TECH The Air Force's 'rods from god' could hit with the force of a nuclear weapon — with no fallout

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
And Jerry Pournelle passed away September 8th of last year....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com/air-...c-weapon-hit-with-nuclear-weapon-force-2017-9

The Air Force's 'rods from god' could hit with the force of a nuclear weapon — with no fallout

Blake Stilwell, We Are The Mighty
Feb. 13, 2018, 1:49 PM

The 107-country Outer Space Treaty signed in 1967 prohibits nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons from being placed in or used from Earth's orbit. What they didn't count on was the US Air Force's most simple weapon ever: a tungsten rod that could hit a city with the explosive power of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

During the Vietnam War, the US used what it called "Lazy Dog" bombs. These were simply solid steel pieces, less than 2 inches long, fitted with fins. There was no explosive — they were simply dropped by the hundreds from planes flying above Vietnam.

Lazy Dog projectiles (aka "kinetic bombardment") could reach speeds of up to 500 mph as they fell to the ground and could penetrate 9 inches of concrete after being dropped from as little as 3,000 feet.

The idea is like shooting bullets at a target, except instead of losing velocity as it travels, the projectile is gaining velocity and energy that will be expended on impact. They were shotgunning a large swath of jungle, raining bullet-size death at high speeds.

That's how Project Thor came to be.

Instead of hundreds of small projectiles from a few thousand feet, Thor used a large projectile from a few thousand miles above the Earth. The "rods from god" idea was a bundle of telephone-pole-size (20 feet long, 1 foot in diameter) tungsten rods, dropped from orbit, reaching a speed of up to 10 times the speed of sound.

The rod itself would penetrate hundreds of feet into the Earth, destroying any potential hardened bunkers or secret underground sites. More than that, when the rod hits, the explosion would be on par with the magnitude of a ground-penetrating nuclear weapon— but with no fallout.

Such a weapon could destroy a target with 15 minutes' notice.

One Quora user who works in the defense aerospace industry quoted a cost of no less than $10,000 a pound to fire anything into space. With 20 cubic feet of dense tungsten weighing in at just over 24,000 pounds, the math is easy. Just one of the rods would be prohibitively expensive. The cost of $230 million a rod was unimaginable during the Cold War.

These days, not so much. The Bush administration even considered revisiting the idea to hit underground nuclear sites in rogue nations in the years following 9/11. Interestingly enough, the cost of a single Minuteman III ICBM was $7 million in 1962, when it was first introduced ($57 million adjusted for inflation).

The trouble with a nuclear payload is that it isn't designed to penetrate deep into the surface. And the fallout from a nuclear device can be devastating to surrounding, potentially friendly areas.

A core takeaway from the concept of weapons like Project Thor's is that hypersonic weapons pack a significant punch and may be the future of global warfare.

Read the original article on We Are The Mighty. Copyright 2017. Follow We Are The Mighty on Twitter.
MORE FROM WE ARE THE MIGHTY:
How South Korea’s military will be commanded by a US general
The CIA’s poison dart gun nearly brought down the whole agency
That time North Dakota seceded from the Union
SEE ALSO: Artillery strikes against ISIS in Syria were so intense they burned out 2 Marine howitzers
NOW WATCH: NASA will destroy a $3.26 billion spacecraft this week — here's what will happen
 

Rayku

Sanity is not statistical
There is more than one way to achieve kinetic energy weapons. Shear mass is one, mass + velocity another. The problem isn't so much how to get mass into space, it's more about how to get it back to the ground with sufficient velocity without burning up in the re-entry.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/BGH/hihyper.html
Instead of Mach 10, think Mach 25. That would significantly reduce the required mass.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
There is more than one way to achieve kinetic energy weapons. Shear mass is one, mass + velocity another. The problem isn't so much how to get mass into space, it's more about how to get it back to the ground with sufficient velocity without burning up in the re-entry.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/BGH/hihyper.html
Instead of Mach 10, think Mach 25. That would significantly reduce the required mass.

Heck there was a proposal towards the end of the Cold War to put multitudes of KE darts from anti-tank sabot rounds on the MIRV bus of retired Polaris/Poseidon missiles and base them in Europe to target Soviet-Warsaw Pact logistical nodes and airfields.
 

Creedmoor

Tempus Fugit
Accurate targeting could be an issue. As for the cost per pound to orbit, they eventually will capture asteroids and just nudge them into the correct re-entry window.
 

Thinwater

Firearms Manufacturer
There "may" be a system like this in operation that deploys smaller "Rods" of tungsten that are more like the size of a soup can. They would still destroy large buildings and buried bunkers. I use Tungsten carbide milling tools. They are around twice as dense as lead and so hard that I can machine a file into a pile of chips with one. They have to be cast using an electric induction furnace since their melting point is 5200 degrees.

Pure tungsten melts just under 6200 degrees but is not as hard as tungsten carbide. It is 1.7 times more dense than lead.
 

ThorsHammer

Contributing Member
http://www.businessinsider.com/air-...c-weapon-hit-with-nuclear-weapon-force-2017-9

The Air Force's 'rods from god' could hit with the force of a nuclear weapon — with no fallout


Not exactly! I spent a lot of USAF time working on this concept, hence my user name here, and there are many issues with the concept. First as pointed out in the article is WEIGHT and COST to place in orbit. Another issue are the false reports these "rods" would strike with the force of a nuclear weapon. THEY DO NOT!

Our earlier calcs, aerial and rocket sled testings with scaled versions never came close to nuclear strike energies, and the lower atmosphere terminal speeds would never maintain the high altitude mach 10 categories. Theory meet reality. What we revealed would be similar to MOPs, at best. Most of the energy is transferred into very deep penetration and vaporizing of the penetrator, which did result in explosive effects similar to large bunker buster or MOP. Never a nuke.

They were and are other issues revealed with our testing, but enough was revealed to cancel further development. The scifi crowd and writers still love the "idea", so the concept continues to pop up from time to time.
 

KFhunter

Veteran Member
I wasn't able to find it, but does anyone remember that vehicle the US killed a top Taliban terrorist in?
The projectile went in through the sunroof, shredded everything inside and went out the floor boards but didn't mess up the exterior of the vehicle. It was strange, always wondered if it was a small rod of god.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.businessinsider.com/air-...c-weapon-hit-with-nuclear-weapon-force-2017-9

The Air Force's 'rods from god' could hit with the force of a nuclear weapon — with no fallout


Not exactly! I spent a lot of USAF time working on this concept, hence my user name here, and there are many issues with the concept. First as pointed out in the article is WEIGHT and COST to place in orbit. Another issue are the false reports these "rods" would strike with the force of a nuclear weapon. THEY DO NOT!

Our earlier calcs, aerial and rocket sled testings with scaled versions never came close to nuclear strike energies, and the lower atmosphere terminal speeds would never maintain the high altitude mach 10 categories. Theory meet reality. What we revealed would be similar to MOPs, at best. Most of the energy is transferred into very deep penetration and vaporizing of the penetrator, which did result in explosive effects similar to large bunker buster or MOP. Never a nuke.

They were and are other issues revealed with our testing, but enough was revealed to cancel further development. The scifi crowd and writers still love the "idea", so the concept continues to pop up from time to time.

Yeah, there's a RAND Report on all of that as well as a better Proceedings article from the late 1980s...
 

Red Baron

Paleo-Conservative
_______________
The rod itself would penetrate hundreds of feet into the Earth, destroying any potential hardened bunkers or secret underground sites. More than that, when the rod hits, the explosion would be on par with the magnitude of a ground-penetrating nuclear weapon . . .

Wait a minute, you could take somebody's eye out with that thing!
 

Russell Crowley

Contributing Member
Then there is RAH's "The Moon is a harsh Mistress" where the moon settlers threw rocks at the earth in a revolt against the earths rule.

Russell
 

Rayku

Sanity is not statistical
http://www.businessinsider.com/air-...c-weapon-hit-with-nuclear-weapon-force-2017-9

The Air Force's 'rods from god' could hit with the force of a nuclear weapon — with no fallout


Not exactly! I spent a lot of USAF time working on this concept, hence my user name here, and there are many issues with the concept. First as pointed out in the article is WEIGHT and COST to place in orbit. Another issue are the false reports these "rods" would strike with the force of a nuclear weapon. THEY DO NOT!

Our earlier calcs, aerial and rocket sled testings with scaled versions never came close to nuclear strike energies, and the lower atmosphere terminal speeds would never maintain the high altitude mach 10 categories. Theory meet reality. What we revealed would be similar to MOPs, at best. Most of the energy is transferred into very deep penetration and vaporizing of the penetrator, which did result in explosive effects similar to large bunker buster or MOP. Never a nuke.

