2 ms·
Cost per flight hour is still much higher than its slightly less capable competitors. I don't know what the argument is for that. Maybe that sim training will
by harshreality 3y ago
Cost per flight hour is still much higher than its slightly less capable competitors.
I don't know what the argument is for that. Maybe that sim training will be a larger percentage of training in the future, and therefore operating costs don't matter so much? Take whatever jet has the best capabilities, period?
I think what that misses is that maintenance of real aircraft will atrophy without constant pilot feedback. Of course mechanics can follow the maintenance guidelines, but so much of that, historically, is guided, modified, and improved by experience from wear and tear from actual use.
- dralley 3y ago> slightly less capable What competitor is even close to "slightly less capable"? The main driver of the cost is maintaining stealth coatings. On that front it has no real competitors.
- actionfromafar 3y agoI guess it depends on how much one values stealth. I'm just an armchair-most-things, but it seems to me that there are many situations stealth doesn't matter as much as effective robot range, turn-around time and ease of logistics.
- sickofparadox 3y agoIf rumors are to be believed, without reflectors on, the F-35 should have a radar cross section smaller than a quarter (which is a bit larger than a 1 Euro coin). On top of that, its radar is purported to outrange Russian and Chinese radars by almost 2:1. Just looking at it for air supremacy missions, the thing is basically invisible (to radar), and can launch a missile at an enemy jet before they could even detect it, if it wasn't basically invisible.
- actionfromafar 3y agoI mean, even if it had a larger cross section it could probably pick off Russian fighters before those could do anything in return. But with the stealth it has, it could creep up on them and they wouldn't even know what happened until it was too late.