Quote from waggie945:
Right now, the Army doesn't even have enough Shadows over in Iraq for Christ's sake, so I doubt that they would be spending any serious money on "retrofitting" older fighter aircraft.
If they don't have the budget to spend "any serious money" to retrofit older aircraft, then how do they have the budget to develop new aircraft?
I don't know what it costs to make a Shadow...but I am sure they are a dirt cheap compared to a new fighter jet.
Even with the development costs already done (the B52 has been around for over 50 years I think), the cost of just a single F14 is probably around a $100 million or so. These are just going to be let rust away? They have no value? (Same with any of our retired war planes).
If an F14 can be retrofitted for (say) 10% of the cost of building a new aircraft, then even if they are shot down, wouldn't it still make sense? (better to lose a cheaper "pre-owned" airplane with no crew than a more expensive airplane WITH a crew).
Whatever happens, there is no doubt in my mind that if they develop this new unmanned fighter, and they WILL, it will be at huge expense. And by the time it is deployed, it will probably be obsolete.
It isn't always strictly about having the most advanced weaponry. Using it effectively counts for a lot. Otherwise, how can we possibly still be using those B-52s?
The article in the link you posted seems to confirm this very thing. Without good intelligence, having the latest and greatest weapons makes them ineffective.
Peace,
RS