Good discussion and I respect what Ed says immensely however gentlemen there
are some very critical differences being experienced in counter-insurgency
warfare now underway in Iraq and Iran and for the moment I want you to stop
looking around the world and realize that we must now bring an end to these
hostilities and it will take a good measure of air power to return the third
dimension to the fight simply because the Army failed to do that when its
"boots on the ground efforts" recognized that the armed helicopter (mostly
Apache and Kiawa) were now unrealiable against a ground sprinkled with armed
insurgents shooting wildly at them from all directions (Cobra II Chapter 14
and Fiasco Chapter 6). The war, which again remmebr is costing billions
every month and is taking nearly one hundred lives every month with many
more wounded has gone on now for five years. So at the moment we are not
looking at a conventional war with China or an invasion of North Korea, we
are focused on Iraq and Afghanistan for this next budget cycle and for the
next few years. We can not afford the new technology breakers that cannot
be applied to these conflicts in good measure and something has to give. We
no longer can deal with "nice to have" and starfing "may be stupid" in most
fighter pilots eyes but our of necessity in this war because of the caveats
of collateral damage and the vulnerability of the attack helicopters fighter
aircart are being asked to come in and strafe - and they do. And note that
just recently an F-16 killed itself either out of ground fixation or ground
fire, but in essence it was close to the ground and firing on the enemy.

A new F-15E or F-16C or F/A-18E coming off the production line is in no way
an "old" aircraft when considering whether it can do a job or not. These
machines have been continually maturing and continually improve to the point
that now they are more capable in just about every category of fighter
comparisons that you can think of except the materials and shapes that lend
itself to so called stealth features. To say that the JSF has a mystical
integrative advantage over the F-15E is simply a case of displays, antennas,
and circuit boards because the ever changing software tapes are deliberately
held up as different beasts in different models because we have long past
the day when you could distinguish the difference between an F-16 or F-18 or
F-15 or B-2 or JSF radar - it is just boards, components and software - all
of which is grossly overpriced and enornmously over-paced to drag out the
whole process as if we really were designing and developing something so
critically different.

Gentlemen - these wars are about reliable platforms that can duke it with a
lightly armed but numerous ground threats that simply overwhelm the space
around which our outnumbered and not-so mobile troops are forced to operate
in environments that are not tactically smart yet forced because the mission
implies a presence (boots on the ground), small units, and unfortulately for
all the failures of the great technologists and IT'ists, and band width
masters we find that in reality almost every one of the small unit patrols
and convoys that venture out beyond their safe zone go without a direct
linked eye-in-the-sky to support them for the duration of their mission. The
technologists promised them this and it fell through and now we have to fill
in gaps with everything we can use because we do not have a survivable Blitz
fighter (cross between A-10 and AH-64) that can support the troops. We could
argue this five years ago, but its 2 billion a week, 3000 lives, and still
operations without a clear strategy and time is wasting - the JSF has to go
and we will use the billions it is sucking up to flood into the war zones
enough air power to do the job. I think it would be wise to extend the
development of the JSF so that down the road it may merge with things that
could better use its qualities - lasers, unmanned, etc., but to say it is
the maneuveruing wonderdog of the next generation fighter force is like
saying the the P-40 should replace the P-51's - no guys, we have all got to
get out collective heads out of our asses and look to what is happening in
COIN warfare and realize a step back for the moment may really be the case
needed yet there are small diamonds of technoklogy that still need to be
used - it is in that integration we can overcome the air needs of urban-COIN
warfare.

So as much as we like Ed and his writes, Ed also has to think about what is
going on and come to grips with the mess that the air-ground efforts are in.
Something went so wrong after Gulf War I and now the fixes I am saying may
not again reflect the needs for a North Korea, but for OIF and OEF they
certainly make a point. The direct manned ISR, the "shooter" with you, the
"eye-in-the-sky" attached to every unit, the forcing of the enemy tyo
recognize that day or night there are small aircraft and UAV's overhead
watching and ready to shoot something and ground units that have a renewed
offensiveness in capability to do their presence mission better.

For the overall umbrella and border areas, the President then gets his
"hammer" to change the course of any incursion any challenge from outside