I think there is a fundamental flaw in the current equipment planners -- and that is that they are being seduced by technology. Air combat has been, and always

I think there is a fundamental flaw in the current equipment planners -- and that is that they are being seduced by technology. Air combat has been, and always be a test of agility and pilot skill. And history has born this out. In Vietnam, planners decided not to equip the F-4 Phantom with guns -- why would you need them? We have Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles. The guided missile was the superior weapon. Until the Mig 15 came up - Armed with 2 23mm canons, and 1 37mm canon. The Mig outmaneuvered the F4s and provided surpassingly deadly. The US was forced to put guns on the F4s and retrain its crews in dog fighting. The US never really gained superiority until they released the Sabre - which was again based on speed, maneuverability and packed a wallop of guns in addition to missiles. I fear we are going to have to re-learn this lesson in a future conflict. Technology on the battlefield is great, but it cannot replace maneuverability, speed and combat skills of the pilot.