I'm not sold on that.
Remember that F-15EXs will be available in small numbers (~100) as well as however many F-47s get built. And we all know that you can handily zoom-climb with an F-15, plus the old ASM-135 was only 2600lbs. The AIM-174B has some significant ALBM use as well, and only weights ~2000lbs. Including booster, the SM3 is ~3000lbs.
Plus, a 600gal fuel tank weighs some 5000lbs as is. ~4020lbs of fuel and a bit over 1000lbs of tank.
This is a capability option it doesn't mean they all or always have to mount such a weapon. It's there to have it and not having to use it rather than not having it and needing it.
Until now the (smaller) ballistic missiles were used for target practice. But moving forward it'll be more common and with the larger type: for example, it could be used for emergency ABM defence shifting of ammo or reinforcement from coast to coast or toward Hawaii.
Well, (5000 lb/2268 kg) that's the station rated load (with unknown leeway amount, assuming safety limit is 2x) actual ordnance is only a fraction.
The pylon with rack is almost 400 lb already, the tank itself should be around 300-400 lb, too.
Disagree about type of pylon. You're going to need something akin to the Boeing Enclosed Weapons Pod to carry things, and then you can decide about punching the entire pod to further clean up the RCS.
Because otherwise you're talking about having a huge RCS from the pylons and MALDs hanging from them. I think the EWP could physically fit 4x MALDs, 2 on the doors and 2 on the bay. Or you just add a couple inches in the middle and make a new EWP around holding 4x MALDs.
Good point. The pods would provide better drag but not really needed per se. My vision is to shoot them off before getting into detection range. The MALD has a range of 900 km and meant to be sacrified and soak up AAA munitions. So firing from a distance is no issue.
An alternative would be to use the Flying Missile Rail (FMR) to carry the MALD away first and increase the range further.
https://alert5.com/2017/09/07/darpas-flying-missile-rail/
You definitely do not need 50-55klbs engines to go Mach 3. Blackbird J58s were only 35k static thrust.
You are forgetting drag. The Blackbird is much sleeker. Assuming the F47 won't have worse drag than the F22.
The F22 gets to about M1.9 at 100% (26000 lb each engine).
Using drag equation : to get to M3 you need (3/1.9)^2 = 2.49x the power or 64812 lb on each engine.
My estimate was generous for a much better F47.
Edit:
Let's be more nerdy and picky.
Lets say we want to reach M3 with 35000 lb engine power. How high does it need to be for air density to offset the required power?
We also assume the engine's power won't drop with altitude!
At altitude (FL350) we got a desnity of 0.28 kg/m^3. So we need the density to drop by 2.49/(35/26)=1.8497x.
or to a desnity of 0.28/1.8497=0.151376 kg/m^3
density at FL470 is about 0.152 kg/m^3
With a max. service ceiling of more than 65000 ft the F22 should be able to do it but obviously that's not the case.
The SR-71 flew at FL800.
Well, fortunately, 1000lb bombs have about the same "box factor" as AMRAAMs. 1000lb bombs are a little shorter than an AMRAAM, but are about the same width. So a bay that can hold an AMRAAM can hold a 1000lb bomb, this has been demonstrated with F-22s.
If the USAF or Boeing was thinking, they'd have made the bays deep enough that you could stuff a 2000lb weapon in there. ~25" deep, not 19". Also, 25" deep bays are deep enough to double-stack AMRAAMs with some staggering so that the fin volume overlaps. You can even fit 4x AMRAAMs on a rack into a 25x25" square. Instead of a single row of 6x AMRAAMs like the F-22 carries, you could stuff 12x AMRAAMs into a bay only 6" deeper and 3" wider. Or, 2x 2000lb weapons plus 4x AMRAAMs, if you're doing some bunker busting.
But I suspect that the only 6th gen fighter airframe designed around hauling 2000lb bombs internally was the FAXX, not the F-47.
The F22's IWB is already ~34" deep. It's just that airframe rips protrude ~2-4" into the bay and depending on the type of racks needed it's futher cut short by another 7-12". The rips probably double as sound proofing.
1000 lb isn't usefull for valued targets. The israelis dropped almost always 2000 lb on the buildings in gaza.
Apparently, the FB-22-2 was meant to have a 5000 lb load on a new centerline station with 2x 2000 lb to the sides.
If you refer to how the F23 was meant to have those industrial assembly line like chain racks (akin to tank automated ammo loading systems). I honestly have some doubts. For one how do you attach their I/O cable links? They would need to be moved to the rear or so. They also depend on tension in the chains which means regular maintenance etc. We have to have faith they won't dislocate at high g's or do rattle too much when the bay is open.
Using that system also is counter to them being able to be ejected literally rather than dropped. Meaning you would only be able to drop when stable and level not while maneuvering. The F22 was meant to be able to fire while on the back here.
The only viable solution for stacking is using containers and angling them for shooting out. This adds more mechanics. I imagine this would be used for smaller kind of ordnances like the Miniature Hit-to-Kill self-defense missiles.
Say what now? F-35 was designed to operate in contested areas!
The F-35's projected undetactable stealth life time had run out since 2023/24.
It's still "safe" because the systems able to detect it aren't widespread yet. But the technological timelime for its stealth life time has run out is a fact. It's beyond the scope of this post to go into details any further.
Besides that new galium based radar antenna elements increased detection range by 2x (regardless of other improved means to detect stealth). This means the F22 would be detected at 20-30 NM instead of previously 10-15 NM and the F35 ~50NM. So considering a safety margine of 2x that's 50-100 NM for them.
With the F15s even further back the AIM154 won't be that much helpful to the F47/B21. They will be just barrier defense.
