It could be that the biggest issue with US military P2P use is probably
organizational more than technical. Right now there's no obvious USAF
MAJCOM that would procure this. AFGSC is ICBMs and not transport, AFSPC
contracts for launches but is otherwise orbital sensing and comms, and AMC
is transport but not space. Any of AFSOC, ACC, or AMC might otherwise make
sense, but with few rocket people in any of those commands this is a hard
sell internally.
Bill Bruner recently proposed merging Space Command and Air Combat Command
into Aerospace Combat Command to streamline procurement and get people
thinking more seriously about ops that routinely transit the Karman line:
https://goo.gl/WiE8Xv
Steve
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Henry Vanderbilt <
hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(Context: Small armed-team insertion via reusable rocket as a viable
market, subcontext being reducing system range sufficiently (in the
hundreds of miles ballpark rather than worldwide is likely) to allow
unrefuelled self-flyback of the vehicle.)
As just mentioned, limited ABM capability is ever more common as a bonus
feature with purchase of modern airdefense missile systems. So, your most
advanced rocket team-insertion system would only reliably work against your
least advanced opponents.
Hard to defend that development cost against instead buying another couple
squadrons of MV-22's for a fraction of the likely total.
Good point on vehicle configuration needing to support rapid unloading.
And also on time-to-target and lower ingress vulnerability in fact being
important considerations.
Mind, what it all adds up to is, dropping your team in from near-orbit in
dispersed stealthy expendable reentry capsules with plenty of chaff and
decoys, Starship Troopers-style, may be more practical.
The times they are a-changin'...
Henry
On 10/11/2017 9:56 AM, Steve Traugott wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Henry Vanderbilt <
hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
And if it's just in-theater-range, where's there enough advantage
over conventional transports to justify the cost?
Time to target. Lower ingress vulnerability due to higher speed,
altitude, and angle.
Vehicle configuration is an issue -- you don't want the payload sitting
on top of a 200-foot tower on arrival.
Steve
