Putin announcerd that the Russians are developing a nuclear powered strategic cruise missile. Presumably it would be armed with a nuclear warhead since flying an open cycle reactor over anyone would probably be a nuclear attack anyway.
The U.S. tested similar concepts in the 1960s but abandoned them over concerns of radioactive contamination. Russia's claim seems so fantastic that some analysts didn't believe initial reports.
Russia’s president Vladimir Putin said it had tested a new generation of nuclear weapons.
abcnews.go.com
The announcement was made as part of the 2 hour State of the Federation Speech.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDGvrdqQZVY
.
The mention of the nuclear cruise missile begins at about 1:29. note that it makes an evasive manuver to avoid detection.....around Cape Horn.
There's also mention of the Kanyon/Status 6 nuclear port buster at 1:32.
The USAF says that this is consistent with recent readings of radio active particles though they don't believe the weapon is operational, and indeed crashed during testing..
Fox - Lucas Tomlinson reports that the Pentagon is monitoring the Russia tests of a cruise missile powered by an unshielded nuclear reactor and that there is
Russia's new cruise missile has crashed in testing, a U.S. official said.
abcnews.go.com
There is much breathlessness at the links but I'm curious what those of a more technical bent think. Obviously there's nothing inherently impossible about such a weapon (Pluto was developed decades ago). I wonder if, despite the R&D expenditures these could actually be fairly cost effective from the Russian point of view, since they would involve mainly refinements of existing technology and only a few dozen might need to be procured to have a deterrent effect.
I kinda want this to be true if only to see how the news will be received in certain quarters. Had the US announced that we'd developed such a weapon, the outrage would break the clouds.
It's not an open cycle if you reading more correct translation:
Russia’s advanced arms are based on the cutting-edge, unique achievements of our scientists, designers and engineers. One of them is a small-scale heavy-duty nuclear energy unit that can fit inside a missile like our latest X-101 air-launched missile or the American Tomahawk missile providing it with a range dozens - dozens! - of times longer, basically an unlimited range. It is a low-flying stealth missile carrying a nuclear warhead, with almost an unlimited range, unpredictable trajectory and ability to bypass interception boundaries. It is invincible against all existing and prospective missile defense and counter-air defense systems. I will repeat this several times today.
In late 2017, Russia successfully launched its latest missile with nuclear power unit at the Central training ground. During its flight, the power unit reached its design capacity and provided the necessary thrust.
Now that the missile launch and ground tests were successful, we can begin developing a completely new type of weapon, a strategic nuclear weapons system with a nuclear-powered missile.
Yeah "Plutoski" it seems.."virtually unlimited range (assuming this is depending on reactor and ramjet structural integrity), low altitude, high Mach and pretty much unstoppable". Seems to be very familiar from say 1955 to 1964 and again briefly in the early 80's. The only thing missing from official news is the delivery of multiple strategic warheads which would seem to be limited due to the smaller airframe in comparison to the little Pluto, the proposed Convair "Big Stick" and probably with a TERCOM secondary nav system. Appears to be equipped with swept, tapered wings including a long single ventral fin, possibly due to the booster arrangement. There is no observable be ramjet inlet nacelle, obscured by the boosters. Given the amount of time between the "Pluto" concept studies and the neo-soviet flight hardware it appears to be nothing new but quite plausible. As it is stated as a propulsion system test vehicle from which new doomsday missiles will be based on it can only validate as" sabre-rattling" for Cold War II and perhaps keeping one's own political career more than an operational missile. Don't forget the "red mercury" claims some 20 years ago..
They have tested that dam thing right under our nose...
Remember those report of strange nuclear fall out over Europe and Alaska ?
in Europe it was ruthenium 106 isotope, the Alaska case particle with enrich uranium
honestly, last week i was speculating at Google+ that someone was testing Nuclear Engine in Russia or China
Now Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin presented the four column of New Russia nuclear deterrence
The team was on a routine pollution-sampling flight from Anchorage to Hawaii when they discovered it by chance, floating alone in the evening Alaskan sky.
Oh, please, just a little bit fact checking using at least calendar and maps next time before posting about connection of missile test and Ruthenium...
