The USAF is also not presently pushing for ground-attack CCAs to carry those 2000lb class weapons. Which means they're going to need a manned airframe to carry them.
Because it gives you a small bay with fast-opening doors, minimal RCS bloom while the bay is exposed. Potentially even using an off-side bay to shoot if your RWR is directional.
B-21 also opens up manned 2000lb possibilities. Not sure on whether CCAs will ever get to 2000lb class, at least internally.
Yes for specific roles and likely accompanied by CCAs that would be flying SEAD and A2A missions or supplementing A2G ordnance.
I'd rather see the planform first before I made that call. From appearances it looks like both Chinese 6th gen do not have side bays and suspect the F-47 will carry some of that same design thinking as well given they are all trying for a similar end state.
100%. It will either look exactly like a lot of us think it should or will be different enough, ala J-36, to fill the threads with speculation for years to come.
Yes, it does, and I suppose I should have mentioned that as one of the options for getting 2000lb weapons there.
If your CCAs are packing SiAW/AARGM-ERs for SEAD/DEAD then by volume they'd hold a 2000lb.
I thought the J-50 appeared to have side bays?
I mean, somewhere they described the Boeing design as being roughly F-22 sized which already blew a lot of minds (mine included).
Theres a lot of focus on size not just in this thread and on the F-47 but also just generally floating around in all the other threads.
Indeed and wasn't nitpicking B-21, just that it remained an option. It could well be argued that NGAD will remain too expensive and likely speaks to the F-035 follow on which might be better suited, including production volume, to fill that role.
Plenty of ways to skin the SEAD cat, especially when looking at emerging low cost weapons that will be designed for hosting on CCAs.
I am arguing against side bays in the context of side of the intake. A separate weapons bay on the bottom of the aircraft that is on either side of the main bay is IMO different placement and complexity.
I think a lot of us were expecting that larger size.
Agreed, I have a real fondness for the AGM-122 Sidearm for a small and light ARM to throw at sudden surprises.
Okay, I see the argument.
Including the choice of which side to open, potentially allowing you to optimise exposure during weapon launch vs the local radar environment.
The US Navy F/A-XX and USAF NGAD requirements were always very similar. The carrier landing requirement was the main differentiator. Air-to ground weapons are easy to add to either design. The F/A-XX demonstrator can easily satisfy the NGAD requirement.
Wow. Another person describing the MQ-25 platform.
Yes. Boeing has also designed in space for an internal weapon bay. Currently the entire fuselage volume is filled with fuel due to it being a tanker version.
Exactly. I was shocked when I read the first 50 posts and not one person here had mentioned the MQ-25. The same "Long range strike" words are in the budget for both the USAF and USN.
Then what would you suppose they are?
I've been told that Boeing has pretty much given up trying to entice the Navy with various MQ-25 derivative notions. Also relevant, the Navy did not ask for an LO-shaped vehicle for CBARS -- not in the Capability Development Document, not in the Proposal Selection criteria, and not in the EMD contract specs. While Boeing may have had a broader, grander vision of what an MQ-25 could be, the Navy, near-sighted or not, has shown no interest in straying from the CBARS' original purpose, even in this age of CCA...
I too think the idea of both services sole sourcing to the MQ-25 is ridiculous. The idea that 100% of the $500 and $600 million allocated goes entirely to the MQ-25 is ridiculous. Like nearly every major contract there will be a competition and the major primes will all make their submissions. The allocated budget would then be for the competition and the funding will go towards multiple proposals.
Strange story
I can't see a whole lot more that I'd want to hang on the P-8 beyond AGM-65 triples on the wings and maybe some Sidewinders for grins.
Necessary, though very BORING.
