Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth
I am not an advocate of a completely drone carrier wing. I believe a mixed wing would be ideal, drones should be kept as stupid cowbombers and leave the A2A to manned fighters. But drones are clearly superior for bomb trucking to fixed targets and loiter/CAS missions. And while we're on the subject of air superiority, how many potential enemies do we really need to worry about this. Bombing barbarians is 99% of the mission set, no white knight air battles there. F-35 being completed in its entirety as a $300 billion "spectrum domination" program is a bad joke unless you own LockMart stock.
And how many bombs has F-35C dropped? At the current pace of the program, an X-47B will trap on a carrier before an F-35 does. Not to mention the B model. And these F-35s will come ~$80 million a piece and haul the same A2G payload as the drone.
PD
|
Nor do I dispute that drones will be of value, or may someday completely replace manned combat aircraft. However, that day is a long way off, and the technology has a long way to go. Still, the United States will, one day, have to face off against a world power with a legitimate air force and naval air power. This is a certainty. Throwing the development of air-to-air combat under the bus is not particularly wise, even in the light that our current enemy consist of a collection of RPG-toting thugs.
Also, I am no F-35 fanboy. I think that the program will end up producing another white elephant, but only after wasting billions of taxpayer dollars first. I have never been taken with the idea of a Joint Strike Fighter. Giving the Navy what they want, the Air Force what they want, and the Marines what they want would, ultimately, prove cheaper in the long run, put more Americans to work, and most importantly, put the planes on the runways and decks a whole lot sooner.