Hi bob,   
      
   On Fri 2012-Apr-13 04:35, BOB KLAHN (1:123/140) wrote to RICHARD WEBB:   
      
    RW> i liked a lot of what i read there.  highlights were:   
      
    RW> Continue to support the f35 aircraft.  Its vertical takeoff   
    RW> and landing capabilities can do a lot to make any flat top   
    RW> transporter a carrier.   
      
   BK>  How does that compare to the Harrier? Is it that much better, to    
   BK> justify the immense cost?   
      
   Good question.  i"m assuming better stealth capabilities or   
   something, but I've never really seen a side by side   
   comparison of the two or anything that even discusses the   
   Harrier in the same piece with the f35.  The harrier though   
   is proven technology, it's been around for decades now iirc. One of our   
   inveterate web crawlers could probably dig up a   
   pretty good look at each.   
      
    RW> Also, do more sea basing, which would require developing   
    RW> faster transport for material.   
      
    RW> The ideas made sense to this old man anyway.   
      
   BK>  I have doubt about the sea basing. I suspect that might be more    
   BK> expensive.   
      
   Yep, might be but that might be greatly offset, and   
   therefore cheaper in the long run than all the diplomatic   
   soft shoe shuffle dance crap.   
      
   BK>  Free basing ain't so hot either.   
   Ask Richard Pryor .   
      
   Regards,   
              Richard   
   ---   
    * Origin:  (1:116/901)