Yksin Suomella ei toki, liittoutumisen kautta kyllä. Ennen kaikkea sama teknologia tullee olemaan Kiinan ja tätä kautta mitä todennäköisimmin Venäjän käytössä.
Ilmavoimien tulevaisuus
- Viestiketjun aloittaja Museo
- Aloitus PVM
-
- Tagit
- ilmavoimat tulevaisuus
Yksin Suomella ei toki, liittoutumisen kautta kyllä. Ennen kaikkea sama teknologia tullee olemaan Kiinan ja tätä kautta mitä todennäköisimmin Venäjän käytössä.
Nojatuolistrategi
Ylipäällikkö
Olinpa huolimaton. Onneksi asiaan tuli kuitenkin oikaisua ja selvennystä.
Tuon B-21 Raiderin suorituskykyarvot taitavat olla vielä julkistamatta.
BlackFox
Ylipäällikkö
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/f-3...rce=TW&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=social
The reported performance of the F-35 is a major victory for an aircraft that was criticised for its cost and earlier developmental setbacks.
Earlier in the month it was reported that the F-35 had earned a 15:1 kill ratio against the aggressor squadron F-16s, more recent reports from the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin now put that ratio at 20:1.
An aggressor squadron is a squadron that is trained to act as an opposing force in military exercises.
Tech Sgt Robert James said about the jet:
“It’s giving the airmen something they never had before. It’s giving the maintainer information to help them do their job faster and easier while making the Air Force more streamlined.”
Along with the aforementioned kill ratio and maintenance rate, the jets executed unprecedented weapons targeting exercises.
James Schmidt, a former A-10 pilot said:
“I flew a mission the other day where our four-ship formation of F-35As destroyed five surface-to-air threats in a 15-minute period without being targeted once. It’s pretty cool to come back from a mission where we flew right over threats knowing they could never see us.
After almost every mission, we shake our heads and smile, saying ‘We can’t believe we just did that’. We flew right into the heart of the threat and were able to bring all of our jets back out with successful strikes. It’s like we hit the ‘I Believe’ button again after every sortie.”
Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34th Fighter Squadron commander, said flying the F-35A in combat feels like air dominance’.
“I’ve had four of my (F-35A) pilots come back from missions, guys who have flown the F-15 and F-16 at Red Flag for years, and tell me ‘This is amazing.
I’ve never had this much situational awareness while I’m in the air. I know who’s who, I know who’s being threatened, and I know where I need to go next.’ You just don’t have all of that information at once in fourth-generation platform.
The first day we were here, we flew defensive counter-air and we didn’t lose a single friendly aircraft. That’s unheard of. The number of adversaries has increased, their skill level has increased, the sophistication of the surface-to-air threat has increased.”
Royal Australian Air Force Group Captain Stuart Bellingham, Air Operations Center director at Red Flag said:
“It is a step up and a look into the future for us. It’s really exciting to work alongside the F-35A and the F-22 to understand how we best integrate that into a high end fight in the training scenarios that Red Flag provides.”
According to a press release:
“Since the exercise began, Hill’s Airmen have generated 110 sorties, including their first 10-jet F-35A sortie Jan. 30 and turned around and launched eight jets that afternoon. They have not lost a single sortie to a maintenance issue and have a 92 percent mission-capable rate, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, assistant officer in charge of the 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Legacy aircraft average 70 to 85 percent mission-capable.”
The Royal Air Force had also deployed Typhoon jets, Sentinel and Rivet Joint intelligence gathering aircraft and Voyager tankers to Exercise Red Flag.
In the words of the Ministry of Defence, “Red Flag pits ‘Blue’ coalition forces against hostile ‘Red Force’ aggressors, mirroring real-life threats in air-to-air, air-to-ground, space and cyber warfare.”
Typhoons, from 6 Squadron, RAF Lossiemouth, were operating in a swing-role capacity, fighting their way into hostile airspace, launching precision strikes on ground targets and fighting their way out again. A Voyager tanker and a Sentinel and Rivet Joint were also present.
The F-35 programme has gone through serious teething problems, problems also experienced by the majority of complex aircraft flying today such as the F-15, Typhoon or any other modern combat jet; it’s no secret however that the F-35 has had severe cost and schedule issues. The biggest issue for the project continues to be the fact it is the most expensive military weapons system in history owing to the sheer scope of the programme but that being said, aircraft costs are now coming down and will soon be similar to the cost of many aircraft it’s replacing.
