It’s attractive, in concept. But in the US’s case, B-21. In our case, Typhoon, F-35 then Tempest.
The aim is fewer airframe types, not more. Versatile ones.
My point stands. It’s not unreasonable to expect the chair of a committee to have done some reading.
that’s why the military types loose so often with politicians.
they fixate on the errors in the fine point of terminology, not see the bigger pictures.
the basic point is valid - why not use a cheap prop plane as a stand off spear thrower.