Defenc(s)e analysis frommy corner ofthe Internet.
Well at least vertical landings look cool.
Taking the full length of that hull looked a little iffy to this admittedly untrained eye at least. I doubt it had full fuel and 5k lb of ordnance on board? The Sea looked about as flat as you can get, too?The problem is still price, even before the very significant delay problem, imho.Countries such as Italy are not going to be able to afford buying STOVL in FY16 or FY17 (going forward), as there will be substantially reduced FRP rates by then, in addition to a future price - one likely greater than estimated to start with.Europe/EU is going to have a more Central Fiscal Budget making policy dimension to it within 2-5 yrs.To put forward a proposal and request to buy $200m PUC costing STOVL fighters in a few years (let alone the USMC), for the sake of supporting local industry, will likely sound more like a Pyramid scheme and less like a valid national defense strategy. It will likely be a non-starter, I'm afraid to say, regardless of the Program's lofty original intentions 10 yrs ago for cheap and plentiful fighters for all.
Post a Comment