They were and are other issues revealed with our testing, but enough was revealed to cancel further development. The scifi crowd and writers still love the "idea", so the concept continues to pop up from time to time.

In what time frame did you work on that?
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
http://www.businessinsider.com/air-...c-weapon-hit-with-nuclear-weapon-force-2017-9

The Air Force's 'rods from god' could hit with the force of a nuclear weapon — with no fallout


Not exactly! I spent a lot of USAF time working on this concept, hence my user name here, and there are many issues with the concept. First as pointed out in the article is WEIGHT and COST to place in orbit. Another issue are the false reports these "rods" would strike with the force of a nuclear weapon. THEY DO NOT!

Our earlier calcs, aerial and rocket sled testings with scaled versions never came close to nuclear strike energies, and the lower atmosphere terminal speeds would never maintain the high altitude mach 10 categories. Theory meet reality. What we revealed would be similar to MOPs, at best. Most of the energy is transferred into very deep penetration and vaporizing of the penetrator, which did result in explosive effects similar to large bunker buster or MOP. Never a nuke.

They were and are other issues revealed with our testing, but enough was revealed to cancel further development. The scifi crowd and writers still love the "idea", so the concept continues to pop up from time to time.



Thank you for confirming my understanding of physics, just no way this would be practical or workable.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
Thor can likely speak to this but one of the options on this genre was 12 ft or so rebars with GPS guided vanes on the tail for targeting...

They hit V(t) 40 or 50 pounds which isn't too shabby...

Using a nice 480Km/h V(t), we can get an idea of the destructive force of a 20 kilo chunk of iron falling at 480Km/h

Ahh....480 Km/h=480KM/3600secs=480,000M/3600sec=133M/sec

So, 20*(133^2)=353,780 KiloMeters/sec^2 or 353 kilo joules of work......

VERY destructive.....

Feel free to correct the work...It's been 40 years....
 

Rayku

Sanity is not statistical
ABM missiles top mach 15. The shuttle re-entry tops mach 25. Just going with mach 15, that's 11,415 miles per hour or 16,742 fps. As compared to 480 km or 298.25 miles per hour or 437.37 fps.

Little boy and fat man ranged 15KT to 21KT. Not getting to that level with the rod of god concept. However 3-5KT is doable. Especially if we up the velocity. They'd vaporize on contact and dig a deep narrow hole, but the local area of impact is screwed.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Yeah, there's a RAND Report on all of that as well as a better Proceedings article from the late 1980s...

RAND Report....
Space Weapons, Earth Wars
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2011/RAND_MR1209.pdf

Proceedings spat back my search....:shr:

ETA: IMHO the better move would be the sabot dart/"Lazy Dog" (in huge multiples) or "smart" submunitions/FAE on the top of a "militarized" Falcon 9 derived reusable launcher for "time sensitive" targets (of course there's the BIG issue of not having that mistaken as a nuclear system but at this point everything is effectively "dual use" no matter what anyone says).
 

BadMedicine

Would *I* Lie???
I head talk at one time that we could use ballistic missiles this way without the nuclear payload... problem being, anything that looks "too nukey" is likely to illicit a negative response. We don't have one nuclear enemy, half the world would love to wipe our ass, so the next major conflict will probably be multi-theatre... not good.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
I head talk at one time that we could use ballistic missiles this way without the nuclear payload... problem being, anything that looks "too nukey" is likely to illicit a negative response. We don't have one nuclear enemy, half the world would love to wipe our ass, so the next major conflict will probably be multi-theatre... not good.

Yeah, I posted an article from the Air University quite a while ago (now unavailable at the Air University site but here is the whole article the last time I posted it), also this was something advocated by Gen(ret) Cartwright and both the author of the paper and Cartwright made it clear that differentiating the nuclear force from such conventionally armed systems for all observing and concerned would be the biggest problem.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Already done in "Call of Duty Ghosts".

Also by the late Dr. Jerry Pournelle (in top 10 of science fiction writers by sales) in the 1980 nonfiction book on technology A Step Farther Out. This was on the Defense Dept. research project SDI, or "Star Wars". These were called "Brilliant Pebbles".
 
Top