On 7 Feb 2006 15:21:52 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote:

Well, the topic is, somebody has to judge the concept I mentioned and
they all repeat the old topic.

Yet the people are repeating the old topic because it is just as true now as
it was when you brought it up.

Absolute superior performance is not capable of long duration flight.
That is almost a law of physics.

You might have to prove that to all the world's aircraft engineers, they don't
know that yet.

So fitting the aircraft to the long duration makes an inferior figther
of longer duration.

Not necessarily.

And that is it. If the figther is to expensive to loft up there then
there is no defense present.

And the cost of defense rules. SO make the low cost defense possible
and do not use inadequate high cost offensive aircraft.

Only if the low cost aircraft are capable of stopping the high cost threat.
Feel free to tell us exactly how many A-10s it will take to stop a flight of
stealth aircraft inbound at night.

A fighter coverage hole because of cost is either allowed or not.
Somebody decides. ANd people are assigned a dollar value in managment.

Not to the US military, which whill gladly risk a dozen or more additional
aircraft and crews just to rescue one downed pilot.

As for cost, which is more effective. Spending $18 million to train 12 pilots
and putting them into 8 planes costing $15 million each for a total cost of $198
million dollars or putting a single pilot with $2.5 million in training into a
single $180 million dollar aircraft who can shoot down half of the 12 cheap ones
in a single engagement and then come back a few hours later for the other half?