Keep in mind that despite the *assumed* launch video with no date and no confirmed info directly corresponds with a return to incumbency political effort . Proceeding with such a concept would violate numerous treaties, otherwise it would have already happened. Me thinks there's an odor of "fake-ski news" in it to appease the domestic market.
It's not an open cycle if you reading more correct translation:
Russia’s advanced arms are based on the cutting-edge, unique achievements of our scientists, designers and engineers. One of them is a small-scale heavy-duty nuclear energy unit that can fit inside a missile like our latest X-101 air-launched missile or the American Tomahawk missile providing it with a range dozens - dozens! - of times longer, basically an unlimited range. It is a low-flying stealth missile carrying a nuclear warhead, with almost an unlimited range, unpredictable trajectory and ability to bypass interception boundaries. It is invincible against all existing and prospective missile defense and counter-air defense systems. I will repeat this several times today.
In late 2017, Russia successfully launched its latest missile with nuclear power unit at the Central training ground. During its flight, the power unit reached its design capacity and provided the necessary thrust.
Now that the missile launch and ground tests were successful, we can begin developing a completely new type of weapon, a strategic nuclear weapons system with a nuclear-powered missile.
That X-101 is that part of Kh-55 family of cruise missile ?
its about Launch of X-101 there Russian will certain use existing System, like for Kh-55
in that case the Size of X-101 must same as the Kh-55, right ?
Granted it could be nothing more than a fake stunt for disinformation/propaganda purposes, but...really?
You must be a particular brand of deranged to justify the development of such weapon. Does it really add any deterrence value that SLBMs and ICBMs already don't?
By the way, for engineering development purposes, you most likely want to test fly the real thing, subsystems and all. Otherwise your predicted reliability and performance figures are BS. I didn't quite understand what was actually tested so far, i'm actually too pissed off to do the research right now. But what's a normal test program composed of? I can't imagine it's less than a couple dozen flights. How do you do that, and how do you cope with the very real probability of test flight mishaps? end of rant
That X-101 is that part of Kh-55 family of cruise missile ?
its about Launch of X-101 there Russian will certain use existing System, like for Kh-55
in that case the Size of X-101 must same as the Kh-55, right ?
They are different missiles, Kh-101 being larger and heavier. But why have you decided that a new missile will be air-launched? That's not _so obvious_.
You must be a particular brand of deranged to justify the development of such weapon. Does it really add any deterrence value that SLBMs and ICBMs already don't?
I wouldn't think so. A weapon like this could only be used in the event of The Big War, or else it would *spark* The Big War. It would provide no advantages in capability over ICBMs; the claims about defeating American missile defenses are silly, because there's no form of US missile defense system that would be at all useful in the event of a major war between the US and Russia. Pluto only made sense sixty years ago because ICBMs were unproven and Pluto provided a way to bomb the other side of the planet.
1) Russia isn't confident in its SLBM and ICBM deterrents being invulnerable by mid-century (could it be possible that ABM works really well?)
2) Russia wants to prove that 'the bomber always gets through' to NATO policy makers and the public. They think this is the only way to get the message across to idiots.
I think something which we may be missing is the possibility of boost-intercept ABM systems being used for a first-strike. This was actually a concern raised by a few years ago Putin officially (and combined with a warning that perceived first-strike capable systems would be met by developing improved deterrence weapons).
The direst interpretation would be simply that they want the weapons for prestige purposes. I think the best way to test Russian intent would be to return to disarmament talks and see how they react.
The concern is at least with Mk41 Aegis ashore that can hold BGM-109 in theory and that to be used for a first strike.
As for missile defense, well they might be useful to counter missile trowed at Europe, but even that will not work against a Russian large attack, unless Russia can't manage a large scale attack... Which is not the case.
Are cruise missiles likely targets for the F-35 and other fighters? would that type of patrol be a good counter to these in a wartime situation or is that unlikely if the cruise missile is stealthy? Would a fighter force like F-35, Mig-31 etc. be overwhelmed dealing with other air targets? If it works seems like Russia is making good use of its resources and have some very good deterrents while busting the USA budget.
The concern is at least with Mk41 Aegis ashore that can hold BGM-109 in theory and that to be used for a first strike.
