"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsA...toryID=4492902

"It does not appear that an aircraft as advanced and expensive as the
Raptor is required to address near-term defense threats," Christopher
Bolkcom, chief military aviation anlayst of the non-partisan
Congressional Research Service, told a panel of the House Armed Services
Committee.

Thank goodness we don't let the CRS handle our military development
decisions.

...
Bolkcom said the Raptor's 540-nautical mile unrefueled combat radius
dictated it operated from forward bases -- another drawback for a
Pentagon facing potential conflict in distant lands with perhaps scant
bases nearby from which to operate.

Or it could be (gasp!) refueled; gotta wonder how the good Mr. Bolkcom
thinks the F-15E's and F-16's got from various Gulf States to Afghanistan
and back. And I believe that radius he mentions is for a clean aircraft; no
reason it could not depart with external tanks and then clean itself up when
it hits the threat zone. But that would mess up his argument, wouldn't it?


Nothing can stop the US Air Force, once they have a permission slip.

And apparently nothing can stop Henry, as long as he has a keyboard, no
matter how inane the subject.

Brooks


-HJC