Russian NUCLEAR powered cruise missile blows up. Kills 5 scientists and spreads radiation

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by Doggzilla, Aug 10, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Aug 13, 2019 #41

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,736
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    At altitude the B-36 was fast enough that the F-94 was a stopgap fix so they could possibly have an escort. Of course a raid on Moscow would have been a final suicide mission. No one expected to come back. Under such a dire situation, the B-36 was not going to be the only delivery system. The F-82s were tasked to deliver a bomb at low altitude to hope to evade the radar that would have easily tracked the B-36s. In a way the B-36s could be used as decoys.

    From what i understand, this is the second time a rocket motor has blown. They did one test at sea and it polluted the ocean when it blew up, so they moved it on shore hoping they could contain a problem without international questions.
     
  2. Aug 13, 2019 #42

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,344
    Likes Received:
    947
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    The B-36 was designed to bomb Germany from Canada if England was conquered and we lost Airstrip One.

    My father watched an early test, where B-36 planes swept North from Mexico and "bombed" the West Coast cities. Over LA, the latest Air Forc jet fighters either couldn't catch the B-36s or couldn't climb high enough , or both. Over San Francisco, the Navy interceptors rose & literally flew rings around the bombers. Taking gun camera shots, then barrel rolling around them. The Air Force brass was very upset.

    The Mig-15 was a technology Surprise when it was first seen over Korea. I give full credit to the design team, but the core of it's performance was the Rolls Royce designed engine that was sold by Soviet loving British bureaucrats to the Soviets, who promptly copied them, then improved them, Getting one of those marriages made in heaven, much like the P-51 & Rolls Royce Merlin. The only near par competition was also built with licenced copies of the same Rolls Royce engines. The Grumman F9F Panther. ( but the copy was of the original engine & not as powerful as the Soviet imorived/enlarged ones, plus, as a Carrier based plane, the Panther lacked the power to weight ratio & performance of the Mig. )

    Only with the later introduction of the F-86 was the Air Force Flying a legitimate competitor to the Mig-15.

    It was a time of rapid change in technology and performance.

    ironically, or blessedly, the B-36 was for it's day the most expensive success story in military aviation. It did it's job and never dropped bombs on the enemy.

    Wargaming them gives you success or failure in game missions depending on the age of much newer competition. Mig 9s can't catch it. Mig 15s can, if the airfield is close enough to the track and far enough ahead in distance & warning time.

    Personally I'm grateful they were never used in anger. The debates over if we should build a fleet of b-36s or Carriers colors the history and attitudes to this day. I just missed watching them fly overhead operationally, and grew up with the B-47, a whole 'nother subject.
     
  3. Aug 13, 2019 #43

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,975
    Likes Received:
    4,919
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    But wasn’t the argument about whether the system existed and not whether a system met a specific reliability standard. No disrespect meant, but it seems like you are progressively tailoring the question to fit your answer.
     
    BJC likes this.
  4. Aug 13, 2019 #44

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,163
    Likes Received:
    1,888
    Location:
    US
    Agreed. If the question was: Was the gap between the IOC for US and Soviet ICBMs 7 months or "years," the answer is about 7 months. The Soviet R7A rocket and the US Atlas D were roughly similar.
    - Both had the range,accuracy, and throw weight to hold targets in the opposing nation at risk.
    - Both had poor response times from a cold start (R7A: about 10 hours to launch, and launch had to happen within one hour after fueling).
    - Basing hardness: Soft. Due to the slow responsiveness and the vulnerability of their launchers, they were both better suited to first strike than to a follow-on, and, for this reason, were destabilizing from a strategic standpoint.
    - Both programs evolved into very successful space launch programs. The Atlas variant that is still putting satellites in orbit today is a long way from the original SM-65.

    - Bottom line: If the R7A was an operational ICBM, so was the Atlas D. The Atlas D was on operational alert approx 7 months after the R7A.

    From a bigger strategic standpoint, ICBMs were initially far less important to the US than to the USSR. The US could effectively hold Soviet targets at risk using manned aircraft, and there's no disputing this. Also, by basing shorter-range IRBMs in Turkey, Italy, and the UK we could obtain the same result as the Soviets achieved with ICBMs. The Soviets sought to address this asymmetry by placing missiles in Cuba, with some very tense days as a result (and, the secret agreement by the US to remove our missiles from Turkey in response to the USSR withdrawing their missiles from Cuba). Obviously, from a political perspective it was better for the US to develop ICBMs that could be launched from CONUS, and it was also better for >everyone< if both the USSR and the US developed launchers that could survive a first strike (through hardening or, later, through mobility). During the days of MAD (and especially the advent of accurate MIRV platforms), this was very important to reduce the requirement to launch on warning in order to preserve a credible remaining deterrent capability.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  5. Aug 13, 2019 #45

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,163
    Likes Received:
    1,888
    Location:
    US
    It would require a fairly high-fidelity wargame to account for all of the factors, even in the "simple" world of 1955. For a Soviet defender against attack by B-36s, the main problem is knowledge--specifically target detection and tracking, and battle management. It is all well and good to draw range rings around MiG-15 fields, but the planners at SAC were nothing if not detail oriented. The crucial Soviet long-range radars were huge and their location was known. Directing a fighter to a target required radio communications. And MiG-15s had no radar and no guided missiles, so at night/bad weather they'd need to somehow find these B-36s visually. Then they'd get to close for engagement with 23mm and 37mm cannon--and the B-36 was not short of its own defensive armament, which had the critical advantage of radar ranging and more sophisticated fire control computers. SAC planners had a lot of time to optimize things (to include sequencing, etc), and this is one type of conflict where the offense has the advantage. The detail of this planning, to include branches and sequels, and extending all the way down to individual crew certification standards, was amazing.

    When this game was no longer winnable by the US, they started to plan to go in low (which started in the early 1960s, earlier than many folks might guess). Low was >very< effective against the defensive threat of that day. And, the US developed HOUNDDOG, Quail, SRAM, etc to pave the way to the target, and in some cases to allow targets to be serviced without overflight.

    Amen!
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  6. Aug 13, 2019 #46

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    654
    Location:
    Norway
    The 9M730 Burevestnik (Russian:"Petrel", NATO reporting name: SSC-X-9 Skyfall), ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik

    With the mad bad guy in the James Bond movie Skyfall, the NATO reporting name may give associations on the kind of weapon it is. If you where in a country where you expect the missile to fly over on its way to the target, would you shoot it down on behalf of an allied or let it pass and hope it do not crash down on you?

    Anyway, pretty far away from a homebuilt airplane and with little possibilities of technology transfer.
     
    DangerZone likes this.
  7. Aug 14, 2019 #47

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,344
    Likes Received:
    947
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    I am VERY interested in the design. I'm unlikely to see commercial use in my lifetime, but I felt that way about pocket calculators with more power than the NSA Cray cluster. I'm now using one to write this.

    Credit where due. Mack Reynolds is, afaik, the first to describe the phone/wallet replacement, in a cashless ( mostly ) society, with wireless connection to the planet's computing power & knowledge archives.

    I think he missed the selfie part.

    Science fiction often has eerily accurate guesses on future technologies and societal issues. But also seems to always miss some now obvious aspect.

    The best example is that every First Man on The Moon story, until at least when Apollo was flying, missed the idea of the event being broadcast, live, from the Moon. If you know one, please tell me.

    So... The Russian missile engine seems to be a lot like what I've been advocating for decades. I'm really curious about what I got wrong.

    Will this technology be in a RV-8 Atomic soon? Highly doubtful. In an Airbus? My bet is in less than 20 years, although the company will probably be different. Before that, it will power ships and military vehicles.
     
  8. Aug 14, 2019 #48

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,975
    Likes Received:
    4,919
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Not a “first” Moon landing portrayal, but IIRC, the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey did a pretty good job of portraying operations on the Moon.

    There is an alternate possibility for utilizing nuclear on your RV-8. I can possibly see them developing ‘nuclear diamond batteries’ for electric flight. If I understood the numbers correctly, the diamond batteries have roughly the same power density as Lithium Ion batteries per equivalent weight and volume, but they will run for hundreds or thousands of hours without the need to recharge.

    If you are not familiar with radioactive diamonds, they figured out that diamond generates electricity when exposed to radiation. The battery is made by converting (compressing) spent carbon fuel rods (from a nuclear reactor) into diamonds. The radio active diamonds radiate themselves and generate current. To protect the user from the radiation, they compress more carbon (this time clean, non radioactive carbon) around it as a diamond barrier shield. The shield both blocks the radiation from escaping and also generates more electricity as it is radiated from the inside by the core diamond. The beauty of this, besides relatively unending power, is that diamond is the hardest material, so impacts are not likely to rupture any of shielding. They are proposing that these diamonds be used in devices like watches, phones and pacemakers; the idea of scaling them up for aircraft (or any other vehicle) is mine.
     
