Why does the "super fuse" make vatniks seethe?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What nonsensical bullshit are you talking about and why did you making this thread?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >t.seething vatnik

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >make dumb thread
        >get called dumb
        >"haha [meme insult]!"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yes, why is he of making this dumb thread. Stop talkings of this super fuse right fucking now

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yus, I, a fellow comrade American from Texas Oblast, agree with you. This thread is stupid. Russia has no fears from USA.

        Sure thing my fellow u/k/rainians!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yus, I, a fellow comrade American from Texas Oblast, agree with you. This thread is stupid. Russia has no fears from USA.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      After a quick google to see what retarded media outlet is using "super fuse" I got nothing, care to explain what a super fuse is OP?

      Reverse image search got me this
      https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/03/super-fuze/
      a 5yo article about a new fuse for the W76 but nothing about why it's better.

      Super-fuze essentially means that the U.S. has the capacity to wipe out all hardened Russian ICBM silos with a SLBM first strike thanks to better control of when the nukes actually detonate, which increases effective accuracy. Fewer missiles are now needed to ensure hardened targets are killed. This has significant strategic implications.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >This has significant strategic implications.
        no it doesn't

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >all US SBLM warheads being capable of wiping out all of Russia's ICBM silos in a first strike doesn't have strategic implications
          Go to bed, kid. You have 0 Period tomorrow morning.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the US is never going to launch a first strike against anyone and everyone knows it

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              they are the only country that has ever done it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the US has launched a massive simultaneous unprovoked nuclear attack against another country?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >unprovoked
                It wouldn't be unprovoked if they're preparing for nuclear war anon. Like if Russia actually used nukes against Ukraine, and US saw warheads start to get moved from storage to units, and signs of silo prep? It doesn't need to wait for Russia to be ready at that point. And it wouldn't be hitting cities. The entire point of something like superfuse is to hit silos which aren't in the middle of cities.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A "nuclear first strike" doesn't need to be "massive" or "simultaneous" nor does it need to be "unprovoked".
                "nuclear first strike" literally means what is says: the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >the US is never going to launch a first strike against anyone
              The US has never, ever forsworn first strike unlike most of the rest of the planet. And that's because we'd 100% do it and for very good reason, IF (and only if) we were extremely sure an opponent like Russia or China was prepping to launch on us. It's always been reserved as an option for that reason. A counter-force first strike is the very best thing if a nuclear war is going to happen, massively and reliably cuts down the number of nukes flying without any significant (by nuclear war standards) civilian casualties. ICBMs are all out in the middle of nowhere for a good reason.

              I'd agree that the US is never going to launch a counter VALUE first strike, we're not just going to suddenly wipe all their cities unless they launch first. But counter force? Definitely. Which is a good deterrent about even making launch preparations. It'd be impossible for Russia to hide that it was preparing a big strike of its own (it could probably get off a few missiles as a surprise, but that's completely pointless), so knowing the US will first strike if it thinks it's necessary is a deterrent to even posturing that way. Whatever Russia SAYS, US can see from space and other sources what they're actually DOING at those 40-someodd warhead depots and ICBM sites.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum indeed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yep, and that's why there has almost never been any significant governmental-level protest again the US policy either from other countries (though plenty of retarded peaceniks have advocated for changing to a blanket "no first strike" policy in the past). Obviously nobody would ever publicly advocate for it at that level, strategic ambiguity and quiet is much better. But if nobody wants to see nukes flying, second best is as few as possible flying and hitting population centers (or going off at all). Even in the 3rd world, nuclear war would suck both indirectly (losing all aid from 1st world and lots of stuff they import as well as primary markets for exports) and directly (some fallout is going to travel worldwide, a few thousand nukes going off anywhere on the planet will statistically raise cancer rates and other problems everywhere). If it's between each side launching everything it's got counter-force and counter-value and America getting the jump and launching a fraction to exclusively eliminate 98% of the other side's nukes which then never launch at all, well nobody is going to be sad about the latter.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              We can only hope.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >no it doesn't

          Correct. This is a marginal improvement because the Trident II is already a very accurate missile so it is going to get a bullseye hit in most cases anyway.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Going from an 85% to a 98% pK as shown in the diagram at the estimated CEP of a Trident II is a fucking huge improvement. That's 5 less warheads per target that is required to obtain the same pK which means the US's first strike capabilities with a SLBM is massively improved.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This is a marginal improvement because the Trident II is already a very accurate missile so it is going to get a bullseye hit in most cases anyway.
            I swear, PrepHole is full of such Dunning-Kruger midwits.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        [...]
        [...]
        [...]
        It turned the Trident II missiles into first strike-capable nukes. SBLMs previously were only good for countervalue strikes. Putin and peaceniks got big mad, claiming that it is "destabilizing".
        The most ironic thing is that deployment was given the go-ahead by none other than Obama, who campaigned on (and partially got a Nobel Peace Prize for this stance) nuclear disarmament.

        >delayed fuse on a missile
        How groundbreaking to reintegrate ancient techology.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      After a quick google to see what retarded media outlet is using "super fuse" I got nothing, care to explain what a super fuse is OP?

      Reverse image search got me this
      https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/03/super-fuze/
      a 5yo article about a new fuse for the W76 but nothing about why it's better.

      An article in 2018 referred to the MC4700 fuse system on the modernized W76-1 warheads in submarine launched Trident missiles as "super fuse" systems. It just boils down to a more accurate detonation over specific targets(silos). Why it's being brought up now I don't know.

      it makes it so the US' SLBMs and ICBMs are accurate enough to only need one warhead per hardened target, thus leaving the US able to target much more with their smaller modern arsenal.
      theoretically it allows for a successful first strike on Russia with little risk of retaliation.

      It turned the Trident II missiles into first strike-capable nukes. SBLMs previously were only good for countervalue strikes. Putin and peaceniks got big mad, claiming that it is "destabilizing".
      The most ironic thing is that deployment was given the go-ahead by none other than Obama, who campaigned on (and partially got a Nobel Peace Prize for this stance) nuclear disarmament.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >SBLMs previously were only good for countervalue strikes.
        why?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because they didn't have the accuracy for counterforce strikes. You don't need much accuracy to nuke a city. You need a lot of accuracy to nuke silos.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >At the time, W76/Mk4 warheads had a fixed height-of-burst fuze (meaning the fuze could not adjust its detonation at an optimal location if it were falling short or long of a target). With those fixed-height fuzes, submarine-launched nuclear missiles were mainly aimed at softer targets such as military bases.

          >But the study found that an enhanced Mk4A reentry-body with a new fuze that provided for an adjustable height-of-burst as it arrives would have significant capabilities against harder targets, compared to warheads with the earlier fuzes.

          Image rel is normal missiles with contact fuses for some reason instead of W76 height triggered fuses
          Next post will show the updated triggers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >By shifting the aim point down range by a distance roughly equal to a CEP, warheads that would otherwise fall short or long of the target using the conventional Mk4 fuze instead will detonate—at different heights dictated by the super fuze—within the lethal volume above a target. This shift in the down-range aim point will result in a very high percentage of warheads that overfly the target detonating in the lethal volume. The end result is that with the new Mk4A super-fuze, a substantially higher percentage of launched warheads detonate inside the lethal volume, resulting in a considerable increase in the likelihood that the target is destroyed.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              One downside of the high accuracy of the Trident 2 is that the warhead is going to fly in a very narrow cylindrical corridor towards a target that you know the precise location of, which means that you have a chance to get it with terminal point defense that can put up a wall of ball bearings in front of it. Perhaps the only viable application for metal storm technology.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                With conventional entry vehicles for sure, however the likelihood is the delivery vehicles will evolve, variable terminal impacts will likely be part of that, but also I imaging they will gain some level of manoeuvrability in future projects to avoid terminal interception.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                MIRVs have decent maneuverability and decoys are a thing. And it wouldn't be a big deal to do an initial airburst with follow up hard strike. A detonation 4000-8000 feet up or something like that is going to fuck up any sensors or guns or the like on the surface, but present no issues for a follow up shortly thereafter. That level of defense just isn't going to be very helpful which is why nobody has bothered.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/csCWOeE.png

            >By shifting the aim point down range by a distance roughly equal to a CEP, warheads that would otherwise fall short or long of the target using the conventional Mk4 fuze instead will detonate—at different heights dictated by the super fuze—within the lethal volume above a target. This shift in the down-range aim point will result in a very high percentage of warheads that overfly the target detonating in the lethal volume. The end result is that with the new Mk4A super-fuze, a substantially higher percentage of launched warheads detonate inside the lethal volume, resulting in a considerable increase in the likelihood that the target is destroyed.

            Was already posted earlier in the thread anon:

            https://i.imgur.com/fZ5v38j.png

            [...]
            [...]
            Super-fuze essentially means that the U.S. has the capacity to wipe out all hardened Russian ICBM silos with a SLBM first strike thanks to better control of when the nukes actually detonate, which increases effective accuracy. Fewer missiles are now needed to ensure hardened targets are killed. This has significant strategic implications.

            Though yeah thanks for your efforts. It's actually a pretty cool bit of technology, something that on the face of it is a simple idea, somewhat challenging to execute well but then it retroactively gives very expensive existing platforms vastly better capabilities in a much easier fashion. The classic effort was simply towards reducing CEP, but at these speeds that gets very hard and expensive the smaller you go as more sources of error start to become relevant. It's also 2D thinking in a 3D world. The superfuses effectively realize that given the nature of nuclear explosions and the actual goal of achieving a certain over pressure over the hardened target, there is a rounded cylinder above the target that is enough, which means rather then Circular Error Probability what is actually important is SPHERICAL Error Probability. And that gives a whole new dimension to work in which makes it much easier to hit.

            So yeah, can see why it'd make Russians really seethe.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Ah, I just have them saved.
              And yeah, for sure. But it's just the nature of technological progress. Russians can seethe, but it's not like the US has committed to first strike, when it's been able to do it reliably with virtually no nuclear backlash for over 15 years at this point.
              Their subs are easily tracked via radar surface water propegation patterns and sonar/sound nets after all, Russia is wide open, and yet they still exist.
              It's almost like their US (Kek) vs THEM propaganda was literally just to keep it own populous in line honestly.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Their subs are easily tracked via radar surface water propegation patterns and sonar/sound nets after all,
                Whose subs?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                nta but Russia's. Whether flying or underwater, stealth is just one of those things where details REALLY matter. Things that aren't maintained well, patch jobs, dongs, things as small exposed screws all fuck up stealth. And the tech is constantly advancing. Russia has been able to do artillery and missiles still even with all its corruption but they have zilch stealth anymore (not that they ever had much).

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Any subs, they all have a wake that is hard to mask and easy to track using radar on water and a bit of post processing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The most ironic thing is that deployment was given the go-ahead by none other than Obama, who campaigned on (and partially got a Nobel Peace Prize for this stance) nuclear disarmament.
        Is this not merely a more rapid form of nuclear disarmament? Russia and America both reduce their nuclear stockpiles in this scenario!

        But actually kind of serious: even if the ideal for a lot of people would be reducing/eliminating nukes, second best is pushing for them to be used purely for military, not populated areas. Superfuse is a pure military tech, taking a bunch of missiles that would have been aimed at cities and turning them into ones aimed at other nukes. Avoiding nuclear war in the first place would be by far the best, but both sides taking out each other's nukes with their nukes them switching to conventional would be about the most "benign" form of nuclear war.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks Obama

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >irrational seething
      >ESL moment
      Yep, we got a live one! How's the weather in Vladivostok?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    After a quick google to see what retarded media outlet is using "super fuse" I got nothing, care to explain what a super fuse is OP?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Reverse image search got me this
      https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/03/super-fuze/
      a 5yo article about a new fuse for the W76 but nothing about why it's better.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it makes it so the US' SLBMs and ICBMs are accurate enough to only need one warhead per hardened target, thus leaving the US able to target much more with their smaller modern arsenal.
        theoretically it allows for a successful first strike on Russia with little risk of retaliation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      An article in 2018 referred to the MC4700 fuse system on the modernized W76-1 warheads in submarine launched Trident missiles as "super fuse" systems. It just boils down to a more accurate detonation over specific targets(silos). Why it's being brought up now I don't know.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I am a real Russian and super fuzes make me so mad I shit my pants. This happens every day.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If only more puccians would shit pants instead of shit posts the world would be a better place.

  4. 1 month ago
    Maj. Kong

    This pleases me.
    Dear God/Santa, if you're listening, please nuclear 9/11 the Russians, I've been so fucking good.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Thank you MIC, very cool!

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's a not flashy thing that actually matters.
    Its like having enough trucks or practicing strategic maneuvers. Totally inglorious, but absolutely impossible to understate the importance of.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's yet another high tech thing made to neuter Russian capabilities (second strike) that they will not be able to match.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Because it's yet another high tech thing made to neuter Russian capabilities (second strike) that they will not be able to match.
      All this stuff also multiplies with itself and russian corruption/incompetence. Russia has a paper 1600 or so worthwhile strategic nukes (the other 4000-someodd are not ICBMs but bombs or short/intermediate range stuff stored in depots and is completely irrelevant to a US/Russia exchange). 1600 is still significant though. But a lot of them undoubtedly don't work. Far more effective first strike can take out a big percentage. America does have some SMD at this point, not enough for 1600, but enough to be sizable if a big chunk of those are gone. Russian subs are worthless at this point.

      Each one of these cuts the potentially incoming active warhead count. Add it all up and it makes for an unpalatable situation for Russia where maybe only low double digits make it through and work. That's not much and no matter how they're used can no longer cause a strategic defeat for America merely a lot of damage. If everything is aimed counter-value we'd lose a bunch of big cities which would tremendously hurt, but our military and production capability would be basically untouched and everyone would be gigamad, guaranteeing Russia's utter annihilation. If everything is focused on counter-force then that could indeed both reduce our ability to strike back and make far more likely that America would stick to counter-force+conventional too, which would at least preserve a lot of Russia even though they'd lose. But that means the economic and industrial damage would be pretty small.

      Makes sense it'd make those few vatniks that aren't complete retards or buried in propaganda seethe.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *