Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't



Fred J. McCall wrote:

From the original statement about 'triads of 200 kt warheads' or some
such. You know. The bit you've snipped off the front.
That's probably from someone I have killfiled; if you want me to see it in detail, you had better quote the whole section of text you want me to reply to.
As to why a RV descending on a carrier group would have yield as small as 200 kt is completely beyond me.
You increase warhead weight by 50% and now you are dealing with a 2 mt warhead.
Sounds like a formidable increase in weight until one realizes the low overall weight increase of a nuclear versus thermonuclear warhead, where a lot of weight is wrapped up in the fuzzing gear of the primary and its explosive lens, versus the very small size of the single or dual fusion sparkplugs.

::The Soviets were noted for sticking the biggest yield warheads possible :on their SLBMs to make up for any error distance during descent to :their targets due to position uncertainties at launch. They were aimed :at soft targets like cities and airfields.
:

True, but we're not talking about SLBMs or fixed targets, now are we?

No, of course not. We are talking about thermonuclear bombs out of orbit onto a moving marine target, so what's your point?
:
:Given the fact that a terminally unguided attack on a naval target would :involve a substantial miss distance in any case, they would stick the :biggest warhead possible on it...probably 1-5 megatons - a :thermonuclear warhead with a two stage secondary fusion section.
:Overall weight of that wouldn't be at all that high given present :technology.
:

Given present technology, they're using smaller warheads. You're
mixing Soviet practice from 30-40 years ago and then talking "present
technology" out the other side of your mouth.

Wait a second here... this was the Buran orbital bomber concept from the early 1980's, not today.
That's the period the BOR RV tests came from.
30 years ago.
Pick one.

:
:It would also probably detonate underwater to generate the shockwaves to :destroy its targets by caving their hulls in.
:

Unlikely, largely because it would probably break up when it hit the
water. Add enough protection to prevent that and you're back to
talking about smaller warheads.

If it glides into the water at subsonic speeds; or indeed lets the warhead proper go in midair so that descends into the water under a parachute like a ASROC nuclear depth charge, this indeed can occur.
:> :
:> :1.) That the warhead is aimed at its current position, and doesn't :> :incorerate a "lead" factor of where it's going to be in a half hour's time.
:> :
:>
:> Which assumes there is no early warning time and that the CVBG stays
:> 'straight and stupid', maintaining SOA.
:> :
:Yeah, but you've got to pick up the deorbit burn to alert the carrier :group about what's coming.
:

And you think nobody would be watching? That's really quite funny!

Oh, of course someone would be watching if this system was ever deployed...how fast can you get their info back to the fleet and let the act on it after it goes through the channels from detection, to confirmation, to action?
I stated that I thought it would be five minutes.
Screw that, let's make it instantaneously.
Your carrier group is moving along at 40 knots... in five minutes you are going to cover 1/12 of that distance, or to put it another way, you have a advantage of an extra 3.3 miles between you and the impact point; assuming of course that you can somehow turn the whole fleet around in zero time and get it going in the reverse direction.
This is worthless in regards to a RV that can modify its course on the way down; any maneuvers the naval fleet can accomplish given the warning of the RV descent and its limited speed are going to ineffectual against a maneuvering RV that either incorporates organic homing or descent updates from a RORSAT.
:
:And that deorbit burn is going to occur around 1/3 of the way around the :Earth from where the carrier attack group is.
:Well outside the range of any organic detection by their radar or sensors.
:So it's got to go through channels to them once its spotted. Right there :you lose around 5 minutes warning time minimum for detection, :confirmation, transmission to the ships, and and the ships acting on the :message.
:

The only time lost is the same time lost if you have organic
detection; reacting to the threat.

:
:Anyway, this is something that never got deployed by either side, so any :discussion of the tactical aspects of its operation are pretty much :pointless when it comes right down to it from other than a theoretical :point of view.
:

It makes much, MUCH less sense than what was generally actually done,
which is shadowing forces.

:
:The costs of setting up a 24/7/365 manned orbital bomber force in all :orbital inclinations to attack any naval target at sea anywhere in the :world at any time would make SAC's "Chrome Dome" look like something you :could do with your weekly allowance.
:

Why would they have to be up all the time? Just launch them like you
would launch 'alert bombers'.

Unmanned, great.
You might be able to pull that off.
Manned Shuttles?
Both we and Russia had a maximum of two operational launchpads that each would take around a week or two refurbishment between launches if you pushed it to max effort.
Given that, and the orbital inclinations required to get your orbital bombers into position 24/7 for a surprise attack, and I sure hope their crews are keen on eating food out of a tube, as the around 100 shuttles are going to be on station for around six months to a year each.
What if it does? By the time you can start shedding things you're
relatively 'low and slow', as I already mentioned.

:
:In fact, wouldn't the radar be able to go _clean through_ the :non-metallic RCC nosecap?
:

It could presumably be designed that way, but it'd be difficult to
both do thermal protection AND have a radar antenna sitting behind it.

It's a dielectric; the radar won't even see it.


Pat
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: George will drops a bombshell
    ... so how do you think afghanistan will launch an A-bomb? ... But there were explosions and the warhead or warheads did not explode due to their design safety. ... During a routine maintenance in a Titan II silo, an Air Force repairman dropped a heavy wrench socket, which rolled off a work platform and fell toward the bottom of the silo. ... It blew the heavy doors off into a field without damaging them. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldnt
    ... :Sounds like a formidable increase in weight until one realizes the low ... :overall weight increase of a nuclear versus thermonuclear warhead, ... :>:their targets due to position uncertainties at launch. ... :If it glides into the water at subsonic speeds; ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: George will drops a bombshell
    ... so how do you think afghanistan will launch an A-bomb? ... But there were explosions and the warhead or warheads did not explode due to their design safety. ... During a routine maintenance in a Titan II silo, an Air Force repairman dropped a heavy wrench socket, which rolled off a work platform and fell toward the bottom of the silo. ... Everyone in console had earaches from the instant pressure of automatic blast doors. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: George will drops a bombshell
    ... so how do you think afghanistan will launch an A-bomb? ... damaged Warhead lost off the coast of Spain did not pollute. ... During a routine maintenance in a Titan II silo, ... It blew the heavy doors off into a field without damaging ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: QDR To Kill E-10, Cut B-52s
    ... launch detection capability, but no missile warning or tracking radar ... precision-guided warhead for this role. ... delta-V to simply fire right at the target and get the same impact. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
Loading