Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Share
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1388
    Points : 1555
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:13 am

    Teshub wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Wouldn't using nukes to destroy ICBM warheads be equivalent to nuking your country because of the fallout and large amount of detonations needed?
    First, high altitude aerial detonations produce next to no fallout. Second, they are likely designed to detonate in a rolling line starting out at maximum range (probably in space) whilst incoming warheads are still beyond Russia's borders, and falling back with each interception.

    The worst effect will probably be EMP backwash on civil infrastructure. But that is a murky subject and variant A-235 warheads are probably tailored to generate kills using different effects at differing ranges.
    I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.

    Teshub

    Posts : 45
    Points : 48
    Join date : 2015-02-16

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  Teshub on Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:04 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.
    First off the fallout produced by airbursts is primarily restricted to irradiated weapon debris, of which there's not much left with modern fusion warheads. In comparison, surface bursts produce multiple orders of magnitude more irradiated material with a greater range of radionuclides.

    Secondly when I talk about high altitude bursts, I am talking about a detonation in the mesosphere to low orbit. At these heights whatever irradiated dust remaining from the detonation is likely to take between 0.5 and 1.7 years (and more) to transition back through the stratosphere. During that time the majority of the most dangerous radionuclides have already decayed. Furthermore high altitude winds disperse the dust so that we are talking microscopic amounts per square kilometre, planet-wide.

    Granted, if Russia detonated hundreds of warheads this high up it would produce a perceptible increase in background radiation, but whether it would amount to more than a couple of MRIs is debatable.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3648
    Points : 3759
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  kvs on Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:46 pm

    Teshub wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.
    First off the fallout produced by airbursts is primarily restricted to irradiated weapon debris, of which there's not much left with modern fusion warheads. In comparison, surface bursts produce multiple orders of magnitude more irradiated material with a greater range of radionuclides.  

    Secondly when I talk about high altitude bursts, I am talking about a detonation in the mesosphere to low orbit. At these heights whatever irradiated dust remaining from the detonation is likely to take between 0.5 and 1.7 years (and more) to transition back through the stratosphere. During that time the majority of the most dangerous radionuclides have already decayed. Furthermore high altitude winds disperse the dust so that we are talking microscopic amounts per square kilometre, planet-wide.

    Granted, if Russia detonated hundreds of warheads this high up it would produce a perceptible increase in background radiation, but whether it would amount to more than a couple of MRIs is debatable.

    Excellent summary. You know your physics.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 436
    Points : 436
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:01 pm

    New Skyph (Skif) sea bottom ICBM: http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/186921/?cba=1 skif

    They can put them in the Okhotsk Sea too. Cheaper than old Delta III/IVs & new Borey SSBNs that also can safely deploy there & in the Arctic only. If these new ICBMs deployed in sufficient #s, at least some of the subs already built could be converted to SSGNs, perhaps eliminating the need for a few new Yasen SSGNs.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed May 23, 2018 8:10 pm