Too expensive? Compared to a $55 billion new bomber program?!?
Firstly, let’s posit a few things. Size of projectile: a rod twice the size of a crowbar. Rods have ablative materiel on the tips and rudimentary guidance fins. Size of projectile housing: Say a cylinder slightly bigger than a garbage can packed with a number of rods. Housing has a deceleration charge so as to de-orbit the rods in a chosen direction, accounting for necessary plane changes. Each can-full-o-rods weighs under 1000 lbs.
Pack 2 Cans-Full-O-Rods onto a SpaceX Falcon 1e, and you have a couple of unbeatable artillery platforms in LEO for $100 million each. (Lower prices available with volume discount!) At the quoted price of the New Bomber, that’s 2750 launches!
As to the worries of retaliation, alarm, consider that such a weapon is unlikely to be used against rational actors. Also, the typical ballistic orbital track of an ICBM is not utilized by this weaponry, so the decision time for such a massive retaliatory strike is nil. Such a system keeps deranged actors (like Iran) in check.
The old saw still applies: si vis pacem, para bellum.
“you have a couple of unbeatable artillery platforms in LEO for $100 million each.”
Cost-Benefit: not there. One time usage of a $100 million weapon. Delivery of a thousand pounds to one target. Bombers = multiple numbers of sorties, to multiple targets. I’ve done strategic cost-benefit, tied to M&S, and you are not even beginning to touch the factors that are involved.
No stealth fighters were lost over Baghdad at all, a heavily defended area. I expect the same over any countries except Russia and China.
So, you have a great weapon and you will not use it against a “rational actor”? Limited one-time usage weapon, then. Plus, who is rational, exactly? All you guys are the same: “Iran has great new weapons, we can’t hope to penetrate against them.” At the same time, you say that Iran can’t see this new weapon coming. Can’t have it both ways. They’ll see it coming, and launch against Israel or the U.S. in a fit of “use it or lose it.” I’ve done M&S on these weapons, and regardless of high speed, there is time to see it coming and still launch. No one is going to believe it is conventional.
“you have a couple of unbeatable artillery platforms in LEO for $100 million each.”
Cost-Benefit: not there. One time usage of a $100 million weapon. Delivery of a thousand pounds to one target. Bombers = multiple numbers of sorties, to multiple targets. I’ve done strategic cost-benefit, tied to M&S, and you are not even beginning to touch the factors that are involved.
No stealth fighters were lost over Baghdad at all, a heavily defended area. I expect the same over any countries except Russia and China.
So, you have a great weapon and you will not use it against a “rational actor”? Limited one-time usage weapon, then. Plus, who is rational, exactly? All you guys are the same: “Iran has great new weapons, we can’t hope to penetrate against them.” At the same time, you say that Iran can’t see this new weapon coming. Can’t have it both ways. They’ll see it coming, and launch against Israel or the U.S. in a fit of “use it or lose it.” I’ve done M&S on these weapons, and regardless of high speed, there is time to see it coming and still launch. No one is going to believe it is conventional.