It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rods From God

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:49 AM
OK, I heard about this when reading about space based weapons. It seems like the new USAF agenda is going to be space between this, space based lasers and what not.
some info

Also on the drawing board are un-manned satellite gunships that would smash earthly targets with non-explosive tungsten rods. Such projectiles, known as Rods from God, would be so hard and traveling so fast that they could penetrate and destroy a four-story underground bunker.

What do you all think?

Most of the sights I found had basically the same thing said on them, so any new info would be awsome, especially how the "rods" would be fired.

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 01:10 AM
ok, its nice to see the overfreakinwhelming responce

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 01:13 AM
It's only been 20 minutes... calm down!

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 01:15 AM
I've read a study on them.

Basically, way too expensive for the capability.

Above a certain point the warhead just plain liquifies and you get no benefit from the orbital velocity.

You'd do just as well with a normal JDAM from a B-2, and for orders of magnitude less money.

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 01:29 AM
i thought that they had no warhead, and were simply metal rods that destroyed things by the sheer at which they travel

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 01:33 AM
Here is a link which provides a little bit more information concerning the properties and capabilities of Tungsten. I personally do not find it logical that the government would shoot giant rods of metal from space to destroy targets on Earth. At the rate of speed the Tungsten missile would need to be fired in order to clear the atmosphere and accurately hit a target on Earth within a relatively short period of time (especially for moving targets), the missile would bury itself so deep in the Earth that it would not be recoverable. This would lead to lack of missiles for the arsenal in the long run, because think about it, exactly how much of this stuff is there? Not much, when you consider converting it all into missiles. Not logical in my opinion. That's my .02

Mr. M

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 02:02 AM
thanks for the link.

I kind of agree. I think this system would basically only be good for extreme time sensitive situations, like if we caught OBL out in the mountains and wanted to take him out that second.

but i doubt it could replace, or even moderatly suplement any systems.

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 02:58 AM
It would be best used for Under Ground Bunkers, not target moving targets. If you wanted to do that, my's'well put a missle up there instead of a piece of metal, considering you could put a system into the missle on how to guide it and be far more effective to hit moving targets.

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 03:06 AM
the thing is, i think you cant put missles up there cause they would burn up in the atmosphere. Plus, these things are supposedly traveling so fast that they *should* be able to hit moving targets

posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 12:36 PM
I doubt the rod idea can work, you would have a very limited trajectory that you could launch the rod without it "cooking" in the atmosphere.

Unless it is being launched from a stationary (not geo-stationary) but a fixed point in space.

Because if it is in geostationary or in an "orbit" then it would have a forward velocity of at leat 18,000 miles per hour. If you launch this rod downward towards the earths surface it will have two vectors a forward vector of its in orbit speed and a down vector at what ever the launch velocity is therefor there would be intense axial loading on the rod as it descends through the atmosphere in a diagonal trajectory while the "end" of the rod is pointing down towards the earths surface. IMO the rod would quickly turn into a horseshoe shape due to the dynamic/ thermal load placed against it from the atmosphere.

therefore the rod could only be "fired" at a trajectory that compliments it current forward motion in orbit, thus taking a greater amount of "decent time" to reach the earths surface.

While the impact could be quite horrific, atomizing everything within a radius dependant upon the density and mass of the rod. I would find it unlikely to be an effective area affect weapon as the high density rod would more than likely just penetrate straight through an object while causing only a minor blast radius.

posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 02:12 PM
Rods From God...weird name!

posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 02:16 PM
They are intended as deep bunker penetration warheads, and yes they would be activated from their stationary position in orbit.

It is still not clear they have substantial utility as opposed to the existing JDAM's and similar GPS guided bunker busters in a wartime scenario. And they would be enormously more expensive. Dozens to hundreds of millions of dollars per warhead, mostly for the launch costs for something that heavy.

However, they do work somewhat better as a "deniable" airstrike, though even this is dubious.

