I fear k-saucy is right. We can argue all we like and while we can see the pitfalls of policy decisions from our lowly positions, those above can only focus on budgets and the highly unsavoury management-style yukspeak phrase, 'risk management'. (Risk management is another word for 'cut the cost, never mind the performance, I won't have to make a career-threatening decision but will probably get promoted as long no-one catches on until after the end of my tour'!)
While we can see the flaws in their arguments -
what if Uncle Sam ain't there,
what if there is a credible air-threat,
what if there is a sub-surface threat,
what if there isn't any AD/SEAD/CAS/SH/AT etc.....
- the people who call the shots have been so far removed from the front-line for so long, their actual decisions are based on previous experience that is of little use. Or of course, they never had relevant experience in the first place, which is quite feasible in this day of 'right person for the job'!
Oh, and most likely, he/she will not have asked the front-line experts either!
The fact is we won't get any highly-paid Neddie to admit he's porked it and we will have to accept that any exped fleet from 2006 -201? will have to hope that the USN is on our side and close by with top cover. It doesn't make good reading, its very sad for the Sea Jet and the FAA as a whole but that's tough !!!!!.
Oh, Av Plt........ go away, you sad boy.