[Poohbah]

We get the aircraft we can afford. Or we get no aircraft. Those are your choices. Congress is unwilling to fund anything as expensive as the Super-Duper Tomcat would be.

The Navy needs to build a Common Support Aircraft to replace the C-2, E-2, and S-3. If they do not, then the aircraft carrier is going to become irrelevant--because it will become just another set of TACAIR strike/fighter birds, just like the Air Force, only more expensive. NAVAIR needs to develop unique capabilities that nobody else does--or NAVAIR is going to disappear.

[GallopingGhost]

We get the aircraft we can afford. Or we get no aircraft. Those are your choices. Congress is unwilling to fund anything as expensive as the Super-Duper Tomcat would be.

Would that be the $100M F-22 or the $60M JSF?

[Blueflag]

"we get the aircraft we can afford"

Actually, it comes down to understanding and justifying the mission/role and the need to prevail in that mission/role.

Arguments like the one you suggest got us aircraft like the Brewster Buffalo, the Devastator, and the Phantom with no cannon. Argument about mission/role -- winning the war, defeating the enemy got us aircraft like the P-51, the F4U (Corsair), the F-15E and the Tomcat.

Convince me the mission does not exist or is not worth winning, every time, and I'll buy the financial argument. It's not about exorbidance, it's about winning when you must.

[Blueflag]

BTW, I'm with you all the way on the CSA. Multiple platforms are silly and the mission does not support the argument for multiple platforms in the future.

I agree completely with you on that one. ;-)

[Blueflag]

One last point -- If (or should we say when...) the JSF is a reality for carrier ops, then the F-14 can happily retire (with my consent, not that they need it).