The EDE offers 6000 hours time between overhaul but does not increase thrust. Beyond the EDE, there is also proposed evolution which will provide 25,000 lbs but which will return engine durability back the 3000~4000 hours bracket. Currently, this has not been developed. Basically, it comes down to the EDE technology being able to offer increased durability or about 14% increase in thrust but not both at the same time.

Beyond that, there is also a thrust growth variant of the F414 with 29,000 lbs of thrust but which requires a larger diameter fan, increased bypass and revised inlets.

heh heh heh, a Super Bug with 58,000 lbs thrust would be pretty darned hot!

GE states 20% increase in thrust.........

That version is for some new design using the F414 growth engine not the F-18E/F. It'll require a redo of the inlet ducts and intakes themselves. Also, if I remember the release brief correctly, it is a thrust increase or 6000 hours but not both at the same time.

In anycase, if the whole bet is on thrust growth engines... the F135 has been rated at over 52,000 lbs for the X-32 proposal. At the high 20s in pressure ratio level, it is also in a pretty mild state right now.

That 20% increase is for the EDE and I believe the intakes of the Super Hornet would not have to be redesign to take it either..........As for the F-135 most sources state 40,000-43,000 lbs. Personally. I believe that is way low and even lower for the GE F-136..............of course that is pure speculation on my part.

The X-32 direct lift requirement called for 52,000 lbs of thrust to meet the promised payload specifications. Both GE and P&W had F136/135 engines ready to meet that requirement.

the x-32 did not use the lift fan idea. just pure engine thrust.

I caught that just a split second after I sent my reply. The Boeing X-32 didn't have a lift fan like the X-35/F-35. Of course even if the requirement back then stated a need for 58,000 lbs of thrust for the X-32. That doesn't necessarily translate into 58,000 for the current P&W F-135. Hopefully, it does but I've seen nothing to back that claim..............at least so far!

Not 58,000 lbs, 52,000 lbs. And, it is not an unreasonable number.

The F119 in the F22 already makes somewhere in the neighborhood of 38,000~39,000 lbs thrust despite the "official" rating of 35,000 lbs. The F135/136 are 51-inch engines (max diameter) up from about 46.5 inch of the F119 in the F22. By cross section, the F135 is about 20% larger which translates loosely to a similarly higher mass air flow. The F135 also has an improved core over the F119. 43,000 lbs is a rather modest "tune" given the 20% larger engine, increased core temperature and the fact that the higher bypass ratio makes the afterburner more effective at raising thrust output.

While, I have no doubt the P&W F-135 and GE F-136 make much more thrust than the "Official" rating................Do you have a good source to back up that claim???

I am not saying that they are making more thrust than the official rating. I am saying that the engine size and architecture has a lot of headroom for thrust growth.

As far as their current output is concerned, I am sticking to P&W's official spec sheet release stating 43,000 lbs and 28,000 lbs until something concrete says otherwise.

As a conservative estimate, I think we can expect the flight performance of the F-35A with internal weapons to be equal to or better than an F-18E/F with no weapons and all external pylons (which are rather draggy given their outward cant) removed. If I have to put some numbers on it, I'll say the cruise speed should be in the Mach 1.2~1.4 bracket on dry, about Mach 1.8~2.0 maxed out on full burners at high altitudes (>40,000 ft). Turning performance should be slightly better than the F-16 and the F-18, with roll rates significantly better. Operational ceiling should be somewhat higher given the huge control surfaces. Thrust specific fuel consumption should be better with the F135/136 engines. Combined with 8.4 tons of fuel and the ability to not drag along pylons or external ordnance on most missions, endurance and practical operational range should be about twice to 2.5 times longer.