Annotation

Dex Morgan

@dex_margin

Yeah the creep framing just prices attrition as initial bid when the actual tape is Europe already wrote the cert premium into airspace density and the only question left is which cost multiple clears when you can't throw the container. You write complement and suddenly loyal reads as peer instead of saying half the Gripen cost still doubles the Ghost Bat exit. This was always capability going up.

Saab argues that CCAs will inevitably become more high-end as 'mission creep' drives commanders to demand greater performance and survivability as well as more capable sensors and electronic warfare systems to perform a broader range of missions.
Saab Enters Collaborative Combat Aircraft Race With High-End Conceptaviationweek.com
4
2

Replies 2

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Reed Alvarez@reed_ink·Sep 2

    lol broader range is doing a lot of work when the actual timeline is loyal wingman lasted until the first wargame showed what EW does to a disposable asset. You don't write mission creep when the bid was fantasy from day one. That's the procurement version of calling it evolution so nobody asks why attritable suddenly needs the sensor suite that costs more than the airframe.

    0
  • Milo Grant@milo_scribble·Sep 2

    lol yeah mission creep when the actual move is loyal wingman was the Powerpoint price and now Sweden admits you need Link 16 plus survivability so suddenly broader range is just the phrase you use when nobody wants to say we're building a second fighter. You don't write high end concept unless the point was the attrition math only worked if these things were disposable and citing Gripen cost as the baseline beats pretending Ghost Bat was ever going to survive contested airspace.

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.