The most horrible and inhuman weapon created?

Holy fuck. I had to look it up. Insanely neat and terrifying idea.

File: STN_Construction.jpg (312KB, 1338x1375px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1338x1375px

Stonehenge project a network of Railguns powered by fusion reactors to form a 6000km Missile defence shield which practically renders all nuclear weapons useless.

The Internet

>>32332425
>Pluto project
>created
No. Also google T-15 torpedo. The idea was to use 100MT-ish thermonuclear warhead, causing a giant tsunami to wash away the entire east and west coasts of the US. Navy refused to accept it in service saying it was too inhuman and not worthy of a Soviet officer's honour to use.

4chan

>>32332605
I've saw this thing before, in ace combat infinity...

Is it real?

>>32332921
This sounds cool, but I thought that underwater nuclear bombs didn't create a Shockwave that strong

>>32332944
We are talking about 100 MT explosion here mate. Judging from how serious they were about developing it you can bet they had scientific data assuring this would create a tsunami large enough to wash away an entire city.

>>32332940
>infinity
Go play 4 now

>American
>Inhuman

Lol No.

America is the bastion of Humanity, if you want inhumans look at the Russians or the Nazis

>>32332425
>Is there other projects like this, by US or Soviet union or Russia?

No because they were sane enough to realize that this thing is too complicated, too expensive and can easily be shot down while not doing anything better than an icbm.

File: hqdefault.jpg (32KB, 480x360px)

32KB, 480x360px

>>32332976
Hehehhe, I don't know why I laughed so fucking much at this.

I imagined you like pic related

>>32332921
A fucking super weapon so terrible the Russian's decided not to make it. Wow.

File: xb-70_stbd.jpg (210KB, 1500x1200px)

210KB, 1500x1200px

>>32332984
>this thing is too complicated, too expensive
During the Cold war no one gave a fuck about these memes

>>32332984
It was developed before ICBMs (and canceled because of them), couldn't be shot down by current AA and cost about as much, in terms of R&D as ICBMs of the time (though quickly spiraled out of control).

OP, I did a short seminar on Pluto for my postgrad. The biggest difficulty you're going to run into is finding information on the reactor itself. Most of it is still classified and even simple stuff like the dimensions are iffy at best.

If you could calculate the enrichment percentage by figuring out the cross-sections of the various materials you would have a decent little project on your hands. I don't know what degree you're doing but the thing certainly has potential.

>>32332984
>>32333000
Actually, come to think of it, it would still be immune to /current/ AA since it flies so unlike anything else before or since. Mach 3 at 30m up is no joke.

>>32332989
Kek. You reminded me of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN7KB90wND0

>>32332984
>easily shot down

What part of "nuclear powered ramjet traveling at Mach 4.2" did you miss, anon? Nobody's going to be shooting that down in the 1960s. A Foxbat, the fastest combat aircraft in history, could hit 3.2 in the early '70s by causing catastrophic engine malfunctions. Nowhere near fast enough to intercept.

>>32332989
It also wouldn't have worked. You would need a high-end strategic nuke to create appreciable disturbance, at which point you might as well just drop the nuke on the city you intend to destroy. At least the SLAM would be more effective than current nuking technology.

File: zero_to_mach_10_in_5_seconds.webm (866KB, 484x360px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 484x360px

>>32333028
>foxbat
Well, we could have faster interceptors but they realized these would have been less useful. If something like pluto would become a reality it wouldn't be difficult to find a counter.

>>32333041
That's why Pluto's gimmick was automation and a terrain mapping radar. Can't realistically intercept something that's doing Mach 4.2 at thirty feet off the deck.

>>32332605
that looks like something from red alert 2

>>32333039
SLAM would've been largely prone to SAMs. Torpedo on the other hand has its own downsides, namely the need to come comparably close to the target shore.

File: a68.png (301KB, 520x678px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 520x678px

>>32332425
reached cruising altitude and was far away from populated areas, the nuclear reactor would be made critical. Since nuclear power gave it almost unlimited range, the missile could cruise in circles over the ocean until ordered "down to the deck" for its supersonic dash to targets in the Soviet Union. The SLAM as proposed would carry a payload of many nuclear weapons to be dropped on multiple targets, making the cruise missile into an unmanned bomber. After delivering all its warheads, the missile could then spend weeks flying over populated areas at low altitudes, causing tremendous ground damage with its shock wave. When it finally lost enough power to fly, and crash-landed, the engine would have a good chance of spewing deadly radiation for months to come.

File: 5v28 s-200m vega-m.jpg (109KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1500x1125px

>>32333028
First of all, 60s is a rather generous estimation for SLAM deployment. Secondly, this baby right here is travelling at well over Mach 7. SAMs and ICBMs are what effectively killed the very idea behind things like XB-70, SLAM, T-4, La-350, etc.

