Re: Air Force picks Northrop Grumman to build next big bomber

Message posted by Griffon_314 on November 02, 2015 at 20:58:41 PST:

> In fact, with GPS guidance it could work as easily as any smart bomb.

Nope. Maneuvering to a reentry attitude, establishing and achieving a burn target, successfully executing the reentry burn...that's significantly more complex (and risky) than any JDAM guidance algorithm. OPS 3 took how many years to develop?

> Do you know how much energy it takes for the space shuttle to re-enter? Not much.

Lol. Only 150+ seconds of OMS thrust! Hairspray indeed. You do realize that interface constraints on a RV are non-trivial, right? That is, if you want it to actually hit a target.

> SRBs are used to avoid such complications.

Name the SRB with sufficient reliability to mitigate the risk of spewing nuclear warheads unintentionally. Seriously.

> And why would you launch a live nuke?

Doesn't matter if it's armed or not - a nuclear RV has a pit. And that pit will make a hell of a mess in the event of a launch failure or on-orbit collision.

> Collisions....really?

Yep. Really. The odds of a collision are small, but significant. And the consequences of spalling plutonium into random LEO are no joke. Risk = Likelihood x Consequence.

> Studies show the average weapons core would only last about 100 years before it becomes inert.

Wrong again. If it's going to remain a viable, reliable threat, you're looking at far less than 100 years. A neutron generator reliable for even HALF that period has yet to be invented - and that's not the shortest-lived part.

But hey - I'm sure you've got this all figured out better than the people who do this for living, right? Better than the PhD's at RAND who thoroughly dismantled this idea decades ago.

In Reply to: Re: Air Force picks Northrop Grumman to build next big bomber posted by gordy on November 01, 2015 at 21:04:57 PST:


[ Discussion Forum Index ] [ FAQ ]