LRS-B (new stealth bomber) speculation

a reply to: Zaphod58

You don't mean one missile would cost as much one bomber?

a reply to: BlackDog10

It could if it's a fairly large missile with a bunch of stealth drone like submunitions. A disposable flying bomber thats very stealthy and capable of penetrating deep into china or russia without being stopped and punking their most defended targets without them doing anything about it. That might be worth the cost. Even if it were expendable.

a reply to: BlackDog10

Almost certainly not, that should be the total program cost, but right now there's very little information about it other than they're looking at a new missile. I'm willing to bet that I can tell you what it will be based on though.

a reply to: Zaphod58
" And it wasn’t much — just that it will be much faster than anything that currently flies such missions." Its something interesting much faster than other lrs in the inventory ? For the missile I have a little feeling about a X-51 derivative missile for the futur.

www.nextgov.com...

In a way, I'm glad we don't arm orbital platforms (officially). Having a bunch of drones ready for re-entry at any point on the globe at a moments notice would scare the crap out of me. Death from way, way above.

I know the Russians played around with a recoiless rifle on some of their earliest space habitats. I would imagine we didn't take very kindly to that.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
In a way, I'm glad we don't arm orbital platforms (officially). Having a bunch of drones ready for re-entry at any point on the globe at a moments notice would scare the crap out of me. Death from way, way above.

An ICBM is good enough for that already.

There is a treaty about offensive weapons in space. It is in everybody's interest to uphold it---the consequences of long-term space debris explosions is a lose-lose scenario.

I know the Russians played around with a recoiless rifle on some of their earliest space habitats. I would imagine we didn't take very kindly to that.

I think some of them also brought some cognac.

www.nbcnews.com...

During Lazutkin's stint aboard Mir in 1997, an unpiloted supply vehicle collided with one of the space station's modules, opening up a leak that almost forced an emergency evacuation. Lazutkin said he and his crewmates definitely opened the liquor cabinet after that incident.

guns and liquor and spacecraft---who says them Commies are against good-ol Freedom!!

originally posted by: mbkennel
There is a treaty about offensive weapons in space. It is in everybody's interest to uphold it---the consequences of long-term space debris explosions is a lose-lose scenario.

I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the treaty only applies to WMD.
2nd.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Not so sure about the recoilless rifle, but Salyut 3 had a 23 or 30 mm cannon on board for "self-defense" purposes.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: mbkennel
There is a treaty about offensive weapons in space. It is in everybody's interest to uphold it---the consequences of long-term space debris explosions is a lose-lose scenario.

I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the treaty only applies to WMD.
2nd.

That's my understanding as well. that's why the "rods from god" weapon makes sense being in space if it is. Just kinetic energy coming down on a city.

a reply to: boomer135

Yes...but the rods would cause "mass destruction" would they not? Could we not have sats in orbit that could discharge balls of electrified plasma for an orbital bombardment?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

yes they would cause mass destruction but not considered weapons of mass destruction. Those are reserved for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons if im not mistaken. even the MOAB wasn't a WMD.

a reply to: boomer135

Yes, the treaty is for the prevention of WMD in space. I think everything else is a gray area that I'm sure both the US and Russia have been intruding on for some time.

www.armscontrol.org...

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: mbkennel
There is a treaty about offensive weapons in space. It is in everybody's interest to uphold it---the consequences of long-term space debris explosions is a lose-lose scenario.

I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the treaty only applies to WMD.
2nd.

That's my understanding as well. that's why the "rods from god" weapon makes sense being in space if it is. Just kinetic energy coming down on a city.

I've read some more serious analysis on the 'rods from god'. It turns out there is a maximum capability that you can get for physical reasons, and that the 'rods' do not offer that much more than a bunker buster like GBU-28, but at enormously higher cost. You can't really penetrate any deeper.

Furthermore, when you're coming in at orbital speeds like a ICBM warhead, your ability to maneuver to get precision is extremely limited. You can't have any sensors looking out (they'd be vaporized/ionized immediately) and your ability to actuate to aim is low. Consider that a ICBM warhead (and a 'rod' would have the identical dynamics) can go from stratospheric altitudes to ground level in about 3-4 seconds. Right now they have very very very expensive and heroic technology to get to 100 m accuracy. Enough for a multi-kiloton nuke, but not enough for a conventional bomb on a hardened target. Also because of orbital dynamics, they often come in on an angle---something dropped by a bomber will be much more straight down, and as a result, more likely to damage the subterranean target even with some noise/error in the targeting.

a reply to: mbkennel
Actually, the guidance technologies for "project crowbar", which is what the original kinetic energy weapons programs codename, was well developed by the mid eighties.
They ,in the original configuration , were not self guiding , but were target designated with a laser. The seeker head was shielded during the reentry phase. This weapon system was originally a anti armor system, they were a 2-3"dia. tungsten carbide rod 3'long. Then an anti shipping variant with a 4" diameter sixfoot long penetrator. Targets weren't meant to be hit with a single penetrator, but with a cluster of penetrators. Also the anti Amor weapon was designed to slow down a massed soviet invasion of Germany.
To understand this weapon system you have to understand the tactical mindset of the combatants at the time. In the soviet army , at the time, an armor platoon was commanded by the lead vehicle, the other vehicles only had radio recievers, so they could only follow orders from the lead vehicle. They would not even be privy to the overal battle plan, so if you take out the lead vehicle the rest of the vehicles would not even know what they were supposed to do.
I will admit it would be hard to hit a moving ship but with tasking several delivery pods to a major ship you could see some success.
The system was never intended to be precision strike platform.

a reply to: punkinworks10

That seems completely unfeasible, expensive and ineffective compared to what was actually developed, sensor fused submunitions launched from aircraft or cruise missiles (which are of course nothing but one-way drones).

The re-entry phase is the entire time it is going down. When does it get a chance to look? If it slows down then it loses its purpose (massive kinetic energy). How is something coming in at mach 20, ablating and ionizing away going to have any precision to detect a laser target small enough to hit a tank, much less do something about aiming towards it?

www.defenseone.com... Interesting, may be not just a single Platform but multiple aircraft working in concert.

Looks like the aircraft will probably be built in California. They just offered huge tax cuts as long as most of the aircraft is built there.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Sweet! Win for my state. More money in taxes or something. California could use the financial help.

You know I remember back in the days (early 90's) Edwards used to put on a kick ass air show. Then they suddenly stopped cold one year and as far as I know haven't had one since. I call every now and then to see if they will be having one coming up soon and they always say. "No sir, it's not in the budget but thank you for your call." Although I agree the economy is ruff and there were a lot of spending cuts via congress for the military I've always been skeptical for the reasoning behind the cease in air shows there. I just figure they are really busy and simply can't have 200,000 people showing up for a weekend. Busy as in working on some new stuff, lets keep the public away. Oh how I wonder just how much "interesting " stuff Edwards has hidden away or in testing there.

California has some interesting stuff in the sky. Seems a lot of people are having some credible and legit sightings of all sorts of new and exotic technology being tested in the skies there. Seems like america's secretly been very busy and are about to kick it up a notch.