Advertisement
Related Story
43 comments
@schatur

Surely they could get a bulk discount…

@alwaystinkering7710

Keep in mind it doesn't have to be a full load. Can be a few, a lot, whatever the mission requires. Now imagine a smaller skid that carries 3 or 4 that fits in even smaller aircraft.
Yeah, it's expensive but dirt cheap compared to something like the opening days of Desert Storm, with far less risk to personnel or aircraft and less collateral damage. Each plane is doing what it took dozens to do in 1991.

@alwaystinkering7710

I'm sure this will make war unthinkable.

@gibster9624

I'm just trying to imagine full scale war and you have a fighter shoot down a cargo plane and then 40 of these super sophisticated unhealthcare systems pop out and just start casually flaying towards the air field you just came from. Like Death From Beyond in CoD that cargo plane just took out your only way home.

@michaelpeer1753

I wonder how many can be carried in a C-5? I'll go look that up.

@beaticulous

If China alarms about something, then they are prepared already.
If they talk nothing, they have absolutely no idea what is going on.

@michaeldavis3819

In terms of dollars expended versus high value targets destroyed, this weapons system is CHEAP. Imagine how many $50m aircraft we would lose trying to engage targets with our current weapons systems 600 miles inside Chinese or Russian air defense systems a few at a time as compared to this. Costs go down per target destroyed because we don't lose nearly as many aircraft; we don't need to extend logistics nearly as close to the front; we have less aircraft wear and tear; less troops to feed; less battlefield injuries and deaths; less of our own ships sunk; and higher mission flexibility.

The first-order effects are awesome; the second- and third-order effects are impressive.

@mndlessdrwer

What about that revolver that the US government is making to fire hypersonic missiles out of the rear hatch of cargo planes?