Yes XA-100/1 based AETP was proposed for F-35 but only core-upgrade happening.
But IDK if military has disclosed NGAD engine details. Until then it is all speculation by journalists & enthusiasts.
When they're not revealling the airframe properly then how engine details will come out?
R&D needs testing many combos, so who knows, may be there are A104/105 engines too, the real ones for NGAD. Time wil tell soon.
For us civillians it is very dificult to correlate thrust with engine size/weight. Although there are Engine related equations which can be solved to arrive at its dimensions in theory.
The easiest observation we see is that 2 engines means 2x thust, 2x area of intake/duct/inlet, 2x engine volune/weight.
So if NGAD over F-22 wanna have say 50% more of eveything - 12 AAMs over 8 AAMs, 12.3 tons fuel over 8.2 tons, overall IWB capacity 50% more, etc, then for same dry/wet ATWR of 0.8/1.1 the NGAD engine will have 50% more thrust, volume, weight, inlet area. So if engine length is same then the radius/diameter increase by sq.rt.(1.5)=1.2247 times or 22.47%.
NOTE -
By just increasing width/raidus/dia./BPR of engine the thrust can be increased, but not just by increasing engine length, unless more compressor stages need more length & result in more OPR, TET & exit velocity.
Yes but more BPR means more diameter/weight which remains constant.
Yes, but if bigger IWB & more fuel +DEW are needed then at least i don't see a 2-engine NGAD smaller than or size of F-22, nor its engine same size.
If you expect NGAD to carry AIM-174B AAM, but F-22 can't fit it, then NGAD has to be bigger than F-22 & so does its engines, simple.
IDK any official comment on type, size of weapons NGAD will carry.
But merits/demerits have to be compared of what is better to increase missile range - bigger size/weight with more solid fuel or small size/weight with Ramjet.
Bigger size with more solid fuel will make NGAD's IWB like J-36, so we can imagine NGAD's size between F-22 & J-36. It also means bigger engines.
AIM-174B might be just an experiment &/or for legacy jets. But AIM-260 JATM, LREW, etc size might be b/w AIM-120 AMRAAM & AIM-174B.
Also, hypersonic AAMs & AGMs are also R&Ded.
Anyways, I stacked F-22 with J-36 diagram & 1 of the early notional NGAD which looks like this:
View attachment 767517
All the 3D artists should always produce comparion with F-22 at least & some other future concepts.
They should also produce 3D models showing the weapons with IWB, which very few artists do.
I'm talking about size/volume/weight of airframe & in same TWR ratio the size of the VCE through its intel dia.
50% more airframe volume/weight -> 50% more total thrust -> 50% more engine volume & inlet area (air mass flow) -> 22.47% more inlet dia. with same length, in theory.
But you're connecting VCEs subsonic range, that's separate thing bcoz range depends on total thrust (1 or 2 engine), altitude/air-density & airframe shaping (lift, drag). Same engine can be used in many designs with different ranges.
And fuel consumption to achieve certain thrust would depend on OPR, BPR, fuel type, fuel-air mix ratio, combustor design, turbine blade & vane layout, etc.
