Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I'll bet my submarine-launched nuclear missile reaches the target before your nuclear cruise missile. Perhaps they might be useful as a first strike weapon though?
You are confusing conventional missiles with nuclear warheads (submarine) to these nuclear powered missiles. Not the same thing at all. They can have conventional warheads.
A nuclear missile is meant to be launched, and it can fly for weeks even months at a time.
Well I'll bet my submarine-launched nuclear missile reaches the target before your nuclear cruise missile. Perhaps they might be useful as a first strike weapon though?
you didn't say anything about submarine-launched missiles. just nuclear-powered submarines:
Quote:
What can nuclear-powered cruise missiles do that nuclear-powered submarines can't?
cruise missiles can also be launched from submarines.
What can nuclear-powered cruise missiles do that nuclear-powered submarines can't? You can't use nuclear-powered cruise missiles in conventional warfare because they'd spew radioactive material all around the crash site. These weapons seem like a solution in search of a problem.
The nuclear powered missile suppose to be able to fly for weeks, months, hell years. The purpose is to have a quick, global strike ability. Imagine having dozens of them flying for months right in international air space outside a specific country. Imagine them being part of a spec op plan or something, no aircraft assets needed, just a missile that can be on station for a prolonged period of time. It is a different take on the US gov's efforts at the hyper sonic missile.
As for the radioactivity, who knows, the massive amount of depleted uranium the US has left all over the damn place certainly would be not better.
The nuclear powered missile suppose to be able to fly for weeks, months, hell years. The purpose is to have a quick, global strike ability. Imagine having dozens of them flying for months right in international air space outside a specific country. Imagine them being part of a spec op plan or something, no aircraft assets needed, just a missile that can be on station for a prolonged period of time. It is a different take on the US gov's efforts at the hyper sonic missile.
An SLBM can be on target ina comparable time, doesn't announce its presence until fired and doesn't spew radioactive exhaust while waiting to be deployed.
What can nuclear-powered cruise missiles do that nuclear-powered submarines can't? You can't use nuclear-powered cruise missiles in conventional warfare because they'd spew radioactive material all around the crash site. These weapons seem like a solution in search of a problem.
I think you are confused on definitions
a cruse missile (like the US Tomahawks) is a long-range, all-weather, subsoniccruise missile
Warhead can be nuclear or conventional
Engine (on a tomahawk) is a f107-wr-402 turbo fan using th-dimer fuel and solid fuel rocket booster
it can be surface fired, OR fired for under water in a nuclear or fitted diesel submarine
what Russia is experimenting with is a cruise missile that itself is nuclear powered...which means possible faster travel and longer distances
One advantage of a nuclear-powered missile would be a nearly unlimited range, allowing the missile to fly much longer than conventionally powered cruise missiles. This would allow the missile to fly around U.S. air defenses, skirting entire continents if necessary.
The United States tried to develop a nuclear-powered cruise missile in the 1950s and 1960s but abandoned the project as impractical. The weapon was known as SLAM, and it would have been the most dangerous nuclear weapon ever made.
SLAM, also known unofficially known as "The Big Stick," was designed as a low-flying cruise missile. A rocket booster would launch SLAM into the air and boost it to speeds where its nuclear-powered ramjet engine would kick in. Once activated, the engine would give SLAM a top speed of Mach 3.5.
SLAM was never built because it was too dangerous to even test. The dangerous levels of radioactivity unleashed by the nuclear engine was a big plus in some apocalyptic wartime scenario, but it couldn't even be tested in the skies over the U.S. SLAM was also overtaken by intercontinental ballistic missile development
Whatever Russia was really testing last week in the arctic, it's likely something that should've remained an unused relic of the Cold War.
Well I'll bet my submarine-launched nuclear missile reaches the target before your nuclear cruise missile. Perhaps they might be useful as a first strike weapon though?
Speaking of submarines, nuclear missiles, Russia, and nuclear leakage, the Russians also have a submarine that was in the news lately which had sunk decades ago which is now starting to spew loads of radiation. Of course, the Russians had sent scientists out to tell us that it is safe and no leaking is going on. Go figure.
How many nuclear disasters has Russia caused over the past 40 or so years? Moe, Larry and Curly must be running the nuclear program over there in Russia.
First paragraph ends with the Russian's saying there's no radiation leakage and no threat to the environment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
