Re: more grav

>  And at any rate, it's not comprable because grav
> vehicles don't need air intakes for their engines.

Hmm. Very likely the engines will need cooling. And if they use the
amounts
of energy postulated by some mails in this thread, they will need an
amount
of cooling the mkes a jet engine a low-power application.

> > [Tomb] Yep. You'll argue and then your GAO will say
> > "Nice argument but > you still get X bucks. You
> still have to cover Y > planets." And you'll
> > still be stuck buying multi-role kit unless you are
> > way rich.
>
> That's Canadian thinking.  World powers can actually
> afford multiple tanks.

Which state has "multiple tanks" ? Meaning two different up-to-date Main
Battle Tank designs operational at the same time ?

Not one up-to-date MBT and obsolescent models relegated to second-line
units, nor specialized artillery, IFV etc. vehicles?

 > Plus in the right tech period, a tank is _not_
> outclassed by a fighter. With a human aboard, a
> fighter will move finite  speeds, once I add a
> lightspeed weapon with horizon attack range (some of
> the Traveller  systems) to my tank and firecontrol
> to match, your  fighter is just plain  dead when it
> crosses the horizon.

Hmm. You are postulating Grav tanks fighting against todays jet
fighters.
Wouldn't fighter design progress as much ?

Consider some of the ideas being toted around the aerospace press:
Remote-controlled unmanned sensor drones and fighters
Hypersonic (3000++ Km/h) planes
Networked systems that allow one plane to shoot at a target seen by a
different plane
Stealth, ECM, point-defence systems

Greetings