Russia Is Building a Nuclear Space Bomber (thedailybeast.com) 256
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Beast: The Russian military claims it's making progress on a space plane similar to the U.S. Air Force's secretive X-37B robotic mini-shuttle. The tech is pretty basic. But alone among space-plane developers, the Kremlin is proposing to arm its space plane. With nukes. Lt. Col. Aleksei Solodovnikov, a rocketry instructor at the Russian Strategic Missile Forces Academy in St. Petersburg who is overseeing the space plane's development, said the orbital bomber would be flight-ready by 2020. It's unclear how much money the Kremlin is investing in the project, and how serious senior officers are about actually deploying the space plane, if and when Solodovnikov and his team finish it. In any event, the military space plane could give Russia a potentially history-altering nuclear first-strike capability. "The idea is that the bomber will take off from a normal home airfield to patrol Russian airspace," Solodovnikov said, according to Sputnik, a government-owned news site. "Upon command, it will ascend into outer space, strike a target with nuclear warheads and then return to its home base." Thanks to its orbital capability, the bomber would be able to nuke any target on Earth no longer than two hours after taking off, Solodovnikov claimed.
So this is Russia answer to the ,, (Score:4, Insightful)
... anti-missle systems.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, (Score:5, Informative)
ICBMs hit their targets a lot faster then 2 hours after launch (~30 min give or take, given launch/target). Anything that can "intercept" a faster-moving ICBM can also intercept the bomber moving 25% of the same speed,, and they know it. It's part of why they are so pissed about the Thaad deployments and the rest of it. Yes, the bomber may be able to deply decoys, but it's no different then a crappy version of a MIRVing ICBM with extra dummy warheads.
AKA *yawn*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a logical extension of nuclear subs, except that orbital space planes can be fully automated. WCGW?
Re: (Score:2)
Not much, really. No, a nuclear weapon won't go off if the silly thing crashes.
Nor will it make things radioactive, really. Remember, your basic ICBM warhead is already designed for reentry, so it's not going to vaporize and spread Pu239 all over the place if the spaceplane crashes.
About all the nuclear bomber in space does, when it gets down to it, is give you an ICBM that you can change your mind about. Once you pull the trigger on an ICBM, it's done. With the spaceplane, you can decide not to
Re: (Score:2)
Spacecraft never "go dark," uncontrollable, unrecoverable. Re-entry from geo-stationary orbit would take too long (and GEOS is expensive to get to), so they'll likely be flying it LEO, with potential to re-enter basically anywhere if it loses command/control.
I'm not sure which would be worse: fissile material scattered across hundreds of miles, or a mostly-intact warhead falling in a random (70% likely water) location.
Ultimately, the space plane is cheaper to operate than a nuclear sub, but it lacks the st
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It's worth noting that prior to OST, both the US and USSR set off nukes in space.
One of the long term problems of space development is that almost everything in space is a potential weapon. For starters, they are kinetic kill vehicles if just aimed in the "wrong" direction. Then nuclear propulsion and power systems are going to be essential for almost every activity past the orbit of Mars. (I'm hoping for use of Thorium MSRs for most of that, as it removes almost all of the problems associated w
Re: So this is Russia answer to the ,, (Score:2)
Same problem with space based solar Energ. Lots of energy to be collected in space but anything that involves beaming it down with microwave lasers also makes for a giant city busting death ray.
So all the viable schemes is a political dead end
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno. I am not particularly frightened. The Russians aren't irrational actors. They won't go nuclear unless you force their hand.
Re: (Score:2)
So? ICBMs also have to go through reentry. And the B stands for ballistic: they're not intended to do complicated dodging. Is there any reason why MIRVs wouldn't be as successful an anti-interception strategy for orbitally launched missiles as for submarine-launched ones?
Re: (Score:2)
To survive re-entry they need heat shields. That's got to add weight.
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO This story is intended for domestic Rusky consumption.
The Russians I know wouldn't believe it, but they are all technical professionals now living in the west. Don't know if a Russian 'tractor driver' would buy this.
Opinions from Russians?
