|
|
|
|
|
|
by GVIrish
4189 days ago
|
|
|
> As far as when the Harrier has made the difference, well, we haven't fought many pitched battles lately, so it's hard to say. But you can't design a military with the idea you'll never have to fight a pitched battle. That's the thing though, by shoehorning that VSTOL requirement into the program, we've made the F35A and F35C significantly worse aircraft. That in turn may mean that we may end up in a more difficult conflict because of the shortcomings of the aircraft. Sure, if at all possible you want your military to be able to handle all scenarios. But truth is that the budget is not unlimited (as the USSR found out) so you have to distribute your eggs such that you get the best capabilities for the most likely scenarios. I'm sure the F-35B will be less crash prone than the Harrier as well as more capable. I just don't think the costs justify it. |
|
|
True, but we're spending less on our military as a percentage of GDP than we have since before WW II. We can afford the F-35B.