Ken, as most profound and well delivered response.

Hi Ken,
Congratulations on what is quiet possibly the best and most objective and well-structured response to this subject I have seen to date. Know that I have absolutley no problem in being held to account for my statements. In my past and present position descriptions, that is a matter of course. Allow me however to cover off on some of your points-of-concern.
Firstly, the NAFC quotes you supply, in the final analysis, seem to support my, (and indeed now the State Government's) postion on the issue, as opposed to contradicting it, (like perhaps the CSIRO or CRC). It is fair to say that the NAFC certainly does not belittle or undermine the potential effectivness of the VLAT, and in fact, by your own admition, they cautioulsy support Australian participation and contribution in the on-going development of the VLAT concept. That would suggest that they recognise conditional VLAT application to Australian conditions, (Hello, that's all I am asking).
As for the highlighted NASA quote in relation to the VLAT supplementing as opposed to replacing other fire-fighting
capabilities. I and others have always understood and maintained that the VLAT is part of a greater multi-facited airborne fire attack system and not a "stand alone cure all" replacement. I think if you review all my previous posts that would be obvious. So, in effect, I agree with and support the supplied NASA quote.
Ken, I am not saying that these aircraft do not have limitations, clearly they do, all airborne fire-fighting assets do. I am just saying that they have a significant "strategic" role to play in the airborne fire-fighting arsenal of the future.
As to me being your only source of reference for VLAT application, deployments, and utilization. I would suggest that you avail yourself to a copy of the 25-31 August 2009 edition of FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL magazine which deals with this subject indepth. And also the November 2009 editon of AIR INTERNATIONAL which extensively reviews the Evergreen 747 VLAT deployment to Europe this year, (know that I don't just make this stuff up).
I guess the only thing that really concerns me here though Ken is the subtle inference that this debate is somehow a personal combative contest between me and, in particlar, David. Let me assure you, and all readers, that this it is certainly not the case. While we have diametrically opposed views in this debate, I have much respect for David and hold him and his opinions in the highest of esteem.
As to my "overly emotional" "how much is one life worth" statement, I stand by it Ken, as it was appropriately positioned in the context of the greater discussion dealing with the "what is value for money" issue, although I do conceed to the odd emotion-based statement on this issue in the past.
the other Ray