Russia Tests Nuclear Missile

[sevenhelmet]

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?

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

 

[BigRed389]

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?

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

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.

 

[Griz882]

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?

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

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.

 

[Flash]

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.

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.

 

[sevenhelmet]

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.

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.

 

[Flash]

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.

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.

 

[sevenhelmet]

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.

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...

 

[Flash]

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.

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.

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...

It does have a certain megalomaniacal Dr Evil quality to it, and not really necessary...but, Russia.