Re: (Score:2)
I think this would be a suborbital vehicle. It's one thing (and a pretty good approach for fast point-to-point flight) to get out of the atmosphere for a significant part of a flight - this may be the real market for fast trips like London-Singapore. This is hypersonic speeds, plus maybe a bit more. But orbit requires three to five times more velocity, which requires 1/2 MV^2 more energy, which requires that much more fuel, which increases the mass ...
The only plausible SSTO vehicle I am aware of right n
It is a threat, not a weapon... (Score:2)
The thing about something like this, it appears to be less intended to replace existing delivery mechanisms, but be more of a means to convey a threat than anything else. If tensions get high, Russia can launch a number of these into orbit, similar to how in a situation where a handgun is pressed to someone else's face, the person holding the gun would pull the hammer back on their revolver to show they mean business, even though a single action pull on the trigger will do the same as cocking the hammer an
Re:So this is Russia answer to the ,, (Score:4, Funny)
Most are still working on nukular, give them time.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing - I hear new readers and politicians say 'nukular' all the time. It wasn't that long ago that Bush Jr. got blasted for saying that - even though at least 1/2 of the people back then were saying it that way as well.
Re: (Score:3)
... in the US maybe
Re: (Score:2)
Time to claim my foreign language exception. English is not my native tongue.
Ehh ok Russia, fine. Whatever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure how this is better than an ICBM? Sounds more like they are just grasping for an actual use for spaceplanes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Boeing 707 was derived directly from the B52 bomber. It is quite plausible for both the US and USSR to fund a military spaceplane for its own purposes, in the process doing the essential big spend that no commercial company can afford to do. Then out of that work can come a derived fast commercial transport aircraft, providing all the benefits and more of the Supersonic Transport, without the sonic booms. Four hours London to Sidney, or New York to Capetown.
Re: (Score:2)
ICBMs have a 'minimum' range. In other words, close to the missiles launch position it can not shot.
Also the existing ICBMs have quite huge war heads. I would assume such a plane would likely have plenty of very small ones.
This is better than an ICBM because...? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is better than an ICBM because...? I don't see the point.
Re:This is better than an ICBM because...? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a scary piece of technology. Could potentially lead to space race 2.0. If russia has nukes in space, it's only a matter of time before we will too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You could do that with an ICBM too.
But in either case, what next?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many of these would be needed to produce even a 50% successful counterforce first strike?
If god himself came down from heaven and gave them the planes they couldn't afford the oil to put in them.
Re: (Score:2)
You know Russia exports a shit-ton of oil right? They have their own, no need to buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oil and gas are basically the only things they don't need to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Oil gas and vodka
Because the shortest distance between 2 points is (Score:2)
Because a straight vertical line from directly overhead is the fastest delivery route.
That's why.
But...
Missile silos are hard to pre-emptively destroy. A space plane on the other hand...
Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because the shortest distance between 2 points (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. In fact both the US and Russia are signatories to the Outer Space treaty which pretty much forbids sending wmds into space.
Of course its nukes we're talking about. Once you pull *that* trigger, upsetting some lawyers in Geneva is about the last thing your worried about.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Before firing, why would it be at a 15,000 orbital velocity and not geosynchronous?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Because the shortest distance between 2 points (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So what's the plan, reduced the number of warheads but make it harder to stop them? Seems like at the moment the hear number of ICBMs and the submarine second strike capability make any kind of defence system largely pointless against an enemy with 1000s of nukes to throw at you.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read it? Russia has single stage to orbit flight abilities. By 2020 that should tell you how much of this is bs
Bombers have a limited flight envelope. 50-60 thousand feet but a few planes can go higher. To do an orbital hop requires much more. The best answer to 2020 possibility is an air launched ICBM.
The ICBM Is loaded into the bomber, the plane gets to altitude climbs higher and launches. As the plane stalls it falls clear of the ICBM which is picked up by heat trackers that record launches.
Re: (Score:2)
Could lead? (Score:2)
This is a scary piece of technology. Could potentially lead to space race 2.0. If russia has nukes in space, it's only a matter of time before we will too.
Not 'could' - it already did. In the article about the X-37B, you can find:
The robotic space plane launched atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket on May 20, 2015, kicking off the X-37B program's fourth flight. This mission, dubbed OTV-4 (short for Orbital Test Vehicle-4), remains a clandestine affair. "I can confirm the fourth OTV mission is approaching one year on orbit," Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Annmarie Annicelli said in response to Space.com's inquiry about the X-37B's activities.
