Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

Russian Explosion

Old 08-20-2019, 06:36 AM
  #1  
Moderate Moderator
Thread Starter
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default Russian Explosion

This is either the weapons-storage area explosion, or the experimental nuclear-powered jet/rocket engine that blew up in the last ten days.

I’ve seen a lot of conventional weapons explosions (made a few of them myself). None of them have ever looked like this.




Ahh. Fixed it. Raw link below as well.

Saw another article this morning, more video of this, where the Russians admit it was their nuclear scramjet project.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=Y4c6Lqt_1HU

Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 08-20-2019 at 09:23 AM.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 08-20-2019, 08:39 AM
  #2  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,409
Default

I thought we GAVE THEM Permissive Action Links so stuff like that wouldn’t happen?

If that was a WSA, there may be special material scattered over a wide area. You have to sort of hope it was their nuke scramjet.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 08-20-2019, 09:57 AM
  #3  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

Nuclear scramjets are for keeping missiles airborne for a very long time. I don’t like where this is going.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:21 AM
  #4  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,099
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
I thought we GAVE THEM Permissive Action Links so stuff like that wouldn’t happen?

If that was a WSA, there may be special material scattered over a wide area. You have to sort of hope it was their nuke scramjet.
PALs probably don't apply to nuclear power units, including nuclear aircraft engines. PALs also only prevent unauthorized use... this sounds authorized to me.

Although the Russians have actually built power units capable of going prompt critical, so maybe that thing could have used a PAL. It frankly looks like a powerful enough explosion that it might have been very low-grade prompt critical, ie a small percentage of the core graduated from power core to bomb status for just a tiny moment. That's what happened at chernobyl too.

Worth noting that all western power cores are designed with core physics such that they are self-damping, ie runaway power produces material affects which dampens the chain reaction. Russians don't seem to see the need though.

Last edited by rickair7777; 08-20-2019 at 10:40 AM.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:31 AM
  #5  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,099
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
Nuclear scramjets are for keeping missiles airborne for a very long time. I don’t like where this is going.
Gives you a first strike capabilty which can come from any direction, at any time and can be coordinated to arrive from many directions all at once.

Also harder to detect the launch, and harder to detect an inbound. Although a hypersonic nuclear scramjet will spew so much heat from the reactor and aerodynamic friction that it would light up like a meteor in the visible, to say nothing of IR.

A subsonic version would be harder to detect, it would look like any other small airplane.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:35 AM
  #6  
The NeverEnding Story
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,475
Default

Would not the radioactive emissions of a reactor engine be fairly straightforward to track?
BoilerUP is offline  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:48 AM
  #7  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

Originally Posted by BoilerUP View Post
Would not the radioactive emissions of a reactor engine be fairly straightforward to track?
They would be easy to track yes, but if they plan on flying these things for months on end just off our coasts, tensions will certainly boil over. This is certainly not the direction the world needs to be going.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:49 AM
  #8  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,099
Default

Originally Posted by BoilerUP View Post
Would not the radioactive emissions of a reactor engine be fairly straightforward to track?
A perfectly designed and functioning aircraft engine would not emit any nuclear core material at all, so no high grade contamination. It would be hard to carry much shielding so such an engine would emit some radiation but that's short range in the atmosphere, I think it would be hard to detect from a distance unless you had a space sensor staring at the object... might work for tracking, at great expense, but probably not detection.

The airflow through the engine would get massively neutron irradiated in the core, which would generate radioactive isotopes of air component atoms and any air particulates. That would be detectable after the fact, by ground monitoring or airborne sampling. But that would not be anything close to real time.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:55 AM
  #9  
Moderate Moderator
Thread Starter
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
Nuclear scramjets are for keeping missiles airborne for a very long time. I don’t like where this is going.
Me neither. It almost says they could make the engine also be the warhead.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:59 AM
  #10  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,099
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
They would be easy to track yes, but if they plan on flying these things for months on end just off our coasts, tensions will certainly boil over. This is certainly not the direction the world needs to be going.
Not easy to track in subsonic cruise, see above (especially if the airframe is stealthy).

I seriously doubt the russians intend a permanent airborne nuclear alert using these things.

- Airframes don't fly forever, how do you recover it?
- Other people (ie us, Europe) would be VERY nervous when such things were launched for alert duty. In the cold war, airborne alert was intended for survivability. This would obviously have a tremendous first strike potential. By "very nervous" I mean DEFCON 1.
- Such gadgets won't be very reliable, how many bombs are you willing to lose control of due to crashes?

No, I think it's intended to get around our ballistic missile defenses, probably as a deterrent but unfortunately it opens up a big can of first strike worms. US missile defense were actually implemented to defend against small attacks from the likes of DPRK and Iran, not against russia which could easily overwhelm all US missile defense with sheer numbers. But MDA probably makes the russians nervous.
rickair7777 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ToiletDuck
Safety
5
08-08-2012 09:04 PM
Jack Bauer
Safety
25
05-17-2012 05:58 AM
Jesse
Foreign
2
12-07-2011 02:54 PM
ToiletDuck
Foreign
26
08-31-2008 01:29 PM
ToiletDuck
Hangar Talk
22
02-14-2008 05:30 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices