4 ms·
I don’t think that’s quite true. In a post Cold War world, the assumption is that it’s pointless to engage NATO forces in air-to-air combat due to the level of
by coredog64 6y ago
I don’t think that’s quite true. In a post Cold War world, the assumption is that it’s pointless to engage NATO forces in air-to-air combat due to the level of capability.
That calculus is different where combatants are more closely matched (e.g. India and Pakistan), or it may change as opponents improve their capabilities.
- tyingq 6y agoJust seems like a lot of time and money when spending less would just mean losing more (probably much cheaper) aircraft before you get air superiority.
- simlevesque 6y agohow is more, cheaper planes supposed to cost less ?
- tyingq 6y agoThe amount we spend to have "the best", per aircraft, is exponentially higher than what "good enough" would be. And not just purchase price. Training, maintenance, longevity of the platform, etc.
- simonh 6y agoCost vs effectiveness isn’t linear though. An air superiority jet that’s far more advanced and expensive isn’t just a bit more effective, it utterly dominates cheaper less effective opponents. Also per unit costs are misleading. You can’t easily quadruple Or 10x your number of air bases, number of trained pilots and air crew, number of aircraft carriers to carry all your cheap and cheerful swarm fighters. A lot of fast jet economics is driven by getting maximum utility out of deployment capacity and support infrastructure that is itself irreducibly expensive.