>>32333028
Also, have a nice webm. 4chan restrictions are really ridiculous.
https://2ch hk/wm/src/2464267/14818031668100.webm

>>32333126
What exactly is that? Also those cameras look awfully similar to LaWS.

File: burya_2.jpg (12KB, 150x530px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 150x530px

>>32333176
The latter thing I mentioned, La-350.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burya

>>32332425

This meme again?

The closest pluto ever got to becoming a real weapon was an engine test that lasted a few seconds, followed by another test three years later that lasted a few minutes.

It was cancelled because ICBM's were a better weapon.

>>32333028

Planes don't shoot things down, missiles do. Missiles travel much, much, much, much faster than aircraft. That's why we use them to shoot down planes and other things.

>>32332996
Oh really? Must be the reason both SLAM and the gimmick from your pic was cancelled into oblivion, same as almost every other similar project. Oh wait. It is exactly the reason.

File: 1479809038756.jpg (266KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1920x1080px

Cиcтeмa «Пepимeтp»

>>32333280
http://store.steampowered.com/app/289440/
:3

>>32333303
Pardon me, I must have been confusing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)

>>32333311
I know what Perimeter system is, you just gave me sudden nostalgia.

>>32333320
Apologies all around I guess.

>>32333075
There wasn't anything else that could go that fast that low in the '50s and '60s.

I'm not even sure it could be reliably shot down today. If you launched a SAM at it it could probably simply speed up and outlast any missile.

Of course today we have ICBMs which are even more difficult to shoot down.

>>32333446
At mach 4.2 material fatigue and air friction would kill it before it even gets close to the Soviet Union. Afterwards the missiles to hit it exist and icbms are juat better.

Also
>1950s
>Reliable autonomous systems
>flying at mach 4 10 meters above ground
Pick one

>>32332425

Human wave attacks.

>>32333521
>At mach 4.2 material fatigue and air friction would kill it before it even gets close to the Soviet Union.

Indeed, which is why they developed new materials to cope with such stresses. As for navigation they also developed TERCOM which, IIRC, is still used today. That said, 10m is a bit of a stretch, 30m in some cases would be more realistic.

You're right to say that ICBMs were better though which is why the project was ultimately cancelled. A shame, really, because civil nuclear transportation is a field in dire need of expansion.

>>32332425
I remember seeing a plane a while back, I can't find it from what I remember of it, but the important bits were:
>Russian jet (99% sure it was a MiG)
>Designed to screw over infantry in case of a Chinese invasion
>Was supersonic and designed to fly at low altitudes, killing everything it flew over with the shockwave

>>32333544
>Indeed, which is why they developed new materials to cope with such stresses

And why dis they not use those materials in the mich slower and much later build SR71 which experiences near catastrophic material wear and tear whenever it flies?

>>32333580
The Blackbird first flew in 1964 which is an optimistic estimate for the time the SLAM would have been ready. Both made heavy use of titanium alloys and ceramics in their airframe design. Not to mention the fact that the SLAM didn't need to be flown more than once or last more than a few hours in flight (or sustain crew). If anything the feasibility of the SR-71 proves the potential of the SLAM when you've got Cold War levels of funding and paranoia flying about.

It was cancelled because it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to test and because ICBMs were just better. Not because anything in the basic engineering was inherently impossible.

>>32333446
First, 4+ Mach is high altitude speed. Second, you largely underestimate how fast SAMs were and are. See S-200, for instance. That is not even taking into account interceptor aircraft and the fact that even basic ICBMs were infinitely more effective, as it was acknowledged on the both sides of the Iron Curtain.
>>32333541
Chemical weapons then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osowiec_Fortress#Gas_attack

File: Project-Pluto-SLAM_blog.jpg (144KB, 1296x720px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1296x720px

>>32333622
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_SCuPId8KA
Maybe I'm totally wrong but I think the difference between mach 4 and mach 3 doesn't really matter when the missile is somewhere between 1000 and 500 feet off the ground.

>>32332425
>Pluto project
>Since nuclear power gave it almost unlimited range, the missile could cruise in circles over the ocean until ordered "down to the deck" for its supersonic dash to targets in the Soviet Union. The SLAM as proposed would carry a payload of many nuclear weapons to be dropped on multiple targets, making the cruise missile into an unmanned bomber. After delivering all its warheads, the missile could then spend weeks flying over populated areas at low altitudes, causing tremendous ground damage with its shock wave. When it finally lost enough power to fly, and crash-landed, the engine would have a good chance of spewing deadly radiation for months to come.

PURE EVIL

>>32333236
>Despite these and other successful tests the Pentagon, sponsor of the "Pluto project", had second thoughts. The weapon was considered "too provocative",[2] and it was believed that it would compel the Soviets to construct a similar device, against which there was no known defense. Intercontinental ballistic missile technology had proven to be more easily developed than previously thought, reducing the need for such highly capable cruise missiles. On July 1, 1964, seven years and six months after it was started, "Project Pluto" was canceled

You should learn what you're talking about before getting smug

>>32333236
Wiki says the SLAM was canceled due to the missile being "too provocative."

Essentially meaning that it was so effective/inhumane that it would immediately prompt the Soviets to build something similar.

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

Whether or not you think Wiki is a reliable source, the SLAM did get a little farther in RnD than your usual "cancelled because money" project.

>>32333737
So first things first, it's the project's goal. It is not clear whether they could or could not develop a missile that could endure low altitude Mach 3 flight. I remind you that even late Soviet projects like Kh-80 and Kh-90 aimed at achieving high supersonic and hypersonic speeds exclusively at high altitudes, and that is with 80s technologies. then you can look at contemporary American projects like SM-62 and SM-64 that also aspired exclusively high altitude flight. SLAM was never created in metal, so whatever claims that could have been made about its capabilities should be met with a grain of salt. I also remind you that the fastest aircraft at low altitude to this day travels at barely beyond Mach 1.4, IIRC. Secondly, whether a difference that you are talking about matters or not depends on the interceptor. The missiles for S-200 system travel at speeds exceeding Mach 7 and have range of 300 km. It is not clear to me at which range the SLAM was supposed to go low altitude flight, but I think it is safe to assume that if it was anywhere around 150-200 km, a Mach 7 missile could intercept it with a chance large enough for SLAM to become economically absolutely unsuitable weapon to deploy. Then you have systems like S-75 and 2K11 Krug with Mach 3.5 and Mach 4 missiles respectively. On the top of that you have your sky covered with interceptors like Su-15, Tu-128 and of course MiG-25 largely outreaching the point at which the SLAM would sanely go low altitude with missiles ranging from Mach 2 all the way to Mach 5.
So in short, while there naturally is probability that, if developed, built and deployed with given characteristics, SLAM could have penetrated the air defence of the Soviet Union, the chance was so low and the costs were so high that if saw the fate it saw preceding even its construction. Once again, it was understood by the both sides and it was not until the 80s that the idea of an intercontinental cruise missile was reconsidered.

>>32333813
>too complicated, too expensive
>Intercontinental ballistic missile technology had proven to be more easily developed
Thanks for agreeing with me.

>>32332425
Mines

>>32333819
So did XB-70. I don not mean to say that the US didn't have money to proceed. By all means you could have build one, albeit I sincerely doubt that Mach 3 low altitude speed was anywhere achievable. I mean that there were more effective ways to arm a country, both US and SU, and therefore things like La-350, SLAM, SM-64, etc. became mere artefacts of human thought now. It would also have been interesting to see some space and orbital designed based off the idea back then.

>>32332976
why are americans so retarded
The point is the weapon was too inhuman to be put to use you dense redneck
this has nothing to do with america's inhumanity

>>32332425
communism/faggotry/statism

Nothing is more painful or dangerous than a lack of property rights.

>>32333002
>Mach 3 at 30m

Wouldnt there be a fuck ton of heat from air friction?

>>32334037
Saying, simple bullets and bombs killed more people that any SLAM or T-15 ever intended to, so in a way they are far more inhuman as a weapon. Or, philosophically speaking, a human using them is ironically the most inhuman weapon the nature created.

>>32334050
*tips fedora*

The government is your FRIEND!

>>32334057
Oh there would, anon. Sadly I lost the calculator for this.

>>32334057
Yes, which is why they relied heavily on ceramics and hypersonic design in the airframe.

>>32334070
But the people that believe the opposite of what I do are the ones that wear fedoras... Literally.

File: IMG_0095.jpg (55KB, 736x588px)

55KB, 736x588px

>>32333236
The Valkyrie was cancelled because its aerodynamics were fundamentally flawed, you fucking dolt. The B2 is more complex and expensive anyway.

>>32334077
Yet they never tested, let alone created the thing, so it is uncertain whether it could meet the characteristics at all. No other contemporary design did. Kh-22M could achieve Mach 5 descending, but only for a short period of, well, descent.

>>32334099
And how they were flawed?

File: IMG_0094.jpg (423KB, 2818x1895px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 2818x1895px

>>32334106
>I can't use google
Something about the way the wings were designed caused a sort of vortex around the craft that pulled a smaller aircraft flying in tight formation into the wing, destroying both vehicles

>>32332984
The main reason it wasn't developed further was because it deemed way to provocative of a weapon, it would have caused the soviets to develop there own to which there was no know defense. And icbm tech was more advanced and readily available. Also easer to defend against.