So apparently a space race is already going on, initiated by the US (or possibly China), in which the US now has a head start of a few years on Russia. Same as with nukes, same as with H-bombs.
Re: (Score:2)
If by better, you mean more effective, it's because we can detect ICBM launches which gives time to possibly intercept and destroy them. With this, they could drop a nuke from orbit and we would have very little time to react. Sure, we're going to be tracking this motherfucker and we'll know when it's overhead,
We'll know when it ascends, too. [gwu.edu]. It seems of limited use.
And by scary... (Score:2)
...you mean that we likely already have one.
http://www.space.com/30245-x37b-military-space-plane-100-days.html [space.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", a science fiction novel by Robert A Heinlein published over 50 years ago. Heinlein was a qualified engineer and a retired US Navy officer (who once commanded a gun turret on the battleship USS Oklahoma, and docked USS Lexington when she was the largest warship in the world). He knew what he was talking about. In the novel, Lunar colonists rebel against an oppressive Terran "Authority", ina fairly obvious rehash of the American Revolution. Instead of bombs, they merely launch
Re: (Score:2)
Edited version of my last reply:
"The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", a science fiction novel by Robert A Heinlein published over 50 years ago. Heinlein was a qualified engineer and a retired US Navy officer (who once commanded a gun turret on the battleship USS Oklahoma, and docked USS Lexington when she was the largest warship in the world). He knew what he was talking about. In the novel, Lunar colonists rebel against an oppressive Terran "Authority", in a fairly obvious rehash of the American Revolution. Inst
Re: (Score:2)
"Who doesn't have weapons in space?"
Everybody turns and looks at the representative from Finland who is the only one holding up a hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: Star Trek is _not_ science fiction, it is fantasy. You don't fall out of orbit when you lose power. You need to do a deorbit burn.
Re: (Score:3)
True, the atmosphere doesn't just stop at a certain point. However the war would be long over by the time the nukes' orbits decayed naturally.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a precision aiming technique if I've ever heard of one. Somewhere east of perigee on an orbit between 1020 and 1025.
Re: (Score:2)
This is better than an ICBM because...? I don't see the point.
You can recall it if needed, unlike an ICBM. This a/c would allow you to launch a retaliatory strike if you thought you were attacked and still have time to sop it if you were wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a very useful retaliatory weapon. Russia's ICBMs can be taken out in a United States first strike.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary suggests it prowls around over Russia and only goes into space when it's going to blow something up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because no one in the entire world outside the USA cares about anything except American politics - and especially elections. Ironically enough, a very great deal of military history and an immense amount of death and suffering has been caused as a mere side-effect of US elections, and leaders who wanted to "look strong" before them.
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, and I'm sure it's true today as well, the Kremlin has been deeply concerned about the direction of American foreign policy.
I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a legal expert but I believe their plan to produce a nuclear-armed spacecraft violates the Outer Space Treaty (to which Russia is a signatory) and specifically Article IV which says "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner." (which sounds like exactly what Russia wants to do)
Then again, with the way the Russian economy is these days, I dont think they have the funds to actually build or launch this thing so it wont matter...
Re:I believe this violates the Outer Space Treaty (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like it's planned to only ascend when needed, so nothing stationed in space. (And in any event, not in orbit until the point where treaties are moot.)
Re: (Score:2)
"planned to only ascend": What exactly is it "ascending" with? MPPSP? Magic Putin Pixy Snorting Powder?
The X37B is launched with an Atlas V so if this russian nationalist's wet dream is anything like the X37B it's just a jumped up ICBM.
Re: (Score:2)
Using this for Nukes is dumb. The advantage is that you could make a first strike at DC and take out the command structure but TACAMO should still be functioning. Now using conventional weapons from space makes a lot more sense. Russia could try and use it to take out our missile defense system or even an Ohio calls sub in port. A 1000 pounds (353 kg for the metric nazis) of tungsten at 15,000 mph (24140 kph for the metric nazis) could do a world of hurt to a sub or a ship. Ten 100 lb weapons at the same s
Re: (Score:2)
Your legal interpretation is, without any doubt, correct. That being said, Russia is well known for breaking international treaties when it is strategically or opportunistically convenient for them. And we are not trying to single out Russia by the way, there is plenty of other, "nations, that are too large or too powerful to be punished", that are doing the same or worse.
