4 ms·

While neat tech, it seems hypersonic icbms like the Sarmat make more economic sense these days vs expensive and overly complicated delivery or spy vehicles. Or

While neat tech, it seems hypersonic icbms like the Sarmat make more economic sense these days vs expensive and overly complicated delivery or spy vehicles. Or at least, upgrading the current icbm and detection systems seems like it should be a priority in conjunction with these cool birds. Especially after their recent failures.

ginko 3y ago
In case you're wondering why you're downvoted: This is a spy plane, not a delivery vehicle. The closest competitor would be satellites, but as the article mentions, there's limitations to those.
- cpursley 3y ago
  Fair, I was grouping it with the new bomber (in terms of expensive airplanes when there are other effective yet kinder to the taxpayer solutions).
lm28469 3y ago
> vs expensive and overly complicated delivery vehicles. Was the sr71 equipped with weapons ? If the sr72 also is a reco aircraft it wont deliver anything
ponector 3y ago
ICBM makes no sense to use. There are no targets suitable for ICBM. Same for hypersonic reconnaissance airplane - expensive and no much sense to use. Either satellite or small slow low altitude reconnaissance dron, which could fly for hours to provide realtime image of the battlefield.
- cpursley 3y ago
  That's what I'm saying, drones and sat is cheaper than a glide vehicle (as cool as they are). And yes, there are many suitable targets for an ICBM than can deliver a batch of hypersonic - and they don't even need to be nuclear.
  - ponector 3y ago
    If it is true, if there are many targets for ICBM strike then why we haven't seen any usage of ICBM ever? It is not a weapon for a war, there is no usage of ICBM on the battlefield.
arethuza 3y ago
Isn't "hypersonic icbms" a tautology? Edit: Launching an ICBM is going to cause a huge alarm - how do the other side know that rocket is being used for reconnaissance rather than an attack?
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  There was some discussion of modifying the US SLBMs to perform traditional weapons delivery, like a high explosive warhead. Other than the extreme cost the main problem you'd have is other countries would have to adopt a "just trust us" attitude towards SLBM launches
  - arethuza 3y ago
    Would you even need any explosives? Even just hitting something with an empty RV is going to be a fairly effective weapon.

ginko 3y ago

In case you're wondering why you're downvoted: This is a spy plane, not a delivery vehicle. The closest competitor would be satellites, but as the article mentions, there's limitations to those.

cpursley 3y ago
Fair, I was grouping it with the new bomber (in terms of expensive airplanes when there are other effective yet kinder to the taxpayer solutions).

lm28469 3y ago

> vs expensive and overly complicated delivery vehicles. Was the sr71 equipped with weapons ? If the sr72 also is a reco aircraft it wont deliver anything

ponector 3y ago

ICBM makes no sense to use. There are no targets suitable for ICBM. Same for hypersonic reconnaissance airplane - expensive and no much sense to use. Either satellite or small slow low altitude reconnaissance dron, which could fly for hours to provide realtime image of the battlefield.

cpursley 3y ago
That's what I'm saying, drones and sat is cheaper than a glide vehicle (as cool as they are). And yes, there are many suitable targets for an ICBM than can deliver a batch of hypersonic - and they don't even need to be nuclear.
- ponector 3y ago
  If it is true, if there are many targets for ICBM strike then why we haven't seen any usage of ICBM ever? It is not a weapon for a war, there is no usage of ICBM on the battlefield.

arethuza 3y ago

Isn't "hypersonic icbms" a tautology? Edit: Launching an ICBM is going to cause a huge alarm - how do the other side know that rocket is being used for reconnaissance rather than an attack?

sidewndr46 3y ago
There was some discussion of modifying the US SLBMs to perform traditional weapons delivery, like a high explosive warhead. Other than the extreme cost the main problem you'd have is other countries would have to adopt a "just trust us" attitude towards SLBM launches
- arethuza 3y ago
  Would you even need any explosives? Even just hitting something with an empty RV is going to be a fairly effective weapon.