Today the programme is maturing rapidly, right now much of the activity around the jet is dealing with software bugs and testing to validate the software, with most of the physical testing being to do with weapons integration and the gradual scaling up of capabilities that comes with each new software block.
The jet is a quantum leap in capability, able to give the pilot as much information as only theatre commanders have previously had. While the primary value of the jet is in its sensor and networking capabilities, it is also valuable in that it’s able to perform many tasks designed to increase the lethality of not only itself but other assets, such tasks include the ability to co-ordinate small fleets of unmanned combat aircraft, guide weapons launched from other platforms (even warships), launch a wide-range of its own weapons and use it’s own radar to conduct electronic attacks.
The F-35 will drastically increase the situational awareness and combat capabilities of the forces with which it will deploy and for the UK, where numbers may be a concern, it represents a fantastic way to enhance combat capability in any coalition or national effort. There is no denying that jet is overbudget and behind schedule compared to original estimates but an incredibly capable platform is emerging and one that I believe will shape the future of air combat.
The reported performance of the F-35 is a major victory for an aircraft that was criticised for its cost and earlier developmental setbacks.
Earlier in the month it was reported that the F-35 had earned a 15:1 kill ratio against the aggressor squadron F-16s, more recent reports from the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin now put that ratio at 20:1.
An aggressor squadron is a squadron that is trained to act as an opposing force in military exercises.
Tech Sgt Robert James said about the jet:
“It’s giving the airmen something they never had before. It’s giving the maintainer information to help them do their job faster and easier while making the Air Force more streamlined.”
Along with the aforementioned kill ratio and maintenance rate, the jets executed unprecedented weapons targeting exercises.
James Schmidt, a former A-10 pilot said:
“I flew a mission the other day where our four-ship formation of F-35As destroyed five surface-to-air threats in a 15-minute period without being targeted once. It’s pretty cool to come back from a mission where we flew right over threats knowing they could never see us.
After almost every mission, we shake our heads and smile, saying ‘We can’t believe we just did that’. We flew right into the heart of the threat and were able to bring all of our jets back out with successful strikes. It’s like we hit the ‘I Believe’ button again after every sortie.”
Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34th Fighter Squadron commander, said flying the F-35A in combat feels like air dominance’.
“I’ve had four of my (F-35A) pilots come back from missions, guys who have flown the F-15 and F-16 at Red Flag for years, and tell me ‘This is amazing.
I’ve never had this much situational awareness while I’m in the air. I know who’s who, I know who’s being threatened, and I know where I need to go next.’ You just don’t have all of that information at once in fourth-generation platform.
The first day we were here, we flew defensive counter-air and we didn’t lose a single friendly aircraft. That’s unheard of. The number of adversaries has increased, their skill level has increased, the sophistication of the surface-to-air threat has increased.”
Royal Australian Air Force Group Captain Stuart Bellingham, Air Operations Center director at Red Flag said:
“It is a step up and a look into the future for us. It’s really exciting to work alongside the F-35A and the F-22 to understand how we best integrate that into a high end fight in the training scenarios that Red Flag provides.”
According to a press release:
“Since the exercise began, Hill’s Airmen have generated 110 sorties, including their first 10-jet F-35A sortie Jan. 30 and turned around and launched eight jets that afternoon. They have not lost a single sortie to a maintenance issue and have a 92 percent mission-capable rate, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, assistant officer in charge of the 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Legacy aircraft average 70 to 85 percent mission-capable.”
The Royal Air Force had also deployed Typhoon jets, Sentinel and Rivet Joint intelligence gathering aircraft and Voyager tankers to Exercise Red Flag.
In the words of the Ministry of Defence, “Red Flag pits ‘Blue’ coalition forces against hostile ‘Red Force’ aggressors, mirroring real-life threats in air-to-air, air-to-ground, space and cyber warfare.”
Typhoons, from 6 Squadron, RAF Lossiemouth, were operating in a swing-role capacity, fighting their way into hostile airspace, launching precision strikes on ground targets and fighting their way out again. A Voyager tanker and a Sentinel and Rivet Joint were also present.