There are two purposes:
first one is to replay "Star Wars" military program in reverse. Russians would salivate on the idea of causing eco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well this isn't destabilizing at all / sarcasm (Score:2)
On the other hand an arms race in space might be a real nice technology driver if we survive it.
Hold it this is from the Daily Beast ??? (Score:2)
What there wasn't a credible source like Gawker or the Weekly World News ?
History-altering nuclear first-strike capability (Score:5, Insightful)
I really like articles which make large claims (here "a potentially history-altering nuclear first-strike capability") without spending the minimum of thought on them.
A first strike [wikipedia.org] capability encompasses disabling the second strike capability of the opponent. I would be interested to learn how a rather large and slow plane would be able to find all the space-radars switched off so no one noticed the fleet of planes flying two hours through outer space, the early warning system not detecting re-entry of the warheads, and all the nuclear subs in the ports.
Very obviously the author of the article is privy to some information not about space planes but mind-altering capabilities of the Russians. I propose he gets a visits from the nice guys at CIA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Launch detection is done with satellite infrared sensors. You couldn't fly to orbit without being detected. The IR sensors have to ignore large ground based fires, they can see hypersonic exhaust plumes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
those radar waves sure travel far in space lololol
They certainly travel farther than down here, in the air. You might know something we don't, but your chuckling is not very informative.
Physics ? (Score:4, Insightful)
>The idea is that the bomber will take off from a normal home airfield to patrol Russian airspace,...Upon command, it will ascend into outer space, strike a target with nuclear warheads and then return to its home base.
Yeah, right. Why didn't anybody else build a plane than has the capability of ascending into orbit as needed and come back then ? Perhaps because the enormous energy needed to go from aerodynamic flight speed to orbital velocity can't simply be carried along in a pod or something ?
Let's assume that Mr. Solodovnikov's outline of the modus operandi isn't exact but that what is planned is rather along the lines of Airplane takeoff (vs. ICBM rocket which is much more detectable) and going to orbit and drop a heat shielded nuke from there. (No need to land back, it's nuclear war all over anyway by then.) Even this would be so expensive that it will once again stretch Russia's financial capabilities beyond what's possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right. Why didn't anybody else build a plane than has the capability of ascending into orbit as needed and come back then ? Perhaps because the enormous energy needed to go from aerodynamic flight speed to orbital velocity can't simply be carried along in a pod or something ?
You're right... However, a significant suborbital fraction of orbital velocity is achievable with current cutting-edge-not-quite-functional technology, without massive tanks of oxidizer. I'm pretty certain their claim of 2020 for this being possible to them is a complete joke, and even if they could get the thing into a significant fraction of orbital velocity quiet enough not to be noticed... It sure as hell wouldn't be going home after.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think they only export Vodka instead of vast amounts of oil and have close to a monopoly on gas sold in Europe? Sure, South Korea has an economy slightly larger but that's nothing to sneeze at either.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way on earth you could land the thing without dumping the orbit fuel. Which would pretty much have to be really nasty room temperature liquid rocket fuel (what the word I'm looking for?).
Bullshit artist (Score:2)
An ICBM takes 9 minutes to "strike anywhere".
Re: Bullshit artist (Score:2)
That's 9 minutes if launched from Russia. There are also nuclear subs patrolling both the Eastern and Western US seaboard (as well as US nuclear subs patrolling the Baltic Sea). You can't detect them, and they also have no warning.
Yeah, sure (Score:2)
And the Chair Force is working on moon-based drone submarine interceptors, because we can't have a Nukular* Space Planes gap.
Idiots, all of them.
*Grammar Nazi Disclaimer: intentional colloquial misspelling for sarcastic effect. Do carry on.
Even the Russian Ministry of Defense cries BS (Score:2)
The media reports suggesting that Russia is developing a strategic bomber that is capable of performing tasks in space, do not correspond to reality, Russia’s Defense Ministry said in a statement received by TASS on Thursday.
