Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,275
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
perfect. so if we're talking about potential losses - what's by far more acceptable when it comes to cost?
because even now, it makes zero sense to leverage extremely high cost 5th and 6th gen aircraft against nothing close to a near peer threat lol. and these are planes that fukk up to the tune of millions of dollars just moving from one safe base to the next.
how many hundreds of cheap drones need to fall flat before we get to the price tag of taking one f-35 out the hangar? how much of a win is it when a single drone destroys a multi million dollar tank or artillery piece? that's all its come down too.
The issue is payload. Sure, you can send a bunch of drones to take out targets at a relatively low cost.
But......
1 tactical nuke will take out an entire city and every drone operator in it and, afaik, there aren't any drones capable of carrying tactical nukes for any considerable distance undetected.
In a regular engagement, drones are superior. When shyt hits the fan, however, you'd rather have something that can't be intercepted by someone with an XBox controller and Wifi.
But......
1 tactical nuke will take out an entire city and every drone operator in it and, afaik, there aren't any drones capable of carrying tactical nukes for any considerable distance undetected.
In a regular engagement, drones are superior. When shyt hits the fan, however, you'd rather have something that can't be intercepted by someone with an XBox controller and Wifi.