Probably not. It looks like the A321NEO will still come up short on either payload or range, from the last figures I read.

It is somewhat surprising that neither Airbus or Boeing have developed a proper replacement for the 757 lineage. The 787 & A350 are too big.

A30X is similar in size to A320. The 737RS was similar in size to 737…

If 321 and 737-900 stops at ~185 PAX (2-class) and 787 starts at ~295 (A350 starts at ~280 for the overly shortened version which few are interested in)… that is a pretty massive gap they are leaving for COMAC or Irkut to fill. Bombardier probably have their (financial) hands full with CSeries at the minute, so they can’t look at filling it.

Embraer? Seem content with the E-jets.

If I was in charge of one of the “little-4”, I’d be spending a lot of time looking at it.

I assume in time these will become A321NEOs…?

Aren’t you the same kid that claimed that BVR doesn’t “work” a little while ago and that “LM/BAe/Boeing/Raytheon/MBDA/Rafael/Vympel/Sukhoi/Dassault/etc” as you put it were lying? (Post #339 in this very thread)

I’m not sure how you define “kid” – but yep, same person. Probably the most qualified “kid” on the forum.

All those companies have a damn good reason for continuing with the status quo and continuing to encourage the idea that BVR combat does work, while pretty much all evidence points to it being a marginally effective tactic at best.

[I will preempt where this will probably go by pointing out that producing evidence of kills from an AMRAAM does not constitute evidence of a BVR kill. Even including that, AMRAAM and Sparrow kill ratios, regardless of whether the launches were WVR or BVR against vastly inferior opposition are pathetic.]

For instance, how much profit do you think General Dynamics made on each F-16A? How much do you think that jumped with the -16C?

Do you think the Tomcat would ever have been designed if BVR was not a concept the airforce were told would work? Or the F-15? Or the F-22? Or the Eurofighter? Or the Flanker? Or the PAK-FA? That is a helluva lot of money.

There is little point even mentioning the obvious incentive the missile companies have in proclaiming just how good a complex and very expensive BVR weapon “is”.

The emperor is naked. Obviously a lot of people are going to have difficulties dealing with that.

About the only benefit of BVR (aside from a few marginal kills) would be forcing the other guy to maneuver and eat up KE leaving them at a disadvantage when you do get WVR.

First off, they aren’t press releases, but a whole range of articles from industry publications.

hehehe – you regard aviationweek and flight as industrial publications?

Tantamount to comic strips.

Second off, you have provided -nothing- to support your argument.

For… is it the 3rd time now? If you understood PDR, CDR and TRL gates you wouldn’t need a source – you’d have rubbed your 2 brain cells together and realised how daft you are being.

Even in your own sources Pratt have pointed out they will bring the F-135 “replacement” engine to PDR… at the same time they are testing out the combustor and compressor… even you can figure out what that means.

Clue: You can’t test sub-systems before going through your CDR – as you have nothing to build. Therefore the F-135 “replacement” engine will not be built or tested – it is digital only.

The TRL6 – that is, demonstration/validation of concept at a sub-system and system interaction level, will aim to run a full engine deck that answers all questions over interaction between the various sections of the engine. Which will be getting fed back into the software tools used to design the F-135 “replacement”.

You haven’t brought one single source to this discussion.

I don’t need any.

Naturally you know what you are talking about and we should all ignore the large body of credible reports and instead listen to the kid who thought shooting missiles at manned aircraft as part of a test program was a good idea.

Again with the “kid”.

But yep – it would be most enlightening to all airforces and many fanbois just how poorly even the most modern AAMs would perform when confronted with modern aircraft evading with the aid of modern counter-measures.

Of course, if a pilot could be given the same situational awareness in a simulator and fly the aircraft via remote control (using projected images from cameras for external vision)… then the testing could be done without the hand-wringers having heart attacks. Of course… the bean counters might object – not realising the results would save them from throwing away a helluva lot of money.

Is that sufficiently clear for you?

What is quite clear is that you do not understand the TRL gating system.

Nor do you understand the difference between PRD and CDR.

You’ve been told what will happen. You have chose to ignore that by reading what you want to from press releases.

If any engine is tested in 2017, it will not be one capable of powering the F-35. What they will have is rig tests, validated simulations and a digital engine design based on the simulators which may be build in the future as a follow on to AETD to bring it to TRL8… it is that engine which will be fit to power F-35.

That article is from 2009. I would suggest that perhaps the articles I already linked to from 2012 that make it quite clear the engine is being sized for the F-35 bear greater weight.

I notice you completely ignored the point I made in the other post:

“You should also note that the demo engine for AETD is not close to having the same peak thrust as F-135, even if its physical size is similar.”

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-advent-upgrade-feasible-for-f-35-engine-333770/

hahahahaha

There is more chance of a snowball surviving mid-summer in the sahara than that ever coming to fruition.

It’ll be a new engine in ~2030 or it won’t be at all.

One can easily take a look at the wing of the F22 and notice right away that it is serpentine spanwise. As always, i’m sure there are other optimizations. Recall the X32 more sophisticated wing design also? I recall reading an article where LM described the F35’s wing not needing such complications but still yielding good supersonic performance (or so called supersonic wing

I don’t believe said features of the F-22 wing are aimed at the area-rule – the changes in cross-sectional area from the changing wing OML are soooooo small in comparison to the fuselage.

I’m pretty sure they are aimed at lift generation at moderate AoA with wing the flexing in full 3D.

In terms of the Mach-Area ruling – the F-35 is a dog. Its what you get when you specify a necessary internal volume (engine, munitions & range) as well as a very small maximum length (ability to fit on an LHD elevator). Not much LM can do about that – they were handed some sh!tty requirements in that regard.