Delays, rising development costs (initially projected at $59 billion) and design problems in general have tarnished the fighter's reputation, which was supposed to be a cheaper alternative to the expensive F-22.
Delays, rising development costs (initially projected at $59 billion) and design problems in general have tarnished the fighter's reputation, which was supposed to be a cheaper alternative to [M]the expensive F-22.[/M][SEP]Delays, rising development costs (initially projected at $59 billion) and design problems in general have tarnished [M]the fighter[/M]'s reputation, which [M]was supposed to be a cheaper alternative to the expensive F-22[/M].[SEP]Delays, rising development costs (initially projected at $59 billion) and [M]design problems[/M] in general [M]have tarnished the fighter's reputation[/M], which was supposed to be a cheaper alternative to the expensive F-22.[SEP]Delays, rising [M]development costs (initially projected at $59 billion)[/M] and design problems in general have tarnished the fighter's reputation, which was supposed to be a cheaper alternative to the expensive F-22.[SEP]Delays, [M]rising development costs[/M] (initially projected at $59 billion) and design problems in general [M]have tarnished the fighter's reputation[/M], which was supposed to be a cheaper alternative to the expensive F-22.[SEP][M]Delays[/M], rising development costs (initially projected at $59 billion) and design problems in general [M]have tarnished the fighter's reputation[/M], which was supposed to be a cheaper alternative to the expensive F-22.