If the existing systems cost a tenth what the new ones do, just buy 3 times as many of them and add the infrastructure to rapidly deploy exactly what you need. [Add much handwaving here.]
Why do they need flexible systems?
If the existing systems cost a tenth what the new ones do, just buy 3 times as many of them and add the infrastructure to rapidly deploy exactly what you need. [Add much handwaving here.] -- Drew |
|
A huge part of the cost is the people.
If a FA-XX can do the job of an A-10 and also do (well enough) jobs X,Y,Z that an A-10 can't, then it makes sense to use an FA-XX. Pilots have to fly these things all the time to keep up their skills. That's why we don't have 5000 F-16s/A-10s/B-1b/etc., etc. flying around and instead have a few hundred F-22/F-35s that are multi-role. It's too expensive to have lots and lots of pilots flying these things even if the hardware is substantially cheaper. And that's why it's (almost) inevitable that piloted fighters are going extinct. The aircraft can handle G-forces that will kill a pilot, the craft can be sleeker without a bubble for a pilot to see out of, can carry more fuel, etc., and it's too expensive to have people flying them all the time. I suspect, but don't know, that Cheers, Scott. |
|
Nothing's been the same since the close of TOPGUN at Miramar. :0(
bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
The pilot looking out the bubble is one of the key features of the A-10
Optics and targeting systems are getting better all the time, but somebody coming in at tree-top level, looking down at a guy on the ground literally pointing to where the enemy is hidden, is still out of reach of UAVs. -- Drew |
|
Maybe, but as you say the optics on planes maybe "good enough" in many / most cases.
... and getting better all the time. Humans can't see in the IR. ;-) The Reaper's first flight was in 2001; in service in 2007. Technology marches on... Cheers, Scott. |