I totally agree that a deterrent that doesn't have to be utilised is a good one. Is it acceptable to absorb that giant chunk of the defence budget for a unused deterrent? (Noting that dump and burns have surely had a significant
PR effect).
We have been involved in a number of conflicts where we could have used the Rhino, but the Pig was never going to play (what would be the maintenance overhead of keeping that thing in a warzone?). If the Rhino goes to war anytime soon, regardless of the on paper capability comparison or cost comparison etc, an aircraft that provides a useable capability is better than one that is just nice to have sitting in the glass cabinet with a
break if you decide to go to war with your next door neighbour sign on the front.
My two cents. Sorry if I've duplicated previous comments.
