9M730 Burevestnik (SSC-X-9 Skyfall) cruise nuclear-powered missile

lancer21 said:
As a rhetorical question seeing the russian advances with Burevestnik, have we reached a point where actually nuclear powered aircraft such as a bomber are feasible? It will "only" take scaling up the engine/s to the appropriate power for a bomber. In the past protecting the crew was a major concern, i have no idea how radioactive (or not) the Burevestnik engine is, but seeing that we are in the age of the UCAVs, nuclear powered unmanned bombers anyone?
Click to expand...
It's entirely possible to build an unmanned, nuclear powered aircraft. But the question is the why?

The only types of aircraft that would benefit from the unlimited flight duration would be ISR assets. And the engine used on the Burevestnik is, if I recall correctly, quite literally spewing out radioactive fallout while it's flying. Such a trail would make an ISR asset easy to detect and of limited usefulness.

As for bombers, a bomber is a means to get payload from point A to point B, which is already what the Burevestnik does. A nuclear powered bomber would be redundant.

The effort, cost and headaches are not worth it. And as I said above, while I find the nuclear powered Poseidon to be a genuinely useful weapon, I still fail to see the value in Burevestnik aside from unlimited range. ICBMs can already virtually hit anything anywhere. And if it's about increasing chances to penetrate air defenses, submarine launched nuclear tipped ballistic and cruise missiles fill that role as well. Positive about Burevestnik is that even when intercepted a debris field of radioactive waste would come into being, now imagine several being intercepted over urban areas, yeah. So even interception comes at a cost. Not that it matters for the scenarios for which this missile has been envisioned, which is all out war.
 
Dilandu said:
Technically yes, practically - still a headache. Isolating bomber crew & tech personnel from the reactors is much bigger problem on multiple-use manned craft, than on single-use unmanned missile. The missile is stored in launch container completely "cold", emitting very little. It's reactor go hot only when launched - and since missile is single-use, the matter of reactor utilization after flight isn't a big problem (it fell on enemy head with wahread). On manned bomber, you would face a monumental problem of isolating and storing a "hot" reactor after the flight, with nuclear fuel already "heated" and glowing intensively.
Click to expand...
Indeed you are right, however it makes one wonder if the russians got some technical breakthrough in designing the nuclear engine that would make it more manageable than previously as far as radiation goes. Probably such technicals are top secret but still would be interesting to know if there is anything in the OSINT and/or theoretical science about such possible breakthroughs.
 
lancer21 said:
Indeed you are right, however it makes one wonder if the russians got some technical breakthrough in designing the nuclear engine that would make it more manageable than previously as far as radiation goes. Probably such technicals are top secret but still would be interesting to know if there is anything in the OSINT and/or theoretical science about such possible breakthroughs.
Click to expand...
With all my national pride about Rosatom, even they didn't manage to break laws of physics) Yes, it's possible to design reactor in such way that it would be more manageable - but generally it would still be a headache, that would require specially-equipped airfields with robotic machines to service the planes remotely. The main problem is, that any proper radiation protection (that would fully isolate reactor) would be very heavy. So basically the only way to work with such plane on the ground would be as envisioned in 1950-1960s - immediately after landing, the remote controlled robot would detach the reactor & put it into storage capsule. And before takeoff, the reactor would again be extracted and attached to the plane - all by remotes, since the darn thing would be VERY hot. Possible; but hardly practical.
 
How small could a liquid metal cooled reactor get?
 
zen said:
How small could a liquid metal cooled reactor get?
Click to expand...
That is not liquid metal cooled reactor
This according the The Russian a Nuclear Puls jet engine
Instead burning fuel with Air, A Nuclear reactor heats incoming Air and spit out
so a Air cooled reactor type like tested unter Pluto for SLAM, only much smaller

However to make that reactor so small to power this size Cruise missile, is a engineer masterpiece...
 
Dilandu said:
Well, Rosatoms guys ARE the most competent & advanced guys in practical appliactions of nuclear technology in the world.
Click to expand...
The result of steady research and development in nuclear science and engineering and actually utilizing it for applications that are outside the scope of military industrial development (like the sizeable fleet of civilian icebreakers operated by Rosatom's Atomflot).

Something that has been sorely neglected in the west and Asia never truly dabbled in.

And maintaining a pool of qualified engineers, suppliers and maintenance personnel in the military and civilian sector makes something like Burevestnik and Poseidon possible without much effort. In short, the Russians love their glowing metal and all the stuff it can power.
 
