From: eaglesondouglas@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)