3 ms·
In the oughties it seemed like the consensus was that the F-35 was a terrible weapon (but a great way to make contractors rich). That still seemed a common vie
by pixodaros 4y ago
In the oughties it seemed like the consensus was that the F-35 was a terrible weapon (but a great way to make contractors rich). That still seemed a common view in the 2010s. Now people who get paid to make these decisions and don't have an obvious vested interest seem to be making different decisions. I don't know what changed
- alkonaut 4y agoMostly economy of scale dropped flyaway cost of it down to 4th gen level ($80M) What surprises me is do many countries accepting the high maintenance/flight hour cost. I’d also want something that can operate out of a crappy back road supported by a few conscripts, a few months into a conflict. Or do patrol missions in peacetime for cheap. F-35 ain’t that. But perhaps a mix is also expensive.
- pixodaros 4y agoThe majority view in the 2000s and 2010s was not that the F-35 was overpriced, it was that the F-35 was worse at most tasks than existing aircraft. The fact that it is crazy expensive just made that worse. Something must have changed, because I don't think Boeing has developed mind control rays.