5 ms·

Are drones like the reaper easier and cheaper to maintain than normal planes like the f-35? I could easily see USA releasing hybrid ships, with a few jets, but

Are drones like the reaper easier and cheaper to maintain than normal planes like the f-35? I could easily see USA releasing hybrid ships, with a few jets, but lots of drones

nradov 2y ago
Yes, the MQ-9 Reaper is much easier and cheaper to maintain than an F-35. However, there is a huge capability gap to the extent that a Reaper simply can't do many missions at all. It isn't survivable for penetrating strikes, is vulnerable to communications link disruption, lacks an air search radar, can't defend itself against enemy aircraft, flies slower, has a much lower payload, can't do air refueling, can't carry nuclear weapons, etc. It is possible in principle the build a drone with capabilities similar to an F-35 but then it would be almost as expensive to maintain. Having some drone carriers is probably a good idea. They could take over from supercarriers for limited missions, like striking insurgent targets in Yemen. That would be a lot cheaper. LHD class ships could be deployed with an air wing composed of a mix of F-35B jets plus various drones.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  On the other hand, a drone doesn't need to be survivable. If a drone is shot down then all that's lost is a few million tax dollars, unlike a pilot or two if an F-35 or F/A-18 goes down. Drones are an expendable and consumable commodity. A drone designed for aerial combat and dogfighting would also be inherently faster than any manned fighter. It doesn't need to account for the biological limitations of the pilot(s) which are far below the physical limitations of a fighter. With regards to lack of self-sufficiency, no proficiency at aerial tasks (eg: refueling), et al., that's a question of when they will be satisfactorily solved given the continuing advances in computing power and the programs that execute on them.
  - throwoutway 2y ago
    This is where China will win. They can out-produce the United States and withhold the components the US needs to build the swarms. The US needs to wake up that it's supply chain and manufacturing is not self-sufficient and they're dependent on it's future competition (China already calls the US 'the enemy').
    - thefounder 2y ago
      The U.S could do the future war trial in Ukraine. Such a missed opportunity…it’s clear that the heavy weapons packages are not enough. Taking out drones with patriot works against the economics of war.
      - nradov 2y ago
        Any future conflict between the US and China would look far, far different than the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia. In particular, the ranges are much longer in the Pacific theater of operations. Just look at a map. Small drones, tube artillery, and short-range missiles will be ineffective. There won't be as much ground combat. Both sides will have to rely more on naval forces, large aircraft (high fuel fraction plus aerial refueling), long-range missiles, and satellites.
    - nyokodo 2y ago
      > This is where China will win. They can out-produce the United States and withhold the components the US needs to build the swarms. The US and allies can cut off or seriously curtail most of the raw materials required to run Chinese factories. China can stockpile raw materials but the US can stockpile Chinese sourced components. So that’s more like a Mexican standoff. > The US needs to wake up that it's supply chain and manufacturing is not self-sufficient Diversifying from Chinese production is happening albeit too slowly for comfort. The major problem isn’t the threat of war which may never happen, it’s China being unable to sustain its economy due to population collapse which is inevitable.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Here we go again. Every time this subject comes up, the dilettantes claim that drones will be superior to manned fighters for air-to-air combat due to human limitations on G forces. Of course this is total nonsense. Building airframes that can handle >9Gs imposes severe design compromises on weight, stores, and intake geometry. In reality there are other factors that matter far more including sensors (and sensor fusion), observability, weapons, data links, EW, and decoys; in fact, the next generation of tactical aircraft (both crewed and uncrewed) are being designed to optimize those factors at the expense of maneuverability. Computing power isn't the issue. Drones will continue to gradually take over a larger set of missions, but we are at least decades away from being able to write software that can perform the full spectrum of missions as well as a human pilot. And we still haven't built electro-optical sensors with dynamic range and slew rate as good as the human eye.
    - KRAKRISMOTT 2y ago
      >Drones will continue to gradually take over a larger set of missions, but we are at least decades away from being able to write software that can perform the full spectrum of missions as well as a human pilot. Open AI is Sam's company now, Ilya is out. The new Open AI will have no qualms about accepting DoD funding.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >the dilettantes claim that drones will be superior to manned fighters for air-to-air combat due to human limitations on G forces. I never claimed such a thing. I said drones designed for air combat will be faster because the upper limit will be dictated by physical limits of the airframe thereof instead of the biological limits of the human pilot(s). Whether the faster drones would be superior is another question entirely.
      - nradov 2y ago
        Nonsense. Humans don't limit aircraft speed. The actual limits are imposed by airframe heating and fuel consumption. Keeping human crews alive is hardly the biggest engineering challenge. Higher speed does offer a bit of advantage in BVR combat in that it allows for launching missiles with higher initial energy state.
- halJordan 2y ago
  The reaper was itself replaced in much the same manner at about the same time as when the f35 replaced the f16. An f-35 is still cheaper than an rq-170 or 180, which would be the better comparison
  - dralley 2y ago
    RQ-180 isn't a replacement for the Reaper.

