I hope there was more in this analysis than the obvious point that there still needs to be manned fighters. If AF leadership was smart they would set the expectation that CCAs are an enabler for the manned component, not the other way around.
If $300 million is too expensive, what can you get for $200 million. Can you get broad spectrum stealth with a little bit more range, performance, and payload than the F-35. An adaptive engine, maybe conformal MFAs? Base the mission systems on an open architecture Block 4. If that is not possible then continue building the F-35 and fund the adaptive engine for increased range and power generation capacity.
Unless you can build an adaptive engine that will also work with the LiftFan in the F-35Bs, the F35s will all stay on the same engines. The XA100 and -101 were both canceled because they only worked on the F-35A and -C, not the -B.
I'm confused. You keep talking about the A-12 and when you do I assume you are referencing the Grumman A-12. I've found the references on this forum to a larger bay than is specified n Wiki but I see no reference to them being longer than what would be considered a normal length for an aircraft.
This graphic certainly doesn't suggest the length you are referencing.
I think the text is off on the internal payload, 8 MK84s but only ten Mk83s doesn't make sense. If the bays were long enough to fit MK84s two inline then it would fit a lot more than ten Mk83.
What appears to be more likely is the bay is wider and somewhat deep but not very long which makes the ten Mk83s achievable and the eight Mk84s a pipe dream but the four Mk84s as per the graphic the likely result. Given the other payload, two TSSAM, which were projected to only be 14 feet in length any A-12 bay longer than 15 feet seems a pipe dream.
Can I also suggest that assigning so much credibility to a design that never flew and was only ever a mockup probably means there were some assumptions made that didn't match with reality.
I'm almost positive that the text is a typo and the drawing is correct. 4x 2000lb bombs or 10x 1000lb; or more typically, 2x HARM and 2x 2000lb.
There's whole pages of discussions and rants about why the McDonnell-Douglas design was chosen and how there was major illegal bullshit that went down.
But the spec to carry 2x AAMs, 2x AARGMs, and 2x 2000lb booms was never questioned or argued about. That's a reasonable load for a long range deep interdictor.
In fact, there's specific discussion in the program notes that the "attack bay" sizes were chosen to hold a 2000lb bomb in one of the LGB configurations (length) and an AGM-84 series missile (depth). Today, we'd say it has to fit an NSM, LRASM, or Laser JDAM and an AARGM-ER. Bays long enough to load anything that will fit on the weapons elevators (~15ft plus clearance) and deep enough for whatever the fattest wingspan happens to be (was ~37" deep for carrying Harpoons, but that may need to change due to newer weapons). I would expect someone to rig a folding wing bit for any SM6s carried internally. It's already in production on the basic SM6s, I think they just left the control fins sprung all the way out for the AIM-174s.
I suppose the JASSM XR variant gets you that additional range but I am in the camp of no internal carriage of JASSM. A better option would be the Andruil Barracuda 500 which is not as wide as a Mk84 but about the same length with a range of 500 miles. I expect Andruil could increase the width closer to Mk84 size and increase the range significantly. Barracuda maybe isn't as LO as the JASSM but would be a lot cheaper and far quicker to manufacture. That means the USN can build the F/A-XX bay around that 14 ft length which would match F-35.
Whatever weapon, I don't care that much. It's about designing in the volume you need for your weapons
into the plane.
There is no way that a $300 million NGAD survives or is bought in enough numbers to make a difference if it somehow did. We're going to have to do more with less. Fortunately, things are rapidly changing on multiple fronts, technology-wise.
Everyone would love to field an F-111 sized VLO interdiction/strike aircraft. But we can't afford that type of program, imo. What we can do is buy multiple different systems optimized in ways that enhance each other and let is do more with less.
The tyranny of distance still applies.
Some planes will have to fly 3000nmi from their safe bases to the fight, beat the bad guys, and then fly 3000nmi home. (2000nmi for the carrier planes)
I'm sure the companies are pulling their hair out trying to find a way to not have the second coming of the Vark.
The N-ATA was conceived when the USN had no idea about the PGM revolution. They had it carrying 16 Mk82s in the primary bomb bay alone. That's at least 4 times the internal capacity of the F-35.
Only by reason of poor racks/optimization on the F-35. It's technically a little less than double the capacity of the F-35. It's space for a pair of 2000lb bombs per bay instead of a single bomb per bay.
The "large numbers of lighter bombs" (I have notes on my computer saying 10x 1,000lb or 16x 500lb) is due to specialized racking, trying to pack as many small bombs into the bay as possible. And as we are seeing from Ukraine, sometimes you still need that.
I still expect someone to build a weapons rack that will let an F-35 carry at least 8x 500lb bombs in the bays, 4 in each, plus the AMRAAMs. Or however many Rockeyes you can stuff in the bays.
20 years later, we can see how one PGM can finish a sortie single-handedly. Do I see an IWB larger than the one on Fat Amy? Yes, but not by much.
And again, I'm talking about internal space for probably 4x AAMs and then 2x AARGM-ERs and 2x 2000lb (or similar sized missiles).
Yall want bay dimensions? Here ya go: 37" deep or so, 75" wide, and 181" long. each bay, assuming two bays. That's what I am expecting for the offensive bays in the FAXX. Internal space for 4x AMRAAM-sized weapons as well.
