T901-GE-900 wins US T700 Replacement contract

[Cyclic Hotline]

This is a huge win for General Electric and maintains their position established by the T700, and the commercial CT7. There is no doubt that the benefits of it will appear in the commercial sector as well.

https://www.verticalmag.com/press-releases/u-s-army-selects-ges-t901-engine-for-itep/U.S. Army selects GE’s T901 engine for Improved Turbine Engine ProgramPosted on February 1, 2019 (https://www.verticalmag.com/press-releases/u-s-army-selects-ges-t901-engine-for-itep/); GE Aviation Press Release
The U.S. Army has selected GE Aviation’s T901-GE-900 engine for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP), the U.S. Army’s endeavor to re-engine its Boeing AH-64 Apaches and Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks.https://assets.verticalmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/infographic_photo_apache.jpgThe U.S. Army on Feb. 1 awarded GE Aviation a $517 million contract for the Improved Turbine Engine Program. GE Aviation ImageAdvertisement“We are honored to be chosen by the Army to continue powering their Black Hawks and Apaches for decades to come,” said Tony Mathis, president and CEO of GE Aviation’s military business. “We’ve invested in the resources and infrastructure to execute immediately, and our team is ready to get to work on delivering the improved capabilities of the T901 to the warfighter.”

GE has powered Black Hawks and Apaches for the past four decades with its T700 engine, racking up more than 100 million flight hours of combat-proven experience. Through continuous upgrades and technology advancements, GE has doubled the power of derivative engines in the T700 family over its lifetime and reduced its cost to the government by 50 percent.

GE carried over the benefits of the T700 engine’s single-spool core architecture, ensuring that the T901 engine is ready to continue delivering combat readiness to the warfighter over the next four decades. The T901’s single-spool core design is the key to its low cost, growth, reliability, maintainability and reduced life-cycle costs.

The full modularity of the T901’s single-spool core provides the Army with superior fix-forward maintainability. Combat units can swap out modular parts of the engine in the field and travel with fewer full-sized spare engines, simplifying logistical footprints and supply lines. The fully modular design also offers superior growth potential at a lower cost through incremental improvements to engine modules, a significant advantage to meet the Army’s FVL requirements. The U.S. Army is also expecting the ITEP engine to meet Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft requirements for Future Vertical Lift (FVL).

GE has invested $9 billion in maturing technologies applicable to the T901 and more than $300 million to develop and test turboshaft-specific technologies. Additionally, GE has invested more than $10 billion in their supply chain over the past decade, including eight new facilities, ten plant expansions and one-and-a-half million square feet of new, advanced manufacturing space in the U.S. This robust, first-in-class supply chain stands ready to deliver T901 engines to the Army.

[rrekn]

Wonder how soon this will translate into the civil CT7 line, in particular the CT7-8A in the S-92.

An S-92 with 50% more power and 25% better range would be a fantastic machine

[OnePerRev]

Wonder how soon this will translate into the civil CT7 line, in particular the CT7-8A in the S-92.

An S-92 with 50% more power and 25% better range would be a fantastic machine

Don't hold your breath, I understand there are or will be restrictions on commercial variant, and exporting... but yes, down the road why not a commercial variant.

[Self loading bear]

Wonder how soon this will translate into the civil CT7 line, in particular the CT7-8A in the S-92.

An S-92 with 50% more power and 25% better range would be a fantastic machine

And don’t hold your breath either as nobody says anything on engine weight.
And the S-92 could probably not absorb the increased power anyway...
So it would be range increase only.

SLB

[Cyclic Hotline]

SLB, there may be parts of this equation that may not appear instantly obvious. The requirement for the engine imposed a 500 Pound limit, GE had previously announced the engine will weigh exactly the same as the T700 at 456 Pounds. An engine evolution like this has a major place in the options for the airframe, both contemporary and development models. Instant range and payload expansions simply from the reduced fuel consumption. The potential for Increased Gross Weight, Improved Engine Out Performance, Expanded Mission profiles, etc. The dimensions allow it to be a direct replacement for the T-700/CT-7 in every application. What you are witnessing here is the birth of the next principal Global engine platform that is destined to become another military and commercial standard, just like the T53, T55, T58, T63 and T700, and that will be flying long after any of us is around.

[Blackhawk9]

Don't forget the T700/CT-7 family contains two sub groups the T-700 Family at approx. 1900-2100 HP (T700-701D, Civil CT7-2E/F) and the larger T706 at approx. 2600-3000 HP (T706-700 and CT7-8A).
The Military T-706 (CT7-8A as fitted to the S-92) is only fitted to the MH-60M Spec ops Black Hawk.
The T901 is a T700 replacement not a T706 replacement , so a T901 will put out approx. the same power as the current T706(CT7-8A) , don't get exited about upgraded S-92 engines for now, the T901 is a new replacement for the smaller engine of the family not the larger , to be honest the CT7-8A should be called something else while similar it is a different engine to a CT7-2E/F, Like calling an Allison 250C-20 and C-30 the same engine.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Am I missing something? The competing free power turbine design would have allowed future aircraft higher speed operation. The free power turbine acts as a gear reduction, allowing 20% higher forward aircraft speed. Max power turbine speed at vertical takeoff, reduced power turbine speed at max forward flight speed. Lower power turbine speed, lower main rotor speed. When Sikorsky or Airbus talk about their slowed main rotor technology, aren't they are referring to using a properly designed two spool engine? An upgraded Apache or Black Hawk should have been designed in concert with the engine design. Did the Army blow it?

[noneofyourbusiness]

All the foreign competition will be using two spool engines for new designs. This contract award was industrial pork for a very financially troubled GE.