• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Russia Tests Nuclear Missile

sevenhelmet

sevenhelmet

Quaint ideas from yesteryear
pilot
I was a little surprised to see this article this morning- I know we messed around with nuclear missiles in the Cold War era, and they had significant drawbacks- ICBMs won the day. What says the brain trust here- is this posturing, or real threat?

ground.news

Russia tested new nuclear-powered cruise missile, top general says

Russia has tested a new nuclear-capable, nuclear-powered cruise missile named the Burevestnik, Russia's top general told President Vladimir Putin in remarks released on Sunday. The missile travelled 14,000 km (8,700 miles) and was in the air for about 15 hours, General Valery Gerasimov, chief of...
ground.news
 
Last edited:
sevenhelmet said:
I was a little surprised to see this article this morning- I know we messed around with nuclear missiles in the Cold War era, and they had significant drawbacks- ICBMs won the day. What says the brain trust here- is this posturing, or real threat?

ground.news

Russia tested new nuclear-powered cruise missile, top general says

Russia has tested a new nuclear-capable, nuclear-powered cruise missile named the Burevestnik, Russia's top general told President Vladimir Putin in remarks released on Sunday. The missile travelled 14,000 km (8,700 miles) and was in the air for about 15 hours, General Valery Gerasimov, chief of...
ground.news
Click to expand...
Eh. Real-ish.

It’s still a subsonic cruise missile with a nuke warhead, and those are not that hard to kill, though they can be challenging to detect in the sense they have lower launch signature than a ballistic missile, and fly low. Also usually pretty cheap compared to an ICBM to make in swarms - but a nuke powered missile likely is going to increase the cost of building them.

The main benefit over a regular cruise missile is that it can come in from unexpected directions since the massive range means you have the “fuel” to say, submarine launch from the Atlantic, fly over Central America, and go north, instead of just trying to go through our Atlantic coastal defenses. But that basically is only a problem if we don’t have an airborne (or apparently space now) sensor that covers all borders. Pretty much sounds like a snack for a “Golden Dome” network.

Has the feel of yet another Russian “just because we can” science project.
 
sevenhelmet said:
I was a little surprised to see this article this morning- I know we messed around with nuclear missiles in the Cold War era, and they had significant drawbacks- ICBMs won the day. What says the brain trust here- is this posturing, or real threat?

ground.news

Russia tested new nuclear-powered cruise missile, top general says

Russia has tested a new nuclear-capable, nuclear-powered cruise missile named the Burevestnik, Russia's top general told President Vladimir Putin in remarks released on Sunday. The missile travelled 14,000 km (8,700 miles) and was in the air for about 15 hours, General Valery Gerasimov, chief of...
ground.news
Click to expand...
I’d go with 60% posturing and 40% real threat. We all know Russia can produce a cruise missile, but an “unlimited range” version is just bombast. Moreover, I think recent ground truth shows us that Putin is all talk and limited capability. For the most part this is more like rattling your butter knife because your saber is dull.
 
Griz882 said:
I’d go with 60% posturing and 40% real threat. We all know Russia can produce a cruise missile, but an “unlimited range” version is just bombast. Moreover, I think recent ground truth shows us that Putin is all talk and limited capability. For the most part this is more like rattling your butter knife because your saber is dull.
Click to expand...

Is it though? A nuclear-powered cruise missile would have effectively an 'unlimited' range, at the very least it could reach anywhere in the world if the airframe and engine hold up.
 
Flash said:
Is it though? A nuclear-powered cruise missile would have effectively an 'unlimited' range, at the very least it could reach anywhere in the world if the airframe and engine hold up.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to note that it appears to be based on the Kh-101, which is a 0.8 Mach design. That negates one of the potential advantages of sustained, supersonic low-altitude flight. A subsonic cruise missile like that is easier to track and target, particularly on a longer flight profile.
 
sevenhelmet said:
It's interesting to note that it appears to be based on the Kh-101, which is a 0.8 Mach design. That negates one of the potential advantages of sustained, supersonic low-altitude flight. A subsonic cruise missile like that is easier to track and target, particularly on a longer flight profile.
Click to expand...

