RE: Lightweight Fighters

>----------
>From:	John Leary[SMTP:realjtl@sj.bigger.net]
>Sent:	Friday, November 14, 1997 8:18 PM
>To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
>Subject:	Re: Lightweight Fighters
>
><snip>
>Gil,
>     You really cannot say you don't have a tag line, if you state
>that you don't have a tag line, you cannot have a tag line to state
>that you don't have a tag line on.   Got that, I didn't.
>
>Change subject:
>     The problem that will develop is simple:	soon the fighter will
>be all things to all people.	How about a Heavy fast interceptor
>torpedo bomber. (I am just looking forward to fighting one of those!)
>In the real world, the more functions an aircraft is called upon 
>to perform, the less ability it will show in the performace of any
>one function. 
>     Phil Pournelle did a thing on combined fighter abilities which
>included FTL fighters, I would suggest asking him for a retransmit
>of his thoughts.
>
>Bye for now,
>John L.   (also tagline challenged)

Actually John, my whole point to this was that the description the
gentleman gave of the fighters seemed more along the lines of currently
existing fighters - ie:  interceptors.	Couldn't see changing the rules
for something already existing.  on the otherhand, if they were extended
duration interceptors it might be plausible.

As far as the tagline goes - don't have one so don't use one.

Gil