4 ms·

Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile blows up, creating “mini-Chernobyl”

17 points by mplanchard 7y ago

api 7y ago
What would be the strategic advantage of a nuclear cruise missile? Couldn't a cruise missile of any kind be shot down by a fighter plane? Seems easier to deflect than an ICBM, which they already have in abundance.
- joelx 7y ago
  Missiles generally are far faster than fighter planes. Remember anti-aircraft missiles themselves are missiles. There's a chance that these nuclear missiles could even outrun those. These weapons are an enormous existential threat to people everywhere. Weapons like these will be used to help dictators stay in power permanently.
  - tlb 7y ago
    Surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles are fast, but with short range. For any fuel-burning aircraft there's a tradeoff between size, speed, and range. If you want Mach 3 and intercontinental range, you need something huge and expensive like an SR-71. Nuclear ramjets, if they can be made to work, could be both hypersonic and very long range. Very long range is important because you can launch them early in a conflict and have them cruise around, safe from incoming tactical nukes destroying your launch sites.
    - foxyv 7y ago
      What would be really interesting is if they had a nearly unlimited flight time. You could have your nuclear arsenal in the air, waiting for the signal to attack. Rather than sitting on the ground. It would make for an impressively intimidating tactic. The nukes already in the air, just waiting for the signal.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > What would be the strategic advantage of a nuclear cruise missile? Range over conventional cruise missiles; ability to evade detection and early identifict of target compared to ICBMs. > Couldn't a cruise missile of any kind be shot down by a fighter plane? If the fighter plane was in the right place at the right time, maybe. But maybe not a really high probability, either. > Seems easier to deflect than an ICBM, which they already have in abundance. Harder to detect than an ICBM or SLBM or conventional bomber, harder to intercept than a conventional bomber even if you do detect and track it, potentially harder than an ICBM or SLBM, too: ballistic missiles are fast and hard to hit, but (because “ballistic”) very easy to predict generally where they are going. Cruise missiles as well as taking harder to detect flight plans can take harder to predict courses.
- foxyv 7y ago
  Long range hyper-cruise missiles have the advantage of not showing up on satellite early warning systems allowing advanced first strike capability; reducing the chance of retaliation. (Hopefully destroying enemy nuclear capability before they can retaliate) Usually by the time a strike is detected, they are about to hit their targets. Also they don't require a fueling cycle that can be detected like on ballistic missiles which alerts your target that you are preparing for a launch. They can also fly below radar sight with GPS guided flight paths, making stealth technology unnecessary. The missiles are easier to intercept, however by the time you know you are under attack, you can maybe scramble 1-2 jets and take down maybe that many missiles if you are lucky. Also they are less vulnerable to ABS launchers like the patriot PAC-1 and PAC-2 since they are not in line of sight until just before they hit.
- zentiggr 7y ago
  ICBMs require significant infrastructure, for storage, fueling, and launch. Once in the air, their targets are known quickly and intercepts are difficult but possible. (Airspeed is their only defense.) Cruise missiles require much less pre-launch facilities, and once in the air, fly very low altitude trajectories, at speeds similar to aircraft. Small size, GPS steerable trajectories, low altitude all make them very hard to detect. Defense of fixed targets would require large radius flat clear areas with radar controlled AA guns (think Phalanx etc). Nuclear propulsion means extreme range / flight time and multiplies the threat profile per missile in inventory.
m463 7y ago
I looked up energy in different substances for a recent post, but it's relevant here: Gasoline is 34.2 MJ/L A lithium-ion battery is 2.6 MJ/L Uranium is 1,539,842,000 MJ/L [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_energy_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_energy...

17 points by mplanchard 7y ago

api 7y ago

What would be the strategic advantage of a nuclear cruise missile? Couldn't a cruise missile of any kind be shot down by a fighter plane? Seems easier to deflect than an ICBM, which they already have in abundance.

joelx 7y ago
Missiles generally are far faster than fighter planes. Remember anti-aircraft missiles themselves are missiles. There's a chance that these nuclear missiles could even outrun those. These weapons are an enormous existential threat to people everywhere. Weapons like these will be used to help dictators stay in power permanently.
- tlb 7y ago
  Surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles are fast, but with short range. For any fuel-burning aircraft there's a tradeoff between size, speed, and range. If you want Mach 3 and intercontinental range, you need something huge and expensive like an SR-71. Nuclear ramjets, if they can be made to work, could be both hypersonic and very long range. Very long range is important because you can launch them early in a conflict and have them cruise around, safe from incoming tactical nukes destroying your launch sites.
  - foxyv 7y ago
    What would be really interesting is if they had a nearly unlimited flight time. You could have your nuclear arsenal in the air, waiting for the signal to attack. Rather than sitting on the ground. It would make for an impressively intimidating tactic. The nukes already in the air, just waiting for the signal.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> What would be the strategic advantage of a nuclear cruise missile? Range over conventional cruise missiles; ability to evade detection and early identifict of target compared to ICBMs. > Couldn't a cruise missile of any kind be shot down by a fighter plane? If the fighter plane was in the right place at the right time, maybe. But maybe not a really high probability, either. > Seems easier to deflect than an ICBM, which they already have in abundance. Harder to detect than an ICBM or SLBM or conventional bomber, harder to intercept than a conventional bomber even if you do detect and track it, potentially harder than an ICBM or SLBM, too: ballistic missiles are fast and hard to hit, but (because “ballistic”) very easy to predict generally where they are going. Cruise missiles as well as taking harder to detect flight plans can take harder to predict courses.
foxyv 7y ago
Long range hyper-cruise missiles have the advantage of not showing up on satellite early warning systems allowing advanced first strike capability; reducing the chance of retaliation. (Hopefully destroying enemy nuclear capability before they can retaliate) Usually by the time a strike is detected, they are about to hit their targets. Also they don't require a fueling cycle that can be detected like on ballistic missiles which alerts your target that you are preparing for a launch. They can also fly below radar sight with GPS guided flight paths, making stealth technology unnecessary. The missiles are easier to intercept, however by the time you know you are under attack, you can maybe scramble 1-2 jets and take down maybe that many missiles if you are lucky. Also they are less vulnerable to ABS launchers like the patriot PAC-1 and PAC-2 since they are not in line of sight until just before they hit.
zentiggr 7y ago
ICBMs require significant infrastructure, for storage, fueling, and launch. Once in the air, their targets are known quickly and intercepts are difficult but possible. (Airspeed is their only defense.) Cruise missiles require much less pre-launch facilities, and once in the air, fly very low altitude trajectories, at speeds similar to aircraft. Small size, GPS steerable trajectories, low altitude all make them very hard to detect. Defense of fixed targets would require large radius flat clear areas with radar controlled AA guns (think Phalanx etc). Nuclear propulsion means extreme range / flight time and multiplies the threat profile per missile in inventory.

m463 7y ago

I looked up energy in different substances for a recent post, but it's relevant here: Gasoline is 34.2 MJ/L A lithium-ion battery is 2.6 MJ/L Uranium is 1,539,842,000 MJ/L [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_energy_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_energy...