4 ms·
> say that designing with off the shelf engines, radars and weapons should be possible on the cheap today I'm afraid this largely underestimates the complexity
by ptidhomme 6y ago
> say that designing with off the shelf engines, radars and weapons should be possible on the cheap today
I'm afraid this largely underestimates the complexity of designing a combat aircraft. Keep in mind it is useless to be "good enough" for a fighter, you must be on par or superior to the others on at least a some aspects.
- jeffrallen 6y agoActually the citizens don't know that for sure... The military has not shared with us the list of required missions, just that the list exists and is so comprehensive that only the most expensive fighters could possibly meet it. Saab was forced to bow out of competition for example. I suspect that the list of missions is unreasonable and that if the military was forced by a no vote to get reasonable about what a Swiss Air Force is actually for, they'd be able to use modern design tools to out build and underspend the neighbors. Cleverness comes from constraints.