"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which
gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the
threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this
kind of support).

Brooks

Its a shame you didn't see the links that refute your precious
"facts(?)" brooks. In the interests of fair play...Choke on this
one...

You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assetsin a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Meanwhile, suppliers to potential adversaries are realizing a market
to counter tactics you are postulating...
http://www.ainonline.com/Publication...1agatpg85.html
"If used on a long-range missile airframe, the ARGS-PD could give an
opposing air force the ability to take out strategic targets at
distances outside of the normal interception envelopes of U.S. or
other NATO fighters. Boeing E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS aircraft–platforms
that U.S. forces depend heavily upon in time of conflict–would be
vulnerable as never before."

Since the E-10 is nearly stillborn, the MP-RTIP equipped UAV is the
way to go.