No Turbine, just have my head out of my posterior.
That's a well-reasoned argument. It even includes a polysyllabic word!
FOG:
Was it extremely stupid to get “one” aircraft to fly three very different profiles?
RAND has one answer. I don't believe that a possible alternative - which was to develop a family of "cousin" airplanes sharing avionics, propulsion, LO and other technologies and components - was ever studied.
However, the story about the Short Stirling bomber of WW2 was that the bosses had decreed that the fuselage be designed to accommodate standard RAF packing crates and the wingspan constrained to fit RAF hangars. This was good for a wry laugh, but now the plan is that in 2040 the USAF will still be buying fighters that were length-limited by the Invincibles' elevators.