One Jet engine providing power and thrust and six electric fans along the wings for additional thrust. They have also added batteries, so the single jet engine doesn't need to be big enough to provide full take off power + redundancy. Currently jets require at least 2 engines, each large enough to complete the take off if the other fails. With this system you would need either the jet, or the batteries + fan to complete takeoff in the case of a failure in the other system.
http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/news-media/media~item=be67...
http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2014/10/rise-of-electric-ai...
I don't think you can. The large volume of airflow surrounding the turbine is what makes it a turbofan[1]. Without, it is a turbojet[2]. The airflow from the turbofan surrounds the hot exhaust gas and it is much quieter than the turbojet.
But, other than noise, the rest of your comment makes a lot of sense to me. But I know very little about this stuff.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbojet
Turbojets derive all of their thrust from the turbine exhaust. It's a small, compact engine, which means high power-to-weight ratio, and it's great for small jet fighters. Unfortunately, it also consumes a lot of fuel. Turboprops are at the other end, where the turbine drives the propeller at much faster speeds than a regular 4-stroke engine would. But the exhaust provides next to no thrust.
Turbofans sit in the middle. They provided much better fuel efficiency than a turbojet but greater power than a turbofan. It was very much a "we need a middle solution" type of engine.
As turbines became more efficient and compact, the turbofan became smaller as well. To the point that they could be places on a fighter, but with a smaller bypass ratio. This gives much better fuel efficiency (range), while still retaining high power.
For jetliners, it's all about efficiency, but still retaining a degree of speed. But for a really high-bypass turbofan (50% or more), it's going to be a huge engine. Fighters are between 15-20% now, but you won't see much more than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_ratio
Tom Clancy wrote a book many years ago in which he discusses this in laymans terms really well: http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Wing-Clancys-Military-Referenc...
You're mistaken. Prop speeds are comparable between piston and turbine engines. Bigger, slower moving props are preferable. When prop tip speeds approach the transonic region, on either turbine or piston power plants, efficiency goes south.
And BuffloBagel is right, I got that part wrong. I think what I was trying to say is that a turboprop supports faster aircraft speeds than a traditional engine. But yes, the propeller remains subsonic.
Unless you're experimenting with madness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H
Edit: So apparently the Tu-95 does have supersonic turboprops. But I think it's the only production aircraft with them. Also, it's loud as hell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95
And 300 volts is not considered high voltage.
If they upped the voltage to 1,500v (which is the limit before you need much more complicated stuff) it's only 10amp - a simple thin wire would do it.
They'll actually need some very high voltages to make this work. That's going to be an enormous challenge - even simple motor windings, what will you insulate them with?
15MW? That's some serious power, are you sure about that number?
If you watch agentjayz on YouTube he rebuilds turbojets that have been converted to become gas generators for power plants and some of those are easily capable of generating 30000 hp using tech from the 60s.
It really is phenomenal how much power turbine engines can make. There is a thread on the Concorde [2] that goes through a q&a session with the people who operated it. In that thread it says that the engines at idle consumed some 5 metric tons of fuel per hour per engine.
1: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0195.shtml
2: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html
The whole purpose of decoupling the fans is to give you an even higher bypass ratio - two or three large electric fans driven from one turbine can have a larger swept area than a single large geared turbofan, so can run slower for the same thrust, and hence be quieter.
The noise comes from high speed air alongside slow moving air. A high bypass fan moves more air at slower speed to get the same push. The slower speed means less noise.
One real advantage would be quick throttle response. Gas turbines are slow to ramp up output power which is a real problem when dealing with wind shear on takeoff and landing. A 30 knot wind shear turns your 140 knots air speed turns into 110 knots airspeed. An electric fan's response would be very fast, probably faster than a prop plane.