Why are third world navies satisfied with using drones instead of helicopters for their patrol boats/ anti piracy boats...

Why are third world navies satisfied with using drones instead of helicopters for their patrol boats/ anti piracy boats? US Coast Guards use helicopters, why can't other nations do it too? It seems only China can have parity with America because they also use helicopters on ships that are used for maritime patrol.

Attached: 55555555.png (1920x1080, 1.75M)

Most nations doesnt have that much water to patrol, so instead uses ships in combination with landbased helicopters.

In most nations guarding ones borders is part of the Navys job too, as they have a defencive military made to protect that specific country and people, not for making sure you can kill as many arabs 9000 miles away as possible.

No

Short answer: third world navies don't have much (or any) money, and helicopters cost millions of dollars a year to operate and maintain.

In addition, having a ship which can operate helicopters costs a lot more than having a ship that can't. Like said, the vast majority of nations base their military around self defence. We keep forgetting that on Jow Forums because the discussion is always about the major military powers. Even the smaller european nations only have small units that can be deployed away from home, and these deployments rely on a bigger ally (often the US) taking care of logistics.

Even major European powers rely on the US for logistics. It's what NATO has become. Rather than an alliance of military powers it's an agreement that the US will provide logistics.

Neither France nor the UK can independently deploy, operate, and maintain itself. For France, just look at Mali, and for the UK, while not as recent, look at the Falklands.

This isn't an insult to these countries, it's just what NATO has become. US provides logistics, manpower, money, R&D, air power, naval power, and the bulk of infantry. Other countries can spend their small military budgets on more "elite" units, and of course throw money on their ever growing social spending fire, in hopes of smothering it long enough to distract the masses so they can claim socialized programs work.

actually I wonder why Third World countries even bother with trying to acquire destroyers n shit.

Like, pisspoor countries like the Philippines or some such would be better served by having a fleet of Missile Boats and Light Attack Craft instead of shilling bux for bigger warships.

Because they don't have the money to get those toys. Also for some there's not exactly a whole lot of water to patrol, unlike the US Coast Guard, so instead of wasting resources and time getting helis, getting fuel and things required to maintain and repair said helis, training people to use them and not die in the process, they take the much more cheaper but still effective method of using rc drones instead.

The Philippines doesn't have a destroyer nor are trying to acquire one.

Their biggest ship is an ex-USCG cutter with most of its advanced equipment removed save for the main gun.

Smaller countries like them are best served with a small to moderate frigate fleet of varying roles.

As a eurofag, I agree to this. Having allies and working together with them is always good, but depending on them too much is just iresponsible and naive.

Vanity. See also: The UK has two shitty aircraft carriers with no aircraft until at least 2020 while still relying on US logistics to actually operate overseas and leaving a big hole in our defences that the Russians literally sailed their own carrier through.

Attached: 3.6 billion well spent.jpg (640x360, 46K)