I am very leery of one-size-fits-all weapons systems or aircraft. With regard to aircraft, attack aircraft are more suitable for counterinsurgences and ground support for conventional wars. They need the lift capacity to carry a lot of ordinance, and be fuel-efficient so they can hang around the battlefield. Fighter aircraft are suitable for destroying other fighters and taking out the air defense capabilities of another nation. Fighter aircraft are designed to be fast, but usually they are not fuel -efficient. Once air defense capabilities has been destroyed, attack aircraft can carry the ball. I would be more inclined to upgrade the A10 and the Harrier jets for the Marine Corp. Innovation does not necessarily require a totally new aircraft.
I definitely want to see those Star Wars Missile Defense Systems eliminated. They a waste of money, don't work, and are pure corporate welfare. 'One big lesson that came out of the Iraq war is that you need to watch both the executive branch and Congress, because separately or collectively, they tend to go off the deep end and do not understand the limits of power or how to use it.
Pervis James Casey
Apr 17 2009 - 2:07pm