  9. Aug 14, 2019 #49

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,344
    Likes Received:
    947
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    That's a whole new thing to me, I'll have to check it out.

    you know the Apollo Moon Landings videos were fake, right? NASA hired Stanley Kubrick, who did 2001 A Space Odyssy, to make the videos. However, it cost a fortune, as Kubrick was a perfectionist and insisted on filming on location.
     
    Mad MAC, narfi, bmcj and 1 other person like this.
  10. Aug 14, 2019 #50

    litespeed

    litespeed

    litespeed

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    Sydney
    Now I do like a good fantasy in powering aircraft but..


    Nuclear diamond batteries?

    Sure it is possible but who could possibly afford one?

    Its is not going to be a diamond chip but a big incredibly expensive one.
    Snow balls chance in hell I say.

    One a space orbiter maybe.

    Airbus will never have a nuclear powered aircraft- even if safe- incredibly unlikely, the public and shareholders would never allow it.

    Anyone who believes a reactor in a flying device for earth is a good idea and sound motive force is a light year short of reality.

    As such- I have a great investment for them.

    Tours of the inside of chernobyl in swim suits to get a better tan.
     
  11. Aug 14, 2019 #51

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    2,407
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    At Airventure 2019, they set off a miniature thermononnuclear bomb at the evening airshow.
    And Airbus had the new EVTOL locked in a glass tent for safe keeping.
     
  12. Aug 14, 2019 #52

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,344
    Likes Received:
    947
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    I see Litespeed has bought the anti-nuclear hysteria.

    Pernicious Nonsense.


    The only problem with power plants made from reactor waste is that it's a small finite resource. Not nearly enough to power all the airliners. And unlike the Rare Earth elements used in wind turbines, you can't just dig up more.

    Speaking of which, have you seen pictures of the growing radioactive lake next to the Rare Earth mine in China? It grows upwards as it dries and turns to dust & blows away on the surface, while they keep pumping more in, with a liquid center, like a fine chocolate truffle.
     
    choppergirl likes this.
  13. Aug 14, 2019 #53

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,755
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    I don’t have a problem with nuclear energy technology. However, having worked in the power generation industry, including providing engineering, surveillance, and emergency operating procedure support to nuclear power plant staff, as well as knowing hundreds of key nuclear plant operations, maintenance and engineering management personnel, I can tell you that they scare the dickens out of me. Your personal experience may be different.


    BJC
     
    Himat and litespeed like this.
  14. Aug 14, 2019 #54

    litespeed

    litespeed

    litespeed

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    Sydney
    Given the amount of aircraft either human or drone that fight in combat or surveillance that are lost and also in training, ferry flights etc.

    A nuke powered one is a recipe for disaster and that assumes its safe to use in the beginning. Can you imagine a broken arrow -lost nuke powered drone in Syria? OR the family who witnessed the F18 go down in the Grandcanyon. They would be in a fallout zone.

    It is a flight of fancy with a nuclear option society and the planet can not afford.
     
    choppergirl likes this.
  15. Aug 15, 2019 #55

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,477
    Likes Received:
    3,295
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    I think this thread has officially jumped the shark.

    Homebuilt airplanes, right?
     
  16. Aug 15, 2019 #56

    litespeed

    litespeed

    litespeed

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    Sydney
    Jumped a radioactive shark whilst Fonzi rides a nuke into its mouth.
     
    choppergirl likes this.
  17. Aug 15, 2019 #57

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    370
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    Himat, what's the situation like in Norway? I heard on the news that quite a lot of radioactive debris is spread with the wind drift towards Norway.

    For other guys who want to know more about this new Russian nuclear powered cruise missile, this video might provide more information. It can be launched from either an aircraft like the Mig-31 or the new Sukhois, from a sub, a ship or from land. Nasty stuff.



    This is their base:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa
     
  18. Aug 16, 2019 #58

    Mad MAC

    Mad MAC

    Mad MAC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    197
    Location:
    Hamilton New Zealand
    Everyone seems to have missed the really cool part of a supersonic nuclear powered cruise missile. The USAF will now have a requirement for an YF12 type interceptor to interpret the dam things!
     
    bmcj likes this.
  19. Aug 16, 2019 #59

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2018
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    57
    Location:
    Europe

    Reindeers have been radioactive here since the early 60ies.
     
  20. Aug 16, 2019 #60

    litespeed

    litespeed

    litespeed

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    Sydney
    Ah, thats how Rudolf got a red nose.
     
    Speedboat100 and bmcj like this.

Share This Page



arrow_white