for

“multiple complete, flight-weight centerline, 45,000-pounds thrust turbofan adaptive engines.”

That's consistent with an F135 drop-in replacement. It's consistent with XA100 and XA101.
It's consistent with JPO's consideration for propulsion upgrade.

weasel1962 wrote:a) The NGAP program was reflected as a new program element under AETP in FY 2019. This is factual per FY 19/20 budget docs as the doc states "this is an administrative alignment only and not a new start"


If you'd bother to read the 2018 contracts you cited, the NGAP risk reduction was awarded using FY18 funds. Ergo the FY19 budget document is irrelevant.


weasel1962 wrote:b) This is also supported by Jeff Stanley's presentation which clearly reflects AETP on a 3 track approach.

This has not been directly disputed. This clearly showed that the USAF regarded NGAP as part of AETP which is consistent with budget documents in FY 19 & 20.


First of all, DOD doesn't submit PowerPoints to Congress as binding budgetary collateral nor are PowerPoints FAR binding
in a GAO protest sense. They are for illustration only.

You conveniently ignored the TMRR effort for NGAD..that's NGAP. It's separate and distinct from AETP.


weasel1962 wrote:c) The contract mod which occurred in FY 2018 is part of the original contract

This is conveniently ignored despite being highlighted. If the Industry Q&A applies, then how does one explain the contract now includes NGAP which is clearly NOT for the F-35?


It's all under the *same* program element "advanced engine development." And subsequently broken-out
for better transparency and called out explicitly as a separate and distinct risk reduction effort.


weasel1962 wrote:d) The FY 21 budget documents does not reflect how the 3rd track will be managed. If still under AETP, it does not validate that the AETP is an exclusively F-35 compatible engine effort.


It does actually; there's a separate NGAP program management support contract.
Why would that be necessary along with an AETP program management support contract if they are the same effort?

Answer: They are not. They never were. That's consistent with the original RFI and all the guidance the Air Force
was providing to industry.

What's on FBO represents collateral for FAR contracting. It gets referenced in GAO protests as binding.
GAO does not reference PowerPoints as evidence of anything.


weasel1962 wrote:P.s. to avoid others trying to put a false spin on what I'm stating, I'm not claiming the NGAP track is the same as the F-35 AETP track. Imho, the difficulty some have in understanding the original 3 track approach clearly justifies why the DoD now chooses to reflect NGAP separately.


AETP was never (per the industry Q&A) a three track approach. AETP was the first track under a three track approach
for next generation propulsion. NGAP is the second track. There may never be a third track.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post18 Sep 2020, 03:00

What is being argued is the equivalent of arguing the F-35B is not an F-35 because it is different from the F-35A.

The arguments on the 2016 contract (based on the 2014 industry Q&A) has the same analogy as stating the F-35A production contract means the F-35B is not an F-35. In the same way, just because the original contract was for the F-35A doesn't exclude the NGAP effort from being under AETP.

The Industry Q&A clearly is not relevant for the contract mod. Its a fact. Nothing new has been presented.

If the FY 2019/20 budget docs is not relevant for an FY2018 contract mod, being funded in FY 2018, so where is that reflected in the FY2018 budget? Isn't that reflected under AETP?

There is a simple reason why everything fell originally under AETP. Like the F-35, its about shared technology and commonality. There is no basis nor documentation that reflects otherwise.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1314
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post18 Sep 2020, 04:46

weasel1962 wrote:What is being argued is the equivalent of arguing the F-35B is not an F-35 because it is different from the F-35A.

Feel free to grasp the difference between different and distinct TMRR contract under a single program element, run by the same program office in the same service and a giant, formal acquisition program with split RDT&E, EMD and split procurement.

One of these things is not like the other.

weasel1962 wrote:The arguments on the 2016 contract (based on the 2014 industry Q&A) has the same analogy as stating the F-35A production contract means the F-35B is not an F-35. In the same way, just because the original contract was for the F-35A doesn't exclude the NGAP effort from being under AETP.


Please grasp what TMRR contracts and tech transition efforts are all about.

weasel1962 wrote:The Industry Q&A clearly is not relevant for the contract mod. Its a fact. Nothing new has been presented.


What level of Next Generation content will be included within AETP?
AETP is one element of a Next Generation Propulsion Campaign. 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.


So what are the other elements? It's been six years. Can you tell us?
I can: it's NGAP.

There's absolutely nothing in AETP for anything follow-on beyond trade studies. Not a formal TMRR effort.
But a formal TMRR effort is mentioned in your beloved slide. You've avoided talking about it.


weasel1962 wrote:
If the FY 2019/20 budget docs is not relevant for an FY2018 contract mod, being funded in FY 2018, so where is that reflected in the FY2018 budget? Isn't that reflected under AETP?


It's reflected under the same program element "advanced engine development"; that's how they do traceability.

weasel1962 wrote:There is a simple reason why everything fell originally under AETP. Like the F-35, its about shared technology and commonality. There is no basis nor documentation that reflects otherwise.


There's no evidence in the AETP RFI or industry Q&A or anything about sharing or commonality.
It's a nice-to-have but nowhere is it stated as a requirement.


In fact, everything is geared towards a notional 2019 EMD date and a mid 2020's production readiness timeframe.
That's only consistent with the F-35A being the target vehicle since NGAD could not and would not be ready.


That NGAP is massive seven year effort that lavishly funded should tell you that there's not much overlap.
But then there's doesn't have to be and there wouldn't be because the flight envelopes and design reqs or
different: notice the focus on supersonic radius for NGAD and nothing about that for the F-35.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4130
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post18 Sep 2020, 13:09

Back and forth is getting old.

Can we please get on with speculating what NGAD looks like? Or where it's being flown? Or how fast it goes? Or, or, or.... anything but more arguing over AETP engines. They're out there, they're coming and they'll be in OUR fighters, not the enemy's.

That's what's really important IMO...
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2344
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 Sep 2020, 15:34

weasel1962 wrote:The Roper hints of "records being broken" strongly hints at this. Twin adaptive cycle engines being most likely the case.


I personally have my reservations regarding the records part. Some of the best records out there like speed, time to climb and range are very steep even to this day and I doubt they could be broken within the 1st few test flights.

It could be another type of record like, time from design to production, or number of lines of software code or something. I'm not trying to douse water on the hype, but I just don't think they'll push the plane that much within the 1st few flights.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1108
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post18 Sep 2020, 15:43

zero-one wrote:I personally have my reservations regarding the records part. Some of the best records out there like speed, time to climb and range are very steep even to this day and I doubt they could be broken within the 1st few test flights.

It could be another type of record like, time from design to production, or number of lines of software code or something. I'm not trying to douse water on the hype, but I just don't think they'll push the plane that much within the 1st few flights.


If it is two engine F135 demonstrator, super cruise records can be beaten which USAF achieved by YF-23 and F-22 later.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1314
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post18 Sep 2020, 18:09

milosh wrote:
zero-one wrote:I personally have my reservations regarding the records part. Some of the best records out there like speed, time to climb and range are very steep even to this day and I doubt they could be broken within the 1st few test flights.

It could be another type of record like, time from design to production, or number of lines of software code or something. I'm not trying to douse water on the hype, but I just don't think they'll push the plane that much within the 1st few flights.


If it is two engine F135 demonstrator, super cruise records can be beaten which USAF achieved by YF-23 and F-22 later.


None of the timelines (for AETP or NGAD) in the budget documents support a demonstrator
at this stage with adaptive engines.
PreviousNext

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests