← Back to context

Comment by dylan604

14 days ago

I think it'd be more apropos to compare them to fighter jets/tanks vs bullets

Not really comparable. A new Starlink satellite costs ~$1M. A new F-35 costs ~$100M, and some of the guided missiles it carries actually cost more than the satellite. The militarized Starshield satellites probably cost more than their Starlink cousins but still I think you get the point that there are orders of magnitude differences in unit cost.

  • 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.

    • 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

    • 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.

      2 replies →