Depends on what you consider the primary job of the air force. *If it is to defend the country, then it should stick with whatever (in the big picture) works best for this. *(I have no opinion as to what that is). *If it is to train pilots, then you are clearly correct.

9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.

IIRC, the ones that did finally scramble weren't even armed. It was
1941 all over again. (Not that anyone would have known what to do if
they *had* intercepted them, but that's another thread...)

I'm sure steps have been taken to speed things up -- but if we don't
have the planes or pilots anymore to do the intercepting, no amount of
"scramble speed" will help. And ground-based missiles are not capable
of "taking a look" before attacking -- at least not yet.

It's really not hard to imagine a scenario where a rogue foreign power
devises a plan to take advantage of this weakness. Which brings us
back to Jim's (?) point -- we should've stuck with the old designs,
and had more of 'em.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"