I disagree with you on the cost benefit issue. All I can say is look at the B2 debacle. We should have built out the original flight, not the twenty something we built. At a bil a pop it looks like small change now. With block upgrades we would now have an extremely creditable strategic bomber forces as well as a masterful tactical force. N. Koreans perhaps would not be so foolhardy (nor China, for that matter) if we had a hundred plus of those things. Soon we will have to rebuild our bomber force and at much more cost than the B2. The same could be said for the Lancer.
While I agree that there are bad programs that should just be cut - the Crusader is just such and example - I do not believe the judgment should be on price alone.
I feel that if we cut the f22 now, or severely limit the flight - we will deeply regret it in ten to 15 years. I say built it and build it in sufficient numbers to be a creditable mainstay fighter. Let us not make the same mistake as we did with the B2.
As for the Comanche, I am not close enough to the program to know the truth. The specs were amazing so I would not be surprised to learn that it was mostly BS. If it was not BS, however, I would say go for it. I do not trust relying just on UAVs in combat. sooner or later you have to put a man on the line to get a job done. Something always goes wrong.
The requirements weren't BS per se, just the design applications to meet them, and the fact that the actual airframe was to undergo developmental testing without aircraft critical mission components fielded along the way.
I do not trust relying just on UAVs in combat. sooner or later you have to put a man on the line to get a job done. Something always goes wrong.
Agreed and so does the Army. The "man in the loop" argument is as valid as ever. It just doesn't have to be from a 50M a copy "state of the art" airframe.