They look like they are pushing the operational date to 2027, is that correct? Just wondering how many tests are needed to declare it operational or set to serial production.
 
Null said:
They look like they are pushing the operational date to 2027, is that correct? Just wondering how many tests are needed to declare it operational or set to serial production.
Click to expand...
Well, the missile clearly is VERY expensive & require a lot of special infrastructure to manufacture, deploy and service.
 
lancer21 said:
As a rhetorical question seeing the russian advances with Burevestnik, have we reached a point where actually nuclear powered aircraft such as a bomber are feasible? It will "only" take scaling up the engine/s to the appropriate power for a bomber. In the past protecting the crew was a major concern, i have no idea how radioactive (or not) the Burevestnik engine is, but seeing that we are in the age of the UCAVs, nuclear powered unmanned bombers anyone?
Click to expand...
From a technical standpoint it was always doable; from a practical standpoint no and probably never. I personally doubt Skyfall is a cost effective weapon either, though we have no details about its propulsion.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, Rosatoms guys ARE the most competent & advanced guys in practical appliactions of nuclear technology in the world.
Click to expand...
Yes, that reactor must be small in size of 30 cmø around 30 to 100 cm to fit inside the Missile.
i wonder how they start up the chain reaction inside Reactor of that size for 15 Hours,
i'm suspect that Reactor inside hull is beryllium to reflect neutrons back into reactor.
Who is control by graphene rods, to prevent flying Chernobyl.
Do they use external neutron source to kick start the reactor ?

how ever it is this a liquid metal cooled Reactor
it can use this Metal as neutron source to increase the chain reaction in small reactor.
 
I also doubt it will see widespread use, if at all. It's a cool engineering exercise, but the likes of Poseidon, Avangard, Zircon, Sarmat, Oreshnik etc. are just far more useful than a subsonic cruise missile which only advantage is range.

I suspect that, in conjunction with PAK DA, a new generation of cruise missiles for Russian long range aviation will be developed for use by Tu-160s and PAK DA bombers. Which makes the Burevestnik more or less redundant. I don't see much benefit in a ship launched version either when Poseidon exists which is more covert and can be launched anywhere at any time by a submarine or submerged container. So there's no reason to launch it from land, because ICBMs exist, no reason to launch it by air because it has no significant advantage over existing and potential future ALCMs and lastly there's no reason to launch it at sea because Poseidon renders it redundant.

With Burevestnik having to be launched by dedicated sites, not being able to launch, land and take off again (compared to Poseidon which can truly loiter and perhaps even settle until action is required) and being subsonic and as far as we know not stealthy, I fail to see where the much lauded "surprise" factor comes from? I'm very sceptical of the future and overall usefulness of the missile. But yes, it is a feat of engineering that I can certainly respect.
 
The russians must have had a long and hard look and the pros and cons of building this, so they must have a definite tactical/strategic rationale for it. So we have to "think russian" to understand.

The bombers and subs capable of launching similar conventional missiles are few in numbers and vulnerable to detection and countering by the enemy, plus they have to get closer to the target since no russian ALCM i can think of has that kind of range yet.

The proliferation of ABM systems increasing the vulnerability of ICBMs and SLBMs to reach their targets in the numbers required for MAD.

I think Burevestnik is not mean to replace any of the above but provide yet another arm of the nuclear deterrent, making sure something at least gets to reach the enemy assuring MAD. Sure it has it's own vulnerabilities being subsonic and all but it's coming at 30 meters above ground where no ABM can see/catch it and limits the reaction of any SAM systems, this assuming all the potential targets have any AD at all. I think this is modern iteration of the old scare-crow the ground based BGM-109 and soviet Granit iirc GLCM of the 1980s, except it can be deployed literally anywhere in the vastness of Russia since it has near unlimited range, so yeah good luck finding them.

Probably much of the above rationale applies to Poseidon too imo.
 
Michel Van said:
Do they use external neutron source to kick start the reactor ?
Click to expand...
I suspect no one there would knew about it for sure before 2055 at very least) 2075 likely)

lancer21 said:
I think Burevestnik is not mean to replace any of the above but provide yet another arm of the nuclear deterrent, making sure something at least gets to reach the enemy assuring MAD.
Click to expand...
Essentially yes, that's the strategic idea. Ensured retaliation, achieved by deploying multiple very different systems - that could not be countered by some kind of "common" approach. Even if the opponent would manage to create efficient defense against one kind of retaliation weapon, it would not be efficient against the other.
 
lancer21 said:
So we have to "think russian" to understand.
Click to expand...
I have no issue doing so, given that I mostly show interest in Russian developments and spend my free time on it.

