Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bookworm_020
I can see Australia not getting the full amount of fighters they put their had up for (up to 100). .
|
I can see many customers, perhaps the majority not getting the original number of F-35s they signed up for. It's a snowball effect.
Quote:
|
It makes sese in some respects, do you risk a drone worth $100 million or a plane worth $300+ million with pilot in a risky high threat situation???:hmm:
|
$100 million is a drone that does EVERYTHING. Drones, at least initially, will just be cow truck bombs that fly to point X and drop a PGM or two. Which would probably run more in the $20-$30 million range. Which is big for countries like Australia that would be limited to 100 manned JSF. Instead of spending $7 billion on 100 F-35s...you can:
- buy about 150 UCAV for $3.75 billion. Which will have double the combat radius the F-35 will hauling the same two PGMs. And leave you some money to buy a handful of F-22s down the road.
- which will increase the striking reach and power (sortie rate) of the RAAF. More than any manned fighter, except for perhaps the F-22 would.
- Not worry about manning. Because Qantas won't be able to offer your UCAV two-three times more per year to fly for them. And you won't have to shell out another couple million to train a new pilot after that happens.
- Not worry about training expenses nearly as much as you do now. Because a UCAV won't need 40 hours of flying a month minimum just to stay sharp. Nor will they be lost to night training crashes or collide during tactical training.
The APA isn't thrilled with the F-35:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html
But does what the Aussies think matter anyways?
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/...d-decides.html
PD