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

Josh_TN said:
I am unaware of such a capability; do you have a link?
Click to expand...

Somewhere there; I don't recall where exactly, unfortunately:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB43/
Basically the idea was to allow the ICBM to be launched on warning (thus escaping the risk of them being caught on ground & destroyed) and given a specific plan of action in flight (after the exact profile of enemy attack would become apparent). IRRC it was supposed to be done by letting warheads ride on bus for longer time than usual, so they could be aimed on specific targets (within their area of attack, of course; they can't be diverted from it) later.
 
Dr.Cohen said:
Hmm. They seem to use very specific wording. They only confirm a launch, and say nothing about the success of said launch, if a flight test occurred, if it was a successful flight test, the duration of the flight, etc. They just confirm a launch. To me that is a meaningless statement.
Click to expand...
Well, it's kinda hard for them to say much about the weapon, that is designed to be hard to notice, you know) It's like doubting that America really have B-2 bombers, because there is no radar tracking of their flight.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, it's kinda hard for them to say much about the weapon, that is designed to be hard to notice, you know) It's like doubting that America really have B-2 bombers, because there is no radar tracking of their flight.
Click to expand...
It's a standard CM, that will most certainly register on modern NATO tracking radar. That excuse doesn't hold much weight. Furthermore, there's no reason to doubt the existence of B-2 bombers as we have TBs of images of them being built in the production plants, a grand roll out, weapons testing, flight tests, air shows, etc. Along with TBs of video evidence to accompany those images. We have none of that for this supposed nuclear powered CM. With all due respect, that wasn't a very thought out analogy, I must say.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Cohen said:
It's a standard CM, that will most certainly register on modern NATO tracking radar.
Click to expand...
Assuming it would fly anywhere close to NATO radar, of course) Last time I checked, there were little to none NATO radars in direct proximity to Novaya Zemlya.

Dr.Cohen said:
Furthermore, there's no reason to doubt the existence of B-2 bombers as we have TBs of images of them being built in the production plants, a grand roll out, weapons testing, flight tests, air shows, etc.
Click to expand...
Recall how secret was F-117 program. Its mere existence was revealed only in 1988, and the actual view of the aircraft became available to public only in 1990s. Now imagine how many peoples probably dismissed the idea of stealt attack plane on the same ground that "it certainly would be detected"...)
 
I don't see the point of this missile. I can't imagine using it for anything short of WW3 because other countries would treat it like a nuke "WMD" if only for the radiological effect of the smashed engine. Of course, you could also make a lot of them and just launch them from land, getting rid of the need to have a bomber haul them into range in a WW3 scenario. Could probably use them as a blackmail weapon like the Status-6/Poseidon nuclear torpedo.
 
There is an outfit called Bellona that had info on atomic icebreakers and such---any information from them, or are they just anti-nukes?
 
Sferrin said:
I don't see the point of this missile. I can't imagine using it for anything short of WW3 because other countries would treat it like a nuke "WMD" if only for the radiological effect of the smashed engine. Of course, you could also make a lot of them and just launch them from land, getting rid of the need to have a bomber haul them into range in a WW3 scenario. Could probably use them as a blackmail weapon like the Status-6/Poseidon nuclear torpedo.
Click to expand...
As I stated, the whole point is presumed to be assured deterrence. The kind of weapon, that A - would be invlunerable to anti-ballistic defenses (due to not being ballistic), B - would extremely complicate defense against it due to unpredictable time & direction of its attack, and C - could be pre-launched, and thus invulnerable to enemy first strike. Basically, it's a way to declare "even if you managed to globber us & cover behind your ballistic defenses, we would still have the ways to get you"

As it was already stated in this tread, such weapon is basically a more specialized equivalent of strategic bombers at constant patrol (like US done at the height of Cold War). It is much less detectable than strategic bomber, and could fly transcontinental at low altitudes, making it extremely hard to detect on radars.
 
Dr.Cohen said:
It's a standard CM, that will most certainly register on modern NATO tracking radar. That excuse doesn't hold much weight. Furthermore, there's no reason to doubt the existence of B-2 bombers as we have TBs of images of them being built in the production plants, a grand roll out, weapons testing, flight tests, air shows, etc. Along with TBs of video evidence to accompany those images. We have none of that for this supposed nuclear powered CM. With all due respect, that wasn't a very thought out analogy, I must say.
Click to expand...
Without knowing anything about the missiles flight parameters or Norwegian collection assets, there’s nothing really to say. Certainly radar wise it seems likely a cruise missile would be below the radar horizon even at medium altitude, and presumably one advantage of unlimited fuel is that low altitude flight can also be sustained indefinitely.
 
