Yeh but that would require the DoD budget to get up to where it was, in terms of % of GDP, say in the beginning of the Clinton era, which even *after* 9-11, we haven't done, although we are finally getting close. FY-93 it was 4.4%, FY-05 it waws 4.0%, but only 4 years after 9-11, and a couple of years into the Iraq phase of the War on Islamic Terrorists.
The Navy should have gotten the A-12...or should get something similar to replace the A-6
I'd say the latter. The A-12, while cool, was a monstrosity, even naming it after the aircraft that the President, GHW Bush, had flown couldn't save the overweight pig. The Navy's aircraft development system is broken, IMHO, and the Army is having it's own problems in development. Only the Air Force seems to be able to bring new weapons systems to deployment. although ghe Navy ship side, including subs, is still on the track as well.
I worked on a major sub contract for the A-12, way back in those days, even before the down select. In fact I think that is one of the Navy and Army's problems, they down select too soon. The AF tries to do that after the prototypes or demonstrators are built, and not just on the basis of paper designs.
Even the F/A-18E/F is product improved F/A-18, which itself is Navalised YF-17, the loser to the YF-16 in the Air Forces fly-off. They also went to competitive prototypes or concept demonstrators with YF-22 vs YF-23 and X-32 vs X-35.
Of course they did not do this with B-1B or B-2, or even F-15 IIRC.
I agree the AF and the ship building look good procuremnt wise...its just that we are severely underfunding the rate of procurement in all areas IMHO.