You know, going back 7 or 8 years I can remember being told repeatedly that UAVs were the 'way of the future' because they would be cheap, easy to operate and little to no maintenance. Well, the
Reaper, a updated and armed version of the Predator costs nearly $14mil. The
GlobalHawk comes in between $51mil to $80mil. And that's the cost the AF is willing to say online. And
here the Chief-of-Staff of the AF admits that UAVs are indeed labor intensive.
Schwartz noted that the Air Force has surged its RPA capacity nearly tenfold over the past decade. More than 4,000 airmen have been reassigned from other occupations to operate and support these aircraft. Running RPA operations is so labor intensive that each “orbit” of aircraft requires 120 personnel per 24-hour shift. “We have adapted to this fight pretty spectacularly,” said Schwartz.
Schwartz framed the issue as one of “strategic” versus “tactical.”
The Army, he said, “operates RPA platforms in a tactical mode: close in, with relatively small platforms.” The Air Force flies larger, more advanced aircraft in strategic missions, he said. This requires a higher level of skill and responsibility that justifies having only officers at the controls. Although he noted that some enlisted airmen have been trained to fly the Army’s smaller RPAs.
Then again, what should you expect from the It's-all-about-Me USAF?Though that's not my only problem with the article. Gen. Schwartz makes the AF's use of UAVs sound more grand by throwing out 'strategic' vs Army 'tactical'. You want to know why UAVs are circling over head but not letting the troop on the ground have any information? Because the AF is special. They are 'strategic' and thus above lessing 'tactical' beings and their menial 'tactical' concerns (or even operational ones apparently). It also justifying Officer pay for their UAV operators at a time when all the services need to be looking at ways to cut Personnel costs (preferrably without blindly cutting personnel).
you failed to take into account how many people would it take to keep a manned plane in the air for 24 hours, you would probably need at least 4 pilots, and of course they would have to RTB in order to change. Don't forget that the F-35 is planned to cost rouhly $100 million dollars so a UAV is pretty cheap in comparison. Preditor costs about the same as 3-4 tanks.
ReplyDeleteYou know as well as I do that the F-35's cost is total BS. The AF, Navy and Marines have let the program run wild. And the piss poor excuse for allowing massive cost overruns? "Oh, these will be the last manned combat aircraft".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOf course the F-35 is more expensive then it is, compare it to the £40 million for Eurofighter, and you only really get stealth for that extra price, I get my figure of $100million from many different reputable sites, although the cost does differ for the version, the $100million being for the cheapest model, with them going up to about $135 million reputidly.
ReplyDeletehere is a good source, the price is $2.75 billion for 20, which is $137million each, although i am not sure whether this includes anything else, but apparently these are being kitted out with Israeli equipment which has pushed up the price.
ReplyDeletehttp://defense-update.com/wp/20100815_f-35i.html