Fighter Disputes

[AirBadger]

I read somewhere that Lockheed would sell to our allies in a heartbeat if they could, but they would probably have to dumb the airplanes down a bit to lower the cost/prevent technology from falling into the wrong hands too soon.

 

[Deuce130]

The more we sell the more the price drops. And Australia and Japan have a growing problem in their hemisphere.

Let's say your wife used that argument when buying shoes. "See honey, sure I spent more, but I SAVED on money per shoe!" Would you buy that argument? Money spent is still money spent.

 

[mzaharis]

This largely seems to be an "either-or" situation - if more F-22s are purchased, fewer F-35s will be purchased down the line, and vice versa. At least, that seems to be the Pentagon's argument when they defend the 181 limit - they'd rather use the money to buy F-35s. How much confidence do people have that the F-35 could provide effective air superiority in that situation as one of its multiple roles?

The F-35 looks like it will be an incredibly capable aircraft system-wise, building off the technology of the F-22. What is being reported in the press, though, is that it won't have quite the kinematic performance of the F-22, and less payload (and I'm not assuming that the press is reporting the whole story). Given this, if it comes down to a tradeoff between more F-22s and more F-35s, how would you want the tradeoff to go?

 

[SIG600]

The F-35 looks like it will be an incredibly capable aircraft system-wise, building off the technology of the F-22. What is being reported in the press, though, is that it won't have quite the kinematic performance of the F-22, and less payload (and I'm not assuming that the press is reporting the whole story). Given this, if it comes down to a tradeoff between more F-22s and more F-35s, how would you want the tradeoff to go?

Exactly right. Not as fast, less payload, but less expensive. You can figure out the trade offs. A starting line up of A-rods, or a league full of college all-stars.