The F-35 programme has gone through serious teething problems, problems also experienced by the majority of complex aircraft flying today such as the F-15, Typhoon or any other modern combat jet; it’s no secret however that the F-35 has had severe cost and schedule issues. The biggest issue for the project continues to be the fact it is the most expensive military weapons system in history owing to the sheer scope of the programme but that being said, aircraft costs are now coming down and will soon be similar to the cost of many aircraft it’s replacing.
Today the programme is maturing rapidly, right now much of the activity around the jet is dealing with software bugs and testing to validate the software, with most of the physical testing being to do with weapons integration and the gradual scaling up of capabilities that comes with each new software block.
The jet is a quantum leap in capability, able to give the pilot as much information as only theatre commanders have previously had. While the primary value of the jet is in its sensor and networking capabilities, it is also valuable in that it’s able to perform many tasks designed to increase the lethality of not only itself but other assets, such tasks include the ability to co-ordinate small fleets of unmanned combat aircraft, guide weapons launched from other platforms (even warships), launch a wide-range of its own weapons and use it’s own radar to conduct electronic attacks.
The F-35 will drastically increase the situational awareness and combat capabilities of the forces with which it will deploy and for the UK, where numbers may be a concern, it represents a fantastic way to enhance combat capability in any coalition or national effort. There is no denying that jet is overbudget and behind schedule compared to original estimates but an incredibly capable platform is emerging and one that I believe will shape the future of air combat.
Rantojen mies
Kenraali
Agree to disagree, kuten sanotaan. Mielestäni turhan ruusuinen kuva tekniikan kehityksestä ja avaruuteen sijoitettujen sensorien operatiivisesta käytöstä.
John Hilly
Ylipäällikkö
Israel miettii, mihin käyttää 38 miljardia $! 
6:tta sukupolvea tekisi jenkeissä mieli. Kovastihan tuota on jo pedattu. Mutta mielenkiintoista nähdä, miten hanke liikkuu eteenpäin. B-21 Raider olisi ainakin hyvä saada ensin ulos.
Air Force Leader Wants More Aggressive Push for ‘Sixth-Gen’ Capabilities
The Air Force needs to more aggressively pursue a next-generation platform capable of penetrating deep into hostile airspace, the head of Air Combat Command said Feb. 24.
The primary focus now is on ramping up production of the F-35A joint strike fighter, a fifth-generation aircraft with stealth features and cutting-edge sensors. But the Air Force is already thinking about acquiring a sixth-generation “penetrating counter-air” capability, or PCA, that would have longer range and greater ability to outmatch the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems.
Service leaders aim to have this new technology in the fleet in the 2030s. “We should try to accelerate that left if at all possible,” Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle said at a breakfast with defense reporters in Washington, D.C.
The Air Force should procure more joint strike fighters than planned over the next five years and then pivot to a new system, he said.
“What I believe will happen is if we can increase the buy rate and continue to recapitalize our force with F-35s in the near term … then we can in the ‘20s look at that PCA,” he added. “We’ll be able to make a decision at that point where we’ll transition from [buying] more F-35s to a PCA, or we’ll transition to a different instantiation of the F-35” that is more advanced than the latest version.
The Air Force also needs a “penetrating electronic attack capability” that could potentially accompany the counter-air platform into enemy airspace, he said.
A sixth-generation system or family of systems might be unmanned and could be equipped with autonomous capabilities, he noted.
“There are things you can do with a penetrating platform that can probably use some unmanned [technology] … and would be either autonomous or semi-autonomous,” Carlisle said. “We’re looking at different ways to do that. But I do believe that there is some kind of platform that’s going to have to get an electronic [warfare] capability into the battlespace.”
The Air Force also needs to more rapidly acquire next-generation weapons for its newest aircraft, he said.
“We’re still flying with fourth-generation weapons on a fifth-generation platform,” he said. For F-22s, F-35s and a future penetrating counter-air system “we need weapons that are fifth- and sixth-gen that go with that.”
U.S. warplanes are not the only assets that are at risk from enemy air defenses, he noted. The weapons that they launch could also be destroyed.
“Not only does the airplane have to get into the theater to get to a range to deliver a weapon, but the weapon has to get to its target,” Carlisle said. “When you’re using fourth-generation weapons, the ability of the adversary to counter those weapons through a variety of means” is enhanced, he added. “You have to get something that can actually reach the target.”
The Air Force also is fleshing out the concept of a “survivable strike weapon” and related technologies to meet future needs, he said. Whether they would by hypersonic and rely on speed to outpace enemy air defenses, or rely on stealth to avoid detection, has yet to be determined, he told reporters.
The F-35 program has been plagued by cost overruns and schedule delays. Carlisle was asked if he was concerned that the headline-grabbing setbacks associated with the joint strike fighter would make lawmakers wary of funding an expensive sixth-generation system or family of systems in the next decade.
“I’m hoping that we the Air Force, we the Department of Defense, do a good enough job of spending time with Congress and talking to them about what we’re doing and how we’re doing it and why we’re doing it and staying engaged at the maximum level possible so that we can prevent that from happening,” he said.
One of the biggest problems with the F-35 program was the “concurrency” of the engineering and manufacturing development phase and the production phase, he noted. In hindsight, pursuing that acquisition path was probably a mistake, he suggested.
“We thought … we could do EMD ... at the same time we’re producing airplanes,” Carlisle said. “That caused some of the problems that we had to go back and fix.”
The Air Force will take lessons learned from the F-35, F-22 and B-21 Raider programs and apply them to the penetrating counter-air project, he added.
Air Force Leader Wants More Aggressive Push for ‘Sixth-Gen’ Capabilities
The Air Force needs to more aggressively pursue a next-generation platform capable of penetrating deep into hostile airspace, the head of Air Combat Command said Feb. 24.
The primary focus now is on ramping up production of the F-35A joint strike fighter, a fifth-generation aircraft with stealth features and cutting-edge sensors. But the Air Force is already thinking about acquiring a sixth-generation “penetrating counter-air” capability, or PCA, that would have longer range and greater ability to outmatch the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems.
Service leaders aim to have this new technology in the fleet in the 2030s. “We should try to accelerate that left if at all possible,” Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle said at a breakfast with defense reporters in Washington, D.C.
The Air Force should procure more joint strike fighters than planned over the next five years and then pivot to a new system, he said.
“What I believe will happen is if we can increase the buy rate and continue to recapitalize our force with F-35s in the near term … then we can in the ‘20s look at that PCA,” he added. “We’ll be able to make a decision at that point where we’ll transition from [buying] more F-35s to a PCA, or we’ll transition to a different instantiation of the F-35” that is more advanced than the latest version.
The Air Force also needs a “penetrating electronic attack capability” that could potentially accompany the counter-air platform into enemy airspace, he said.
A sixth-generation system or family of systems might be unmanned and could be equipped with autonomous capabilities, he noted.
“There are things you can do with a penetrating platform that can probably use some unmanned [technology] … and would be either autonomous or semi-autonomous,” Carlisle said. “We’re looking at different ways to do that. But I do believe that there is some kind of platform that’s going to have to get an electronic [warfare] capability into the battlespace.”
The Air Force also needs to more rapidly acquire next-generation weapons for its newest aircraft, he said.
“We’re still flying with fourth-generation weapons on a fifth-generation platform,” he said. For F-22s, F-35s and a future penetrating counter-air system “we need weapons that are fifth- and sixth-gen that go with that.”
U.S. warplanes are not the only assets that are at risk from enemy air defenses, he noted. The weapons that they launch could also be destroyed.
“Not only does the airplane have to get into the theater to get to a range to deliver a weapon, but the weapon has to get to its target,” Carlisle said. “When you’re using fourth-generation weapons, the ability of the adversary to counter those weapons through a variety of means” is enhanced, he added. “You have to get something that can actually reach the target.”
The Air Force also is fleshing out the concept of a “survivable strike weapon” and related technologies to meet future needs, he said. Whether they would by hypersonic and rely on speed to outpace enemy air defenses, or rely on stealth to avoid detection, has yet to be determined, he told reporters.
The F-35 program has been plagued by cost overruns and schedule delays. Carlisle was asked if he was concerned that the headline-grabbing setbacks associated with the joint strike fighter would make lawmakers wary of funding an expensive sixth-generation system or family of systems in the next decade.
“I’m hoping that we the Air Force, we the Department of Defense, do a good enough job of spending time with Congress and talking to them about what we’re doing and how we’re doing it and why we’re doing it and staying engaged at the maximum level possible so that we can prevent that from happening,” he said.
One of the biggest problems with the F-35 program was the “concurrency” of the engineering and manufacturing development phase and the production phase, he noted. In hindsight, pursuing that acquisition path was probably a mistake, he suggested.
“We thought … we could do EMD ... at the same time we’re producing airplanes,” Carlisle said. “That caused some of the problems that we had to go back and fix.”
The Air Force will take lessons learned from the F-35, F-22 and B-21 Raider programs and apply them to the penetrating counter-air project, he added.
Se on sellaista taiteilua rahoituksen suhteen johon taas liittyy oleellisesti työpaikkojen säilyttäminen, siinä ei saa tulla kovin isoja häiriöitä. Vaatii myös aika hienoa nuoralla tanssia miten selittää poliitikoille, että edellisen projektin floppaamisen takia tarvitaan kiirusti uusi ja uusi toki onnistuu, onhan edellinenkin onnellisesti maalissa, nämä argumentit kun ovat hiukan ristiriidassa.
Samaan aikaan pohditaan myös sitten kevyen, edullisemman taktisen ilmatuki/rynnäkkökoneen hankintaa. Eli high-low ajatus elää. Vaikka USAFia onkin välillä moitittu high-very high strategiasta. Mutta, ei lähi-idän teknikaalien pommituksiin välttämättä tarvitse stealth-pommikoneita. Eli ihan fiksua valita työkalut vaatimusten mukaan.
Air Force to request funds for light attack aircraft demo
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-to-request-funds-for-light-attack-aircraft-demo
The Air Force is considering buying a number of light attack planes to help conduct low-end missions in the Middle East, which would ease pressure on more advanced combat jets and help ameliorate aircraft shortages caused by continued readiness problems. But before moving to a program of record, termed OA-X, the service wants to see whether the aircraft already available on the market can meet its needs.
Air Force to request funds for light attack aircraft demo
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-to-request-funds-for-light-attack-aircraft-demo
The Air Force is considering buying a number of light attack planes to help conduct low-end missions in the Middle East, which would ease pressure on more advanced combat jets and help ameliorate aircraft shortages caused by continued readiness problems. But before moving to a program of record, termed OA-X, the service wants to see whether the aircraft already available on the market can meet its needs.
BarrelNut
Kenraali
Finland cracks down on direct lobbying for HX fighter
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/finland-cracks-down-on-direct-lobbying-for-hx-fighter
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/finland-cracks-down-on-direct-lobbying-for-hx-fighter
Analyytikkojen mukaan T-X on tosiaan enää kahden kauppa.
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/the-t-x-battle-comes-down-to-lockheed-and-boeing
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/the-t-x-battle-comes-down-to-lockheed-and-boeing
Miksi eivät käytä droneja? Alkavatko pelätä häirintää?
Jep. Samaa mieltä. Analyysiosaaminen ei oikein nyt vakuuttanut. Siksi en myöskään linkittänyt aikaisemmin.
Toki, se on silti hyvä, että artikkeli linkitettiin palstalle. Johtopäätös kahden kaupasta on aika selvä.
Toki, se on silti hyvä, että artikkeli linkitettiin palstalle. Johtopäätös kahden kaupasta on aika selvä.
Humoristinen vastaus: USAF:illa on vahva lentäjä-lobby
Kyllähän ne todellisuudessa käyttävät koko ajan yhä enemmän droneja. Mutta, varmaan miehitetyillä koneilla on edelleen arvonsa tuolla, erityisesti akuuteissa eturintaman ilmatuki-tilanteissa. Lentäjä näkee omilla silmillään kerralla koko tilanteen ja pystyy reagoimaan välittömästi.
fulcrum
Greatest Leader
Miehitetty kone saadaan varmaan myös kehiin nopeammin. Sopivia koneita on jo olemassa (Scorpion, FA-50 yms) ja käyttöönotto on lähinnä kiinni siitä kuinka nopeasti ilmavoimat haluaa asiassa liikkua. Lisäksi voidaan siirtää olemassaolevaa CAS-osaamista A-10 ja F-16 -yksiköiltä uuteen koneeseen. Raskaan dronen kehittely liki nollista olisi kallis ja aikaavievä projekti.
Toisin kuin boydistien halpiskonefantasiat aikaisemmin, kevytpommarille olisi nyt oikeasti tilausta. Suuri osa CAS-tehtävistä on täsmäaseen pudottamisia eikä ole mitään järkeä lennättää savimajan kohdalle F-35:ttä $30k/tuntitaksalla jos kevyempi kone voi hoitaa homman kolmanneshinnalla.
