- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Russia developing bomber capable of launching nuclear attack from outer space
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:12 pm to RecordSetter
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:12 pm to RecordSetter
Been had dat
0
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:15 pm to LSURussian
quote:
What's the advantage of this proposed bomber over having ICBMs with MIRVs?
Other than the ability to call back a strike, I can't think of any. Of course we seem to put a good deal of value in having nuclear capable bomber fleet...
...so I guess there has to be some tangible advantage.
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:16 pm to Darth_Vader
This is really dumb. The whole doctrine of high flying strategic bombers has been outdated since the 1960s. We have missiles that can reach those bombers once detected.
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:17 pm to LSURussian
quote:
What's the advantage of this proposed bomber over having ICBMs with MIRVs
My one thought is that the heat blooms from an ICBM launch are very quickly detected whereas a bomber that routinely takes off/lands can be more difficult to detect changes indicating a first strike
This post was edited on 7/13/16 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:29 pm to rmnldr
quote:
This is really dumb. The whole doctrine of high flying strategic bombers has been outdated since the 1960s. We have missiles that can reach those bombers once detected
Regular SAM's are not capable of intercepting targets in outer space. To hit something in orbit you've got to use something like a ASAT.
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:31 pm to NorthshoreTiger76
quote:
Russians used a pencil
Cosmonauts use the same Fisher Space Pens that Astronauts use, if I'm not mistaken.
Pencil lead breaks. Pencil leads can get into sensitive electronics when they are floating around. Or people's eyes. This is a misnomer
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:34 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:None of our bombers can ascend into outer space to carry out a bombing mission.
Of course we seem to put a good deal of value in having nuclear capable bomber fleet...
Did you forget the title of your thread?
quote:
launching nuclear attack from outer space
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:37 pm to Darth_Vader
Didn't the navy shoot down that spy satellite with an RIM-161 a few years back? I'm sure they can get a bomber.
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:37 pm to HempHead
I think you are confusing the concept of a kinetic strike weapon. A telephone pole shape of tungsten can release destruction of a mid yield nuclear detonation without even conventional explosives aboard.
There is nothing scifi about, all the components are public knowledge
But it is something that would be impossible to hide, and as far as we know there isn't anything up there.
There is nothing scifi about, all the components are public knowledge
But it is something that would be impossible to hide, and as far as we know there isn't anything up there.
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:38 pm to LSURussian
quote:
None of our bombers can ascend into outer space to carry out a bombing mission.
Did you forget the title of your thread?
No I didn't forget. I was simply answering why a country would want a nuclear capable bomber when they've also got ICBMs.
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:39 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Regular SAM's are not capable of intercepting targets in outer space. To hit something in orbit you've got to use something like a ASAT.
SM-3's aren't standard load outs on Aegis equipped cruisers?
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:39 pm to Volvagia
quote:
I think you are confusing the concept of a kinetic strike weapon. A telephone pole shape of tungsten can release destruction of a mid yield nuclear detonation without even conventional explosives aboard.
Yes! That's what I was thinking about, I just didn't know the terminology.
quote:
But it is something that would be impossible to hide, and as far as we know there isn't anything up there.
What about it would make it impossible to hide, exactly? Tracking by space agencies?
If so, could they be utilized by aircraft?
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:43 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
The Russian Strategic Missile Forces Academy is developing a hypersonic strategic bomber capable of striking with nuclear warheads from outer space, Lt. Col. Aleksei Solodovnikov told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.
A trial model of Russia's nuclear-capable outer space strategic bomber will be developed by 2020, according to its developer.
Russian commander of the Strategic Missile Forces (SMF), Colonel General Sergei Karakayev, had earlier reported that the Russian Strategic Missile Forces Academy has already developed and tested an engine for the experimental aircraft.
They might have plans and maybe make a nice little fake bomb to take pictures with, but $20 says they do not have a functioning weapon by 2020.
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:43 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:That's great if that's all what the new Russian bomber is. They already have "nuclear capable" bombers. So do we.
I was simply answering why a country would want a nuclear capable bomber when they've also got ICBMs.
The "new" part is the Russians' proposed bomber's ability to attack from outer space.
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:44 pm to NorthshoreTiger76
And we won the Cold War.
This post was edited on 7/13/16 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:45 pm to HempHead
The only way you can hope to hide it with current tech is to use a rocket based descent rather than powered by a rail gun,which would require a significant assembly to power and fire.
And even then, you'll attract a LOT of interest at this weird 40-50 foot long satellite.
There aren't really any legit/non-war related reasons to have an unmanned object that large
And even then, you'll attract a LOT of interest at this weird 40-50 foot long satellite.
There aren't really any legit/non-war related reasons to have an unmanned object that large
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:46 pm to HempHead
quote:
If so, could they be utilized by aircraft?
And probably not. Best to have the launching platform out of the atmosphere
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:47 pm to Volvagia
quote:
SM-3's aren't standard load outs on Aegis equipped cruisers?
I never said they weren't. All I said was a normal SAM can't reach a target in space. The SM-3 is not a normal SAM.
BTW, we have no idea how far up into orbit this bomber could reach once its operational. Unless it's in a pretty low orbit, the SM-3,won't be able to reach it. Will the Russians take the SM-3 into account during development of this bomber and take measures to counter the threat it poses? I'd imagine they will.
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:50 pm to Darth_Vader
Well there's no way to get a functioning and reusable bomber aircraft at anything higher than low orbit. I just don't see how it would be cost effective if even possible. And we'll just make our SAMs more powerful and more plentiful. All around it's a pretty dumb idea.
Posted on 7/13/16 at 2:50 pm to junkfunky
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News