This is a perfect illustration of how US military industry is optimized for soaking up as much government funding as possible instead of producing reliable weapons that can be manufactured at scale.
This is a perfect illustration of how US military industry is optimized for soaking up as much government funding as possible instead of producing reliable weapons that can be manufactured at scale.
Does that include Bayraktar drones and whatever is used to attack Crimea and Moscow?
I’d imagine they’re referring to things like the Global Hawk and the FPV drones. The former basically is useless in contested airspace and the latter probably has such a huge markup for what it is that it’s just more economical to use an artillery shell.
It’s just another example of how Western militaries are oriented around fighting informal military enemies rather than a peer adversary.
I agree with what the OP said too, I’d imagine the FPV kamikaze drones have a ridiculous markup in relation to what they cost to manufacturer.
I can’t speak to the Bayraktar as that’s of Turkish make and I’m not sure if the article refers to it. I’d imagine that the US wants their weapons to be used because it adds to the debt trap they’re sinking Ukraine in.
FPVs are the ones they’ve started using to drop chemical grenades, no?
I couldn’t tell you, I haven’t really kept up too much with the events of the conflict.
Those are small enough and easy to launch. Most are one way tickets as well.
I’d probably assume they they’re referring to heavily armed and extremely large bombers and recon drones like the Reaper and Predator.
You need to refuel and repair them, and you need dedicated flight and maintenance crew.
I mean, one could expect a drone the size of a proper jet to require the same infrastructure as a jet, no?