Actually "stonker" was never one of terms we used when I was (peripherally) involved in that sort of thing.
Is it a new technical word?
Yes, I believe so. It means 'lets try and crack the earth's mantle a little big'
Discussion: Russia knows more about nuclear weapons technology than the USA
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
Yes, I believe so. It means 'lets try and crack the earth's mantle a little big'
I get my missiles mixed up occasionally.
Actually that is the military definition. Read the manual.
You're confused about how the missiles operate. This is the key here:
Cruise missiles operate by comparing internally stored digital maps of the earth with digital maps the missile "sees" using its forward-looking and downward looking radars. That's how it knows that in 12.2 seconds it needs to reach an altitude of 450 feet in order to safely clear the top of a small hillock, before returning to normal cruise altitude of 75 to 120 feet.[/quote]
A Soviet "cruise" missile flying at 30,000 feet before it drops down on its target isn't flying "nap of the Earth" and isn't looking at digital maps.
No, they didn't. The US had a 240mm double-gun round but pulled it from service in the 1950s. The Soviets also had 2 large gun round (and a large caliber mortar round) but those were out of service by the late 1960s.
You don't seem to be able to distinguish between "nuclear/chemical" capable and actually being nuclear or chemical. The idiots on Pukiepedia and the Federation of Asshole Scientists lists all missiles and large artillery as having "conventional, nuclear or chemical" capability whether those systems actually had nuclear or chemical warheads, and even if the weapons were designed for a purely conventional role.
The Lance is a great example. It was nuclear only. There never were any conventional warheads for the Lance and it was never intended or designed to deliver chemical warheads.
That's possibly the US definition now. But it's contradicted by other definitions and usage (including those of the US Air Force and Navy).
Yes. They've apparently changed the "definition" to suit their own missiles.
And it doesn't alter the fact that certain aircraft (and missiles) are (and have been) capable of much the same thing - and they didn't require a Cray to do it.
And all we have, again, is your unsupported word and another attack on Wiki.
Last edited:
Are you telling us the AGM109 'tomahawk' that has been deployed since the 70's had an onboard guidance system that comprised of digital maps since it's inception?
Edward M. Grant
Registered Member
That's how they claimed it worked when they were first deployed in the UK in the late 70s/early 80s. Whether it's true or was disinformation for the Soviets I have no idea, but I remember those claims on TV and in magazines when I was a kid.
Wikipedia implies that the early systems only stored maps for a few locations on their planned route, and used those to update the inertial navigation system that provided guidance between those locations.
Edward M. Grant
Registered Member
They didn't, because the TSR2 -- if had become operational -- would not have had 'no crew input whatsoever'.
It would have used radar and inertial navigation to follow terrain, and a backseater with a moving map display to compare actual and estimated positions at various points along the route and provide corrections to the INS. You don't get backseaters in cruise missiles, so the computer had to do the same job.
As for the original question, according to what I've read on the subject, some of the still-classified Orion research in the 60s was working on what would have been the nuclear equivalent of a shaped charge, with most of the blast focussed in one direction. I was impressed when I read about it and don't believe the Soviets ever claimed to have developed anything remotely similar.
US or Russia, debate all you want! Why not mention the about 64 year old little non-country that has stolen and or otherwise ACQUIRED all of those 2 countries nuclear knowledge ( plus all the other countries on earth ), and not only expanded on it but covertly and overtly has at least some control over all the WMD's on this planet!
Did Sir Paul know something when he sang..." will you still need me, will you still feed me...when I'm 64?" !!??!!
Sorry, but my moniker forces me to post these dumb thinks.
Did Sir Paul know something when he sang..." will you still need me, will you still feed me...when I'm 64?" !!??!!
Sorry, but my moniker forces me to post these dumb thinks.