I think we must think sensibly especially since this enemy has backed us into a real bad situation. We do not need the JSF now but we do not want to loose all the good that went into it - and since we could tailor it a little better for a more complex time down the road why not put it into a generous (say $4 billion/yr) development slide and keep it getting better and staying warm for that time we need to penetrate into North Korea looking for mobile missiles or the Iranian command sites in the eastern frontier and stay around for a few hours a lot of support add-ons.

For the war on terror - we need more ships and more assault forces with many more V-22's and a replacement for the A-10 that can also replace the Apache and Cobra and escort the V-22. Then we need a air-land doctrine that explains how to use this.


"BlackBeard" wrote in message ups.com...

Mike Kanze wrote:
Ski & Paul,

Excellent thread, and a very welcome counterpoint to much of the trash appearing in rec.aviation.military.naval recently.

Keep it coming.


Agreed. With my experience working with the Hornet's various systems
(targeting, OFP's, etc.) for ten years and then the last seven years
working with survivability aspects of both the Hornet and JSF, it's
nice to see reasoned discussion regarding other aspects of these
platforms.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb,
it's just fate whether you live in Tibet or Kansas...