"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:04:53 -0600, Alan Minyard
allegedly uttered:

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:41:24 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Trouble is, you need to generate enough sorties to protect your own
base
and _then_ generate offensive capability... which means you need
numbers, and the rising cost and falling procurement of the Raptor
means
it'll be seriously stretched.

That's only if you plan on using only one type of fighter, in small
numbers, for everything.

So, you plan to consign US pilots to agonised fiery deaths as their
antiquated deathtraps are blasted from the skies by newer, deadlier
enemies?

I take it that you have never heard of the F-35?? It will be capable of
taking on any other aircraft in the world, with the exception of the F-22
(the UK plans on buying quite a few).

Which raises the obvious question that Paul was hinting at....

If the F-35 is capable of taking on anything, and is a good attack
aircraft, what do you need the F/A-22 for?

We don't.