[JumpCrisscross]

> Solving a chemical manufacturing problem in the US has GOT to be easier

Why? We are currently scaling rocket-engine production for the launch industry. We aren’t doing the same for anything like AP. I don’t think anyone would blink at a well-resourced effort to build a new small-satellite launch vehicle in a couple years, for instance.

[cpgxiii]

Satellite launch is so much easier than storable SAM/ABM, the comparison is not really useful.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Satellite launch is so much easier than storable SAM/ABM

Sure. But the hard part of SAM/ABM doesn’t need to be in the propulsion for many use cases, e.g. those where heightened readiness states are predictable. We’re using storable missiles for use cases where that storability isn’t adding any value.

[cpgxiii]

Where exactly is that storability not needed? In the VLS cells of USN warships? In the missile canisters of field-mobile SAM batteries being driven cross-country (which, for survivability on the modern battlefield need to be moving a lot more)?

The only real cases a non-storable SAM/ABM is viable are where the target being protected is so small and so known that (1) all missile infrastructure on/near the target is vulnerable and (2) sufficient advance warning is available to handle liquid fuels as needed. There is really only one case of this: Guam. I think there is a case that a dedicated unique-to-Guam liquid-fueled SAM/ABM farm would go a long way to addressing stockpile and magazine depth concerns.

[JumpCrisscross]

> There is really only one case of this: Guam

Every U.S. base has this need. Stored munitions take out the first wave. That buys time to fuel the plentiful replacements.

[nixon_why69]

Which means US servicemen handling extremely dangerous chemical oxidizers under fire. This stuff reacts explosively with everything, including common metals and anything organic.

Admittedly, it allows you to sidestep the regulatory hassles with handling those chemicals in the US, we can order troops to do all sorts of non-OSHA bad ideas, but wouldn't it be easier to just do the dangerous chemical handling on US soil, on a 9-5 in factory?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Which means US servicemen handling extremely dangerous chemical oxidizers under fire

Fueling and oxidizing is automated now. The only risk would be the oxidizer being struck. But that isn’t super different from storing any ammunition.

> wouldn't it be easier to just do the dangerous chemical handling on US soil, on a 9-5 in factory?

No, it’s not. Particularly when you factor into the risk calculation the inevitability of exhausting those stockpiles in a conflict.