Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile • Hacker News Board

Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile

#21

Post by greedo » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #13

greedo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Higher altitude to avoid CFIT (controlled flight into terrain). The faster you fly, the less reaction time you have. So instead of being able to hug the ground at say 100ft AGL, you have to bump up to 1000ft.

Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile

#22

Post by John_KZ » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 10:14 PM UTC

Const-me wrote: post #5

John_KZ wrote: post #2

The 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…

> with the Ukraine conflict being the most obvious result of this strategy Russia fought wars on foreign territories before and after they invaded Ukraine. Syria (2015-current), Georgia (2008 but parts of Georgia are still occupied), Transnistria (1992 but part of Moldova is still occupied).

Syria and Georgia are primarily Russia's fault, no doubt. They definitely aren't saints. However that's irrelevant to what happened in Ukraine. Imagine if Russia stationed a bunch of floating long-range missile batteries right off the coast of the US. It's not illegal, just like asking Ukraine to join EU/NATO, but it's definitely not going to be allowed to happen, even if it means war.

Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile

#23

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

John_KZ wrote: post #22

Const-me wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with the Ukraine conflict being the most obvious result of this strategy Russia fought wars on foreign territories before and after they invaded Ukraine. Syria (2015-current), Georgia (2008 but parts of Georgia are still occupied), Transnistria (1992 but part of Moldova is still occupied).

Syria and Georgia are primarily Russia's fault, no doubt. They definitely aren't saints. However that's irrelevant to what happened in Ukraine. Imagine if Russia stationed a bunch of floating long-range missile batteries right off the coast of the US. It's not illegal, just like asking Ukraine to join EU/NATO, but it's definitely not going to be allowed to happen, even if it means war.

> Imagine if Russia stationed a bunch of floating long-range missile batteries right off the coast of the US.

They have, for decades, they're called ballistic missile subs.

Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile

#24

Post by Const-me » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 11:24 PM UTC

John_KZ wrote: post #22

Const-me wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with the Ukraine conflict being the most obvious result of this strategy Russia fought wars on foreign territories before and after they invaded Ukraine. Syria (2015-current), Georgia (2008 but parts of Georgia are still occupied), Transnistria (1992 but part of Moldova is still occupied).

Syria and Georgia are primarily Russia's fault, no doubt. They definitely aren't saints. However that's irrelevant to what happened in Ukraine. Imagine if Russia stationed a bunch of floating long-range missile batteries right off the coast of the US. It's not illegal, just like asking Ukraine to join EU/NATO, but it's definitely not going to be allowed to happen, even if it means war.

> what happened in Ukraine

Unprovoked military invasion, and forceful annexation of territory, that’s what happened.

> just like asking Ukraine to join EU/NATO

No one has asked Ukraine to join NATO, because Ukrainians were strongly against it. Before Russian invasion, Ukrainians was slightly pro-EU, and strongly against NATO, i.e. 20% for, 65% against.

The public opinion has changing as the result of the ongoing war. Now in Ukraine 60-75% are for NATO, and just 10-25% against.

P.S. Even here in Montenegro, the annexation of Crimea has changed public opinion towards NATO, less dramatically but enough to make it a majority. We joined NATO in 2017.

Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile

#25

Post by tim333 » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 4:50 AM UTC

lurker12390879 wrote: post #11

I wonder how useful for space exploration this could be? That is, make a non-cruise variant for long distance satellite/human launches?

I assume the Russian missile is a nuclear powered jet engine, assuming it exists, while for space you need a nuclear powered rocket engine. Different tech. The US tested a nuclear rocket engine on the ground in 1967 and it looked well cool. I'd vote for giving it's development a go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#/media/...

The US also built nuclear powered jet engines in the 60s but found for piloted aircraft you'd either need tons of lead shielding or kill the pilots. It's rumoured the Russians actually flew one and killed said pilots.

Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile

#26

Post by greedo » Sat, Mar 03, 2018, 1:14 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #10

greedo wrote: post #9

I 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.

Also, the reason the US stopped development of it's own nuclear powered cruise missile (Pluto project) was because of the research into OTHB (over the horizon backscatter) radars that can detect cruise missiles.

Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile

#27

Post by pytonslange » Sat, Mar 03, 2018, 7:24 AM UTC

This reminds me of this horrendousity: https://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar-the-insane-doomsday-...

Re: Russia has developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile

#28

Post by cgmg » Sat, Mar 03, 2018, 3:01 PM UTC

MadcapJake wrote: post #16

chrisseaton wrote: post #8

Earlier 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…

What do you mean by “a nation-state not being a deviant”? Any nation-state that used nuclear weapons to attack would most definitely be a deviant.