I’m not suggesting a focus on bombing.
I speculating on a more broadly focused multirole fighter like the F-14 Tom/Bombcat.
At most some limited bay depth for 2 SiAW or AGM-88ERs at the expense of AAM space. It was designed to be the PCA element and whether its from the name or the descriptions, PCA seems very much air to air focused with little mention of any A2G work.
I’m sure they won’t rely on those factors for the NGAD’s entire design config.
This was one of the reasons for the NGAD review and program pause. There were reports before this that NGAD was designed to not require the support of CCAs (apparently per Kendall during an interview with Vago), but one of the major things that came up during the review was building NGAD with CCAs in mind.
Of the things that could actually be offloaded to CCAs at the expense of the manned platform, a certain degree of magazine depth / employment of certain weapons would make sense.
Additionally, I do not think any single type of aircraft can survive and remain inside a peer power's area denial network without CCA support on some level. Broadly speaking, in a system of systems fight, CCAs are the bare minimum it takes to not lose ground while PCA elements are the maneuvering element that can take advantage of temporary gaps to dismantle parts of the enemy system of systems.
It’s unlikely adaptive-cycle engines will yield any advantages until CMC’s catchup and cut weight down. So range is still reliant on fuel.
Im curious where this comes from. Im not knowledgeable in any part of aerospace, but reporting over the years do contradict what you said here.
Will it have more static thrust than F119s? Probably not significantly. 35k - 40k lb is probably likely.
But efficiency and fuel consumption wise, its been stated on numerous occasions that being able to transition between low and high bypass improves fuel consumption and efficiency. Conceptually it makes sense as well even if the high bypass isnt
that much highwr
The B-1B is phasing out and the Raider can’t replace it’s mission.
That is true. It remains to be seen what the USAF plans to do for strike. It could be that they arent going to adhere too closely to the PCA definition and opt for a multirole F-47, though theres been no indication of that.
Penetrating strikes either in the form of direct bombing or standoff strikes doesnt necessarily require a manned fighter either.
Whether it may be penetrating strikes or heading out over the coast incepting a nosy navy. I think the F-47 may bridge that gap.
Throughout NGAD development, I really havent seen anything to indicate strike focus either as a primary or secondary role. Maybe some limited standoff missiles and SDBs at best. For the purpose of intercepting surface combatants, F/A-XX and the navy would be in much better position to handle that assuming F/A-XX isnt cancelled. It'll have greater availability and a fitting role for the job.
