undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdumah1y ago0 comments

The physical environment these weapons were designed for is extreme and only possible to simulate piecemeal.

Each stage needs to function in the presence of nearby nuclear detonations, resulting from both adversary and friendly weapons.

These detonations are expected to cause severe shock, thermal, radiation, and electromagnetic transients.

In the case of the most important targets, it is guaranteed that numerous detonations near the target, from ABM systems and friendly impacts, will occur, and these systems have been engineered and are expected to perform reliably under such conditions.

0 comments

akira25011y ago

This weapon is an ICBM. The payloads are delivered to orbit then launched at the target from there. You're already facing severe shock, thermal, radiation and EM transients just to get to orbit. Once there, you're ultimately dropping MIRVs, the design of which is considerably simpler.

The delivery vehicle and the reentry/payload vehicle have entirely different life cycles and deployment concerns.

cpgxiii1y ago

A key operational requirement for any fixed US ICBM is that you can launch during and after an enemy nuclear attack on your silo fields (silos dispersed and hardened, redundant command links, etc) and penetrate defended areas protected by nuclear-armed ABM systems (e.g. A-135/ABM-4 Gorgon). That means resistance to high radiation flux from nearby detonations at both launch and reentry, as well as the need to survive flying through the expected debris clouds kicked up by previous detonations.

akira25011y ago

If the enemy is using ICBMs you are very likely to get yours launched well before their weapons make the first impact. If that weren't true, then the high flux conditions do not last for a substantial period, so you're describing a problem that would occur if an enemy warhead hit at the precise moment yours was leaving the silo. Your enemy cannot possibly have this precision in timing.

1 more reply

nradov1y ago

The weapons technically never enter orbit; they follow a sub-orbital trajectory.

arethuza1y ago

The Soviets did have a "Fractional Orbital Bombardment System" (FOBS) for a while:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...

It's main advantage being that it could attack the US from the South (or presumably any other direction).

kens1y ago

Moreover, putting nuclear weapons in orbit would be a violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. As an aside, Atlas and Titan were capable of reaching orbit, and were used for the Mercury and Gemini missions respectively. Minuteman, on the other hand, was not powerful enough to put a payload in orbit.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsdumah1y ago0 comments

The physical environment these weapons were designed for is extreme and only possible to simulate piecemeal.

Each stage needs to function in the presence of nearby nuclear detonations, resulting from both adversary and friendly weapons.

These detonations are expected to cause severe shock, thermal, radiation, and electromagnetic transients.

0 comments

akira25011y ago

The delivery vehicle and the reentry/payload vehicle have entirely different life cycles and deployment concerns.

cpgxiii1y ago

akira25011y ago

1 more reply

nradov1y ago

The weapons technically never enter orbit; they follow a sub-orbital trajectory.

arethuza1y ago

The Soviets did have a "Fractional Orbital Bombardment System" (FOBS) for a while:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...

It's main advantage being that it could attack the US from the South (or presumably any other direction).

kens1y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse