Originally Posted by
Asturias56
Not surprising - if you're appointed to a Committee or a Task Force to bring a new aircraft in to service how many points will you get for saying "its fine- we'll take it exactly as is..." - ZERO whereas you can load on something for every eventuality safe in the knowledge that you'll be long gone by the time the consequences are clear
It's not just the USAF - the Royal Navy has a distinguished record in doing the same
In this category the World's Benchmark undoubtedly has to be the German Armed Forces Procurement. No one comes close to them in inflating requirements to the point of derailing every project. If it's not at least Gold- plated it is not considered adequate.
Regarding a cheaper and at the same time equally performing platform than an F-16: WTF?! How on Earth should that work?! And that as a new clean sheet development with 202x Salaries for the designers. Development costs have yet to be written off, which is long finished for the F-16. New revolutionary aerodynamic findings haven't been made since the F-16, it is still top notch in that department. It will get an AESA Radar soon. What exactly is it that it can't do that a new cheap design is intended to do???
To whome ever buys this story: Please give me your contact data, so I can offer you my used car.