Originally Posted by
Stinger10
By your logic we should still be flying WWII fighters instead of F-18s, F-22s, and F-35s.
Then you understand neither logic nor my post.
Point to consider: when you develop a rotor craft versus a fixed wing aircraft, per pound the cost is about 10X more for the rotorcraft. Maintenance and operations costs likewise much higher. I am not convinced we've seen the last move forward in using composites to resolve the weight issue that arise in each new model's development cycle. (Recent post about that neat little bird in New Zealand is intriguing and exciting.)
Lastly, we need to quit making excuses for a broken, lazy system and fix it.
As I never defended the system, your general call to action isn't anything we haven't previously heard on a variety of topics. See extensive discussions of V-22, nearly 25 years to IOC, and F-35, still in growing pains ... no program exists without money.
Old teaching point when I was a flight instructor.
IP: What makes an airplane fly?
Student: Lift, thrust, ...
IP: (Takes a dollar bill out of pocket and waves it): Money.
Please write your Congressman and complain about the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Let us know how you do.
Acquisition exists for the warfighter and the taxpayer, not the other way around,
No ****? Your granny already knows how to suck eggs, thanks all the same.
I will suggest to you that any number of our Congress-critters do not agree with your view, and see those programs as they regards jobs in their districts.
As interesting as S-97 is, it is worth recalling a technological leap forward, Comanche, died a horrible death
in part due to being very expensive for the perceived value. S-97 may run into a similar wall ... but I join you in applauding Sikorsky in taking that move forward without training wheels.
As to the future, I am intrigued by V-280 Valor's potential as a variation on the tilt rotor theme. We'll see if they can take the concept and make it work.
Back to the King Stallion: still feelin' the love!