Survivalist Forum

Survivalist Forum (https://www.survivalistboards.com/index.php)
-   Manmade and Natural Disasters (https://www.survivalistboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=52)
-   -   Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile blows up, creating “mini-Chernobyl” (https://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=924488)

CONELRAD 08-13-2019 08:55 AM

Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile blows up, creating “mini-Chernobyl”
 
https://arstechnica.com/information-...ini-chernobyl/

Quote:

On August 8, during testing aboard a barge in the White Sea near Nyonoksa, Russia, the nuclear engine of an experimental nuclear-armed cruise missile exploded, killing two technicians and injuring six others. On August 11, officials of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom acknowledged that five employees had died in the explosion of what they described as "an isotopic power source for a liquid engine installation." The head of the nuclear research center, Valentin Kostyukov, called the five "national heroes."

As of today, it is believed that the death toll has risen to seven. The victims were described as suffering from burns, and most were thrown into the sea by the explosion; they all likely suffered from radiation burns.
Whoops. I guess the Russian super-weapons aren’t that super.

zumhug 08-13-2019 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CONELRAD (Post 19708168)
https://arstechnica.com/information-...ini-chernobyl/

Whoops. I guess the Russian super-weapons aren’t that super.

They are far behind and like to puff up. Sadly, their service members pay the price for the propaganda.

Russia proves once again, it is a paper tiger.

iyaayas 08-13-2019 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zumhug (Post 19708172)
They are far behind and like to puff up. Sadly, their service members pay the price for the propaganda.

Russia proves once again, it is a paper tiger.

I'm not so sure about that.

Americans like to think we always have the upper hand. People forget that while we landed people on the moon first, the Russians did technically beat us to space.

I wouldn't be so quick to write them off is all I'm saying.

ImStillHere 08-13-2019 10:55 AM

They have some good tech ( select areas ), usually go big on displays... I believe they lack in quality control.

Admiral Rickover in the early days of nuclear submarines, was invited aboard a Russian Type 1 when he returned instantly increased the classification of our propulsion systems.

In the early years of service, life expectancy of Russian submariners was reduced to a few years.

When I was in 80's they had some of the best active surface sonars, some subsurface actives that we didnt know they used or were there. Our passive was years and years ahead. Our sound silencing was beyond reproach until John Walker.

Each side has had "hot run" weapons issues.

I cant imagine what is being played with now, I would love to go deep again if only for a few weeks.

https://www.survivalistboards.com/pi...ictureid=22855

iyaayas 08-13-2019 11:06 AM

That's true. The Russians have never had a problem killing their own when testing new tech.

Old fart 08-13-2019 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zumhug (Post 19708172)
They are far behind and like to puff up. Sadly, their service members pay the price for the propaganda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iyaayas (Post 19708394)
The Russians have never had a problem killing their own when testing new tech.


We shouldn't be so quick to throw rocks. The Americans have done it, too. Google Radiation Registry... depleted uranium... Operation Paperclip, etc. etc. etc.

In times of National Emergency, and I think WWII qualified, shortcuts can and do happen. Sometimes hazards, especially long-term, are simply not known. Sometimes expediency...

What happens afterward (coverups, denials, VA failure to adequately treat, etc.) is horrible. It's a lot better than it once was, but there are a lot of vets and former DoD civilians that are suffering and deserve better than what is/has been provided.

https://www.rt.com/usa/army-servicem...xperiment-107/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...re-denied-care

https://apjjf.org/2012/10/51/Jon-Mit...8/article.html

and on and on and on...


steps off soapbox :mad:

Revmgt 08-13-2019 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iyaayas (Post 19708360)
I'm not so sure about that.

Americans like to think we always have the upper hand. People forget that while we landed people on the moon first, the Russians did technically beat us to space.

I wouldn't be so quick to write them off is all I'm saying.

A friend said something similar. He said when the Soviet Union collapsed the Russians had the perfect opportunity to kill all their social programs and put their funds into weapon development. The suffering of the people could be blamed on the collapse and they could say they were trying to correct things while doing the developing.

