| |
| ▲ | dylan604 5 days ago | parent [-] | | And a bullet costs $0.0001, so it's off just as much in the other direction. Also, your focus on cost was not the point. The point was numbers necessary. You need $lots of bullets, but you don't need any where near the same number of jets/tanks. You don't need $lots of satellites. You need a much smaller number closer to the number of jets/tanks. At least based on Starlink constellation numbers. | | |
| ▲ | thfuran 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I assume you can get some significant bulk discounts at DoD scale, but it's probably still more like $0.10 than $0.0001, which is admittedly still rather less than $1M | |
| ▲ | nradov 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you might be getting a little confused by terminology. In military terms a round of ammunition doesn't necessarily describe just a small arms cartridge. It can be any munition that's stored for a long period until needed with minimal maintenance. So even an expensive missile or satellite might be treated as a round of ammunition, depending on the design and concept of operations. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Unless the satellite is meant to collide with another object, it's never going to be considered ammunition. It is a strategic platform for communication or intelligence gathering or maybe both. So calling a satellite ammunition is just belaboring the point for internet points or something. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 5 days ago | parent [-] | | No, you're still missing an important point. This isn't just semantics. Some types of satellites will be considered ammunition in the same way that some (expensive) aerial recon drones and decoys are already considered ammunition today. Not all rounds of ammunition are intended to physically strike a target. |
|
|
|
|
