|
Russian Rockets (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by gouuryella
the russians, USA BABY! |
:rolleyes:
stupid hick. |
|
|
| occrider |
This isn't really anything new. It's an aircraft borne anti-ship missile created in the 80's:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...lient=firefox-a
Now if it has indeed been converted to a supersonic cruise missile, it has several limitations. First of all, a speed of mach 2.2 is extremely slow for a nuclear deliverable. Think about it, it would take several hours for a warhead to impact targets from the time of launch ... unless you're launching the warhead significantly close to the target. Contrast this with ICBMs which MIRV than impact in 15-30 minutes from the time of launching. Second, cruise missiles do not have the range of ICBMs. The reason why ICBMs have the range that they do is because they use all their fuel to get to space at speeds greater than mach 10, and then continue building that speed with their reentry into the earth's atmosphere.
Unless this missile is so huge (which would mean that it would be detected by radar) that it has the fuel capacity to support the range to cross the globe, it would have to be launched by submarine or aircraft. If it's submarine launched, satellites can detect the launch plumes so it wouldn't come as any surprise (also the soviet submarine program is probably crap now ... what do they have, maybe a few decent akulas left? Any typhoons? All of them are probably easily tracked by 688s and Seawolfs). If it's launched by aircraft (backfires?), the aircraft would have to get somewhat close to the US and thus be detected long before it gets to its launching point.
Yes Russia can easily destroy the US ... they can simply launch its 8600 operational nukes and no missile sheild in the world will have the capacity to defend against so many warheads. Of course, then the US will launch its 8000 operational nukes much to the chagrin of Russia. |
|
|
| gouuryella |
| you guys are crazy, everyone thinks russians are so big and ohhh russia can destroy america, listen guys. u guys remember the time of star wars when america basicly destroyed russia, russia is poor, the economy sucks, even tho thier goverment is stable, i still think they can no do . americas millitary is number 1 in the world and there is no dout about it. its the truth |
|
|
| occrider |
Ummm ok ... back on topic, Russia did indeed develop highly advanced rockets that were revolutionary in design in the 60's/70's. They used closed cycle engines that were far more efficient than the open cycle engines used at the time (you can google it for details). Unfortunately the Soviets had some setbacks in the program and the engine design was abandoned. Eventually, 30 years later, the old Soviet nk-33 engines in storage were rediscovered by US scientists who couldn't believe how advanced the design was. Anyway, long story short, a modified version of those closed cycle engines are currently in use in the latest US heavy lifting rockets, the Atlas Vs.
http://www.channel4.com/science/mic...cosmodrome.html |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | | Originally posted by occrider what do they have, maybe a few decent akulas left? Any typhoons? All of them are probably easily tracked by 688s and Seawolfs). |
They have a few akulas, one typhoon (type 945 is it?) left but it's just in trials and stuf I think and genrally not operational.
And only one aircraft carrier (ed too I belive).
Yep the navy be ed. But what I will say is in design the Typhoons are mental.
As an aside,
The UK's newest (not made yet) sub:
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00174001
| quote: | | The reliable and proven PWR2 pressurized water nuclear reactor, equipped with Core H, will be provided to Astute-class submarines. Core H will fuel the reactor for the submarine's full service life, ending the need for costly reactor refueling. Vanguard-class submarines are currently powered by the PWR2 reactor |
They are testing that at my work (were I worked over the summer and I'll be back to after finnishing).
EDIT:
While I was there the head of US submarines of some fleet or something (one away from the joint chiefs apparently) was there, bear in mind only about 200 people work there.
I actually helped make the plaque (not my usual job, plaque making btw lol) for a gift he got from us. :tongue2
EDIT2: Dumbass spelling. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
EDIT:
While I was there the head of US submarines of some fleet or something (one away from the joint chiefs apparently) was there, bear in mind only about 200 people work there.
I actually helped make the plague (not my usual job, plague making btw lol) for a gift he got from us. :tongue2 |
Do you mean plague or plaque? Because if you mean plague, well thats not a very nice gift |
|
|
| Dupz |
| quote: | Originally posted by gouuryella
the russians, USA BABY! |
We're working on a "Pre-teens" sub-forum for you, my young friend. It'll be up soon, and then you wont have to bother people with your underdeveloped teeny bopper reasoning.. |
|
|
| Dupz |
To address the topic now... I find it strange that development of such weaponry is still needed. The Cold War is over, and is there really any need to be spending money on systems that are probably never going to be used anyway? I'm sure that Russia needs that money to be spent on more productive things, other than on wasteful military pursuits.
Edit:
lol, and lets not let this get onto the topic of US military spending :D |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dupz
To address the topic now... I find it strange that development of such weaponry is still needed. The Cold War is over, and is there really any need to be spending money on systems that are probably never going to be used anyway? I'm sure that Russia needs that money to be spent on more productive things, other than on wasteful military pursuits.
Edit:
lol, and lets not let this get onto the topic of US military spending :D |
well and if Putin is on about something military he may be compensating for something else that isnt going quite right...ie most of Russias *real* problems.
plus would you think the US would let Bush name drop our most 'advanced' weapons systems? hardly...
Russia is quite intent on maintaining a semblance of power, but without the mystique of Communism they cant achieve much. even at the 'height' of Soviet power, Finland defeated the Northern Soviet armies to maintain some measure of independence. and where are most of those troops, equipment and factories?
in the Ukraine and Baltic States, not Russia proper| |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Do you mean plague or plaque? Because if you mean plague, well thats not a very nice gift |
lol opps yup, 3am typing there |
|
|
| MegaMan |
again, some people missunderstood what i said.
The way US can detect who launched missles at the is to see where they are coming from, the way to do that is to see on the radar where the rocket is coming from, and again they'll able to see the normal rockets.
These types, are traveling "CLOSE TO THE GROUND" just like sunburn, there for "CANNOT" be detected by ANY radar that US has so far.
There for, one rocket is enough to destroy a nation, ummm lets say not US but Iraq instead. and they wont attack back cuz they wont know who attacked them in the first place |
|
|
| MegaMan |
what makes is so advanced, is again, it ravels close to the ground (cannot be detected) and can go around objects, a ship, building, mountant w/e, and does not require any control over it, as it has super computer on board with ability to do, and trust me its more than 2400 operations per seconds, its not like its 2.4 ghz at all.
super computers these days can do trillions operations per second
and cost around a lemon dollars |
|
|
|
|
