Pratt & Whitney is accelerating development of its XA103 engine for the U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) programme by using advanced digital design packages, according to the company.
The RTX subsidiary said the approach improves collaboration with suppliers and internal teams by enabling rapid design iterations, faster validation, and better forecasting for manufacturing.
The goal is to reduce costs and shorten timelines for the XA103, which will power future air dominance aircraft.
Jill Albertelli, president of Pratt & Whitney’s Military Engines business, said: “We are paving the way with digital on NGAP, so much so that the rate at which we are delivering XA103 technical data packages has doubled. Model-based design ties all the puzzle pieces together, fostering constant collaboration, and we are applying these learnings across our engine portfolio.”
Pratt & Whitney said it has invested more than $30 million this year in its model-based environment, alongside work funded through government contracts. More than 1,000 engineers and staff, along with over 100 domestic suppliers, are engaged in the effort.
The company added that the NGAP team is working toward an Assembly Readiness Review, which will set the schedule for prototype build and testing. The XA103 is expected to enter testing in the late 2020s.
So is this happening then, will we see this actually taking to the air ?
The first one is being built now apparently. First flight scheduled for 2028.
OK, thanks, I saw some comments here a while back suggesting it had stalled. Interesting times ahead what with Tempest and Trumpest.
Hi Halfwit,
The USAF 6th gen program is definitely going to happen, but the US Navy’s 6th gen fighter program is in question.
Thanks Paul, I can’t wait to see what you guys come up with, It’ll be interesting to see Tempest and Trumpest and also what the Chinese will come up with next.
Geez, I hope Trumpest doesn’t catch on… I’m hoping for a name like “Stratofigher” to go along with other Boeing planes like the B-52 and KC-135.
If you are talking about NGAD it stalled in the sense that the e pe ted design parameters underwent a re-assessment due to questions about survivability due to the extreme long range anti aircraft weapons China is introducing that may not only threaten the fighter itself but the tankers required to refuel something even having double the range of an F-35. No doubt Musk’s anti manned fighter influenced the review too. Anyway after some delay the project t got the go- ahead not sure if any changes were initiated to counter the concerns. There was some argument that an aircraft such as a modified B-21 could fulfil the role better but at this stage at least rejected. The big question is whether navy’s new fighter will happen, it was not given budget by the Govt but the House overalled that decision and ensured investment for the next year was maintained. Still big questions over it mind and it may well end up being a version of the NGAD, so still up in the air…or not if you like.
I guess only time will tell.
China Is certainly upsetting the apple cart now.
I think the question around the US 6 generation propulsion offer is not will it see service but will it see service in one or two six generation fighters.
Or will it prove to be too complex and too much of a tech reach that gets canned in the interests of a flying plane….
Hello mate, I’m not that up on US stuff but surely they have something in the pipe to replace Super Hornetts, something bigger and longer range ?
I reference this above, it’s not confirmed as yet what will happen. The Navy’s proposal which they want separate to NGAD has finance presently but only because the House overruled Trump. What if anything comes out of it is not clear longer term, be it a separate aircraft, a version of NGAD (ie F-47) or labouring on with present aircraft while introducing strike drones in some form. It’s a matter of cost, thus budgetary limitations, consideration of Chinese missiles threat to the fighter, tankers and even the Carriers, the type of offensive weapons required as a counter and thus longer term survivability of even a very long range aircraft and carrier group by the time any design becomes operable. I suspect a vesrsion of NGAD is the most likely result as a relative compromise on requirement v budget.