5 ms·
I wonder why the title clarifies "for rescue ops". Is there anything inherent to this technology that prevents it from being used for anything else? The articl
by Rygian 2y ago
I wonder why the title clarifies "for rescue ops".
Is there anything inherent to this technology that prevents it from being used for anything else? The article body insists on "demonstrations relevant to specific defense operations" which sounds quite broad and not limited to rescue ops in any way.
- philipwhiuk 2y agoIt sounds less aggressive.
- 1970-01-01 2y agoIt's too low to do anything else. Snipers would decimate an entire attack squadron.
- nilamo 2y ago- Very fast - avoids radar/detection - water based My first assumption is that this is for stealth ops. "Rescue" doesn't need those features.
- mrweasel 2y agoFast and water based I can sort of see, but there's no point to it avoiding radar. The range of 180 miles (assuming I read that correctly) also makes it pretty pointless for search and rescue. You would have to know where someone is, the weather must be good enough to land on water, and they can't be more than 60 miles away. A NH90 helicopter is faster, at 190mph (300km/h) and have longer range at 500 miles (800km). It also doesn't have to land to rescue someone.
- nozzlegear 2y ago> but there's no point to it avoiding radar As other commenters have pointed out, search and rescue doesn't mean you're not going to get shot at. I agree with everyone else though that it's obviously going to be used for more than SAR.
- K0balt 2y agoTBF, You never know when you might need to sneak up on a shoreside compound, go in and “rescue” a bunch of people from their beds, and get back out undetected.
- moffkalast 2y agoCongratulations, you are being rescued. Please do not resist.
- jjice 2y agoStealth and rescue can go hand and hand, no? I guess stating “rescue” still may bury the lead in that case.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]