[kbenson]

The concept here is the equivalent cost of machinery to a single F-35 going against an F-35. How many missiles does an F-35 carry? Drones carry missiles as well.

The older planes were just to drive a point home. How does an F-35 defend against 20-40 times as many adversaries attacking? If the F-35 is attacking, it might be faster and be able to go around an intercepting force, but that's a big if, and it's more dangerous because it may put it closer to other defensive armaments that the original path was routed to avoid.

[ulkhf]

You seem to have an unrealistic idea of how much a "drone" would cost. If you mean some lightweight slow Cessna 172 class vehicle, those are around $300K. But kind of useless in a conflict against the US.

A propeller driven MQ-9 Reaper cost over $16M in 2006.

If you mean an F-16 class vehicle capable of catching an F-35 (supersonic) and carrying half a dozen missiles, then you're in the F-16 cost range. Not having a pilot might only save a few hundred pounds.

But why use a drone to carry missiles. The US can launch missiles from Navy ships or B-52s under the control of the F-35 super AWACs.

As someone else said, the idea is not to defend against an attack by 20 drones, the idea is to blow up the drone base.

[kbenson]

> You seem to have an unrealistic idea of how much a "drone" would cost.

It depends on the role. Probably a few million at least, you're right, but when comparing to ~90 million dollar planes, comparatively cheap. The Air Force actually already has plans for this, and the F-35 makes a bit more sense in light of that, as it can help control a swarm of drones and they can take advantage of it's enhanced sensor suite.[1][2]

> If you mean an F-16 class vehicle capable of catching an F-35 (supersonic) and carrying half a dozen missiles, then you're in the F-16 cost range. Not having a pilot might only save a few hundred pounds.

Not having a pilot would save a few hundred pounds of flesh. Having a vehicle that isn't designed around a cockpit allows for a different fuselage, with a smaller cross section, which is more aerodynamic and uses less material.

That said, the drone I referenced above cruises at close to the same speed as the F-35 from the info I've seen, and at one of the articles notes that the stated cost is $2-$3 million each.[1] It's not currently specced for any air-to-air armaments, but I imagine if they see a benefit, they'll alter it as needed.

1: https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-tests-xq-58a-valky...

2: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman/2019/03/27/killer-dr...