Originally Posted by Dragon79
8 x A400M - would introducing another type be best? I would have thought increasing the C17 & C130J numbers would be preferred.
Too big a gap between C-17 and C-130. A400M should slot in nicely, perhaps to replace original batch of C-130Js leaving C-17, A400M & C-27J backed up by half a dozen short-fuselaged KC-130Js.
Originally Posted by Dragon79
64 x F-35A
36 x F/A-18F
Swap the 35 for the 22, so as not to see that massive a drop in capability.
As sexy as it is, I'd actually call the F-22 a massive drop over the F-35 in many ways.
Speed and stealth apart, the F-22 has older gen avionics, FCS, and weapons system, all of which will need significant hardware and software upgrades in next few years; is only baselined with three weapon types (AIM-9m, AIM-120C & GBU-35); doesn't have a targeting pod/designator; and does not have 2-way datalinks (receive only). None of these are currently budgeted to be addressed, and doing so will only raise the aircraft's cost.
Besides, Nelson and co have already ruled it out, so F-22 is a non-starter. Let's stick with what we know will fly (literally and politically).
Magoo