4 ms·
But why?? We have had rocket powered anti-aircraft interceptor drones that go at mach 3 since 1955.
by somat 3mo ago
But why?? We have had rocket powered anti-aircraft interceptor drones that go at mach 3 since 1955.
- tormeh 3mo agoManeuverability and cost. Why this specific stunt? Marketing, presumably.
- throwawayffffas 3mo agoManeuverability not so much modern AA missiles can pull over 60gs. That capability costs 100s of thousands of dollars though.
- IAmBroom 3mo agoThe inverse of cost is the potential force multiplier.
- Stevvo 3mo agoAnyone can build this style of interceptor with commercial off the shelf parts for a a few thousand dollars. It's also reusable. A rocket for the same budget will be unguided and single use. Not useable as an interceptor.
- throwawayffffas 3mo agoCost, your average stinger cost 38000 dollars in the 80s. I am guessing here but they are aiming at a price of probably under 10000 dollars. Now why doesn't anyone take a rocket and stick the drone guidance on it? Again I am only guessing here, the drone guidance components probably can't cope with 2-3 mach. At 1000 meters per second with a 60 fps camera you advance 16.6 meters per frame, add to that the latency of whatever guidance system you have. You are looking at 20-30 meters offset between frames. Better guidance probably balloons the cost to the 10s of thousands of dollars.
- throwawayffffas 3mo agoOh and probably loiter time, the rocket is you shoot and it's gone. The interceptor may have enough battery to fly around for a few minutes looking for the next one if its target is downed by something else. Plus you can probably recover these if they miss. This is all very speculative though.
- onlypassingthru 3mo agoNobody with any intelligence is recovering these if they miss. There are a number of Reddit channels with videos of why this is a bad idea.