Ackchyually, it would probably be hard to detect if you can fly out of range of systems that can detect it. A low flying cruise missile flying over the mid-Atlantic, Antarctica or....pick a place that doesn't have comprehensive low-altitude radar coverage, which is probably well over 90% of the world, and it would be hard to detect. There's a reason Tomahawks remain our 'go-to' weapon of choice for many strikes well within enemy territory.
 
Flash said:
Ackchyually, it would probably be hard to detect if you can fly out of range of systems that can detect it. A low flying cruise missile flying over the mid-Atlantic, Antarctica or....pick a place that doesn't have comprehensive low-altitude radar coverage, which is probably well over 90% of the world, and it would be hard to detect. There's a reason Tomahawks remain our 'go-to' weapon of choice for many strikes well within enemy territory.
Click to expand...

Sure- you're describing weapons which already have sufficient range to do the mission effectively. If you're nuking it up, why not make it supersonic while you're at it? If nothing else, you can take a 15-20 hour strike time and cut it down to a 5-10 hour strike. Less time for component failure, detection and targeting, etc.

Either way, it puts a whole new spin on "mobile Chernobyl", especially given that the US version of this was deemed too radioactive by 1950's standards. Leave it to Russia to say "fuck everyone" and do it anyway... :confused:
 
sevenhelmet said:
Sure- you're describing weapons which already have sufficient range to do the mission effectively. If you're nuking it up, why not make it supersonic while you're at it? Either way, it puts a whole new spin on "mobile Chernobyl", especially given that the US version of this was deemed too radioactive by 1950's standards.
Click to expand...

It would increase the design, engineering and production challenges without much benefit in return. It is mean to be a 'second strike' weapon meaning the timing doesn't matter as much.

sevenhelmet said:
Either way, it puts a whole new spin on "mobile Chernobyl", especially given that the US version of this was deemed too radioactive by 1950's standards. Leave it to Russia to say "fuck everyone" and do it anyway... :confused:
Click to expand...

It does have a certain megalomaniacal Dr Evil quality to it, and not really necessary...but, Russia.
 
MIDNJAC said:
I'd also assume that if its propulsion emits radiation out the exhaust pipe, that might conceivably be somewhat straightforward to track....
Click to expand...
A brief walk down memory lane.
Most of the US atomic powered projects were for manned aircraft propulsion.
There are several very good, detailed, and recently unclassed articles concerning these projects.
 
Last edited:
MIDNJAC said:
I'd also assume that if its propulsion emits radiation out the exhaust pipe, that might conceivably be somewhat straightforward to track....
Click to expand...
I wondered about the same thing…

PhrogPhlyer said:
A brief walk down memory lane.
Most of the US atomic powered projects were for manned aircraft propulsion.
There are several very good, detailed, and recently unclassed articles concerning these projects.
Click to expand...

It looks like they had a way to power the turbojets with reactor heat, which has my mind boggling. I wonder about the heat loads and radiation leakage. Our supersonic ramjet project was (I think) using the ramjet effect to push compressed air directly through the reactor, hence a huge radiation release into the atmosphere. That’s what ultimately killed the program, especially as ICBMs were advancing rapidly.
 
Yeah I know they put a functioning reactor into a B-36, though it wasn't ever used to power the engines (or anything). I guess you use the nuclear power cycle to spin a turbine that does conventionally turbiney things in a turbine engine? Sounds kinda interesting, though I can't totally wrap my mind around that combined cycle and all the various things that seem like they would be major issues. Maybe thats why we never did it?
 
PhrogPhlyer said:
A brief walk down memory lane.
Most of the US atomic powered projects were for manned aircraft propulsion.
There are several very good, detailed, and recently unclassed articles concerning these projects.
Click to expand...

Yep, the NB-36 is exactly what I was thinking of. And looks like, based on that heavily simplified schematic, they planned to do what I imagined they had planned to do. Learned all about this 30+ years ago on the discovery Wings episode about the Big Stick, never seen the documentation though, as I'm sure the documentarians hadn't either. Think there is a still a VHS recording somewhere in my parents house of that episode, and all the others (or a series of tapes)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top