OK, it was so much fun to look at objections to the FIST (Fast, Inexpensive, Simple, Tiny) approach, I figured I'd do it again.
Today's objection sounds something like this: "The FIST approach would never deliver a high-tech, complex, expensive system (like the F-22, for example)."
At the core of most of these objections is a faulty assumption. One of the most common of these assumptions is that the cost, schedule and complexity of technology (particularly military technology) is inevitably high... and that these are not only inevitable attributes of a system but are also desirable attributes. FIST argues that speed, thrift and simplicity are simultaneously possible and operationally desirable.
Now, if we were to sit down and create an air superiority fighter using the FIST principles, we'd end up with something like the F-16 (or the F-5 or the F-20). It would be a low-cost, simple aircraft, requiring a minimal amount of effort to train, maintain, own and operate. It would do one thing extremely well and we'd have a large enough fleet of them to make a significant difference. It would also leave enough money in the treasury to build a second type of system to handle other missions (say, air-to-ground missions).
So, would the FIST approach deliver a high-tech, high-cost system? Um, no. But then, you really don't want one of those...