Kratos Thanatos UCAV

Scott Kenny said:
Two engines could be as small as an F5 (using a pair of Williams FJ-44s), or clear up to F-22 sized. Though I'm personally guessing somewhere between F-5 and Super Hornet sized.
Click to expand...
Is anywhere stated it has two engines?
 
A pair of FJ-33’s would be a viable option as well, they a have a a proven military presence and the Valkyrie uses the same type so company familiarity is an advantage.
 
TomS said:
Got to be smaller, IMO. They are talking about a selling price on the order of $5 million per aircraft.

View attachment 711301
Click to expand...

Agree. I suspect the XQ-58 is just a little too small for the USAF's goals. The USAF recently put out a RFP for engines in the 3000-8000 lb thrust class; XQ-58's engine is believed to be ~2000. Thanatos likely is a UAV more in that desired USAF thrust class, either with two smaller engines (advantages to using the same engine across platforms) or perhaps one more powerful one (is two engines confirmed or was it just suspected based on the dual inlet design?). I would also suspect one of the goals of a CCA platform would be to carry ~ 4x AIM-120 sized AAMs, and I think the Valkyrie would struggle with the weight of that load and length of such weapons.
 
Helicoprion said:
A pair of FJ-33’s would be a viable option as well, they a have a a proven military presence and the Valkyrie uses the same type so company familiarity is an advantage.
Click to expand...

I've actually never seen the XQ-58's powerplant explicitly stated; are you sure?
 
Could be 5GAT size, 5GAT about the size of the T-38/F-5. Wonder if Kratos could do something like this in this aircraft size and performance category?
 
VTOLicious said:
Is anywhere stated it has two engines?
Click to expand...
Not that I am aware of. I'm going from what's reported here.

I'd want to see what you could get out of an afterburning FJ44 for power. I know it won't supercruise, too much bypass not enough core velocity.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not that I am aware of. I'm going from what's reported here.

I'd want to see what you could get out of an afterburning FJ44 for power. I know it won't supercruise, too much bypass not enough core velocity.
Click to expand...

If it won't supercruise, there's no point in afterburning IMO. Also I have never heard of any turbine in these kind of size classes using an afterburner; I would think in turns of weight, volume, and expense that it would be cost ineffective.

I believe the company that Kratos bought out that was working on a red air training UAV advertised its model as being potentially able to go supersonic using maneuvers (I presume a climb to ceiling and a dive) but in general I think <$10 million UAVs are going to live below the sound barrier. Somewhere on this board, perhaps a couple years ago on this thread, I had proposed using RATO boosters to get to supercruise as a one shot "turboboost, Kitt!"* for a UAV that was otherwise able to sustain a supercruise. But on the other hand I can't imagine there's a small turbofan out there with a low enough bypass to sustain supersonic even after a drop kick through the sound barrier. If you have to build a specialty engine for the UAV, I think you've lost a lot economies of scale. I'm sure there are other problems with the ideal as well. But I think a reheat engine for the CCA is probably a nonstarter for weight and cost.

*Yes, I watched Knightrider as a kid. Don't hassle the Hoff.
 
Josh_TN said:
If it won't supercruise, there's no point in afterburning IMO. Also I have never heard of any turbine in these kind of size classes using an afterburner; I would think in turns of weight, volume, and expense that it would be cost ineffective.
Click to expand...
The FJ44s are the same size as J85s, to the point that I'd bet you could bolt a J85 afterburner onto an FJ44 bypass duct.


Josh_TN said:
I believe the company that Kratos bought out that was working on a red air training UAV advertised its model as being potentially able to go supersonic using maneuvers (I presume a climb to ceiling and a dive) but in general I think <$10 million UAVs are going to live below the sound barrier. Somewhere on this board, perhaps a couple years ago on this thread, I had proposed using RATO boosters to get to supercruise as a one shot "turboboost, Kitt!"* for a UAV that was otherwise able to sustain a supercruise. But on the other hand I can't imagine there's a small turbofan out there with a low enough bypass to sustain supersonic even after a drop kick through the sound barrier. If you have to build a specialty engine for the UAV, I think you've lost a lot economies of scale. I'm sure there are other problems with the ideal as well. But I think a reheat engine for the CCA is probably a nonstarter for weight and cost.

*Yes, I watched Knightrider as a kid. Don't hassle the Hoff.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's unlikely that a sub-$10mil drone will be able to go supersonic.

But I think that CCAs need to be able to supercruise, as long as their controllers are also planning on supercruising. It may just take a couple of "Century Series" model cycles to get there.
 
Fair enough on the J85s; I don't think I ever appreciated how tiny those are.
 
As far as I’m aware, the FJ44 are not designed for supersonic flight at all, it’s not as simple as just “bolting on” an afterburner. The only supersonic engines Williams have ever designed have been for test and evaluation on a stand.
 
Helicoprion said:
As far as I’m aware, the FJ44 are not designed for supersonic flight at all, it’s not as simple as just “bolting on” an afterburner. The only supersonic engines Williams have ever designed have been for test and evaluation on a stand.
Click to expand...
Yes, they'd need an appropriate inlet to slow the air down to subsonic. I suspect that their exhaust velocity is relatively low, which doesn't help them go supersonic without afterburner.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, they'd need an appropriate inlet to slow the air down to subsonic. I suspect that their exhaust velocity is relatively low, which doesn't help them go supersonic without afterburner.
Click to expand...
The J-85 burner would never fit on the FJ-44. The FJ-44-4m diameter is far greater than the J-85. But more fundamental is the 44 bypass and compression ratio is far to great for supersonic flight. Years ago, Williams looked at bypass burning, but that never came to be.
 
Is there any existing engine in the 3000-8000 lb class with enough bypass for a supercruise ability? I’m going out on a limb and guessing no, because that is just a need no one has previously had.
 
Josh_TN said:
Is there any existing engine in the 3000-8000 lb class with enough bypass for a supercruise ability? I’m going out on a limb and guessing no, because that is just a need no one has previously had.
Click to expand...
The F125 might have the capability for super cruise. But it was designed with an afterburner.
 
djfawcett said:
The J-85 burner would never fit on the FJ-44. The FJ-44-4m diameter is far greater than the J-85. But more fundamental is the 44 bypass and compression ratio is far to great for supersonic flight. Years ago, Williams looked at bypass burning, but that never came to be.
Click to expand...
? they're both a ~20" compressor diameter.
 
The 44-4m is over 24in, but that is irrelevant. Even if you could adapt a 85 AB to the 44, a total redesign of the 44 would be required. The ~2.8 bypass ratio and compression ratio are way to high. As I mentioned above, enhanced thrust options were looked at for the AF quite some time ago. It never saw the light of day.
 
Is this design is supersonic capable ? look futuristic
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom