Por ejemplo, la firma de los tres primeros Protector de los 20 previstos, por £65 millones: https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/mo ... -aircraft/
Es un programa que acusa sobrecostes y dos años de retrasos: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... or_AOA.pdf
...
Against the ABL of £816.2M approved at 2016 Main Gate, Protector Programme costs have increased by £325.6M. This figure includes: the costs associated with the delay (£186.8M); the cost of changing the primary sensor to avoid future obsolescence (£64.6M); additional Programme costs identified in advance of the Programme delay (£23.4M) and FOREX and accounting adjustments (£50.8M).
The VfM case made in the 2016 MGBC remains valid and was reaffirmed both with HMT at the time of the deferral and by the IAC in the 2019 Review Note. A comparison was made between: developing a new Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) capability (either collaboratively or Nationally); procuring the current Reaper Blk 5 (as used by the US Air Force and others); and procuring Protector. This concluded that procuring Protector represented best VfM, as its higher performance meant that the operational task could be delivered by procuring fewer air vehicles. The 2-year delay and resultant cost increase have not undermined this VfM case.
...
También han dicho que evaluarán enjambres de drones y el "loyal wingman" LANCA desde los Queen Elizabeth a partir del año que viene.
Por otra parte, la USAF quiere el reemplazo de sus Reaper en el horizonte de 2031: https://www.airforcemag.com/air-force-s ... x-by-2031/
Deberán hacer más misiones con menos recursos humanos: https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-wants- ... er-people/
Alguna de las misiones es la de escolta de objetivos aéreos de gran valor, o de protección de bases. Se apunta descaradamente a una mayor velocidad de crucero y a cierta furtividad, además de la independencia del GPS.
Y mientras en la vieja Europa...