Considering the design was in the wrong direction it does make perfect sense to lead them astray.

How capable would a stretched F-22A (what people around here refer to as FB-22) dedicated fighter-bomber be in reality? I can only think of the Mirage IV as anything halfway comparable to the idea, although the latter was a stretch of a single-engine design to accommodate both an internal bomb bay and a second engine.

JDAM isn’t the only gps-guideed weapon in the arsenal; some do have longer wings and like the high speed release.

# The rest of the current/future long-range strike fleet:
— retire B-52H NOW
— get B-767 auxiliary bomber NOW
— keep & upgrade B-1B along B-1R ideas in a purely conventional role till B-767 is available, then retire
— keep & upgrade the B-2A in a purely nuclear role till B-3 is operational, then use them for outsized conventional Grand Slam-type ammo
— build between 170 and 220 B-3, IOC no later than 2020/22
— end that LHA-R nonsense and build one more CVN instead to carrier-base UCAS groups for strike, ECM and ISR and give the carriers a meaningful long-range attack capability, also equip a number of land-based groups with them replacing F-15E (along my Unified Tactical Air Corps approach).

The B-52H is a bargain platform and it is absolutely fruitless to early retire at this point.

The B-767 is only a twin engine jet in the 707 class with nearly a 100mph less cruise speed; the cruise speed is not useful in a crisis. The 767 makes a poor tanker platform and an even worse platform for a bomber. (KC-767 couldn’t even beat the KC-30 in a straight up competition.) You may as well use a C-130 to do the job at that pace.

The rest of your proposals pretty well ends the arms treaty limits. Fine is you want unrestricted military spending in the future across the globe. Not good overall for humanity.

I have a hard time believing APG-71 spent a lot of time getting overhauled as it was built to strictly use off the shelf parts.

What Australia really needs is probably something in the F-18E/Typhoon/Rafale class when you factor in all the problems with the current F-15 family of planes. Getting a brand new F-15E is no guarantee of quality construction. And the F-111C is going to still be there if they want to budget for it. Its not like there is an economical A-3 or A-6 alternative or even some medium bomber design out there ready to fly now without turning to the Russians. Even then you have perhaps the Platypus, secondhand Fencers, or secondhand Backfires at most – none of which the Russians would dare sell to an American ally.

If Australia could piecemeal their original contract out to new customers to avoid the contractual obligations they’ve already agreed to, then its a win-win situation for both parties involved. Then it basically gets simplified down to finding a new alternative that meets their needs. Finding those customers to pawn off Super Hornets is the problem. The F-18E is just a well-polished turd that few militaries seem to want.

I could see them purchasing used Gripens over any other option. Saab is offering pretty liberal terms on the deal. Will the U.S. state department allow it? With Bush and Cheney in office they’ve stabbed their traditional partners in the back on such matters in order to force 100% American options.

Play devil’s advocate and lets compare the details of the Super Hornet to the F-35. Oh wait, it’s been done over and over. And funny enough, the difference was huge…

Does anyone think an F-106A upgraded to use the F100-PW-229A and a more modern missile dispenser coulda woulda shoulda been?

Internally it would of had room for a pair of Sidewinders and probably four AMRAAM with some energetic engineer imagination. The radar would of had to be upgraded, but the F-106 had good cabinet space for that sort of thing.

The engine is a little bit wider but its a ton lighter and the airflow is almost identical. It would of had better thrust and sfc in about every situation. Definitely would of put the Dart into a new class.

I know, people are probably thinking why not just replace them with F-16 Block52s? Well, for one thing, range. For another, they were sturdy-built machines unlike the early F-16’s that replaced them. And because they were already paid for there is just the pleasant idea of not having to spend money on new airframes. I’m not sure the F-106A really needed to be replaced if it had been modernized. After all, it was solely tasked with being an interceptor not a jack-of-all-trades wondertoy.