When the Russian SU24 shut down the USS Donald Cook and then flew simulated bombing runs over the ship it made me think of that discussion with my friend.
What I think I know about the situation, we developed a new system called Aegis, and that system was the newest generation of electronic control systems, and was to be used on all NATO ships as one integrated system. The fact that a system that could be installed on a fighter jet that was strong enough to shut down the newest system the allied forces had to date was kind of startling.
Anyone with other info please feel free to correct or add to that info

Jdog67 08-13-2019 01:01 PM

Supposedly, the S-400's are the best anti-air missiles around, and the S-500's will be out soon.

lasers 08-13-2019 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iyaayas (Post 19708360)
the Russians did technically beat us to space.

Actually the US was well ahead of Russia in the space race, they were all ready to go but were worried what would happen when the orbit took them over Russian air space. So everything was more ore less mothballed until Sputnik flew over the US. That way Russia couldn't complain about the US flying over them. It also got the the American citizens to be in support of the US also going to space to beet the Russians.

There is a good chance if the US was in space first, Russia would have been so far behind they would have claimed the US was violating their air space would would have made further progress difficult, impossible or risking a war. By the US delaying their own progress it allowed much more progress and much faster progress than if they had gone first.

iyaayas 08-13-2019 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdog67 (Post 19708652)
Supposedly, the S-400's are the best anti-air missiles around, and the S-500's will be out soon.

"Supposedly."

Listen, the US has a quite different approach when it comes to military technology. We don't show boat. Well, we do but it's nothing like the propaganda games the Russians and Chinese like to play.

Think about it. We were using stealth technology for decades before the public ever knew about it.

You can bet that once the military goes public with any given piece of technology there's something else they either already have or close to having that they don't talk about.

Military tech/ hardware is still the one thing we lead the way in. Although I'm terribly afraid even that's not going to last. Ever year we fall further behind in science and mathematics.

I mean Brazil is beating us in the aerospace industry. If that doesn't scare people, I don't know what will.

CONELRAD 08-13-2019 01:58 PM

Remember, we had this nuclear-powered cruise missile thing figured out back in the 50s. We just didn't bother with it because ICBMs were determined to be more cost-effective. Which is still the case.

These Russian superweapons are nothing more than showpieces meant to undermine our missile defense systems in the eyes of ignorant lawmakers and ignorant members of the public. None of them measurably change the balance of power or give the Russians a major advantage. Some of them are even double-edged swords.

The Sarmat, for example, crams more MIRVs on fewer missiles... sounds scary, but that also makes it easier for us to destroy more of their warheads by using fewer of ours.

The Hypersonic glide weapon is ICBM-launched... it would trigger a launch alert the same as any ICBM. Its time on Target is the same or slower as an ICBM.

The super torpedo, after being claimed to be 100 to 200 megaton has turned out to be a paltry 2 MT weapon. There's nothing it can do that can't be done with 4 500kt ICBM warheads.

And then you have the super-cruise missile, already mentioned, which everyone freaks out about because its reactor spews out a tiny fraction of the fallout its warhead will create. It too, time on target is slower than an ICBM.

So yes, what these systems are really about is making ignorant members of the public (and lawmakers) think the Russians have a capability they don't already possess.

By the way, I'm very proud of all of you for not freaking out about the literal "fallout" from this event.

Justme11 08-13-2019 02:24 PM

Just to differ a bit on a couple points.

I think there are 2 hypersonic maneuvering missiles being fielded by Russia, India and China. One starts out as a ballistic missile then becomes a maneuverable glide vehicle upon re-entry. The other is a more conventional surface to surface shorter range missile such as the India Brahmos missle demonstrated about a year ago (developed jointly with Russia).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos-II

The advantages this would give to our competitors would mainly be the ability to strike an aircraft carrier with almost no notice, and would not present the chance to kill the launch vehicle during the boost phase. They could launch from 50-100 miles away, skim the sea, then pop up and kill the carrier.




Regarding the "Kanyon (AKA Poseiden or Status-6)" nuclear 100+ knot torpedo, it does offer some advantage over an ICBM, namely, there is no launch detection like an ICBM, and if it can make the underwater journey undetected somehow (granted this is unlikely as it would make a lot of noise), there might be almost no warning before a coastal city was hit.
Of course they could simply run the torpedo slower to make it quieter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status...purpose_System
Regarding the warhead size on the torpedo, I doubt anyone really knows what it is. I have seen estimates all the way up to 100 megatons. Under 10 megatons sounds more believable, but since it is a secret weapon system, how would anyone know?


If this was used as a first strike on DC, our military command structure (The Pentagon and the President) would not have time to escape to the deep underground bunker, and could result in a first strike decapitation if critical people were actually there during the attack.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...l-missions-sub


CONELRAD 08-13-2019 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justme11 (Post 19708822)
Regarding the "Kanyon (AKA Poseiden or Status-6)"

Nearly all of the claims and stories about this weapon being greater than 2mt, being undetectable, uncatchable, and unkillable, link back to a single "reveal" by Russian state-controlled TV. The latest information is that it's 2mt or less. The rest is nothing but Russian puffery.

http://www.hisutton.com/Poseidon_Torpedo.html

Also contrary to the sensationalist and clickbait media's claims about it being unkillable, there are plenty of ways to detect it and defeat it. Even with current tech.

http://www.hisutton.com/Countering_R...n_Torpedo.html

I agree that it could be used for a decapitation strike, but Oscar class subs and their SLCMs can already fulfill that role. That and take out our sub-bases, which is what I suspect the Poseidon is designed for. One to take out Kings Bay, and one to take out Bangor.

Part of that makes me wonder if the CEP of Russian warheads are anywhere near what's claimed or estimated. It's not like our sub-bases are inside mountains.

recklessdriver 08-13-2019 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iyaayas (Post 19708360)
I'm not so sure about that.

Americans like to think we always have the upper hand. People forget that while we landed people on the moon first, the Russians did technically beat us to space.

I wouldn't be so quick to write them off is all I'm saying.

They could defeat us in a conventional pier to pier fight. Sorry we focused all our attention on the war on terror.

recklessdriver 08-13-2019 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iyaayas (Post 19708394)
That's true. The Russians have never had a problem killing their own when testing new tech.

Either has our side how many nukes have we lost....

CONELRAD 08-13-2019 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by recklessdriver (Post 19708976)
Either has our side how many nukes have we lost....

Not really much of a comparison there. We've lost 2, the Scorpion and the Thresher. The Soviets/Russians have lost 7.


Quote:

Originally Posted by recklessdriver (Post 19708974)
They could defeat us in a conventional pier to pier fight. Sorry we focused all our attention on the war on terror.

I think you're overstating their naval capabilities... just as one example, their one and only carrier needs to have a tug follow it everywhere it goes.

Justme11 08-13-2019 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CONELRAD (Post 19709008)
Not really much of a comparison there. We've lost 2, the Scorpion and the Thresher. The Soviets/Russians have lost 7.




I think you're overstating their naval capabilities... just as one example, their one and only carrier needs to have a tug follow it everywhere it goes.

I think their one carrier is out of commission after the floating dry dock sank from under it and a crane smashed through its deck. Also, I heard the toilets don't work. :)

https://www.businessinsider.com/russ...carrier-2019-4

AR1911 08-13-2019 05:30 PM

As to their space capability, remember that we now pay them to launch OUR astronauts to the ISS.

Chuckleberry 08-13-2019 05:41 PM

`

Well Nikita Kruschev said "We'll bury you". Maybe he just meant in nuclear waste from all our screw ups. Either way, they win?

.

CONELRAD 08-13-2019 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AR1911 (Post 19709170)
As to their space capability, remember that we now pay them to launch OUR astronauts to the ISS.



That’s because Barry wanted to throw them some cash. But fear not, our manned launch vehicle should be ready in about 3 years.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,