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

Pat Flannery <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:
:
: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.
:

I did, in Message <9c1mj4116blcdmv8d6bmhhh2bnq4tglndr@xxxxxxx>. *YOU*
snipped it off; first you clipped the name of the original poster and
then you clipped the paragraph I quoted.

:
: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.
:

Yes, and instead of throwing three of them, as the original poster
proposed, now you can only throw one.

:
: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.
:

And that increase doesn't sound significant until one starts looking
at typical throw weights. The current Russian ICBM (Topol-M) has a
payload of only 1,000 pounds and carries a single 550kt warhead.

That weight increase also doesn't sound correct, looking at weights of
current US nuclear weapons. For example, two current weapons are the
B-83 and the W-87. The B-83 is variable yield up to 1.2MT and weighs
around 2400 pounds. The W-87 is 300KT and weighs less than 600
pounds. These are two weapons that are modern and recently
manufactured as such things go. They would make it appear that
getting from hundreds of kilotons to megatons is a 400% increase in
weight, not the 50% you claim above.

:> ::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?
:

My point is that you have to get them up to orbit, acquire moving
targets, then get down from orbit onto those targets. The mission is
nowhere near similar.

:> :
:> :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.
:

Then don't try to wave away how "overall weight of that wouldn't all
that high" by invoking "present technology", since we're talking about
30 years ago and not the present at all.

:
:That's the period the BOR RV tests came from.
:30 years ago.
:
:>
:> Pick one.
:>
:

Ok, so you're going with the 30 years ago.

:> :
:> :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.
:

Water is like stone at "subsonic speeds". Now your reentry vehicle
has to carry a big parachute and it must be capable of retarding the
weapon sufficiently to allow water entry.

:> :> :
:> :> :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.
:

Which is approximately what it would be in actuality.

:
: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.
:

Never been to sea, have you? The amount of time it takes to turn "the
whole fleet around" is just pretty damned short.

:
: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.
:

Neither of the things you propose above are easy problems.

:> :
:> :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.
:

Oh, nonsense! You're living in fantasyland if you think there's have
been hundreds of these things.

:> 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.
:

Never been done. You're assuming that your TPS can be
radar-transparent.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldnt
    ... You increase warhead weight by 50% and now you are dealing with a 2 mt warhead. ... :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. ... :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. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: ESSM dodging
    ... :> percentage of missile weight and you'll see that the warhead does NOT ... it needs to be bigger to carry more fuel. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: ESSM dodging
    ... :> percentage of missile weight and you'll see that the warhead does NOT ... it needs to be bigger to carry more fuel. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: "The Execution Channel" by Ken MacLeod
    ... boosters and looked much like the launch vehicles for the Viking Mars ... -- would have required a 240 Mt warhead. ... (though I'm sure they had a few other targets in mind)? ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: ESSM dodging
    ... :>:The warhead determines the weight of everything. ... :and much less total weight than anti-ship missiles. ... percentage of missile weight and you'll see that the warhead does NOT ... The 'pop-up' becomes necessary because of the low altitude ...
    (sci.military.naval)
Loading