[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

There's so much hypothetical in your post that it isn't even tangential to reality. BTW, you still haven't answered my Rules of Engagement question (asked several times now). All your argument so far has urged is that we develop a means of downing high-alt fighters, not that we need them ourselves. Our mission requirements are different, as are our normal ROE. So, what do you do when you have the (normal) eyeball ROE? Which platform is better suited to that air superiority role? And how long can your rocket-fighter loiter? Compared to the F22, it is a lousy choice (even if it was anything other than a pipe-dream at this point) because it doesn't fit OUR tactical and strategic needs...

[Southack]

"Compared to the F22, it is a lousy choice (even if it was anything other than a pipe-dream at this point) because it doesn't fit OUR tactical and strategic needs..."

Have you never considered that it may not be *us* who initiates such an attack?!

[XBob]

151 - "And how long can your rocket-fighter loiter? Compared to the F22, it is a lousy choice (even if it was anything other than a pipe-dream at this point) because it doesn't fit OUR tactical and strategic needs..."

Good points.

In fact, during Vietnam, one of my aircraft of choice for ground support and Search and Rescues, was the WWII A1-E, Douglas Skyraider. An oldie, but goodie. Could carry tons and tons of various weapons, give great support, guns, bombs, rockets, cameras, etc, take a pounding from Anti-Aircraft guns and small arms fire, and keep on chugging for up to about 8 hours of support where necessary.

The Latest technology is not always the bestest.