[SKUNKY]

Another interesting article in this mag was in the last page's Tailview.....Barrett Tillman's article entitled "Who Needs Fighters?" was quite thought-provoking I felt.

He noted that in the past 35 years (since the end of the Vietnam war) U.S. fighters have shot down only 54 enemy aircraft (1.5 annual avg.) Of that number, 6 were helicopters and 4 were trainers. Compare that to the roughly 3 year period in Korea when American fighter pilots shot down some 900 enemy aircraft.

The point of the article is to ask the question - In the 21st century, just how necessary are these mega-billion dollar fighter programs today?....Do we really need aircraft like the Raptor and the F-35? He questions the necessity of VSTOL capability and notes that even Harriers that were committed to action seldom have ever employed it.

He sums up the article by saying "the fighter pilot has had a great run; he was the most glamorous warrior of the 20th century, proving his worth from 1915 well into the 1980s. But he has been overtaken by events. So let's keep him flying in aircraft adequate to the mission, augmented by sensors and weapons that can kill enemy aircraft on the rare occasions when it's necessary - then let's use some of the savings to buy what we need: body armor, bandages, radios and 30-caliber rifles."

Curious as to what you guys think..Do we really need much beyond F/A-18 (type) aircraft?...while soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan are scrounging around in burned-out hulks to come up with their own protective armor?