Replies

"DynaSoar took a Titan ICBM."

I'm fine with that. The methods that we us to get to the altitudes that we want to control (i.e. all of them) is less important to me than the control itself, so long as we can afford it.

What I'm not fine with is paying for hardware that won't be relevant in the future, or that can't add to our superiority today, or that forces massive pilot retirements, etc.

I mean, civilians from Scaled Composites are now flying into Space, and we're wanting to pay Billions for "new" fighters that can't even shoot up there much less go there?! We're trying to retire large amounts of current fighter pilots to replace them with what, some 23 or so F-22's that wouldn't know what to do with a swarm of UAV's or kamikaze civilian aircraft?!

Price matters. Capabilities matter. Our enemies may very easily be willing to sacrifice UAV's or kamikazes. If they detect that our numbers are too few, then we've got a problem. If they detect that we can't control Space, then we've got a problem.

You are arguing in circles, southack.

there is no swarm of space fighters, nor will there be in the forseeable future.

DynaSoar was a dumb idea.

A super expensive fighter plane is a dumb idea.

Personally, I like an old idea - A C-5 Galaxy interceptor, outfitted with 100+ long range (100+ mile) missiles, and missile firing tubes. (Yes, this was a projected potential mission years ago, when the C5 was first coming on line.)

The price of the f-22 is just too great, and it's playing a losing game, just like the Germans and their fancy Messershmidts and Panzars, and just like the Concorde vs the 747.

184 - "If they detect that our numbers are too few, then we've got a problem. If they detect that we can't control Space, then we've got a problem."

This is where a totally different weapons system makes much more sense, a particle beam weapon, which can hit multiple targets.