Or the Su-27 family. The Su-34 has a completely different fuselage and the Su-33 has large flaps for carrier landing.

i dont think there will be enough targets around or urgency to justify it,
and it is likely to increase collateral damage

For CAS it could be a problem, it would depend on the circumstances I guess and on how reliable the system is.

The survivablilty of the plane decreases with the number of passes. If a strike planes carries 5 laser guided weapons ( could be more it it carries a bunch of laser guided rockets ), making 1 pass per weapon would be almost suicidal because the enemy would be warned after the first pass.

I even wonder, wouldn’t it be better to do one slow pass and take the enemy by surprise, and attack like 3-4 targets at once. The helmet would be used to accelerate the acquisition. For CAS however it might be too dangerous to do that for the guys on the ground.

IMHO, you need to define “variant” a bit better. You are talking about modified fuselage (and modified wings as a result), modified internal bay etc etc, and entirely different avionics suite. I ask; is Tu-22M3 a variant of original Tu-22?

In simplest terms, you are asking for a fifth gen version of the Flanker; interceptor (Su-27P) air superiority (Su-35), multirole (Su-30), naval (Su-33) and ground attack (Su-34). All the qualities flanker has (long range with internal fuel, good payload, powerful radar, maneuverability) is related primarily to the Flanker’s size. If you try to do it with a 12-13 tons, with a 5th gen avoinics package and VLO airframe, you will have to make severe design trade-offs. Such design will be a F-35 copy. If you want a fifth gen flanker, it will weigh 22+ tons empty and cost more than T-50 or F-22.

Speaking of F-35; everyone talks sh!t about F-35, but I really don’t know how F-35A could have been better for A-A roles within its size/weight constraints. Its fat, but it has to be. It carries MORE fuel than F-15, even more than F-14, not to mention the internal bays. It is ugly, but this comes with being VLO. In fact, any suggestion that would make F-35A better in A-A role will necessarily end up with a much larger airframe.

If we are talking solely about performance, F-35 should have never existed at all when there was F-22. Then again, F-16 shouldn’t have existed when there was F-15. F-5 shouldn’t have existed when there was F-4. If we are talking solely about costs, F-22 program cost 66,7 billion$. USAF could have bought 2223 F-15Cs instead of building F-22. It makes F-22 the single most useless weapon on the face of earth. There should be a balance between quality and quantity and F-35 is not a bad plane in that respect.

With only 187 F-22 build the program was rather useless indeed.

Let me clarify the original idea.

The idea is a single engine plane with 2 variants. The a2a variant has about 80% of the effectiveness of the F-22 in air to air, but is of course is built in much larger number, and at much lower cost due to the smaller size and economy of scale with the production of the other variants.

Also I would argue that the F-22 doesn’t need that much speed ( mach 1.75 supercruise), mach 1.4-1.5 would be sufficient. The F-22 is super maneuvrable with its thrust vectoring, but this can be partially compensated with off-boresight missiles, and with a good maneuvrability to begin with.( this might be argued however if there is not too much extra cost for the TV nozzle )

Compared to an F-35, its fuselage would be significantly narrower. The plane would be done much more in length than width. The AAMs would be mounted in the side bays, and there would be almost no space lost between the 2 main bays, like on the F-22. Possibly there could have been only one large main bay instead of 2, in order to reduce the width of the fuselage a bit more.

It would have been more stretched than an F-35, because the bays would have been in front of the engine. With a much narrower fuselage it could have supercruised much better than the F-35.

The engine would have been in the 40000lbs class. If a variable cycle engine had not been feasable ( was it worth it to spend billions on the finishing the F119, and spending billions on the F135 and the F136? Shouldn’t all the money have been spend right off the bat on a variable cycle engine? ), an F-135 type ( derivative of the early YF119 ) would have been used.

In terms of range, the F-22 is a hog is subsonic versus an F135 equipped plane, so the plane I am proposing would have a patrol time that wouldn’t be less. It would have a lower thrust to weight ratio, but that would be partially compensated by a good thrust in transsonic. The F135 would also have needed a substantial supercruise capability.

Also, the plane would have had only one engine, which translates to significantly less IR signature at max supercruise.

All in all, it would have been an 80% solution, and the F-22 can be considered even too good against most planes. Against the very best opponents, the medium fighter would still have had the first shot easily thanks to its stealth, Superior sensors, fusion, etc. In WVR it would still be very dangerous with its AIM-9Xs.

The a2a variant would eat flankers for lunch. 🙂

The a2g variants would have a much fatter fuselage, but even at that, still narrower than the F35. Basically the only difference with the a2a variant is a redesigned upper fuselage to accomodate more fuel, and different bay doors for larger weapons. The F-35A can almost supercruise at mach 1.2, so I think that the plane I am proposing, with its narrower fuselage, would have been capable of mach 1.2 without problem, and would have had a better transsonic acceleration.

Both variants would have the same side bays. The side bays have an extractable rail launcher like on the FB-22 that can launch either an AIM-9 or an AIM-120. In strike configuration, the side bays carry AMRAAMs, and the bombs are carried in the main bays. In a2a configuration, the side bays carry AIM-9Xs ( giving the ability of LOBL with the helmet, which is a very reliable way of launching ), and 4 AMRAAMs are carried in the main bays ( carried staggered like on the F-22 ). The AIM-9X and AIM-120C having a reduced wingspan ( 45cm vs 65cm compared to the 9M and 120A/B), the side bays would have been smaller in depth and width than on the F-22A.

