The new cold war

first this video




hopefully you watched the video, i think it is interesting they didn't talk about Americas new weapons other than passing mentions.

I am sure most of you know that there is much more in Americas quiver then the B-52. All the clips in the video are from major news sources, it made me wonder if this is not propaganda aimed at the US by the US for funding

If this goes the way of the Cold war 1, do you think we will be seeing more flights of classified aircraft?

like the aircraft doing S turns over Kansas? Putin seems hell bent on demonstrating his abilities, will we do the same?


from the video russia showed it looked like russias new ICBM will be using Boost Glide weapons. He said they are battle ready?!

a reply to: penroc3

They didn't include many US weapons because there aren't that many to include. Most "new weapons" in the US inventory are upgrades of existing systems.

For aircraft, there's the B-21 and F-35. The F-18 is being upward, as are the F-15, B-1, B-52, etc. Updates of old systems.

For ships, there is the Virginia, Ford (which is still dealing with fairly serious issues), LCS (which is about useless as a warship), and by 2020 the Burke Flight III.

Most systems that are in the classified world are being built in small numbers, that aren't going to be truly useful in a major war. They'll be useful, but not immediate game changers.

a reply to: penroc3
I think if we show it, it'll be over the internet. We don't need to powerize our Armageddon race, we know they show a scientific stand even if only I video, it will work. Lol, other countries feel they need to show it it real life but like I said, we know our vidoes prove we can do it. So we already do see it. Cold war started a few years ago lol look at the body count if political high senior & intelligence officials etc.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Right, but if there is an all out war with russia the whole world will not fair very well, maybe a extinction level event.



I honestly can see a nuclear exchange happening but not a full exchange, what the point of that? the survivors will have nothing to go to, or if they have shelters on remote islands then what happens when they have no logistical support.

i'd rather be vaporized then have a long slow death by radiation or starvation or illness.

The Kansas thing was clear a demonstration, i'd have to see what time exactly it happened at but i bet it would match up with over flights of russian satellites.

and a 50MT dirty bomb seems a bit excessive, there is no use for that. the ICBMs will take out a city just fine and not be radioactive for decades. in the case Russia pulled thru why would they ruin their new land.


in a limited strike going both ways i think the US would fair much better than Russia is banking on.

not all the weapons i am referring to are aircraft, if we can hit NK nuclear sites with exotic particle beam weapons we can hit russia.

their boost glide weapon caught my attention, i know their AJAX program seemed to be at the very least feasible when it was proposed surly they are not ahead of us in hypersonics. We currently have aircraft flying that are hypersonic, allegedly.

Last thing russia said they have is a nuclear powered cruise missile, again the US has been there and done that. The us model would fly at mach 3 using the shockwave itself as a weapon and then it would pop out a warhead, the only downside was the nuclear reactor left a deadly trail of heavy contamination.

so unless they are planning for all out world ending war i dont get the point of all this. ICBMs do that just fine and we have no where near enough interseptors to put up a reasonable defense as far as the ABM missile goes.

a reply to: penroc3

Why do we fly airshows to show off what our aircraft can do? Why do we announce B61 and missile tests? It's partially for internal consumption, and partly to give potential opponents warning that you're not just sitting still.

Weapons development is just that, development. You don't develop a missile and say "that's good enough" and stop. And just because someone else designs something first doesn't mean you give up on it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

it seems like Russia is playing catch up, they can barely get a jet engine to work without destroying itself how are they feilding boost glide weapons in 2018? they might have like 1 that may or may not work.


after a point how much better can ICBMs get? other then yield i don't see any real major advances CEP are already so small and the warheads them self so hardened add in decoys and chaff and all that there really isn't much room for improvement, unless i am missing something. boost glide weapons seems like a chink in the armor, as far as the public knows no one has really got a good grasp on them.

a reply to: penroc3

I was reviewing some Sandia B61-12 this documents this week. (Our new nuke, though funded under Obama.) I was surprised to see it has to be deliverable by a Tornado. Also some tests for which we have video are not dated.

Regarding Putin's speech, the capability to defeat our ABM is already here. Even the DPRK can defeat our ABM. Just launch enough missiles and overload the system.

Maybe the laser plane based ABM redux number three will work.

a reply to: penroc3

The guidance systems have improved significantly to the point where many believe we should dismantle our silos.

a reply to: gariac

i assume you are being sarcastic when you say we should dismantle, i was referring to our(US) ability.

as far as the tornado goes, i'd like to see that document. seems counterintuitive to make a new gps guided warhead that only the EU can use.

a reply to: penroc3

Boost glide weapons have nothing to do with jet engines. They use missiles to get to speed and altitude before being released. Russia has always been very good with missiles.

a reply to: penroc3

They're not. The B61 is designed so that all nuclear capable NATO aircraft can use it. That's the entire point of forward basing them in Europe and Turkey.

a reply to: Zaphod58

ohh i know they are have nothing to do with a jet, i was using it as a comparison.


BGW's are highly technical in material science and manufacture. clearly they cant do that with their jets engine. how are they going to do it to a even finer degree with a warhead going mach 20+ on re entree

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: gariac

i assume you are being sarcastic when you say we should dismantle, i was referring to our(US) ability.

as far as the tornado goes, i'd like to see that document. seems counterintuitive to make a new gps guided warhead that only the EU can use.

I never used the word dismantle. My point is we are already defeated if Russia really wanted to destroy the US. But we can do the same to them, hence MAD.

a reply to: penroc3

You mean like all the ICBMs that they've already built, that are damn nice missiles? Using that logic, none of their ICBMs are going to work either, so there's nothing to worry about.

There's a world of difference between building a jet engine that works for hours at a time, in incredibly tight tolerances, at extreme temperatures, for thousands of flights, and building a one time use missile.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: penroc3

The guidance systems have improved significantly to the point where many believe we should dismantle our silos.

dismantle
verb
take (a machine or structure) to pieces.
"the engines were dismantled and the bits piled into a heap"
synonyms: take apart, pull apart, pull to pieces, disassemble, break up, break down, strip (down)

a reply to: Zaphod58

ahh but there's the rub.


they have been working on RV's for decades maybe 50+ years easy. BGW's they have what maybe 10-15 years max of real tests(at best)


C-C/phenolic RV's are well tested and have very well known performance characteristics.

I think its safe to say the US and Russia dont have a firm grasp on BGW like the RV we current feild


ETA"

the the FOXBAT that if it used its afterburners needed to be rebuilt on landing? maybe i dont give russia enough credit

a reply to: penroc3

And you'd think wrong. Boost glide weapons were being designed as early as the late 1940s, and were developed into the 1960s. They were given up mostly because ICBMs reached a long enough range they weren't necessary.

Depending on the weapon design, they may not even go completely out of the atmosphere, unlike an ICBM RV. A boost glide system is no harder to make than a standard maneuvering ICBM RV. That's essentially what it is, only it uses some aerodynamic lift and stays lower than an ICBM RV.

a reply to: penroc3

No sarcasm here. The experts believe the silos based systems are useless due to improved accuracy of enemy guidance systems. If we think missiles are incoming, we have no choice but to launch since it is a 100% certainty our silos will be destroyed.

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...

www.google.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

then what is all the fuss about when we get one to go off without a hitch




skip to 5:00

a reply to: penroc3

Uh, probably because she's talking about hypersonic AIRCRAFT which are a hell of a lot harder to do than a boost glide vehicle. All ICBMs and some IRBMs are hypersonic and have been since almost the beginning. It's completely different to be able to fly an aircraft, in the thicker atmosphere at hypersonic speeds.