It's very unlikely they'd design a 6th gen specifically for a 4th gen engine, especially when they've known for years NGAP was under development.
I don't agree with calling the F110 a 4th gen engine. Engines should not be put into generations as the internals are constantly improving with thrust bumps and increased duration between service intervals. The Navy selected the F414 durability upgrade instead of the performance upgrade. This shows where the Navy priorities lie. The Navy design most likely flew with two GE F110-129 engines that are in production. GE most likely proposed an uprated F110 engine for the production Navy aircraft.
Two F414s seem too little, two F135 seems like a lot of power (and a big airframe)…. And one F135 or three F414 just seems custom designed to troll this forum after all the Super F-35 and J-36 discussion.
Exactly it won't use either of these engine.
The F414 with its low 0.25:1 bypass ratio has poor fuel efficiency. This makes it a poor choice for an strike fighter with a 900nm combat radius. The only reason the Super Hornet used such a fuel guzzling engine is because Boeing didnt want to redesign the engine bay area. This was the only way GE could get more thrust out of an engine the same size as the F404. A pair of uprated F414 EPE engine could theoretically have enough thrust to power a large Navy strike fighter but the fuel efficiency would completely rule them out. You can not improve improve fuel efficiency without significantly increasing the bypass ratio and this either requires a much larger fan or a smaller core that would reduce overall thrust.
Two F135 engines would result in a ridiculously large Navy aircraft. The F-35C weighs 15,686 kg empty. Fitting two F135 engines in a Navy plane that weighs 20 ton would be impossible if it also needed to have a large internal weapons bay. 20 ton is already heavier than every US Navy fighter.
If you take the GE F414 with its low 0.25:1 bypass ratio and fit a 5inch greater diameter you effectively get an GE F110 engine. The core of both engines are very similar in size. The F110 has a second low pressure turbine to power the larger fan. The F110-129 with its 0.76:1 bypass ratio has very good fuel efficiency during cruise. Even better than the F135 per pound of thrust. Two F110 engines is perfect for a 20 ton strike fighter with 900nm combat radius.
They may have a few, but when an F110 is making the same power in the same volume, I'd say that the F119 is unlikely to be used.
The effective difference between a late model F110 and F119 is supercruise ability.
Spot on. The overall dimensions of the F110 and F119 are similar. The F119 simply has a much larger core resulting in a much lower bypass ratio. The larger core makes the F119 heavier as the cores are the heaviest part of the engine. The larger core also explains why the F119 has a big dry thrust advantage and a higher exhaust velocity.
Basically the goal of the new adaptive engines is to make an engine that performs like the F110 in high bypass mode and like the F119 in low bypass mode. The aircraft then gets the excellent fuel consumption of the F110 during the subsonic cruise segment but when the aircraft needs to supercruise the engine performs like the F119.
There might be less known benefit of the third stream. The very old 1960's engines performed surprisingly well above Mach 2 due to their lower pressure ratio. The third stream could open up at high speed when in afterburner to offload the first few fan stages and reducing the total pressure ratio. F119doctor might have some thoughts on this.
