Yes, and to do anything but the low hanging fruit they will need a huge financial investment to make it happen. This won't happen any time soon since the long haul sector of the airline industry is sucking wind (see what I did there?) for the last two years and will need several years of positive cash flow before they decide to replace the current generation engines.
Yes - probably not much need.
Bump the MTOW and PIP the engines and the 789/781 could become very capable. Relatively low cost and could drive new sales.
Problem is if you only do a 3-4% PIP and you competitor does a 8-10% GTF, you may have saved a lot of investment, but your sales will get a severe hit.
Good luck getting that within 10 years though. Read this thread viewtopic.php?t=1456349
and specifically this answer by Lightsaber. #20.
"I wish the billions needed for new factories, development, and testing could be thrown around casually.
The iphone us a great example, in effect every other one is a PiP sold as the latest and greatest. But the next generation needs a gearbox factory setup for Aerospace practices and documentation (I believed Mitsubishi had so many issues with the MRJ due to thinking car manufacturing was good enough. Nope, there is a reason planes can be identified by s/n on which need an added inspection and which do not. If the paperwork doesn't outweigh the engine, it isn't ready to ship.
It takes 7 to 9 years to develop a new architecture engine once the concept has been completely proven in a prototype.
A great example is the Merlin engine of WW2, to manufacture in mass quantities, Ford had to tighten the tolerances to make truly interchangeable parts:https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/class
"I replied loftily, 'I suppose that is because the drawing tolerances are too difficult for you, and you can't achieve the accuracy.'
"'On the contrary,' he replied, 'the tolerances are far too wide for us. We make motor cars far more accurately than this. Every part on our car engines has to be interchangeable with the same part on any other engine, and hence all parts have to be made with extreme accuracy, far closer than you use. That is the only way we can achieve mass production.'"
.(For the record, RR engines has 5% more horsepower, but took twice the labor hours of the Ford built engines that were not match fit. Packard had great engines with a camshaft built to spec except it wore down a little, which cost horsepower.)
All jet engine parts must be interchangeable. It takes years to do the calculations and prove out the manufacturing process. Today all engines must meet durability, thrust, and be completely interchangeable. If two engines come out if the factory with a 0.25% fuel burn difference, the customer will demand the higher fuel burn one be fixed. So there must be new processes developed to meet design.
I've been given hell for designing tight tolerance springs in an engine. Why? To meet the performance requirements for all manufacturing tolerances and worst case end of life wear, that was required, a bleed air regulator needed a $5 more expensive spring to ensure safe anti-icing (ensure enough flow) but when the engine was worn out (but still safe to fly) with worst case manufacturing tolerances, to prevent excess fuel burn, a very tight tolerance of spring was required.
While boring, this is the sort of stuff that must be analysed. I have found unstable control loops that were fine in the prototype, but fly that engine 30,000 FH and whoa, everything behaving loose creates a problem.
This is why even a PiP takes 3 or 4 years and several hundred million dollars. Design, analyze, test, and in parallel certify the production process. This is why the CFM-56 wasn't displaced quickly nor prior to it the JT8D.
Then you have to have certified maintenance, inspection, and some standard MRB repairs ready before EIS. e.g., The ultrafan needs a new fan ding repair process. That alone will take 5 years to develop. RR was beat up enough by testing parts in a low sulfur environment that failed early. Ironically, it doesn't matter where the sulfur came from considering the parts were downstream of the combustor. Pratt actually imports high sulfur fuel for testing new engines just to check this chemical behavior. (Yes, the messed up on seals at high relative veolicities, fixed).
The ultrafan will increase bearing and seal speeds. Pratt showed RR more testing on this is required. That is $250 million in testing and it is a big deal if a problem is found as some things the testing finds what the analysis missed (I alternate between the two roles, or did... Now I speak the language of the multiple teams).
The T1000 problems hurt RR sales and will cost RR 2.4 billion pounds. RR cannot afford the development costs of a new engine until the power by the hour revenue is rolling in and a bit of debt is paid off (my opinion, link on T1000 costs follows):https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/rolls-r
I think RR designs excellent engines. Unfortunately, until fuel is back over $140/bbl, no one will develop a new widebody or new widebody engine, in my opinion.