I wonder how useful for space exploration this could be? That is, make a non-cruise variant for long distance satellite/human launches?
Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile
11–20 of 28 posts
Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile
#12I doubt this will see much traction. A nuclear powered ramjet will not be a small device (like the ALCM, or the upcoming LRSO), and will not be cheap. If it's large, putting out a lot of heat, it will be detectable. If it can be detected, it can be shot down.
Cruise missiles fly very, very low. No chance of ground-based radar noticing them for long enough to shoot anything (milliseconds as they streak overhead). So space-based, or some pursuit missile seems like the only chance of shooting them down.
Current plans are for fighters to be directed by AWACs. But the larger the missile, the higher it has to fly. It's difficult on an airframe to fly low and fast, so the detection range will increase the higher the altitude.
Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cruise missiles fly very, very low. No chance of ground-based radar noticing them for long enough to shoot anything (milliseconds as they streak overhead). So space-based, or some pursuit missile seems like the only chance of shooting them down.
Current plans are for fighters to be directed by AWACs. But the larger the missile, the higher it has to fly. It's difficult on an airframe to fly low and fast, so the detection range will increase the higher the altitude.
Often height is for fuel efficiency? Thinner air up there. With an atomic engine, that's moot.
Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile
#14Interesting that he's out rattling the saber after US opened a can of whoop a$$ on his undocumented mercenaries in Syria. The chess pieces are moving around the board a little more vigorously.
Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile
#15The sad part is that they're kind of right in doing so. NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's border (with the Ukraine conflict being the most obvious result of this strategy) essentially nullifying their ability to strike back in case of war. So now they have to find a new way to deliver their weapons, with our missile shield in place, be it cruize missiles or something else, and…
> NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's border How can it be too far to install an anti-missile system on your own territory? That seems eminently reasonable and uncontroversial to me. It's not even a euphemism is it? It literally is purely a defensive system? It's like saying you provoked a burglar by putting a bigger lock on your door. I've seen this opinion put forward and I don…
How is it different than the USSR putting missile bases in Cuba during the Cold War?
Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile
#16The sad part is that they're kind of right in doing so. NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's border (with the Ukraine conflict being the most obvious result of this strategy) essentially nullifying their ability to strike back in case of war. So now they have to find a new way to deliver their weapons, with our missile shield in place, be it cruize missiles or something else, and…
> NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's border How can it be too far to install an anti-missile system on your own territory? That seems eminently reasonable and uncontroversial to me. It's not even a euphemism is it? It literally is purely a defensive system? It's like saying you provoked a burglar by putting a bigger lock on your door. I've seen this opinion put forward and I don…
> It's like saying you provoked a burglar by putting a bigger lock on your door.
This is a poor analogy due to a nation-state not being analogous to a burglar. Especially due to a burglar being a deviant and a nation-state not (inherently) being a deviant. Also in your scenario, one party is deviant and the other is protecting their home (one-sided).
A defensive act like setting up missile shields runs counter to "mutually assured destruction" (it's not so mutual when one side has a missile shield).
Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
> NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's border How can it be too far to install an anti-missile system on your own territory? That seems eminently reasonable and uncontroversial to me. It's not even a euphemism is it? It literally is purely a defensive system? It's like saying you provoked a burglar by putting a bigger lock on your door. I've seen this opinion put forward and I don…
How is it different than the USSR putting missile bases in Cuba during the Cold War?
These are anti-missile missiles. They can only strike other missiles in the air (unless you know more about the tech than I do). The USSR's missiles in Cuba were missiles to strike land targets.
Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile
#18The sad part is that they're kind of right in doing so. NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's border (with the Ukraine conflict being the most obvious result of this strategy) essentially nullifying their ability to strike back in case of war. So now they have to find a new way to deliver their weapons, with our missile shield in place, be it cruize missiles or something else, and…
> NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's border How can it be too far to install an anti-missile system on your own territory? That seems eminently reasonable and uncontroversial to me. It's not even a euphemism is it? It literally is purely a defensive system? It's like saying you provoked a burglar by putting a bigger lock on your door. I've seen this opinion put forward and I don…
> How can it be too far to install an anti-missile system on your own territory? That seems eminently reasonable and uncontroversial to me. It's not even a euphemism is it? It literally is purely a defensive system?
This is an old argument that goes back to the cold war. ABM systems were prohibited by treaty because an effective ABM system is not purely a defensive system. It breaks the deadlock described by Mutually-Assured Destruction. MAD means neither side can rationally initiate a first strike because an attack will result in the destruction of both sides. An ABM system that actually works, controlled by only one side, means that side can make a first strike and not be destroyed.
That is not necessarily an argument against developing defensive systems. During the eighties one thing people suggested for addressing this was to essentially give US-developed ABM technology to the USSR, or to jointly develop the technology, etc. The system's deployment would be followed by a gradual reduction in nuclear stockpiles by both sides. The thinking being, if both sides possess the defensive technology the amount of tension involved in reducing nuclear stockpiles and achieving disarmament is reduced. None of that went anywhere.
Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it different than the USSR putting missile bases in Cuba during the Cold War?
These are anti-missile missiles. They can only strike other missiles in the air (unless you know more about the tech than I do). The USSR's missiles in Cuba were missiles to strike land targets.
Yes but the agreement between the two sides was that they wouldn't put military forces near each other's borders. I think Turkey counts.
Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's border How can it be too far to install an anti-missile system on your own territory? That seems eminently reasonable and uncontroversial to me. It's not even a euphemism is it? It literally is purely a defensive system? It's like saying you provoked a burglar by putting a bigger lock on your door. I've seen this opinion put forward and I don…
> It's like saying you provoked a burglar by putting a bigger lock on your door. This is a poor analogy due to a nation-state not being analogous to a burglar. Especially due to a burglar being a deviant and a nation-state not (inherently) being a deviant. Also in your scenario, one party is deviant and the other is protecting their home (one-sided). A defensive act like setting up missile shields runs counter to "mu…
> and a nation-state not (inherently) being a deviant.
I think modern Russia is a deviant. Here’s a recent news about high-ranking officials doing large-scale international drug trafficking, using a government jet for that:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-argent...