Sort of off topic but the war in Ukraine has brought to my attention that we actually fire missiles with giant miles-long extension cords. Missiles. With extension cords.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines
- Simple
- No radio frequency indication of an incoming missile.
There must be other reasons as well.
Even a basic analog video signal is orders of magnitude more data than what you'd be transmitting in a phone call.
No surprise Russia wants it.
I don't think the Donbass was ever secure against being retaken. Hence no investment.
It's still strategically valuable, because you're still taking resources from the enemy.
I think the TOW missile is the most prominent example.
More modern approach to anti-tank missiles are those with lasers being used for highlighting the target [2], while the missile has a battery and a camera to find the spot. The other approach is to do on-the-fly image recognition [3].
Edit: interesting fact: DART space craft sent by NASA to hit an asteroid used a missile derived technology to recognize the image and steer itself into the target, since direct control from Earth was not possible due to communication lag [4] (also try googling "dart mission" to see google's doodle on the topic).
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire-guided_missile
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-guided_bomb
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
4. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-dart-missio...
“just”
That means it probably breaks down in the environment after a few years - with the time mostly depending on what type of enamel it's coated in.