The ministry said that the media had misinterpreted the words of a military academy representative about an alleged development of
What a ridiculous waste of money (Score:2)
Nukes are obsolete (Score:2)
Just what we need (Score:2)
This is just what the planet needs right now- an orbital weapons platform armed with nuclear bombs. What could possibly go wrong?
yah think the US doesn't have this sorted yet?? (Score:4, Insightful)
do you really think that the launch facility for the x37 does not have in a LockUp the needed bits to go nuclear??
all it would take is a swap of payload and maybe a swap of a server "blade" (to hook to the Football)
trust me lawyers have nothing on Military folks on evading the truth
SNAAAAAAKE! (Score:2)
Sounds like the next Metal Gear, we need a super top secret mission to take it out.
aha (Score:2)
Just The Idea of Escalation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, expensive ways of killing each other get us very cool tech and achieve things that otherwise we'd never spend the money on. Like going to the moon. Or advances in modern computing.
So no, I'm not tired of it. Nobody has the balls to push the button anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but to get those inventor's expensive pie-in-the-sky ideas funded, it often requires fear to get people to throw gigabucks at the project for facilities, R&D, staff and materials.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you account for the observed increase in invention rate when a nation is at war?
Funding is part of it, but motivation is the other part.
Re: (Score:3)
The US would happily increase cooperation with Russia if only Russia would stop sabre rattling.
Actually, the USA has over 1,000 military bases abroad - many of them in Asia, as close as possible to the frontiers of Russia, China, and Iran. Not to mention its 11 (give or take) massive carrier battle groups which prowl the oceans to intimidate other nations.
Russia has, from memory, three or four small military bases outside its own borders. Apart from Syria, where it is fighting terrorism (because someone has to, and the USA isn't) they are all in friendly nations next door to Russia itself - Belarus,
Re: muricans = idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's be mindful here that probably the only East Asian nations not happy that the US is keeping the South China Sea open to navigation is China, and probably North Korea (if NK even really cares at all). Everyone else wants the US there, even Vietnam, a one-time enemy now quickly becoming one of the US's pre-eminent allies. The Europeans sure the hell still want US/NATO military assets in Eastern Europe because of growing tensions with Russia.
And China using water cannons to attack Filipino fishermen is hardly "peaceful", China violating maritime law and trying to turn a sea mount into an island to extend its territorial waters and economic zone is hardly peaceful, and everyone should be damned glad that the US is now regularly reminding China that pouring a bunch of concrete on an atoll does not an island make.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the USA has over 1,000 military bases abroad .
Citation please? The USA has been happily closing military bases worldwide since 1991, and no short-term locations used to fight the Afghan and Isis do not count as bases for the purposes of an argument about strategic goals.
Re: (Score:2)
NATO's combined military and economic assets dwarf Russia's. What an idiotic post.
Re: (Score:2)
_One_ of those countries has nukes, Pakistan.
You can bet we know exactly where they are and have plans in place to drop an airborne division in and take them. Likely aided by a simultaneous Indian attack
Ask yourself, what happens when the muslim brotherhood takes over Pakistan? Do we just let them keep their nukes?
But that all changes when Iran finishes their nukes. Which won't be long now.
Re: (Score:2)
Pakistanis aren't that incompetent. Don't assume stupidity based on belief in a stupid religion. There are even smart Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Scientologists.
I don't doubt the Pakistanis know little about maintaining nukes and a significant percentage would be duds.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the russians can barely keep their old tech running, let alone do things the rest of the world can't. Hard to see them pulling this off, sounds more like chest thumping.
So we say until we need a ride to the ISS because the Russians are doing manned space flight and we are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie would never have gotten as many protest votes if there had been a single good candidate running in the democrat primaries.
All the Bernie voters that are now planning on voting Trump (last poll I saw over 25%) were just protest votes from day 1.
Re: (Score:2)
You think they lie to pollsters?
There is no way about 25% of the US population are actually commies. Many were protest votes from day 1.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The next war with Russia will likely be with another former Soviet state.
IIRC the independent Georgian state that Russia setup after that invasion is on the verge of collapse. That would be my guess for the next place Russian soldiers will die (but of course not be at war).