Are drones like the reaper easier and cheaper to maintain than normal planes like the f-35? I could easily see USA releasing hybrid ships, with a few jets, but lots of drones

nradov 2y ago

Yes, the MQ-9 Reaper is much easier and cheaper to maintain than an F-35. However, there is a huge capability gap to the extent that a Reaper simply can't do many missions at all. It isn't survivable for penetrating strikes, is vulnerable to communications link disruption, lacks an air search radar, can't defend itself against enemy aircraft, flies slower, has a much lower payload, can't do air refueling, can't carry nuclear weapons, etc. It is possible in principle the build a drone with capabilities similar to an F-35 but then it would be almost as expensive to maintain. Having some drone carriers is probably a good idea. They could take over from supercarriers for limited missions, like striking insurgent targets in Yemen. That would be a lot cheaper. LHD class ships could be deployed with an air wing composed of a mix of F-35B jets plus various drones.

Dalewyn 2y ago
On the other hand, a drone doesn't need to be survivable. If a drone is shot down then all that's lost is a few million tax dollars, unlike a pilot or two if an F-35 or F/A-18 goes down. Drones are an expendable and consumable commodity. A drone designed for aerial combat and dogfighting would also be inherently faster than any manned fighter. It doesn't need to account for the biological limitations of the pilot(s) which are far below the physical limitations of a fighter. With regards to lack of self-sufficiency, no proficiency at aerial tasks (eg: refueling), et al., that's a question of when they will be satisfactorily solved given the continuing advances in computing power and the programs that execute on them.
- throwoutway 2y ago
  This is where China will win. They can out-produce the United States and withhold the components the US needs to build the swarms. The US needs to wake up that it's supply chain and manufacturing is not self-sufficient and they're dependent on it's future competition (China already calls the US 'the enemy').
  - thefounder 2y ago
    The U.S could do the future war trial in Ukraine. Such a missed opportunity…it’s clear that the heavy weapons packages are not enough. Taking out drones with patriot works against the economics of war.
    - nradov 2y ago
      Any future conflict between the US and China would look far, far different than the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia. In particular, the ranges are much longer in the Pacific theater of operations. Just look at a map. Small drones, tube artillery, and short-range missiles will be ineffective. There won't be as much ground combat. Both sides will have to rely more on naval forces, large aircraft (high fuel fraction plus aerial refueling), long-range missiles, and satellites.
  - nyokodo 2y ago
    > This is where China will win. They can out-produce the United States and withhold the components the US needs to build the swarms. The US and allies can cut off or seriously curtail most of the raw materials required to run Chinese factories. China can stockpile raw materials but the US can stockpile Chinese sourced components. So that’s more like a Mexican standoff. > The US needs to wake up that it's supply chain and manufacturing is not self-sufficient Diversifying from Chinese production is happening albeit too slowly for comfort. The major problem isn’t the threat of war which may never happen, it’s China being unable to sustain its economy due to population collapse which is inevitable.
- nradov 2y ago
  Here we go again. Every time this subject comes up, the dilettantes claim that drones will be superior to manned fighters for air-to-air combat due to human limitations on G forces. Of course this is total nonsense. Building airframes that can handle >9Gs imposes severe design compromises on weight, stores, and intake geometry. In reality there are other factors that matter far more including sensors (and sensor fusion), observability, weapons, data links, EW, and decoys; in fact, the next generation of tactical aircraft (both crewed and uncrewed) are being designed to optimize those factors at the expense of maneuverability. Computing power isn't the issue. Drones will continue to gradually take over a larger set of missions, but we are at least decades away from being able to write software that can perform the full spectrum of missions as well as a human pilot. And we still haven't built electro-optical sensors with dynamic range and slew rate as good as the human eye.
  - KRAKRISMOTT 2y ago
    >Drones will continue to gradually take over a larger set of missions, but we are at least decades away from being able to write software that can perform the full spectrum of missions as well as a human pilot. Open AI is Sam's company now, Ilya is out. The new Open AI will have no qualms about accepting DoD funding.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >the dilettantes claim that drones will be superior to manned fighters for air-to-air combat due to human limitations on G forces. I never claimed such a thing. I said drones designed for air combat will be faster because the upper limit will be dictated by physical limits of the airframe thereof instead of the biological limits of the human pilot(s). Whether the faster drones would be superior is another question entirely.
    - nradov 2y ago
      Nonsense. Humans don't limit aircraft speed. The actual limits are imposed by airframe heating and fuel consumption. Keeping human crews alive is hardly the biggest engineering challenge. Higher speed does offer a bit of advantage in BVR combat in that it allows for launching missiles with higher initial energy state.
halJordan 2y ago
The reaper was itself replaced in much the same manner at about the same time as when the f35 replaced the f16. An f-35 is still cheaper than an rq-170 or 180, which would be the better comparison
- dralley 2y ago
  RQ-180 isn't a replacement for the Reaper.