3 ms·
The F-35 is the star destroyer in this analogy— it's got six missiles onboard, intended for taking out huge targets from far away. Star destroyers fared really
by mikepurvis 8y ago
The F-35 is the star destroyer in this analogy— it's got six missiles onboard, intended for taking out huge targets from far away. Star destroyers fared really badly against a large number of smaller fighters.
So the argument is that a small number of high performance fighters like the F-35 could very well not be a good match for a huge number of drones that individually are a fraction of the price.
- leetcrew 8y agosince we're making arguments by analogy to star wars, it's worth pointing out that, in universe, it is mainly just xwings that are surprisingly effective against star destroyers. they are too small to be effectively targeted by the larger ships guns, but the only reason they are actually a threat is because each craft carries a small number of proton torpedoes, basically the equivalent of a low-yield tactical nuke IRL. the primary fighter armament (lasers) is essentially harmless to such a large ship deployed in any reasonable number. the analogy sort of breaks down at this point.
- kbenson 8y agoWell, you can take the analogy right back to where it came from, WWII and planes as an effective countermeasure to ships. Small cheap planes could carry armaments still very devastating to larger ships.[1] It's not entirely analogous to the current discussion, because there's not really a commensurate difference in maneuverability of F-35 to the drones, but other similarities persist. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_TBF_Avenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_TBF_Avenger