As for missile defense, well they might be useful to counter missile trowed at Europe, but even that will not work against a Russian large attack, unless Russia can't manage a large scale attack... Which is not the case.
I think the Russian argument was that depressed trajectory missiles aren't that different technologically and could be concealed among the high energy ballistic missile interceptors stationed on their borders. At least that was my impression.
The concern is at least with Mk41 Aegis ashore that can hold BGM-109 in theory and that to be used for a first strike.
As for missile defense, well they might be useful to counter missile trowed at Europe, but even that will not work against a Russian large attack, unless Russia can't manage a large scale attack... Which is not the case.
It's all premised on a conjectural US first strike where:
1. The US destroys all Russian boomers at sea or in their ports
2. US stealth bombers + stealth cruise missiles destroy all Russian heavy ICBMs in their siloes.
3. US SLBMs destroy the Russian heavy rail-mobile ICBMs
4. US SLBMs destroy most of the road-mobile lCBMs
5. The remaining road-mobile ICBMs which survive to launch are intercepted by Aegis Ashore or some boost/ascent or other BMD system
6. The US threatens to use its full inventory of ICBMs in a counter-recovery attack unless the Russians submit
The Russians interpret the deliberate vulnerability of the Aegis Ashore sites as evidence that it's part of
a preemptive/first strike plan.
The nuclear engine. if it's truly indirect cycle. then it would be the smallest known nuclear jet engine. I'm curious about the heat exchange medium, and perhaps the design of the reactor, perhaps the medium would be some kind of fins. jet engine layout would be a turbofan with kinda large bypass ratio.
A source close to the military-industrial complex told Vedomosti that radiation safety during the testing of the missile was ensured. The nuclear installation on board was represented by an electric mock-up, the source said.
An idea of using a nuclear powered cruise missile is very shaky, especially knowing Russian technological reliability. Such a missile would be a threat to Russia itself as it could create a radioactive fallout .
All this circus comes right before the upcoming elections in Russia, or a mockery of elections one might say. Putin can not brag about economy being diversified, salaries increased and promises kept, so he goes North Korea gangnam style by threatening west with new weapons. By creating external enemies Putin is trying to sidetrack the gullible people from realizing that he is the actual enemy and warrant of endless poverty in Russia. Putin even said that the west was not listening to him, and that now they will. No Mr . Putin, west is not going to listen to you ever. As long as you attack neighbouring countries and spread poverty everywhere you go, the west will strangle you with new and new sanctions.
A source close to the military-industrial complex told Vedomosti that radiation safety during the testing of the missile was ensured. The nuclear installation on board was represented by an electric mock-up, the source said.
I'd be interested to know how they power it. A heat exchanger with the same thermal power output as a nuclear reactor is certainly doable, but the power required to heat the heat exchanger would mean that any known system would be able to run probably for only a few seconds. Maybe enough to demonstrate thrust.
I've been wondering if what this is *supposed* to represent is not a conventional nuclear reactor, but a hafnium isomer "nuclear battery" that gained all kinds of attention a decade or so ago. The fact that the isomer system seems to not pass theoretical muster might not preclude clever charlatans or deluded zealots from getting the funds to test a demonstrator.
The other interesting question is - if we trust the speech in regards of missile test with nuclear power unit onboard (I'm rather not a believer in the case) - what you gonna do with the missile when the test is _over_?
The other interesting question is - if we trust the speech in regards of missile test with nuclear power unit onboard (I'm rather not a believer in the case) - what you gonna do with the missile when the test is _over_?
The US side of story
The Tory series of Nuclear Ramjet was tested in Nevada desert at Area 26 aka "Jackass Flats" from 1961 and 1964.
after successful testing the plan was to build SLAM Airframe for Tory-IIC Engine and fly it remote controlled in Pacific, i thing it was at Johnson Atoll.
but as program enter that stage, McNamara pult the plug out the SLAM Program.
The Tory series of Nuclear Ramjet was tested in Nevada desert at Area 26 aka "Jackass Flats" from 1961 and 1964.
after successful testing the plan was to build SLAM Airframe for Tory-IIC Engine and fly it remote controlled in Pacific, i thing it was at Johnson Atoll.
