Again, I must ask the question:
In a Liberia type scenario, what sense does it make for the Air Corps to supply training aircraft for combat, when one of our partners, Sweden, has over 100 state of the art combat aircraft?
Please explain that to me. I'm not giving Carrington a hard time, I just want that explained.
Also, I'm of the opinion that the PC-9M has been purchased with the notion that it is a token step towards combat capability. By that I mean that, if the environment/public opinion changed, they would hasten the leap in pilot training to fast jets.
Is this reason enough? Nope. Not in my opinion.
I'd personally favour a proper ground based anti aircraft system, and more helicopters in lieux of a proper fighter/strike capability.
In a Liberia type scenario, what sense does it make for the Air Corps to supply training aircraft for combat, when one of our partners, Sweden, has over 100 state of the art combat aircraft?
Please explain that to me. I'm not giving Carrington a hard time, I just want that explained.
Also, I'm of the opinion that the PC-9M has been purchased with the notion that it is a token step towards combat capability. By that I mean that, if the environment/public opinion changed, they would hasten the leap in pilot training to fast jets.
Is this reason enough? Nope. Not in my opinion.
I'd personally favour a proper ground based anti aircraft system, and more helicopters in lieux of a proper fighter/strike capability.
Comment