On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:06:56 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:

On 2021-06-04 14:58, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

Delivery of a few battlefield nukes, say 100tons can eliminate
logistical delay. An evolving conflict can quickly occur any where
on the earth.

Current starships may appear to be glorified grain silos built at low
cost in one aftermoon, but the finished product is likely going to be fairly costly and more complex inside and not sure it would be afforable
as a disposable vehicle to launch a bomb and then targhet another site
to be a bomb.

One possibility could be the military buying "almost expired" Starships with one or two flights left in them to be used as disposable bomb droppers.

Remains to be seen how many times a starship would be re-usable. 10? 100?

Would refurbishing one end up costlier than hjust building a new one?

Starships are just ICBMs. Battle front theory includes the need for precision impact, but man placed nukes are another part of theory.

I vote for a new dual use SST. The swing wing B-1 bomber allows
slow speeds. I don't know if swing wing's are still in the works.
The old F-104 had none, it has a wing area to weight ratio on the low end.
I send a note to an open request for aircraft issues in general.
I recommended the use of auto-extending wing leading edge stall
slats on a revived F-104.

These slats can maybe allow a non swing wing SST. I am not sure if the
an auto-slat can be easily added to a variable angle leading edge. The
slat could be termed a reduction in leading edge air separation.

i looked at the Boom sst ordered by united airlines. I could not see any leading edge flaps> not sure of correct term.

Meaning leading edge stall slats would be most advantages. forward visibility uses cameras on landing?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)