- Reaction score
I'm sure it'll be included, right into the cost per airframe which is already close if not higher than the F-35.
I’m not saying it means anything. You said it was “fat” and “slow” so I replied that it was actually small and fast. Now you’re asking me what that’s suppose to mean? Sorry, I don’t understand you.What does that even mean, is that supposed to be some sort of milestone? Under what conditions can it do this, clean aircraft with no weapons, what’s the acceleration, how long will it take for a clean Airshow configuration Gripen to reach those speeds? What’s the point when you’ll quickly be out of fuel and can’t sustain those speeds?
You really need to do some research on this subject, because like the typical Gripen supporter, you don’t understand why you support it and don’t bother comparing it to other platforms. Stop hanging out at blogs like Best fighter 4 Canada and you might find some real data.
...yup, and still be Gen 3/4 technology that doesn’t give anything even close to MADL’s capacity to connect to the latest battlespace information framework.I'm sure it'll be included, right into the cost per airframe which is already close if not higher than the F-35.
USAF from 388th Fighter Wing: https://www.388fw.acc.af.mil/F-35A-...mo Team,newest 5th-generation stealth fighter.Is that the USAF demo team or LM's demo team?
I guess the cynical people in the crowd would say "what's the difference?"
What evidence do you have that UCAV/RPAS are cheaper than human occupied aircraft?Just a thought here for discussion and opinions.
The US seems to be hedging its bets on the F-35 a bit with a reduction in F-35 numbers while upgrading its fleet of 4th Gen aircraft and at the same time pushing forward with its NGAD program.
I personally think the F-35 is the best choice for replacing the Hornets but do have some concerns about some of the potential shortcomings that have been raised by critics.
The original ask was for 65 x F-35's which later became 88 x multi-role aircraft to be selected through competition. A personally feel that 65 fighters are too few for Canada and to be honest 88 is as well. Based on our procurement history (which I don't expect to change), whatever we pick will be with us for many years to come.
What are people's thoughts if we were to go with the original 65 x F-35 plan and in place of the extra 23 fighters from the current plan we instead planned on procuring 65 x UCAV's (Loyal Wingman/Skyborg or similar) to supplement the F-35s.
This would give us a total of 130 combat airframes instead of 88. The UCAVs would be cheaper than manned fighters and would be economically (and possibly politically) easier to replace/upgrade going forward as technology advances.
Of course UAVs would require pilots and maintainers, but would training and keeping UCAV pilots be easier than keeping traditional fixed-wing pilots? Postings wouldn't have to be to Cold Lake...UCAV pilots presumably wouldn't be poached away from the RCAF to the commercial airlines the same way that traditional fixed-wing pilots are.
I'm sure there are lots of other 2nd and 3rd order effects that would result. What would they be?
Do you think that an approach like this might have merit?
This article claims that Boeing is aiming at a unit cost of around $2 million a piece for the Loyal Wingman:What evidence do you have that UCAV/RPAS are cheaper than human occupied aircraft?