The main bays would have been almost identical. The only difference would have been the doors and possibly a stronger hardpoint on the a2g variant for a 2000lbs capacity instead of around 1500lbs on the a2a variant ( the weight of 4 SDBs and the rack is 1360lbs).

Both variant would have been identical otherwise ( same wings, etc… ). Having a redesigned upper fuselage would have been roughly equivalent to carrying CFTs, it would have affected the wing loading and the transsonic/supersonic performance. Maybe another difference would have been the canope. The a2a variant would have had 360degrees FOV or almost ( same as the F-22A) and the a2g variant maybe less, with the redesigned enlarged structure starting right behind it ( for the extra fuel ).

Air Forces can no longer afford large numbers of single mission aircraft, so seeing a future jet with separate A2A and A2G versions is extremely unlikely.

In decades past, A2A and A2G required specialty training because it took a year for a pilot flying a “dumb” jet to become proficient in either. The pilot was the “brain” that made a dumb jet into a viable weapon. IOW, the pilot’s proficiency limited the capability of the jet to accomplish its mission.

Advances in avionics and smart munitions over the past 20 years gives combat jets more capability to find and hit air or ground hit targets than in the past, allowing a pilot to be proficient in both A2A and A2G.

The USAF is still looking at pure fighters to replace the F-X.

If you have 2 variants of the same plane, the pilot would very easily transition from one to the other. The cockpit, avionics would be the same, except that one would have an a2a IRST, and the other an EOTS. And the pilot would feel that the a2a variant is better aerodynamically.

It would be the same as an F-35A pilot flying an F-35C. He would get used to it very quickly.

Building 2 variants would be Worth it if it doesn’t cost too much and if the planes are built in large numbers. I think it is important to have a relatively long range and relatively large weapons for the strike plane, and it is also important to have a high speed and high maneuvrability on the a2a variant.

When you want to drop heavy wepons you use the a2g variant, but the a2a variant can still be very usefull to drop SDBs ( in fast supercruise which would be good for an initial strike ).

first of all, develop a navy aircraft. you can always remove a few things and put a lighter landing gear on it if you really want to gain some weight.

That “weight watchers trick” aside, you keep the same aircraft for everything (forget two different versions)

If the CV design doesn’t impact much the CTOL variant that might work out. Think the mig-29K for instance which has regular mig-29 wings, but capable of folding.

I think the idea of building a seperate CV variant (deifferent wings, etc ) might have merit if like 500 planes are built. But if I could do without a separate aerodynamic configuration that would be better of course. There might be the possibility however of lightening the structure for the CTOL variant without too much trouble.

The plane needs a low wing loading for landing, that would be good for the maneuvrability of a fighter. But that should not come at the cost of the supercruise capability.

A fuselage similar to the F-22 but flatter and wider, allowing for wider and longer bays for bigger weapons (a pair of JDAM, Storm Shadow and such) If no need for that, you’ll make “wet pylons” inside so to carry drop tanks internally (not unlike the f-105s did in Vietnam) and increase the combat range, especially for CAP missions. A good shape would be similar to the YF-23, Combining high stealth potential with high lift and low drag.

The tanks mounted on the wet pylons would be small. Check the volume of a 2000lbs JDAM compared to an external fuel tank as a comparison. I doubt it would carry more than 250gal if it took the entire space of the bay. It might be an idea to increase range as much as possible with say 1 tank in one bay and one weapon in the other, but the gain would be rather small.

I had in mind a medium weight plane, whereas you are looking at a heavy plane.

Making the plane flatter would increase body lift I guess. It might be an idea but if you want relatively large weapons and the air ducts above, you’re kind of stuck with a thick fuselage vertically I think.

What I don’t like about the YF-23 is the lack of side bays. For an aircraft that will have a lot of a2a to do, I think they are important. I guess that the F-22 design would be easier to navalize too. Look a the naval variant of the F-23, it was very different.

you’d carry double missile rails mounted on the insides of the bay doors allowing 4 AMRAAMS or similar size missiles to be carried and two cheek bays on the sides allowing 4 more missiles AIM-9X or AMRAAM.

Sort of like on the F-35… You have to think about the vertical ejection of the bomb. I think that would force to have a deep bay to retract the missile below the bomb, or a really wide bay to carry the missile on each side of the bomb. You might be able flatten the fuselage which might allow the second possibility.

Missile rails could be removed from the bays, freeing space, in case you don’t need wide weapons, so you can combine additional fuel tanks and up to 8 SDBs mounted on a rack fixed in the middle of the fuel tanks and on the sides of the bays

You are still talking about main bays here, not side bays I think. You are envisionning a really large bay, and probably a large plane, minimum 18 tons I think. It seems your plane is more like a strike plane with secondary strike capability.

What would be the general specs of your plane?

Personally I was thinking more of a medium weight plane.

As the aircraft would be rather long (necessary for good aerodynamics, especially in supersonic flight) the nose of the naval version would be articulated (like the F-4 ordered for the Royal Navy) to reduce occupied space inside carriers

What length would it have?

Finally, you’d integrate a complete electronic combat suite, like SPECTRA inside the airframe itself, alongside with the laser designating system so that you don’t need any pods for any mission.

The plane would be stealthy so indeed everything has to be internal. I was only suggesting carrying the sniper externally on the a2a variant as a secondary capability.