They say if you do something long enough you witness it's rebirth. You all have remarkable insight into Air force weapon systems. The discussions on the A-10 and A-16 were very interesting.

I also agree with the many comments the Air Force is going though a challanging period of discontent and have lost the confidence of their boss - the Amreican people. I see that as a failure of Gen McPeak.

The Air Force has lost their focus. They need a close air support fighter and yet refuse to rebuild an imporved A-10. The F-16 was not a great ground attack fighter and not the best air-to-air fighter but if you ever had to deploy and need a multi use aircraft it was great.

I still want to bite my nails off when I read how the F22 and F35 are the end all be all. The Air Force should remember the numerous occassions where they threw all of the eggs in one basket. I remember the F-4s - did not have guns because some analyst told them the future would be fought without guns.

For your benefit allow me to describe my perspective. Master Avionics technician, QA inspector for motors and mainframe. I worked F-111, F-16, and F-117A. I have been a 'Gunslinger, Juvat, Bold Tiger, and a member of the GoatSucker Inn. I have since retired and worked servers, network hardware, as a Business Analysis, and dodled into South American terrorism.

I like Ford motor company's suggestion of building a modern mustang with the best of the old school. Beef up the engines, the avionics, and build new airframes. It may look and smell like a mustang but they have their own special identity.

Has it ever occurred to build a new A-10 that was designed around an even better gun with even more powerful engines. Airplanes are like race cars. High performance machines dedicated to taking mankind into another realm. But airplanes like cars can be rebuilt better. Or create a dual engine F-16, update the avionics and vectoring motors and you have a killer.

The worst thing the Air Force could do is only uby one plane from one source. For years we have seen a particular type of aircraft grounded for maintenance issues.

The Air force needs to really assess their missions and that means sitting down with the Army and finding out what are the Army's needs and what type of aircraft they are going to need to address them. I read several federal magazines and I do not see it yet. The Army is the Air Force's customer.

One final note - stealth is an illusion. You can defeat an aircraft using stealth.

The 22 and 35 need much more than stealth to survive. They have a combination of exceptional radar packages, integrated ECM packages, supperior weapons, and advanced engine technology.They need pilots. Drones are invaluable for C4ISR but they have a drawback which I have not seen discussed here. 15, 16, 18, 22, & 35 all have the capability to carry and deploy a tactical nuclear weapon. I turst an officer with this responisbility. Not certain I would trust a SPC.

The Air Force needs to sit down and replan for how to support the Army and the direction they are taking. They need to find and plan for their customer's expectations.