Anyone have information on the A-3D, B-66B, or RB-66A possible external fuel stores or bomb bay tanks? I know from sources they are possible, but none of the sources say what sizes were possible. I saw that the A-3D had a 1300-gallon optional transfer-fuel tank for refueling, but otherwise cannot find any other sources for specifics.

I’m also looking for information on the under wing tanks found on B-57 variants. I’ve found the information on all the various wing pods, but am coming up empty on the size of the under wing tanks that appear in many pictures. And I’ve seen various sources that point to four under wing tanks are possible, having been used by the Pakistanis. My guess is that they used 230-gallon tanks, but that is a rough guess based only on dimensions.

One last request, I’ve seen information on the B-1B pointing to six external fuel tanks and at least one bomb bay tank for ferry flights. Does anyone have specifics on that?

It will happen in the next three weeks or not at all.

I thought it was all switched off and not turned on (the defences) when one of the ships got hit?

It was an iff issue that made them ignore the incoming missiles. IIRC they didn’t figure that out for months after the fact until they ran simulations and discovered the underlying issues.

Part of the problem with analyzing this stuff is you have to know the locations of all the elements and their basing. If your pilots are flying refueled into the war zone and they have limited early warning they are at a sure disadvantage from someone that enjoys both a shorter trip and an edge in battle-space awareness. What does one give up to take the fight that distance? What are the parameters of any engagement? What are the unknowns that each side has to contend with? What are the known quantities for each player? What are the acceptable sacrifices? Are there objectives that are more defensible than others? How many responsibilities are being assigned to each task force? What kind of attrition is acceptable if any? What are the logistics of the ordnance, individual pilots, and their relative ground crews? How many replacements in machines and personnel are available down the road? The variables are endless.

The Saudis wouldn’t want to get directly involved in a war between the two unless the Pakistanis were on the verge of total regime collapse. If they are actively participating in anything it doesn’t bode well for the world’s perception of Pakistan and its stability.

It wouldn’t lose that much potential performance, but it would significantly bring down the maintenance and outright purchase costs. The issue with any future follow-on program to the F-22 is cost, which is why you would make the switch to the F-135/F-136.

I think a switch to six wet points for an F-22B type of project would help out. Your outer two can be smaller, maybe even the outer four could just be 450 gallon tanks if it saves a more massive redesign.

If France can get LCA to use the M88 then the economy of scale for the Rafale’s engine will improve. That would be brilliant on their part.

You never know with composites, the materials may be the limiting factor in this case. Look at canopies treated to reduce rcs, they have to be constantly recycled through a maintenance program to reconstitute their outer coatings due to erosion. Perhaps the aircraft skin on the LCA suffers the same fate.