The suggested flight path featured a terminal dive into the ocean over the Marianas Trench so that the reactor and airframe would sink to the deepest spot on Earth. I have doubts how effective that would be... even as rugged as the missile was supposed to be, smacking into the water at high speed while still heat-soaked would probably have caused it and the reactor to break up into itty-bitty-bits.
The other interesting question is - if we trust the speech in regards of missile test with nuclear power unit onboard (I'm rather not a believer in the case) - what you gonna do with the missile when the test is _over_?
Cadre: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
The American television channel CNBC, referring to sources familiar with a certain US intelligence report, stated about the mission being prepared by Russia to extract from the bottom of the Barents Sea a cruise missile with a nuclear power plant «Petrel », which allegedly drowned during unsuccessful tests. What does such a media report really mean?
Remembering «Kursk »
From the context of the news of the American media, it is clear that the tests of «Petrel » could be carried out on the New Earth archipelago, presumably on the Pankov Earth peninsula of the South Island. According to CNBC, in the rescue operation «Petrel », allegedly lost in November 2017, it is planned to use three ships, one of which is designed to work with radioactive materials. The channel notes that the extraction of the rocket will allow Russia to gain practical experience in carrying out such operations during future tests of such weapons.
eleven / 2
«Petrel » in the workshop
Cadre: Ministry of Defense / YouTube
CNBC writes that there are no specific dates for launching the mission, and the secret report does not contain any information about the potential risks to health and the environment associated with possible damage to nuclear power plants. The channel gives the opinion of the director of the information project on nuclear weapons of the Federation of American scientists, Hans Christensen, who believes that radioactive leaks in the fall of the rocket are inevitable. Subsequently expert gave an interview with The Verge, where he noted the complexity and danger of a possible operation. Christinsen recalled Russia's experience in lifting the K-141 nuclear submarine «Kursk », which was carried out with the technical support of the Dutch company Mammoet.
From Syria to the Arctic
The author of the American edition of The Drive Joseph Trevitik believesthat to save «Petrel » an oceanographic research vessel «Amber » can be used, acting as a carrier of inhabited autonomous deep-sea vehicles «Russia » (with an immersion depth of up to six kilometers) and «Consul »
Ship «Amber »
Photo: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
The expert notes that in July 2018, the Royal Navy of Great Britain noticed on «Amber » crossing the English Channel, a robot Tiger manufactured by Saab Seaeye, designed to operate up to a kilometer. This device has been repeatedly used by private companies to operate in areas that have undergone particularly severe radioactive contamination. It was «Amber » who took part in March 2017 in the operation to extract on-board equipment of Su-33 and MiG-29KR fighters lost by Russia in November and December 2016 in the Mediterranean Sea. Even earlier, in October 2016, this vessel was spotted near the Syrian coast in the area where submarine lines were located.
After the CNBC message on the network, they drew attention to the unusual movements of Russian ships in the area of the New Earth archipelago. In particular, Canadian analyst Steffan Watkins noted that the research vessel «Academician Primakov », designed for geological exploration on the Arctic shelf, being in the Kara Sea east of the New Earth, performed a number of unusual maneuvers. Trevitik admits that such movements are associated with the search for «Petrel », which in reality could sink in the Barents Sea. In the future, Watkins noticed other unusual, in his opinion, movements of Russian ships near the New Earth, including in the area of the Pankov Earth Peninsula.
Ultimately, if you leave aside the question of the reality of «Petrel » in the form in which its existence is declared by official Russian persons, it is worth paying attention to the fact that the key role in finding a lost cruise missile, if CNBC information corresponds to reality , will be assigned to «Amber ».
Indications vary
CNBC already in May 2018 claimed about tests «Petrel ». Then the channel also referred to sources directly familiar with some secret report. According to information received by CNBC, from November 2017 to February 2018, Russia conducted four tests of «Petrel », each of which ended in failure. The shortest test lasted only four seconds, for which the rocket flew eight kilometers. The longest flight — 35 kilometers in more than two minutes, ended in the loss of control of the rocket and its fall.