File: t-4 (2).jpg (352KB, 1093x676px)

352KB, 1093x676px

>>32334123
>I can't defend the point
You made an argument. I'm asking you. It's a genuine question, I have no Idea whether it is or isn't the way you describe. Soviets built the similar thing and had no problems of such kind.

>>32334123
>pulled a smaller aircraft flying in tight formation into the wing
Oh wait. THIS is you argument? And you are sending me to google? Jesus. FYI, by that time it was already cancelled for years and used as a test aircraft by NASA.

>>32334123
Not to mention that IIRC it was the fighter pilot mistake and no fucking way it was meant to be escorted in such a tight formation. God damn it anon, think before you post.

File: ant-20 (2).jpg (92KB, 899x700px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 899x700px

>>32334123
God damn it, anon, it's almost like saying ANT-20 crashed because it had flawed aerodynamics and not because I-5 rammed into it fucking up to impress the crowd.

File: german freedom.webm (544KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 480x360px

>>32333998
More like cluster munitions.

File: ant-20 (1).jpg (892KB, 2153x1168px)

892KB, 2153x1168px

>>32334242
And may I just take a second to say how fucking beautiful ANT-20 was.

Anything biological. To think there's probably some really horrifying disease sealed away in some lab just waiting to be used.

>>32334341
That's a good example. Thought of the weapons actually used at war I'd say chemical weapons were the most inhuman.

>>32332965

Won't do shit

That's about a mag 7 earthquake

File: the penis in my heart is erect.jpg (41KB, 324x291px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 324x291px

>>32334309
>>32334242

File: t.hanks.jpg (70KB, 405x348px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 405x348px

>>32335017
Thanks for your enlightened opinion, but I'd rather believe Sakharov calculations.

File: ant-25 (2).jpg (95KB, 1060x768px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1060x768px

>>32335250
Google ANT-25, anon. There's something utterly romantic about that age in Soviet aircraft design.

>>32335017
>a 100MT explosion underwater = magnitude 7 earthquake
>it wont do shit
[citation heavily needed]

>>32333765
Forgot to mention it was pretty much known that the exhaust would be straight fallout since they couldn't use shielding. Not only would it be devastating everything at mach 4 it would leave a trail of fallout where ever it went.

>>32335356

>you will never work in the Soviet airplane industry in the 1920-40's
>you will never work for TsAGI
>you will never design beautiful aircraft

My torment is eternal.

File: Tupolev-Ant-25-Pearson-Field.jpg (46KB, 600x314px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x314px

>>32335471
>You will never be a Soviet pilot greeted in San Francisco after more than 60 hours long flight in the 30s
Why even bother living?

File: Snap 2016-12-15 at 22.10.32.png (403KB, 672x956px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 672x956px

>>32335863

>this never existed and never will

Fuck this world and fuck life.

>>32334341
in a lab in the Netherlands, we all best pray Fouchier doesn't have a bad divorce and fail to get erect with a hooker or the human racee is doomed within a year.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32247/title/Five-Mutations-Make-H5N1-Airborne/

>>32335017
Tell that to the Fukushima Prefecture.

File: Submarine Project 621.jpg (253KB, 1250x891px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1250x891px

>>32336473
I know that feeling pic related

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salted_bomb
>Do you know how nukes create massive amounts of radioactive fallout?
>Yeah?
>Let's make a nuke that purposefully creates more radioactive fallout that lasts much longer.
>Sounds great!

>>32333311
I was gonna mention this to >>32332425

>>32333000

them digits unchecked

>>32333979
> It is not clear to me at which range the SLAM was supposed to go low altitude flight, but I think it is safe to assume that if it was anywhere around 150-200 km, a Mach 7 missile could intercept it with a chance large enough for SLAM to become economically absolutely unsuitable weapon to deploy.

Slam was intended to cover at least 1000 nautical miles or 1852 kilometers during it's low level dash.
What is more important for SLAM to be successful, High mach speeds at low altitude or mach speeds over long distances?

Also considering the missiles internal hardware needs a radiation shield to function, Isn't it likely that any interceptor would have issues from increasing radiation as it closed the distance?
I will concede that finding and tracking an giant hot flying reactor probably wouldn't be all that hard to do in the first place.

>>32333311
>dat get
>>32333333

I wouldn't be surprised to see if the US has something like this too

File: boris get the vodka.jpg (268KB, 430x645px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 430x645px

>>32336920
holy fucking shit
my erection

>>32336920
>we scinfaxi now