[ecnal]

Eh, the F-35 is more an example of how truly infinite time and money can eventually overcome even the worst development processes—at this point the LRIP 10 35As are coming in around the mid-$90m range flyaway with engine, which puts them solidly under the Rafale/Eurofighter price point and on par with the still-in-development Gripen NG. The Danish type selection report is worth a read.

Here's some actual contenders for a modern/Cold War list, though it should be noted that most of these aren't fatally flawed in some fundamental fashion, just designs that didn't turn out as hoped:

- the F-111: much too expensive and only good at long-range strikes - the original Hornet, but not the Super Hornet: not enough fuel and too immature a design for its intended role - the Eurofighter: mind-blowingly expensive, its AESA radar development program is older than the F-35 project and still isn't available, unfortunately timed (becoming a mature platform as VLO aircraft begin to enter service in many air forces) - the F-16/LWF as it was originally conceived: range-only radar, no real payload, more or less a target drone - the MiG-29, a point defense fighter that never really could be molded into a true multirole

[lostlogin]

How do you price something while ignoring the development cost? You can't really call it a less expensive plane and ignore the sunk cost can you? I'm far from an accounting expert as you likely realise.