|
The F-22 was originally supposed to be more expensive, American only air superiority fighter. It had a very rough start (computer glitches by crossing the international date line, canopies locking up, oxygen system malfunctioning) but those issues got sorted out. You can argue about the cost and the actual need for the F-22 but it does what it does well (more than choking pilots). The F-35 was originally seen as cheaper export multirole fighter. It had several versions: A. A conventional aircraft that takes off and lands. B. A Vertical Takeoff and Landing variant, used on small carriers. IIRC the USMC and the British particularly pined for this one. C. A carrier version, designed to take off from US carriers. This issue has been plagued with problems and still doesn't work correctly, on top of the F-35s problems. So you have a fighter that is already a compromise in role, that is being broken up into fairly different variants on top of that. This would be be potentially costly even without Lockheed Martin being a money black hole.
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Problems in development and early on isn't unheard of. The F-111 had teething problem too. Of course, the F-111 was nowhere near as expensive as the F-22.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Isn't the A-10 going to be one of the things lost in the defence cuts iirc?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 21:01
|
|