This is news from 16/9/2012:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/6_harrier_jets_destr.php
In short, 6 Harrier jets were destroyed and 2 damaged in Taliban attack. It drives home the point that air bases are bound to be attacked, and aircraft are bound to be attacked, regardless of type of war waged.
F-35 is supposed to replace Harrier. But when we compare them, F-35 costs 200 million USD per aircraft, whereas Harrier costs 30 million USD per aircraft. If these aircraft were F-35s, total damage would have exceeded 1 billion USD – not to mention health and environmental damage from toxic stealth coatings. Attack was done by 15 insurgents; what would have happened against well-trained spec ops team?
In any war, aircraft are bound to be destroyed – in air, and on the ground. Yet F-35s are simply to expensive and complicated to replace, not in small part thanks to their stealth coatings.
History and War 
Yes but this is what the MICC wants. If an expensive aircraft is destroyed, it’s all the more profitable to have it replaced. That and I imagine that the F-35 will have to spend a high proportion of it’s total time on the ground for maintenance, where it’s extremely vulnerable.
LikeLike
Something like that, yes.
LikeLike