The end of the manned fighter?

Well, sure, but in the way that intercontinental bombers are here to
stay. It's just that we aren't building them any longer.

Huh? Are you saying that we are not building unmanned fighters any
more?

"It" of course refers to the most recent noun, with its associated
adjective, to wit: "intercontinental bombers."

Go back and give your English teacher a rap on the knuckles.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Heck, 100 years later we *still* have horses and oxen . . .

Steve Swartz

(if you can't figure out what this means, good. Hopefully you aren't on the
USAF staff . . . )

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:42:28 -0800, "W. D. Allen Sr."
wrote:

Just like the 1960s when the air-to-air missile was to make made machine
guns unnecessary. That lasted only until the fur balls started over North
Vietnam!

DUUUUH!!!

Or those fools who thought turbine engines would ever be worth it
despite their short ranges! Or the absolute morons who believed that
*helicopters* would ever prove useful despite their ability to only
carry one or two people.

Hindsight makes for good rhetoric, , but the simple fact is that not
every grand pronouncement is wrong, and hindsight doesn't emphasise
the right calls, just the bad ones.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster