Yeah, and maybe the keys from the house were the money are stored? (c, "Twelve chairs") Seriously, such data would obviously be top secret. What would be USA reaction for Russia or China saying "you know, we don't believe your claims about F-22 stealth capabilities, so could we see the detailed RCS data, please?"
If things get to the point of nuclear weapons having to be used, one cannot rely on the US air defense network being as weak and porous as it is today. While it is not possible to cover every square meter of American soil, covering every square meter of valuable terrain is very much possible.
The fact that the weapon is being live tested seems to indicate closed cycle.
Define "valuable terrain" and consider the fact, that American resources aren't limitless, and providing more or less throughout low-altitude defense even just for largest cities would be very costly.
Everything is very costly. Massively expanding ABM defenses, which is the scenario you quoted as being the intended one for the use of Burevestnik, would be (is?) very costly. If one has to necessarily go for a hypothetical scenario other hypotheticals cannot be excluded.
Highly likely. A molten-salt or liquid-metal reactor would be significantly heavier.
Intelligence sources on the ground, launch and landing site activity.... heat signature from launch motor and missile. Telemetry intercept. Also curious as to where it flew 14,000km between unless it went round in a circle.
The first is unlikely to exist with such a highly classified program. And there is probably a lot of data an telemetry available, just not for you and me and everyone else. The US has probably a rough idea of what went on there, but you won't read anything meaningful in the news.
Are you aware of the use of submarines in acquiring intelligence during the Cold War?
That would be an interesting use case and would make it the epitome of a second strike weapon. It is certainly something I didn't consider in my prior comments. But even then, I'm unsure if large numbers of these missiles would be procured in the long run. Perhaps a small pool to be maintained just in case.
I wouldn't call a submarine "intelligence sources on the ground"
Most likely it flew round in a circle, for example, around Novaya Zemlya archipelago - which is nuclear testing ground already, and so any kind of crash would not cause much problems.
If I offended you I sincerely apologize, but I was merely sarcastic.
No, i mean that if they had actually tested it, we'd be able to pick up the radiation
What radiation? The reactor own emission likely isn't powerful enough to be detected without some sensors very close to missile.
I would assume it simply did circles/racetracks over open water above the arctic circle. You would want no observers, no ground contamination in the event of failure, and low chance of opponent recovery (deep water) if it was not being recovered or if it had to abort before the desired splashdown point. Recovery seems dubious; impact almost certainly has a high risk of compromising containment in an extremely weight sensitive reactor solution.
Hypothetically no with a closed coolant loop, though practically I would think the splashdown my crack containment and create a localized low level nuclear event.
I still think the thermal signature would probably be substantial; anything short of 100% transfer to the exhaust is going to have to be dumped into the structure somewhere. You could perhaps be a little creative with which way a hot surface pointed, but the reactor heat has to go somewhere.
Yes I suspect there is a particular target set that might be expected to survive in limited numbers. Due to defences and the 'depth' inland of such targets. Where there is a lot of scope for knocking down conventionally (nuclear armed) cruise missiles and sufficient defense against ballistic or hypersonic missiles.
www.twz.com
The problem is that to me this sounds like something submarines already exist for.
Closed cycle nuclear jet engine. Previously the U.S. had done some work on an open cycle system, but it was all but impossible to test due to contamination. It seems like an incredibly expensive way to power a cruise missile but it certainly is a first.
Rather doubt that; the missile with reactor likely would cost more than just ICBM.
The capability of making low-altitude flight for transcontinental distances, quite literally sneaking below radar. And the capability of making the approach from any direction that enemy simply could not predict or cover.
True. But strategic deterrence weapons usually are quite expensive. ICBM's and SLBM's are enormously costly methods of deliveing nuclear warheads; but they are very efficient for intended role, so the cost is considered reasonable.
The Russians have felt extremely threatened by U.S. ABM efforts and this along with Status 6 provide weapons that are immune to ABM defenses. I personally think it is a little ridiculous to think that any U.S. defensive effort could be effective enough to warrant such systems, but I suppose the threat would be some kind of huge, crash effort by the U.S. to deploy a vast ABM shield across the U.S. in the future along the lines of ‘Golden Dome’, only with an unlimited budget.
There is additional factor - the territory of Russia is much more vulnerable to American first-strike, than visa versa. The fears, that USA could launch a sudden counter-force attack and reduce our nuclear arsenal to the level that could be handled by American anti-ballistic defense was a constant fear since 1980s.
How so?
I don't think it's as much a weapon as it's a signal that deterrence will stand.
It's a subsonic cruise missile, rather clean one at that. As such, any random dude with gun can potentially bring it down (and certainly can report the overflight).
Depressed trajectory SLBMs and stealth bombers. Remember that Russia's space assets and radar fences aren't as good as the US.
First truly nuclear powered aircraft.
I will admit perhaps a superior first strike mechanism but not to the degree that significant disarmament is a concern. If there was a time the U.S. could do that, it was in the 90s and early 2000s. And if there was a time to put China down with a nuclear war, it’s now or more probably a decade ago. The idea that the U.S. would engage in an offensive nuclear war seems rather paranoid given its history of not do that when it has a clear nuclear advantage, throughout most of the nuclear age, with the admitted exception of Japan. But they did pick that fight and were given options.
