drones
The argument that we should concentrate on spending kit on things we actually need seems largely redundant due to the fact that troops need to call in fast air. we are completely dependent on the USA to provide fast air cover in order for are troops to operate in Afghanistan. the fact is that the most verstile way to provide air support is with a fast jet, and so we need the euro fighter. drones and helicopters might be able to plug the gap in Afghanistan while the enemy have virtually no anti aircraft capabilities, but against a country with even old soviet antiaircraft equipment they would be useless. look at how badly the Russian helicopters fared against shoulder launched anti aircraft missiles.
its sems preety stupid to say we dont need an aircraft while at the same time rellying entirely on the Americans version of that aircraft to conduct our combat operations. couple that with the fact that we wouldn't be able to create another fighter quickly enought to meet any demand we might face in the next 20 years, it seems pretty stupid to turn our entire armed forces into essentially a special forces battalion capable of doing nothing other than supporting American conventional forces. if after Vietnam the Americans had desided it was a waste of money to develope the m1a1 abrams becuase it cant be used in the jungles of south east asia then they could not have defended saudi arabi in the first gulf war.
If the critics of the euro fighter had there way any country with a squadron of sukois would be superior to our entire armed forces
Biting the hand that feeds IT