I'm still sceptical about that specific weapon system.
 
The Burevestnik really puzzles me. Its unlimited range is its only real advantage over anything else and what use would it be in Europe anyway? The Continent is small enough for it to be possible to leave no exploitable gaps at all in any AD network that would come to exist in a conflict large enough to warrant the use of nuclear weapons. If there is any reason this missile has been developed beyond "Rublesplurge Wunderwaffe for the sake of national morale", my amateur opinion is that the intended use is 1) as a post-exchange, counter-value spite weapon to be launched from the reaches of Siberia or 2) as a first-strike weapon reserved for continental America, where its infinite range and America's vast, empty expanses could be reasonably exploited.
 
Michel Van said:
yes but since it fly at mach 1
it will have far lower heat signature compare to SLAM or Big Stick at mach 3
Click to expand...
It is a flying nuclear reactor. It has to be dumping its waste heat into the atmosphere, regardless of the propulsion engineering. Perhaps not SLAM/Pluto levels, since those used open primary coolant loops, but the heat has to go somewhere.
 
leiter said:
The Burevestnik really puzzles me. Its unlimited range is its only real advantage over anything else and what use would it be in Europe anyway? The Continent is small enough for it to be possible to leave no exploitable gaps at all in any AD network that would come to exist in a conflict large enough to warrant the use of nuclear weapons. If there is any reason this missile has been developed beyond "Rublesplurge Wunderwaffe for the sake of national morale", my amateur opinion is that the intended use is 1) as a post-exchange, counter-value spite weapon to be launched from the reaches of Siberia or 2) as a first-strike weapon reserved for continental America, where its infinite range and America's vast, empty expanses could be reasonably exploited.
Click to expand...
The officially stated idea was, that it's the ensured retaliation weapon, designed for the case of American anti-ballistic defenses becoming too powerful to ensure retaliation by ICBM's and SLBM's. Basically, it's the way of making it clear to American leadership; even if they would create efficient defense against Russian ICBM's, Russia would still be able to retaliate the other way. American low-altitude missile defenses aren't exactly formidable; the homeland defense of USA is pretty limited in terms of detecting and intercepting something as small and low-flying cruise missile. It mainly concentrated on keeping the cruise missile carriers away from launch range. Well, the Burevestnik don't need the carrier; it could literally sneak on United States from the Mexico borders.
 
It's literally a second strike weapon to enforce MAD.

I'd be less focused on it's IR signature and more glossing over the fact that it will be spewing a massive trail of fresh radiation wherever it goes. Prime detection cue material.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
Why are we taking Russia's statements at face value? Wouldn't a nuclear powered missile emit a lot of radiation that would be detectable by satellites?
Click to expand...
yeetmahboi said:
It's literally a second strike weapon to enforce MAD.

I'd be less focused on it's IR signature and more glossing over the fact that it will be spewing a massive trail of fresh radiation wherever it goes. Prime detection cue material.
Click to expand...
If it's a closed loop system then it would not leave any sort of radioactive trail
 
lancer21 said:
As a rhetorical question seeing the russian advances with Burevestnik, have we reached a point where actually nuclear powered aircraft such as a bomber are feasible? It will "only" take scaling up the engine/s to the appropriate power for a bomber. In the past protecting the crew was a major concern, i have no idea how radioactive (or not) the Burevestnik engine is, but seeing that we are in the age of the UCAVs, nuclear powered unmanned bombers anyone?
Click to expand...
Shielding is still an issue. Solid state electronics do not like catching lots of neutrons or gamma/x-rays. Causes bits to flip, and then your cruise missile takes that right turn at Albuquerque and hits Pinsk instead of Minsk.

Dilandu covered most of the rest of it.




Dilandu said:
According to official data, it's a closed-cycle reactor. No fallout.
Click to expand...
Aside from the heat-exchanger losses, that's honestly a pretty significant advance over SLAM/Pluto's engine.

But a nuclear heated pulse jet? that's kinda weird! Yes, lighter and simpler than a nuclear heated turbojet.
 
Tomboy said:
If it's a closed loop system then it would not leave any sort of radioactive trail
Click to expand...
And rads doesn't go through the very limited shielding onboard? Rads don't get into the exhaust? These are very pertinent questions.
 
yeetmahboi said:
And rads doesn't go through the very limited shielding onboard? Rads don't get into the exhaust? These are very pertinent questions.
Click to expand...
Radiation isn't magical curse. As long as no radioactive particles leave the reactor - and if the reactor is enclosed, and outside air only interact with heat exchanger pipes, they simply can't leave - there is no fallout. The reactor is shooting a lot of ionizing radiation through its very limited shielding, of course, but as long as there is nothing close to irradiate (and air around generally did not carry enough particles to represent a problem), there is no fallout.

The open-cycle nuclear jets left a lot of fallout because their reactor wasn't enclosed. The air run directly through the reactor, and inevitably eroded & carried away a lot of nuclear fuel fragments. That's wy SLAM-like nuclear ramjet would be such a flying catastrophe; it would literally shoot away highly radioactive dust from active reactor! But closed-cycle reactors did not have such problem; in them, the reactor is enclosed, and air heating only achieved through the heat exchanger.
 
Last edited:
We don't know if it's open or closed. Closed would be heavier by design.

It's a 2nd strike weapon designed to pierced Golden Dome by flying around the defenses, no matter how long and far it takes. And since we can't cover every inch of the US border at a reasonable cost, well we can't stop it.
 
yeetmahboi said:
And rads doesn't go through the very limited shielding onboard? Rads don't get into the exhaust? These are very pertinent questions.
Click to expand...
Yes, it will almost guarantee to go through the shielding. Because the missile flies overhead at 900kph, any exposure on the ground is minimal.

A closed loop reactor will not have fission fragments in the exhaust.
 
yeetmahboi said:
And rads doesn't go through the very limited shielding onboard? Rads don't get into the exhaust? These are very pertinent questions.
Click to expand...
Close loop literally means no radioactive material is released in the exhaust. It does pose a issue with radiation directly from the core but as it flies fast any exposure on the ground is minimal and it doesn't leave a trail because no material is being leaked and the source is fully contained in the missile.
 
Russia's Burevestnik: A Nuclear-Powered Missile That Defies Convention
www.spacewar.com

Russia's Burevestnik: A Nuclear-Powered Missile That Defies Convention

Berlin, Germany (SPX) Oct 27, 2025 - Russia's latest strategic weapons announcement has reignited debate over one of the most controversial missile programs of the modern era - the 9M730 Burevestnik, known to NATO as the SSC-X-9 Skyfa
www.spacewar.com

The Claimed 2025 Flight​

On October 21 2025, President Vladimir Putin was reportedly briefed that a Burevestnik missile had completed a 15-hour flight spanning roughly 14 000 kilometers, allegedly powered by a compact onboard nuclear reactor. The announcement coincided with large-scale strategic nuclear exercises and was presented by Russian state media as proof that the weapon has reached an advanced stage of development.
Click to expand...
However, no independent evidence - satellite tracking, flight telemetry, or international monitoring data - has corroborated the claim. Western defense analysts note that previous Burevestnik tests have produced mixed results, and the Kremlin's timing suggests a primarily political demonstration of endurance and defiance rather than verified technological success.
Click to expand...
 
Forest Green said:
Russia's Burevestnik: A Nuclear-Powered Missile That Defies Convention
However, no independent evidence - satellite tracking, flight telemetry, or international monitoring data - has corroborated the claim. Western defense analysts note that previous Burevestnik tests have produced mixed results, and the Kremlin's timing suggests a primarily political demonstration of endurance and defiance rather than verified technological success.
Click to expand...
I'm just curious, what kind of "independent evidence" they expect? Satellite tracking, international monitoring data - from the weapon, that is designed to be unnoticeable and avoid being tracked? Seriously, this criticism make no sence.
 
Dilandu said:
I'm just curious, what kind of "independent evidence" they expect? Satellite tracking, international monitoring data - from the weapon, that is designed to be unnoticeable and avoid being tracked? Seriously, this criticism make no sence.
Click to expand...
That's just the west/westerners desperate to find a negative angle to anything Russia does. They were quick to report on testing issues Burevestnik suffered in the past though. Well the recent test even got the american potus to make a statement, so i think that says what needs to be said about Burevestnik. It's doing the job it's supposed to.
 
Weapon makes good sense since they have bumped up their satellite production and even aiming at having satellites control drones.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom