It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

underwater nukes?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
is it possible to make a missile that would travel under water like a torpedo and then when it aproaches the coast the missile would change direction,rise from the ocean and fly to it's target

it could have 2 parts,the first one with enough fuel (or whatever it uses for propulsion) for travelling across the sea,the it comes off and the second motor turns on to get the missile out of the water and to the target

this would avoid the US missile defense when it is fully operationnel no?



E_T

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Piece of cake, torpedo could be used to carry missiles as "warhead" same way like surface ships use rockets to launch anti-sub fishs farther.

fas.org...



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
please dont give them any ideas we have to manny typs of wepons now.
and im sure they could devlop a wepon like that as a few typs are already close to it. But no topordo could ever cross the whole ocean .it would have to be carred to with in 200 miles of the coast befor relise .Hence subs.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide
is it possible to make a missile that would travel under water like a torpedo and then when it aproaches the coast the missile would change direction,rise from the ocean and fly to it's target

it could have 2 parts,the first one with enough fuel (or whatever it uses for propulsion) for travelling across the sea,the it comes off and the second motor turns on to get the missile out of the water and to the target

this would avoid the US missile defense when it is fully operationnel no?


Not only possible - but it has been done (many years ago, I might add). The US operates what is called the Anti-submarie rocket - which is launched like a torpodeo, eventually reaches the surface, ignites a rocket - goes a while - and then (because it is designed to destroy subs) re-enters the water and destorys it's target. They are typically armed with moderate yeild (100kt or so) nuclear warheads.

Although if you are planning on a sneak attack, this isn't the greatest idea - as our sonar nets could more reliably detect a (fast) underwater weapon than a similarly sized one just above the suface.

The US uses it becuase it is a very effective submarine-submarine weapon over great distances.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
You could as ET says house the missle in the torpedo.
The idea would be like ICBM underwater launches just on a smaller scale.
You know you could just get 1 of em and fire it quite close to the coast past the nets and they wouldnt know anything about it until it was all over.
But you probably would need a lot of money and exsperiece and info not to mention a very stealthy sub



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
you dont need that just fire a couple of nukes from subs they do hte same job



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Ah good point west but the fact is that to get into position you need to be undeteced.
and cruise missile can be stoped by the starwars or anti missile defense platforms



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Ah good point west but the fact is that to get into position you need to be undeteced.
and cruise missile can be stoped by the starwars or anti missile defense platforms


If you have an advanced (stealth/low flying) cruise missile - i.e. the US ACM (Advanced Cruise Missile) it is virtually impossible to destroy. Basically, by the time any radar can see it - the missile has left the area.

Also, keep in mind that the Stars wars and missile defense programs currently underway are designed to stop ballistic missiles, they are useless against low flying cruise missiles. (Although many conventional air defense systems work quite well against cruise missiles)



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
hmm your right
but uv still got to get into a position to fire em.
cruise missiles have a limited range. they cant go inter continental.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Do you know what will happed if you have explogion of huge H-bomb in water.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pushkin
Do you know what will happed if you have explogion of huge H-bomb in water.


Yes, as a matter of fact it has been done before. It is in fact the absolute best way to destroy ships at sea (even surface ships).

The US codename for the first such test was "Baker", conducted at the Bikini Atoll. Here is a link to some well known pics...

nmhm.washingtondc.museum...



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Actually devilwasp the US is the only country to have lasers strong enough to intercept missiles and anti missiles systems as good as they may be they cannot stop hypersonic and in most cases supersonic cruise missiles especially a new one that the us government made that flies very low to the water to evade radar ill try and find a link



[edit on 24-6-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
yeah i know that the US is the only 1 with a big enough paycheck for it but what im saying is that you couldnt launch it with out getting past the nets first
and the idea of a cruise missile/torpedo would be interesting cause it means no bugger can hear it until its too late
now you can hear a super sonic cruise missile go past you so its pretty crap considering they would just warn thier base.
any way i thought the ruskies made 1 called the valkriek or somein?



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Do you that theoretically if H-bobm more than 200MT will explode in sea. Reaction will continium and whole sea will explode.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Umm.... I think military scientists are smarter than us so they already probably created a way to launch a nuclear warhead from a sub on a torpedo. And launching a nuke from nthe sub is the same thing...



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   
maybe in the future if there are ways to stop ICBM's you would need this type of system but for now its not needed.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
yeah i know that the US is the only 1 with a big enough paycheck for it but what im saying is that you couldnt launch it with out getting past the nets first
and the idea of a cruise missile/torpedo would be interesting cause it means no bugger can hear it until its too late
now you can hear a super sonic cruise missile go past you so its pretty crap considering they would just warn thier base.
any way i thought the ruskies made 1 called the valkriek or somein?


You are overlooking the fact that it would be FAR easier to hear the torpedo in the water than any missile in the air.


E_T

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
Umm.... I think military scientists are smarter than us so they already probably created a way to launch a nuclear warhead from a sub on a torpedo. And launching a nuke from nthe sub is the same thing...

TASM/TLAMs can be launched from torpedotubes, same with Harpoon/SLAM



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   
great find E.T.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join