"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

Out of those options IMO since none of them are stealth aircraft the
best way to go would be to start with a gutted Su-37 and stuff it with
American engines, avionics and weapons but chances are even if the US
could make itself do that, by the time they were happy with the
aircraft it would be damn near as expensive as the F-22.

Err, you've lost me here. Not only would the US be more liekly to buy
even a French aircraft than a Russian one, the Su-37 is not in any way
a stealth aircraft - from the front you can see both compressor faces.
Both the Typhoon and Rafale were designed with some reduced
observables involved.


That's one of the things they'd likely fix if they went with the
Flanker. They could put in the radar blockers like in the Super
Hornet to hide the compressor faces.

I don't think it would necessarily be that easy, nor are the turbines the
only source for a return. The Su-37 is anything but a stealthy platform (all
sorts of sharp angles, canards, big whomping flat surfaces, etc., not to
mention no ability to carry internal stores, which is about the only way you
are going to achieve true stealthiness).



Typhoons and Rafales seem like nonstarters for the simple reason that
whatever aircraft is chosen would also do air to ground. Let's see
you hang a 5000lb PGM or two on either of those aircraft. Sure you
can go on about small bombs etc. but it's tough to duplicate the
flexibility of being able to carry a heavy load.

Again, you've lost me - we're talking about an F-22 replacement - I've
not seen any proposals to hang TWO 5000lb weapons on them.

How 'bout two 7500lb weapons? One of the things being looked at is
carrying a Lockheed Minion UCAV under each wing. Also on the F-22
each of the four pylons is stressed for 5000lb so if they wanted to
carry multiple 5000lb weapons they could. The Flanker can carry a
Sunburn so 5000lb weapons wouldn't present a problem from a load
perspective.

Where have you seen *any* kind of requirement for the F/A-22 to carry 5000
pound munitions? GBU-37 is apparently the biggest "regular" bomb we now have
in the inventory (at about 4000 pounds), and it remains the property of the
big boys (specifically the B-2). In fact, the reasoning is going in the
opposite direction--they have already done some shape-mating work with the
SDB on the F/A-22--nobody has even mentioned making the GBU-37 a fit for the
F/A-22.



Given the options of Typhoon, Rafale, and SU-whatever, I just don't
see an option other than Typhoon. Be nice to get more funding for
things like tranche 3 and the radar upgrades.

The Typhoon would be the most palatable from a political standpoint
but I'd think any foreign solution would be political suicide for
anybody involved in the decision. I'm wondering if maybe the US has
lost the expertise and vision needed to see a program through to
completion. B-2, Commanche, F-22 has been stretched out for nearly a
decade (it was originally intended to be in service in 1995) and the
problems with the F-35 are just starting to be shown. I don't think
it's a question of technology but more of a lack of talent in
management, planning, and dumbf--k politicians. But hey that's just
my opinion.

And B-2 has done fairly well so far, albeit in a niche role for which it was
not originally really intended. Your statement in regards to a lack of
expertise or vision is a bit disconcerting--I imagine had you been around
back in the days when the F-16 went from being a true lightweight to a
multi-role platform before it even entered into service (with attendant
design changes), or when the F-15 went through its original rather abysmal
operational readiness rate due to a radar that was down more than it was up,
or when the F-14 was experiencing some rather nasty teething troubles, you'd
have claimed the same thing? You are amazed that the F-35 is experiencing
some development problems? Gee whiz, who would have thunk it--they should be
able to just slap one together, kick the tires, and zoom off into the wild
blue, keeping the myriad different customers both here and abroad smiling
the whole time, right? Fact is that aircraft these days are *much* more
complex than they were forty or fifty years ago, and development timelines
are extended across the board (note the length of the Typhoon and Rafale
development?); add to that the fact that many of these programs were
originally conceived under a drastically different threat scenario and you
can begin to see *why* there have been significant changes in the
fundamental basis underlying such systems. Yeah, there are SNAFU's; and
sometimes even programs that *deserve* to be cut (witness both Commanche and
Crusader); but methinks you are being a bit too quick with your knife in
regards to "expertise" and "vision".

Brooks