Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Scorpius wrote:And then from your cities will only slag and ashes.
Scorpius wrote:Cruise missile unlimited range of a nuclear power plant
WIederling wrote:Scorpius wrote:Cruise missile unlimited range of a nuclear power plant
back when:
the Cruise Missile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersoni ... de_Missile
the engine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
essentially kind of a "Warlock's Wheel" device.
estorilm wrote:We are doomed!
Has everyone forgotten that the MAD concept STILL APPLIES when one country has an increased probability of their weapons "getting through" enemy defenses?
Nothing about the concept has changed, since Russia would still be completely incapable of stopping land, air, and sea-based nuclear strike options from allies.
I hope we're not getting back into the technical races, developing even more effective weapons while forgetting that no one is still able to press the button without being erased off the map.
Technology is great, but that fact will always remain.
Scorpius wrote:, the development of these types of weapons is a forced response to a military threat from the United States and the NATO bloc, including in response to the us withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile Treaty and the emergence of missile DEFENSE systems in Europe.
Tugger wrote:An interesting set of new weapons, but apparently not of much use. If your last statement is correct Russia is just wasting money then if they are to defend against NATO and the US. Since neither will ever attack Russia such that any such weapon would need to be used.
The one thing I will note is that these are "final weapons" ones used to destroy an enemy, and we have had those for decades now so there is nothing really that new. The range may be impressive but Russia has been able to destroy the USA and NATO with nukes for a long time now so it is really nothing that new. I actually think this is just election campaigning by Putin to seem strong and tough.
You attack and destroy us, and in turn you will be attacked and destroyed as well. I had thought/hoped we had moved beyond that but I guess not. Sad.
Tugg
Scorpius wrote:today the potential for a new era to begin in the development of aircraft. Compact nuclear facility and hypersonic controlled flight - this can lead to the emergence of entirely new tools, including the means of delivery of cargo into orbit.
estorilm wrote:We are doomed!
Has everyone forgotten that the MAD concept STILL APPLIES when one country has an increased probability of their weapons "getting through" enemy defenses?
Nothing about the concept has changed, since Russia would still be completely incapable of stopping land, air, and sea-based nuclear strike options from allies.
I hope we're not getting back into the technical races, developing even more effective weapons while forgetting that no one is still able to press the button without being erased off the map.
Technology is great, but that fact will always remain.
The editor-in-chief of the Kremlin-backed RT news outlet tweeted “Elon Musk my ass” in response to the new strategic nuclear weapons, poking fun at America’s obsession with private space companies like Space X. This seems to show that Russia envies Elon Musk and SpaceX ability to dominate news with videos and promotions of SpaceX rockets.
Scorpius wrote:Cruise missile unlimited range of a nuclear power plant
Small-sized heavy-duty nuclear power plant, which is located in the body of a cruise missile such as our newest missile X-101 air – based or American "Tomahawk", but provides dozens of times-dozens of times! - long range flight, which is virtually unlimited. Low-flying stealth cruise missile carrying a nuclear warhead with practically unlimited range, unpredictable flight path and can overcome the boundaries of interception and is invulnerable to all existing and future systems such as missile defense and air defense.
At the end of 2017, a successful launch of the latest Russian cruise missile with a nuclear power plant took place at the Central test site of the Russian Federation. During the flight, the power plant reached the specified capacity, provided the required level of traction.
The launch of the missile and a set of ground tests make it possible to proceed to the creation of a fundamentally new type of weapon – a strategic nuclear weapons complex with a missile equipped with a nuclear power plant.
Shows the bypass lines of defense. Since the range is not limited, it can maneuver as long as you like.
As you know, no one in the world has anything like this yet.
cpd wrote:This is an old idea, a very old one. The Soviet Union and the USA both experimented with these ideas before and both arrived at the same conclusion, the missile (or plane) would be extremely dangerous if it crashed in ones own territory, along with the exhaust emissions being radioactive. Unacceptable risk to ones own population.
Tugger wrote:cpd wrote:This is an old idea, a very old one. The Soviet Union and the USA both experimented with these ideas before and both arrived at the same conclusion, the missile (or plane) would be extremely dangerous if it crashed in ones own territory, along with the exhaust emissions being radioactive. Unacceptable risk to ones own population.
Makes me wonder if this incident is connected:
Russian nuclear incident https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1378533
Any test of a nuclear powered missile would have an impact that, while not resulting is a nuclear blast, could probably still result in a fairly serious release of nuclear material.
Not saying it is for certain or anything, we don't know of course, just hypothesizing.
Tugg
Scorpius wrote:
the reactor can also be used to power an electric turbo-fan engine
Faro wrote:Scorpius wrote:
the reactor can also be used to power an electric turbo-fan engine
Good God how (in)efficient is that?...and how heavy the thing would be...though weight would theoretically not be a consideration, given the nuclear power option...blunt, brute force engineering, chunky, dreadnought aeronautics...Soviet Russia is back...Soviets were never really known for lean, elegant concepts or designs...
I wonder how good component reliability can be on a cruise missile which can fly for days on end?...fair chance a substantial proportion of them would just plunk into the ocean due to a faulty weld, mis-rigged actuators or a loose screw...don't forget alcoholism is still a very major blight on Russia's workers and labour productivity...Russian men have a life expectancy of 66.5 years, up from a low of around 62 under Yeltsin...when Egypt for example has a male life expectancy of around 67 years now...this is third-world level statistics...quality control is nowhere near Western levels when one talks of high-technology products and processes...and here we are talking of mini nuclear technology...yeah...dream on...
Faro
Scorpius wrote:Faro wrote:Scorpius wrote:
the reactor can also be used to power an electric turbo-fan engine
Good God how (in)efficient is that?...and how heavy the thing would be...though weight would theoretically not be a consideration, given the nuclear power option...blunt, brute force engineering, chunky, dreadnought aeronautics...Soviet Russia is back...Soviets were never really known for lean, elegant concepts or designs...
I wonder how good component reliability can be on a cruise missile which can fly for days on end?...fair chance a substantial proportion of them would just plunk into the ocean due to a faulty weld, mis-rigged actuators or a loose screw...don't forget alcoholism is still a very major blight on Russia's workers and labour productivity...Russian men have a life expectancy of 66.5 years, up from a low of around 62 under Yeltsin...when Egypt for example has a male life expectancy of around 67 years now...this is third-world level statistics...quality control is nowhere near Western levels when one talks of high-technology products and processes...and here we are talking of mini nuclear technology...yeah...dream on...
Faro
That for delirium I just read?
Tugger wrote:Regarding the nuclear engined cruise missile, what process is powering it? What kind of engine would it use? I am guessing the only one that would be practical for it would be a " direct cycle" one that spews nuclear radiation into the air as it is the lightest one. Other nuclear engine types have a lot of additional weight and would seem to be unsuited to this. I would also think it would have minimal shielding (I'm guessing the control electronics would need to be).
I supposed a direct type wouldn't matter as this weapon is basically only going to be used if things go terribly wrong in the world.
But does anyone else have more options as to what would power such a weapon?
WIederling wrote:I'd guess it follows what the US had in mind with project "Pluto" and the "SLAM". ( links to WP pages further up )
unshielded reactor as heat source in a supersonic ramjet engine.
In a way a low flying continuous neutron bomb. Over the top Schrecklichkeit.
Military brass at the time must have worn their wet spots proudly.
tommy1808 wrote:the Situation in Russia musst be much, much worse than we think when they are already in the "Wunderwaffe" stage of Propaganda....
tommy1808 wrote:WIederling wrote:I'd guess it follows what the US had in mind with project "Pluto" and the "SLAM". ( links to WP pages further up )
unshielded reactor as heat source in a supersonic ramjet engine.
In a way a low flying continuous neutron bomb. Over the top Schrecklichkeit.
Military brass at the time must have worn their wet spots proudly.
the Situation in Russia musst be much, much worse than we think when they are already in the "Wunderwaffe" stage of Propaganda....
best regards
Thomas
Balerit wrote:tommy1808 wrote:WIederling wrote:I'd guess it follows what the US had in mind with project "Pluto" and the "SLAM". ( links to WP pages further up )
unshielded reactor as heat source in a supersonic ramjet engine.
In a way a low flying continuous neutron bomb. Over the top Schrecklichkeit.
Military brass at the time must have worn their wet spots proudly.
the Situation in Russia musst be much, much worse than we think when they are already in the "Wunderwaffe" stage of Propaganda....
best regards
Thomas
Well, you just have to look at a map depicting all the US missiles and warships that currently have Russia surrounded and you'll see why Russia is feeling a bit claustrophobic.
WIederling wrote:tommy1808 wrote:the Situation in Russia musst be much, much worse than we think when they are already in the "Wunderwaffe" stage of Propaganda....
IT probably is the correct answer to US moves to "contract reaction times" on the path to a survivable (haha) first strike from the US.
Brinkmanship, Family Atomics.
WIederling wrote:Tugger wrote:Regarding the nuclear engined cruise missile, what process is powering it? What kind of engine would it use? I am guessing the only one that would be practical for it would be a " direct cycle" one that spews nuclear radiation into the air as it is the lightest one. Other nuclear engine types have a lot of additional weight and would seem to be unsuited to this. I would also think it would have minimal shielding (I'm guessing the control electronics would need to be).
I supposed a direct type wouldn't matter as this weapon is basically only going to be used if things go terribly wrong in the world.
But does anyone else have more options as to what would power such a weapon?
I'd guess it follows what the US had in mind with project "Pluto" and the "SLAM". ( links to WP pages further up )
unshielded reactor as heat source in a supersonic ramjet engine.
In a way a low flying continuous neutron bomb. Over the top Schrecklichkeit.
Military brass at the time must have worn their wet spots proudly.
Balerit wrote:Well, you just have to look at a map depicting all the US missiles and warships that currently have Russia surrounded and you'll see why Russia is feeling a bit claustrophobic.
tommy1808 wrote:Thinking there is something like a survivable first strike on the other hand is probably full on bad sh*the crazy.
Balerit wrote:
Well, you just have to look at a map depicting all the US missiles and warships that currently have Russia surrounded and you'll see why Russia is feeling a bit claustrophobic.
Scorpius wrote:the reactor can also be used to power an electric turbo-fan engine
Tugger wrote:And at the end the exact same thing happens, the weapon detonates and everything is irradiated
sharles wrote:There is something I completely don't get. Russia has more missiles than USA will ever have interceptors, and you probably need multiple interceptors per missile. To me, this just seems like posturing to distract from domestic issues.
Scorpius wrote:Tugger wrote:And at the end the exact same thing happens, the weapon detonates and everything is irradiated
it is rather strange to talk about it - at the end a nuclear charge explodes, and irradiation with a couple of kilograms of fuel from the plant is the least of the problems.
WIederling wrote:sharles wrote:There is something I completely don't get. Russia has more missiles than USA will ever have interceptors, and you probably need multiple interceptors per missile. To me, this just seems like posturing to distract from domestic issues.
The US all the time tries to shorten the available reaction time for Russia.
Objective is to allow a first strike with no immediate retaliation. "overrun".
the presented weapons seem to be designed to frustrate that success by way of a dead man device.
Planeflyer wrote:A quedtion for W and all the Russians participating; do you really think all this is directed at just the US?
Russia knows well how to do a risk assessment.
WIederling wrote:Planeflyer wrote:A quedtion for W and all the Russians participating; do you really think all this is directed at just the US?
Russia knows well how to do a risk assessment.
The US is the only and very active aggressor with reach around today knocking at Russias door.
And the only nation currently with an expansive behavior. not necessarily territorial ...
Internally driven by problems and a culture of perceived unexceptionably.
Result: another form of Jihad.
Add in that Soviet/Russian doctrine is to never allow a big defensive war on their territory.
In that context whittling down the "safety belt" is problematic.
Keep in mind that the US went hysteric on much lesser ( more like nonexisting ) grounds : Grenada, Panama.
Tugger wrote:The claims you make are about as imagined as can be, you conveniently forget that the loss of the "safety belt" was due to Russia's own failure, it's last failed safety belt of the "Iron Curtain" that Russia created after WWII to fulfill the "doctrine" you are claiming. Because of Russia's failure and abuse of the countries in that "safety belt" those countries ran as soon as they were able away from the horrible aggression and oppression of Russian rule and influence. Tugg
Scorpius wrote:Tugger wrote:And at the end the exact same thing happens, the weapon detonates and everything is irradiated
it is rather strange to talk about it - at the end a nuclear charge explodes, and irradiation with a couple of kilograms of fuel from the plant is the least of the problems.
GDB wrote:
In 1966, France, or President CDG really, had one of his hissy fits and withdrew France from NATO.
Other NATO members, the US being the most powerful of course and whose forces were expelled from France as a result of this move, did.................nothing.
Not even economic retaliation.
Aesma wrote:Well it's a common misconception but the destructive nature of a bomb is first and foremost its power. Long term irradiation is not a given, it's possible to design relatively "clean" bombs that won't leave places uninhabitable. In fact even without doing that, Hiroshima and Nagasaki have both been rebuilt and many people live there.
Faro wrote:I can give you an unofficial assessment of Putin's claim of a nuke powered space ship. You don't have to do much research about it, there's nothing to it.Is there any official or semi-official response from Western military circles re the effective feasibility and entry into service of these new Russian weapons?
fab81 wrote:This is an English language site, so you are required to post your propaganda in English here. But I can tell you I was in the US Army in Europe from 63-65, operating an air defense radar, so I know a little about Franco American relations back then. They may not have been in NATO, but there was a French anti aircraft Battalion in Bitburg Germany, protecting the American AFB there, I once took a tour of their facility. I have no doubt that somebody in the CIA was closely watching De Gaulle, hoping to find a way to trip him up, he certainly wasn't the most popular guy in American circles. But neither the CIA or anyone else in the US government was doing much of anything to meddle in French affairs and France was in a pretty vulnerable position back then with the Algerian crisis going on. You're trying to sell a falsehood.If you didn't know, CIA was already doing everything possible to get ride of President Charles De Gaulle in the early sixties... they started as soon he made clearly France would not be aligned with the US. There a lot of materials available on the net about that but its in french based on declassified secret archives , for example https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdy7u9.