Picture an aircraft like the A-5 Vigilante. Vigilante is only 63,000lbs MTOW. But built around a 33ft long bomb bay. Now add structure and fuel to hit ~80,000lbs MTOW.
I tend to agree the more I worked on it. The tandem bay was a nice to have but realistically I think the current planform affords a longer F-22 arrangement that could possibly carry more AAMs or an equal number of AAMs and one or two SiAW.
I understand; I myself really like tandem weapons bays. The YF-23's rejection from the ATF was a disappointment for many aviation fans. However, much of the current news about the F-47 focuses on limiting its size to not exceeding that of the F-22 by much. Coupled with the range requirements and fuel capacity needed for operations in the Pacific theater, I think it might disappoint us once again.
Disappoint in what way? Failing to meet range due to sticking to an arbitrary size? (Limited by HAS size.) They need to decide if they want to fail a mission because the plane got blown up or fail a mission because the aircraft was incapable of performing the mission. You can always build larger shelters.
I mean, the F-22 was size-limited by the size of the Hardened Aircraft Shelters. Those shelters are still present and in use, so they may well be limiting the size of the F-47.
In the famous Japanese science fiction novel, *Legend of the Galactic Heroes*, there's a famous line: "The tyranny of distance," which describes the brutal test that distance poses to military operations. Currently, the US has very limited bases that can be safely deployed in the Western Pacific, as almost all of them are within range of Chinese ballistic missiles. Relocating them to Hawaii would be too far away, and while Guam is a barely acceptable option, we see little evidence of fortified bunkers. Therefore, I believe the size of the F-47 will not exceed that of a fifth-generation fighter jet by much.
I mean, the US does have ~5 years to build new HAS in the Pacific that are a more reasonable size than the old style.
None of that says why they should be limited to current HAS size. Like you say, there are no shelters to limit you and it's too far for an F-22.
Plus, the USAF has nearly 200 F-22s available to assign to Europe, where they do fit into the existing HAS.
Besides the hangar issue, another big question mark lies in the cost of the fighter jet itself. We all know that the original PCA was a huge aircraft, and after the project was forced to be canceled a few years ago, the Air Force even considered making a single-engine aircraft, similar in size to the F-35, as a replacement.
There's no way an F-22 replacement was ever going to be a single-engine aircraft.
It was only considered, but this illustrates how anxious the Air Force was about controlling the cost of sixth-generation fighters after the PCA was canceled due to its exorbitant price.
Yeah, there were tiny things like that floating around for post-F-15 but they never went anywhere. That one looks Snow-Speeder sized. Good for a pair of AIM-9Xs as that's about it. I would be surprised if any of them were seriously considered.
Snow speeder, LOL!
Yeah it looks small at 1st glance but it is notional, could be like stealth F-16.But the Trump administration has announced the F-47, it raises serious doubts about whether there is enough budget left to develop a single-engine version.Snow speeder, LOL!
F-15 + F-16; F-22 + F-35; Similarly it is possible that there could be 2 platforms in the NGAD system, 1 smaller exportable jet like F-35 JSF & other bigger with export ban like F-22 ADF/ASF.
View attachment 812942
View attachment 812943
F-55 is the Lockheed Martin NGAD. That's why Trump also called it the twin engine F-35.
You cannot possibly know that. I'm pretty tired with this kind of post.
The quotes you selected definitely support it. They say it's impossible to turn the F-35 into a twin engine aircraft. The words twin engine F-35 is describing a new aircraft and Trump called it the F-55.
100% agreed. There is no way they will convert the F-35 to twin engines. But that's not what he said. This is the exact words from Trump.
Which ones? Where did they say this? They said it's impractical to make a twin engine F-35. That's not the same thing at all as saying F-55 is Lockheed's NGAD.
There you go again. Breakingdefense? Seriously? You gave the link yourself.
This thread isn't about the demonstrator but about the F47. Sure, the demonstrator gives us clues and we all did take that into account especially in the beginning. Mine with the carnards looked close except for the invisibe aft parts.
It may have featured some kind of representative weaponsbay but nothing else like wing station consideration & related necessary stress structures. A prototype will definitely grow in size and weight and as a resut the wings have to be redesigned etc.