Usually there will be some tension and it will be obvious when the USA wants to blow up some installation, and it is pretty obvious that when it blows up from 4 stories down and there is melted tungsten it wasn't exactly a convenient "industrial accident".

posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 03:29 PM
USAF... if you guys can give me a blue light sabre ill be much abliged
Good post btw i read the whole thing very interesting aswell.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 12:40 PM
sort of a blasphemous name . . . . Besides, it is the 'other' guy who is supposed to be a 'ruler of the principalities of the air.' hehe.

benefits of RFG
- no warhead, so no "weapons in space" treaty restrictions.
-only useful v. ground targets, so not in itself an escalation of a space-arms--race
-long shelf-life
-high speed and lack of electroic gear means they're not jammable w/ EMP, etc. Anti-missles probably couldn't alter the thing's trajectory in a meaningful way.
-could open up a bunker to chemical agents: 'poke a hole an insert CS gas,' a la Branch Davidian Mt. Carmel.
-If it IS accurate, low colateral damage: hit OBL when he's tanning beside his pool without hitting his butler.

drawbacks of system:
-Tungsten is a rare earth element, and expensive. A strategic resource, as other have pointed out in this thread.
-No guidance system means no in-flight corrections for windage, etc. In other words, although it has a small footprint, it's probably not tremendously accurate, even for stationary targets. The best you could hope for would probably to get the rod within a block of your target. That might be OK for a bunker complex.
-Extremely expensive to position the platform. Some poor countries might appreciate the 'deposit' of tungsten, a highly recyclable strategic metal.
-lack of surprise. I saw the most recent space shuttle crash: I bet you could see this coming. From 3 countries away.
-platform would be vulnerable to attack. Don't hit the rods, hit the dispenser, and take out all 20 of 'em.

Other than to soften up bunkers, I don't see this. I think the PR fallout would be unnacceptable. After you get it up, every meteor gets blamed on USAF.

I suspect its a disinformation campaign, So that when USA manifests the antichrist, the pentagon has deniability: "No, those aren't fallen angels being expelled from heaven, that's our new weapons system!"

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:22 PM
Also given current military and space spending practicies in the U.S. the already expensive process of putting the launcher up in the first place and then reloading it later would cost about 3 times what is nessesary. The U.S. should really think about contracting out to non-U.S. companies that won't rob them blind.........

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 09:02 PM
HA Orbital bombardment. Anyone read Moon is a harsh mistress from R.A. Heinlein? So now you know why Bush wants to colonize the Moon.

But seriously, it would be really expensive to fire this things from the space. But US are now developing the weapon with similar effects the Hystrike.

HyStrike will begin the development of an operational hypersonic weapon that will be fielded in the 2005 to 2012 time frame. The surface-launched system could hit underground targets to a depth of 12 meters after flying at beyond Mach 4. The wingless missile would change direction in flight by using a bending body joint.

A unique aspect of this Navy programs is that the goal is a single hypersonic strike weapon that will be launchable from air, surface and subsurface platforms. This is a first-time collaboration between these three communities to develop a common weapon system for time-critical and deeply buried targets. It is intended to produce increased operations effectiveness as well as life-cycle cost saving.

When fielded, the hypersonic strike weapon is intended to have a major positive impact on battlespace management. The weapon's greatly decreased time to target will give the command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) components more time to search for and identify time-critical threats. Powerful kinetic penetrators will defeat the enemy's tactic of burrowing deeper or building stronger bunkers. And the ability to take out threat weapons before they are launched will increase US and allied survivability, efficiently, cost effectively - and soon.

The hypersonic weapon's immense destructive power results from kinetic energy. An object striking a target at Mach 8 will generate 64 times the force of an object of the same mass striking the target at Mach 1. This phenomenon makes hypersonic weapons well suited to attacking hardened or deeply buried targets such as command bunkers or biological-weapon storage facilities.

Aerothermic heating, caused by the friction of air passing the weapon body, is one area of intensive research. At Mach 4, as the hypersonic weapon passes through the lower atmosphere in the terminal phase of its flight, its surface reaches about 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. This level is within the tolerance range of new titanium and inconel materials. At Mach 6, however, the surface temperatures exceed 2800 F and at Mach 8 over 5600 F; skin materials, as well as internal temperature control, become a much larger issue.

The compliance of this long-range system with various bilateral arms control treaties remains an unresolved issue.

Mission Attack, Destroy, & Hold at Risk Short Dwell and/or Time-Critical Targets at Long Standoff Ranges
Range up to 600 nmi / over 700 nmi
Average speed Mach 3.5 to Mach 7
2600 mph - 5200 mph
Features High weapon survivability
Penetration of 18-36 feet of concrete
Reactive SEAD
Day, night, adverse weather operation

Operational 2010 IOC
Platforms Navy/Shipboard compatible F/A-18 E/F, JSF, F-22, F-16, F-15E, B52, B-2,B-1, MLRS, Surface ships, & submarines .

You can read more and also see some movies here (at the bottom):

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by longbow]

new topics

top topics


log in