Tomorrow IRIN could proclaim itself the protector of international whale sanctuaries and it would have the same value.

Just as soon as they can get a few carrier battle groups assembled it would actually…

Whether you generally agree with US policy or not keeping international sea lanes open benefits the whole world.

Yes, but ADVENT/AETD is a baby program(s) in their first steps, one with not a lot of secure funding (for a Pentagon program, mind you) and a questionable operational need, couple that with a threatned Pentagon budget for the next decade…

Absolutely not true. Advent has been running since 2007 and has more than sufficient funding for the stage of the process it is in.

But i think you will find this interesting:

This is not that different from the Super Hornet. Some in Congress don’t like the idea of funding a new engine only a few years after the earlier engine went operational so they are talking about it as a research program.

Make no mistake, this program is designed to produce a fully production ready engine, sized to fit the F-35. Once the engine is ready nobody is going to say no. The same engine is slated to power other future designs as well, including the upcoming 6th generation fighter designs.

This program is at the core of the US Air Force’s plans moving forward. It is not going to be defunded.

Hey i read youre sources perfectly, so drop your holy bibel crystal ball attitude.
Neighter you nor your sources does explain if the physical size of this new engine will differ in size from the F-135, you know like comp fan diameter etc etc.
Cause it would require major a redesign of the singel Engine F-35.
And other than the engine itself, it says nothing about redesigning the F-35.

Yet again, from the article you insist you have “read,” but apparently didn’t get much from:

Under the 48-month AETD program, GE and Pratt will design engines with 25% lower SFC, but 5% more military (dry) power and 10% higher maximum (reheat) thrust than the F135. “We will take that engine through preliminary design review,” says Reed. The engine must be sized to fit the F-35 with “only modest modifications,” he says.

Pls.. enough with the “everybody dream my dream pls”

At this point I would be satisfied with literacy.

How many times do I have to quote the same article? Did you see that it is a multi-page article? You have to click through the pages to read it all.

That will happen if…
If ADVENT is not entirely canned, if the program doesnt get transformed into a technology demonstrator, if it doesnt require an awfull lot of work to redesign the F-35, if it doesnt completely fail…

Of course we could say the same thing about essentially every other developmental program taking place anywhere in the world couldn’t we?

How do we know Gripen NG PAK FA, J-20 won’t get “canned” or “completely fail?” Nobody ever knows for sure.

The point is that this is no mere proposal looking for a backer. This is a fully funded program(it has been for years) that has actual hardware in test, and a clear path moving forward to bring a new engine sized for the F-35 with minimal modifications to full production readiness.

Note that that is not some rendering produced by marketing, that is a real engine and it is slated for its first run in the coming months.

In the end the most F-35s will end up flying with a next generation variable-cycle engine now in development, on track for production in the early 2020s. (Not long after the F-35 hits full rate production)

This engine will not only dramatically increase the F-35’s range, it will improve performance in general, including its supercruise performance.

AFRL calculates adaptive technology will improve engine fuel efficiency by 25% over the F135 powering the F-35, increasing aircraft combat radius by 25-30% and persistence by 30-40%. The engine could also help address the anti-access/area-denial challenges posed by a potential conflict with an near-peer adversary such as China, says AFRL. This could be achieved via increasing supersonic-cruise radius by 50% and reducing the aerial-refueling tanker burden by 30-74%.

Under the 48-month AETD program, GE and Pratt will design engines with 25% lower SFC, but 5% more military (dry) power and 10% higher maximum (reheat) thrust than the F135. “We will take that engine through preliminary design review,” says Reed. The engine must be sized to fit the F-35 with “only modest modifications,” he says.

…

Phase 1 of the AETD program, which runs through mid-fiscal 2015, includes preliminary design of the engine and testing of annular-combustor and high-pressure compressor rigs. Phase 2, which will conclude in fiscal 2016, consists of fan-rig testing and an engine core test, allowing for a notional first full engine test as early as 2017.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_24_2012_p31-497914.xml&p=1

General Electric has started testing the core of its next-generation ADVENT engine, the company announced earlier today (October 11). The company’s work on ADVENT will feed into the US Air Force’s follow-on Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) effort–which will eventually power later versions of the Lockheed Martin F-35 and potentially a sixth-generation follow-on to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/10/ge-starts-advent-core-tests.html

Do you have any basis for that claim? I think its just as probable, or even more probable that it was flying pretty clean (maybe with wing tip missiles) and less than full fuel tank or similar loadout at altitude. There is no need for a dive. But if you think its relevant to the capabilities of the F35 or relevant to F35 news please tell me.

Just based on how they phrased things. The idea that they ran out of space before finding out how fast their jet could go tells you volumes. Do you really think they couldn’t find enough horizontal space… in Russia… lets be serious here.

What is much more likely is that the plane was in a shallow dive the whole time and just ran out of altitude.

I wasn’t the one that brought the SU-35 into this thread. I am just trying to apply a consistent standard of proof to manufacturers’ claims.

Frankly Saab’s claims don’t stand up either.

Company test pilot Magnus Ljungdahl says the aircraft was flown to a speed of more than Mach 1.2 at 28,000ft (8,540m) above the Baltic Sea, and adds: “Without using afterburner I maintained the same speed until I ran out of test area.” The sortie was conducted from Saab’s Linköping test centre.

He doesn’t say he was in level flight, only that he was at M1.2 at 28k feet and was able to maintain just the speed. He says nothing about maintaining altitude.

He also doesn’t say how far he went while above supersonic. He says he was limited by the edge of the test area, but of course he could have started right near the edge of the test area and used that to “conveniently” have to stop the test.

Fredrik quickly came off the heater and air speed stabilised well above Mach 1. Fredrik tells me that he at this altitude can sustain this till fuel runs out and can travel faster without burner if we are at a higher altitude.”

Here again he doesn’t say that he was in level flight. He says that speed stabilized without burner and that he could have gone faster, note he doesn’t say sustain faster if he had started higher. “Sustaining” this until he runs out of fuel also isn’t a good sign unless he says how long that is. He could very easily have been on fumes at the start of the test/demonstration allowing him to blame fuel depletion to stop the test.

Frankly the inconsistency in these accounts raises red flags by themselves. If Saab isn’t willing to come out and release a complete account of what their plane did and the conditions then it strongly suggests there is less than meets the eye here. Otherwise they would be anxious to inform the whole world.

To sum it up, there is some catch in the whole story and whether you like it or not is utterly meaningless.

To sum it up, you are just a regular ordinary hypocrite. You will believe what you want and refuse to believe what you don’t like. It isn’t a mark of maturity.

The information released was just as good as that released by other manufacturers. Under some conditions the F-35 can maintain M1.2 without afterburners, in level flight. That does not however meet the USAF definition of supercruise, which would require M1.5.

You might not like the F-35, but Lockheed is not simply going to make stuff up about its flight performance. The customers/partners are well aware of what it is capable of doing.