Thread by @Mauro_Gilli

So many wrong takes here.

To start, what makes the F-35 or the B-21 expensive is the software and the electronics, not the pilot per se (of course, having the pilot makes it more expensive, but the primary source of cost overrun and time delays was the software).

Which is importante because a reusable drone would need to get all that flashy electronics of an F-35, which is expensive (a Global Hawk costs in the 200m ball range, vis-à-vis 90 for an F-35).

Second, to be "reusable" - i.e., capable of operating in contested airspaces - it would need to have stealth technology (i.e., both active and passive cancellation of its different signatures - electromagnetic, thermal, acoustic...)

A Global Hawk cannot operate in a contested airspace, as a shooting down of the Navy version, the Triton, by Iran in 2019 shows. In this sense, the criticism of stealth and the reference to reusability is a bit weird as it's not clear how you'd accomplish latter without former

Third, sophisticated SAM have so far shot down only one stealth aircraft, the F-117, and that shooting down was due to a mix of factors, including the US Air Force was flying the same route, and Yugoslavia had spotters outside Aviano Air base that served as early warning sensors

Fourth, low light sensitivity cameras cannot detect stealth aircraft at long range, which would mean that air defenses would not have enough time to react to an incoming aircraft.

Fifth, stealth is not about being "invisible" but about reducing the range of detection for enemy sensors, and in particular for enemy radars, which have the longer range (from radar range to eyesight range, i.e., to low light sensitivity cameras).

Sixth, if all you need to shoot down a stealth fighter is low light sensitivity cameras, AI and drones, then also a drone would be at risk, and so it's not clear how it could be reusable.

Moreover, if that were the case, Russia and China would not had been investing in advanced radars exactly to address the threat of US stealth aircraft (multiple input multiple output, multi-static, synthetic impulse and aperture radar).

chathamhouse.org/publications/t…

One additional consideration (thanks to @alessionaval): strategy matters. The goal of an aircraft, as for any weapon system, is not necessarily only to carry out a specific mission, but also to create uncertainty and hence impose costs on the enemy.

The best example is the B-1, intended to force the Soviet Union to increase spending in air defenses, which ultimately contributed to the bankrupting of the country.
nytimes.com/2016/09/09/bus…

(for more about the B-1, check introduction of this CSBA report: )csbaonline.org/research/publi…

This is to say, by simply existing, the F-35 and the B-1 force Russia and China into strategic choices they would not have to make otherwise (i.e., budget allocations). Even if Musk were right (and he is not), deleting the programs would relax these constraints on them.

Here I added a couple of sources for those interested further.

https://x.com/Mauro_Gilli/status/1861344182205346100