Toisin kuin boydistien halpiskonefantasiat aikaisemmin, kevytpommarille olisi nyt oikeasti tilausta. Suuri osa CAS-tehtävistä on täsmäaseen pudottamisia eikä ole mitään järkeä lennättää savimajan kohdalle F-35:ttä $30k/tuntitaksalla jos kevyempi kone voi hoitaa homman kolmanneshinnalla.
MQ-9 ei ole enää mikään lelu. 710kW potkuriturbiini, 1700kg aselasti, 23h toimintakyky täydessä aselastissa. Valikoimissa mm. Hellfirea ja 500 paunan laserohjattua pommia. Kuulostaa minusta kovasti sellaiselta kevythävittäjältä, mitä haikailtiin.
Kappalehinta on jo aika kova, mutta pähkinöitä verrattuna miehitettyyn hävittäjään.
Kappalehinta on jo aika kova, mutta pähkinöitä verrattuna miehitettyyn hävittäjään.
fulcrum
Greatest Leader
Reapperi on vaan aika hidas, matkanopeus 300km/h kun Scorpparikin jo vetää 600km/h ja muut ovat nopeampia. Lisäksi hitaan pitkäsiipisen koneen säänsieto on varmaan melko huono.
Tuo kevytrynnäkkökone-ohjelma on tietysti vasta demo jonka perusteella ilmavoimat vetää johtopäätöksensä siitä hankitaanko tällaisia koneita ollenkaan. Epäilemättä osaltaan halutaan myös miellyttää kongressia jossa halpishävittäjä-ratkaisut ovat aina olleet suosittuja. Uutisessa sanottiin että myös lennokkiratkaisuja tutkitaan ja varmasti jonkunlainen kustannustehokkuusvertailu lennokkien ja miehitettyjen lenskareiden kanssa tullaan tekemään.
Tuo kevytrynnäkkökone-ohjelma on tietysti vasta demo jonka perusteella ilmavoimat vetää johtopäätöksensä siitä hankitaanko tällaisia koneita ollenkaan. Epäilemättä osaltaan halutaan myös miellyttää kongressia jossa halpishävittäjä-ratkaisut ovat aina olleet suosittuja. Uutisessa sanottiin että myös lennokkiratkaisuja tutkitaan ja varmasti jonkunlainen kustannustehokkuusvertailu lennokkien ja miehitettyjen lenskareiden kanssa tullaan tekemään.
Raveni
Greatest Leader
https://tekniikanmaailma.fi/muu-tek...havittajista-eivat-osu-liikkuviin-kohteisiin/
Se voi kuulkaa olla niin että F-35 tekee vielä NH-90:set ja on liian keskeneräinen Suomelle kun valinnan paikka 2020 tulee...
Se voi kuulkaa olla niin että F-35 tekee vielä NH-90:set ja on liian keskeneräinen Suomelle kun valinnan paikka 2020 tulee...
Uutta näyttäisi pukkaavan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger
Toistaiseksi valmistettu muutama prototyyppi.
Uutta Reaperiin verrattuna:
*Low-Observable/Stealth
*Raskaampi aselasti, osa sisäisissä asekuiluissa
*EOTS
*suihkuturbiini ja 400 solmun matkanopeus
Hinta suunnilleen Scorpionin luokkaa. Kysymys kai sitten lienee pohjimmiltaan, pitäisikö pilotin toimiston olla lentävä.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger
Toistaiseksi valmistettu muutama prototyyppi.
Uutta Reaperiin verrattuna:
*Low-Observable/Stealth
*Raskaampi aselasti, osa sisäisissä asekuiluissa
*EOTS
*suihkuturbiini ja 400 solmun matkanopeus
Hinta suunnilleen Scorpionin luokkaa. Kysymys kai sitten lienee pohjimmiltaan, pitäisikö pilotin toimiston olla lentävä.
F-35:n osalta hyvinkin mahdollista ja Gripenin kohdalla jopa todennäköistä. Sen jälkeen onkin ihan toinen peli käynnissä. Fiksusti meillä on pidetty iso porukka aidosti mukana.
Tuo nimenomainen puute kalustossa ei kyllä ole mikään ratkaiseva tekijä mutta onhan siinä vielä koodareilla hommia ennen kuin voidaan puhua valmiista tuotteesta.