Mach 10 is not that much: hypersonic missiles can reach that speed and kinetic energy. But Missiles can change course to evade air defence.
There is no defense to the inertia of 9 tons of metal.
Exactly. Orbital bombardment isnt cost effective when 99% of the time, you can get the job done with bombs dropped from planes, Tomahawks, JASSMs, etc for a fraction of the price. Particularly when many targets are mobile.
But if you have a Maverick style immobile, heavily defended target...dropping a telephone pole sized tungsten rod at 7600 MPH is unstoppable. AAA? Tungsten laughs at you. ABM systems? Tungsten rod dont care. Reinforced concrete underground bunkers? Tungsten rod collapses them. Armor? Tungsten rod goes through that like a lawn dart through a Chihuahua. ECM? Tungsten rod is math on the front end to target its deorbiting, physics on the back end. You cant jam gravity.
Tungsten rods from space are a 9 ton honey badger.
Until a slight breeze sets them off target by 200 yards... It's a stupid idea compared to cheaper, more effective alternatives. They are probably hoping other countries will waste resources developing this boondoggle.
Most objects just disintegrate at mach 10. Not only special materials, but also carefully calculated aerodynamics are needed to make it work. The explosion of an air defence missile has just to tilt the rod a little bit and it will melt away.
Sure there is. Use another satellite to push the launch vehicle out of orbit.
This idea is stupid. The amount of rocket fuel it would take to deploy this in a meaningful way would be much better spent putting nukes in orbit, or just build more nuclear submarines.
(post is archived)