Related Materials: Russian strike: Putin showed the latest rocketsWhat is known about the worst weapons in Russia March 1, 2018
It also mentions that the flight of «Petrel », developed since the beginning of the 2000s, takes place in two stages. On the first, the rocket is accelerated by a gasoline engine, while on the second its movement is provided by the nuclear power plant. CNBC writes that the tests did not reach the stage of launching the nuclear power plant and therefore failed. The channel notes that in such tests «Petrel » insisted Kremlin officialswho neglected the opinion of engineers who claimed that the rocket was not ready to conduct such tests.
Commenting on CNBC news about failed launches «Petrel », member of the expert council of the board of the military-industrial complex of Russia Victor Murakhovskysuggestedthat the channel actually had in mind the throw tests of the — rocket when a full-sized product flies out of the launch mine, flies several kilometers without turning on the main engine and makes a planned drop to the ground (or to the sea).
It is also worth noting that CNBC information contradicts the statement of the President of Russia Vladimir Putinwhich in March 2018 is the first telling on the development of a «low-flying, low-visible cruise missile carrying a nuclear warhead, with an almost unlimited range, an unpredictable flight path and the possibility of bypassing the interception lines », noted the success of the work.
What is visible
The chief researcher of the 12th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense Sergey Pertsev, in July 2018 commenting on the video with «Petrel », statedthat on the basis of the specified requirements, the design of the rocket is improved and ground tests are carried out, and preparations are underway for flight tests of advanced samples. At the same time, the complex of ongoing work, the representative noted military department, will allow the transition to the creation of a new strategic complex of nuclear weapons.
According to data from open sources based on the analysis of satellite imagery, one of the combat positions of «Petrel » was built from 2014 to 2016 at the Kapustin Yar training ground (Astrakhan region). The site, the bmpd blog writes, was used for the first tests of a cruise missile not equipped with a nuclear power plant. Today, the training ground is involved in the development of the components of the complex and the training of military personnel, and in the future it is on its territory that the experimental combat duty of the strategic complex with «Petrel » will most likely be deployed.
Moscow reaction
In Kremlin in response to CNBC message statedthat they did not have information about the unsuccessful test of the rocket with the nuclear power plant and advised to seek comments from experts from the Russian Ministry of Defense. Editor-in-Chief «National Defense »Igor Korotchenko in conversation with RIA Novosti considered the news of the American television channel that appeared during the 2018 Army forum, specially «a directed throw behind which those structures Pentagonwho conduct information operations in cyberspace ».
The Tory series of Nuclear Ramjet was tested in Nevada desert at Area 26 aka "Jackass Flats" from 1961 and 1964.
after successful testing the plan was to build SLAM Airframe for Tory-IIC Engine and fly it remote controlled in Pacific, i thing it was at Johnson Atoll.
The suggested flight path featured a terminal dive into the ocean over the Marianas Trench so that the reactor and airframe would sink to the deepest spot on Earth. I have doubts how effective that would be... even as rugged as the missile was supposed to be, smacking into the water at high speed while still heat-soaked would probably have caused it and the reactor to break up into itty-bitty-bits.
Bethesda MD (SPX) Mar 15, 2019 - In December 2018, Russia tested a new hypersonic weapon designed to sneak under current U.S. ballistic missile defenses. The Avangard, a winged glider weapon boosted high into the atmosphere by a ba
www.spacedaily.com
… was a catchy misleading news "article" confusing the Buresvestnik (supersonic) with Avangard (hypersonic)
This topic should be moved to Aerospace. It's not unbuilt, seemingly…
But the hypersonic propulsion statement of a catchy headline tricked me with Avangard, as already stated in my two-previously published and edited posts.
So I tried to change the topic / subject to "Supersonic", but I can't. (Just made it)
FWIW, a interesting video showing the Buresvestnik production line.
Staff Writers for Launchspace, "Russia's New Hypersonic Nuclear Weapon", 29 January 2019
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russias_New_Hypersonic_Nuclear_Weapon_999.html
… was a catchy misleading news "article" confusing the Buresvestnik (supersonic) with Avangard (hypersonic)
Article clearly depicts Avangard, Poseidon and Burevestnik as different weapon systems, neither I see mention of Burevestnik there as 'supersonic'.
So I don't know why do you call article 'misleading'.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
kcur.org
abcnews.go.com
www.nextbigfuture.com
