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

Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

first you clipped the name of the original poster...

Me. I wrote "triplet of 200 KT warheads" as a representative ICBM/SLBM
load, but the details don't matter.

What matters, as far as I'm concenred, is that more than 25 years ago,
as a writer for a national science magazine, I presented a spokesman
for the CNO with a scenario based entirely on conservative estimates
-- published and unchallenged -- for

1) our (and the USSR's) satellite/sub/etc capabilities for spotting
tracking surface ships
2) our (and the USSR's) time requirements for aiming/launching/flight
and for alerts of same
3) our (and the USSR's) claimed CEP
4) our (and the USSR's) claimed top speed for carriers
5) blast overpressure required to tip ships on their beam, stove in
hull plates, or rip off superstructure (never mind details like
sweeping aircraft off flight decks) -- cf. ABLE & BAKER, 1946

The question I posed was "Never mind the Tom Clancy waves of anti-ship
missiles. Never mind the attack subs shadowing surface combatants, the
attack subs shadowing boomers *and* attack subs, etc. Given these
figures, what reason is there to believe that ICBMs alone couldn't
deal with most carrier groups within an hour?"

What I got was hemming, hawing, handwaving and pregnant silences.

I suppose it could be that since then, warheads have become much less
accurate, capital ships have become much faster and tougher -- or that
terminal guidance would be jammed by flying pigs. Wouldn't it be
pretty to think so?

-Monte Davis
.

Loading