Look at the F-106 vs the F-4. Volume certainly plays a part. That the F-35 is where it is, with three variants no less, suggests that was the way to go (vs three separate programs).
I think you bring up a very good point. However I think the counter argument to that is twofold. First while the price per unit of an early jet age plane may have been low, the lifespan of that aircraft as being the premier frontline was also quite low. So while cost may increase, each development dollar in a modern aircraft tends to be amortized over a longer number of years. Second, while the cost of aircraft rises, so does capability. What once required fleets of bombers dropping dumb bombs can now be done with small squadrons of fighters carrying smart weapons. I think it was Ben Rich in his Skunkworks books that remarked about how the F-117 could go where a fleet of bombers, escorts, ECM aircraft and fuel tankers would have been required to go. This isn't to say that the F-35 is a wonder weapon, it is just one part of a larger ecosystem, but that increasing costs don't necessarily have to be paired with a similar volume.
Okay, but overall, we still would not have been starting from scratch, which is always much more expensive & time-consuming. Does that make any sense?
He got older, wiser, and even more devastatingly attractive.
What do you think of Elon's take on the stupidity of building manned combat aircraft?
No.
Duncan Sandys rides again.
Not saying it's working as advertised, but that line of thinking was certainly one of the motivations behind multinational aerospace efforts.
Honestly they could have spent money on something else. Their destroyers are pretty nice.
If Colby gets confirmed then he might explain it to him. But if his nomination fails, then only God can help the DoD.
Hmmm - Musk on speed, instead of weed...
Try this for size, ducks. Note also, comment on missile defense, and Nov. 29 dateline.
He does seem a little odd, lately. That is to say, bombed off his a**e.
Wanted Bridge over Hegseth, but it might actually work better this way. Elbridge works quietly while Hegseth takes the slings and arrows shaking things from the top. If they marshalled enough support for Hegseth to get him confirmed, Elbridge shouldn't be a problem. He pushes for practical, rational things, and while Congress is neither, they do like industry and jobs in their districts/states.
Lack of sleep I'd imagine.
Same with the anti-carrier crowd. Hell, apparently China has TWO carriers under construction at the moment.
I think he's wrong, but directionally correct. I think F-35 stays because it is too difficult to unravel and would affect too many other interested parties.
We definitely can't be taking 20 years from selection to production. That just doesn't work. I'd prefer incremental updates instead of having everything bleeding edge every time. NGAD has to be, because that's where we are, but an F-35 follow on could be, essentially, a stretched F-35, with a second seat, more powerful 3-stream engine, optimized to control CCAs, and that's about it. Sensors could be later models of existing instead of completely new. And then do a better job of long term planning instead of reversing direction every four years.
If we really want to win a major war or conflict (or better to prevent one) a new bleeding edge fighter doesn't do that. And the resources including time that we spend on such a product make conflict more likely, not less.
That worked so well in Ukraine.
