3 ms·

But aren’t drones way cheaper than pretty much anything else?

by an_opabinia 6y ago

kristopolous 6y ago
Not the ones the military uses. They are more expensive then their planes with humans in them.
- CapricornNoble 6y ago
  An MQ-9 Reaper costs no-where near what a modern Gen 4++/ Gen 5 fighter costs (F-15X, F/A-18F, F-22, F-35) does, neither in unit flyaway cost, nor in cost per flying hour.
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    What about the RQ-4A or the MQ-4C? Cherry picking is a two player game. If you can show a faithful effort that leads to a cost reduction then I'll rescind my claim. I'm totally open to learning however I'm also pretty suspicious of grifters passing off stories as information. The material reality has to match.
    - CapricornNoble 6y ago
      Fair enough, those two airframes are inexplicably expensive. Some discussions hint at satellite-grade sensors as a factor.[1] But they are also <= 25% of the UAV inventory, much as F-22's aren't the bulk of our fighter force. So to avoid cherry picking, we could average across the entire airframe category (so all single-or-two seat fixed wing fighters vs all MALE UAVs). I haven't crunched those numbers but I think the point would stand in that case: manned costs => unmanned, considering the large number of $50-100MM jets in service that drag up the average. That said, I would caveat the conclusion by pointing out that use cases and mission sets are significantly different. If we were building UAVs with the same capabilities as an F-35....it would probably cost as much as an F-35 too. [1]https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/09/uav-triton-costs.html https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/09/uav-triton-costs.h...
      - kristopolous 6y ago
        Yes there's complex reasons behind these things. My point is, and it's rather crude, that if everything always points in one direction, the complex reasons can be replaced with far simpler, less flattering ones.

3 ms·

But aren’t drones way cheaper than pretty much anything else?

by an_opabinia 6y ago

But aren’t drones way cheaper than pretty much anything else?

kristopolous 6y ago
Not the ones the military uses. They are more expensive then their planes with humans in them.
- CapricornNoble 6y ago
  An MQ-9 Reaper costs no-where near what a modern Gen 4++/ Gen 5 fighter costs (F-15X, F/A-18F, F-22, F-35) does, neither in unit flyaway cost, nor in cost per flying hour.
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    What about the RQ-4A or the MQ-4C? Cherry picking is a two player game. If you can show a faithful effort that leads to a cost reduction then I'll rescind my claim. I'm totally open to learning however I'm also pretty suspicious of grifters passing off stories as information. The material reality has to match.
    - CapricornNoble 6y ago
      Fair enough, those two airframes are inexplicably expensive. Some discussions hint at satellite-grade sensors as a factor.[1] But they are also <= 25% of the UAV inventory, much as F-22's aren't the bulk of our fighter force. So to avoid cherry picking, we could average across the entire airframe category (so all single-or-two seat fixed wing fighters vs all MALE UAVs). I haven't crunched those numbers but I think the point would stand in that case: manned costs => unmanned, considering the large number of $50-100MM jets in service that drag up the average. That said, I would caveat the conclusion by pointing out that use cases and mission sets are significantly different. If we were building UAVs with the same capabilities as an F-35....it would probably cost as much as an F-35 too. [1]https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/09/uav-triton-costs.html https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/09/uav-triton-costs.h...
      - kristopolous 6y ago
        Yes there's complex reasons behind these things. My point is, and it's rather crude, that if everything always points in one direction, the complex reasons can be replaced with far simpler, less flattering ones.