I would like to maintain the moral high ground, and do it publicly, get a nice set of ethics published so everyone can see that we refuse to engage in the barbaric practices of our opponents. On that topic, I am opposed to a high-altitude, long-range bomber for low-accuracy but high-volume attacks against enemy territory. I am very pleased that we don't have an equivalent of the enemy bombers that are killing so many of our civilians. And I want to address this before it inevitably comes up in the near future...
Bombers tend to be pretty easy targets, you shouldn't need much rate of fire for them. A singe HVG-40 should be much more effective than the same weight of Patriotisms. Which are likely to have difficulties if those bombers have any armour...
On that topic, I would like to try a different style of interceptor. The primary armament would be a rear-mounted turret, and it would be designed to fly ahead-of and below bombers and continue to fly evasively while the gunner was concentrating on destroying bombers. As a fighter it would be largely ineffective, although I would expect that having a few of them with a fighter group would provide some valuable turreted fire-support and they should have the manoeuvrability and spatial awareness to not be excessively easy targets...
I will probably also propose a new light-tank and some towed guns.
And I will likely keep suggesting my rocket propulsion pod. [whining]Why can't you all see how awesome a burst of speed that doesn't involve diving is![/whining]