Archibald said:
So it is basically a hot air engine: no kerosene involved, hence unlimited range and endurance.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily unlimited, as you do burn about 1 gram of uranium per megawatt per day when running HEU (project pluto was 600MW thermal, I suspect Skyfall is more like 200MW). Plus, a closed-cycle reactor has neutron poisons build up as it operates, so you need to maintain a level of fuel high enough to allow for operating while saturated with Xenon. Call it double your starting critical mass before you get into that 1 gram per megawatt per day burn rate.
 
EmoBirb said:
Time to target doesn't seem like much of an issue for Poseidon, given that in time of heightened tension it can be 'ejected' by a submarine close to enemy controlled waters and lurk there or even remain dormant. Possibly waiting for a signal being broadcasted that either then sends it off to its merry, pre-determined, way to it's target or recalls it to be recovered and reused if tensions eased again. I wouldn't be surprised if Poseidon has several ways of homing in on tactical and strategic targets via noise and electromagnetic emissions among other things. I certainly expect such a weapon to have redundancy and clever ways to find targets, given that it's a late 2010s design and not another re-warmed cold war relic. I wouldn't go as far as claiming AI guidance, as I've seen others theorize online. Certainly not with a nuclear device.
Click to expand...
Communicating with a submarine/submerged object is not an easy task.

There's always the chance that the weapon is launched before the war is over and because it would take weeks for Poseidon to arrive the war has otherwise ended.

IMO Posiedon is a carrier-group deletion device, not a land-attack system.
 
Scott Kenny said:
IMO Posiedon is a carrier-group deletion device, not a land-attack system.
Click to expand...
Nothing that even the Russians have said indicates this. And if you are willing to send a long ranged automated system out to kill a carrier, why would you not instead give it the orders of magnitude easier task of just blowing up off of a major metropolitan area?
 
Josh_TN said:
Nothing that even the Russians have said indicates this. And if you are willing to send a long ranged automated system out to kill a carrier, why would you not instead give it the orders of magnitude easier task of just blowing up off of a major metropolitan area?
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't particularly contribute to winning the war when it arrives 3 weeks after the entire rest of the planet's arsenal goes boom.

It's just a final "F U, New York!"
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because it doesn't particularly contribute to winning the war when it arrives 3 weeks after the entire rest of the planet's arsenal goes boom.

It's just a final "F U, New York!"
Click to expand...
It is a perfectly viable counter value deterrent strategy, so long as the UUV reliably gets to its target eventually.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because it doesn't particularly contribute to winning the war when it arrives 3 weeks after the entire rest of the planet's arsenal goes boom.

It's just a final "F U, New York!"
Click to expand...

If Blue Force has to assign a proportion of SSNs and MPAs to try to track down these UUVs, then it does reduce their war-fighting ability.
 
Once umderway, that knowledge would remove any constraint to fire more nukes.
 
Arjen said:
Once umderway, that knowledge would remove any constraint to fire more nukes.
Click to expand...
The opponent does not need to knew that its underway; the opponent merely need to realize, that it might be underway, lotiering & waiting the signal (even more problematic for the opponent, if the missile is waiting for cancel command - so if he eliminates all command & control structure in first strike, there would be no one to send it...)
 
Arjen said:
Again, that knowledge would remove any constraint to fire more nukes. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Click to expand...
Erm, it's more logical to stand down from all your (not personally yours, of course) brilliant "we would strike first & our anti-ballistic defense hande the weakened retaliation" plans. If your first strike not ensure the lack of retaliation, then the first strike plan is not working.
 
Dilandu said:
"we would strike first & our anti-ballistic defense hande the weakened retaliation" plans
Click to expand...
No one do first strike anymore. Like, no one. Not even China, nor the US. In fact the US may be the worst of the bunch because it has to rely on ancient launch bunkers and protocols.
 
yeetmahboi said:
No one do first strike anymore. Like, no one. Not even China, nor the US. In fact the US may be the worst of the bunch because it has to rely on ancient launch bunkers and protocols.
Click to expand...
The fact is, that Russia is fearful about American first strike - made by stealth aircraft & cruise missiles from US bases near Russian territory - with American anti-ballistic defense to ward off the retaliation. Such kind of attack rely on the things that US military excel in planning and doing. The Burevestnik was developed to address such threat.
 
Dilandu said:
The fact is, that Russia is fearful about American first strike - made by stealth aircraft & cruise missiles from US bases near Russian territory - with American anti-ballistic defense to ward off the retaliation. Such kind of attack rely on the things that US military excel in planning and doing. The Burevestnik was developed to address such threat.
Click to expand...
True. I did say this before "deal with Russia like dealing with a scaredy addict".
Tbf that's how the early criticisms on Buresvestnik come about: inability to see it from the other end of the prism.
 
While I do think the underlying technology being applied here is interesting and impressive if it is truly reliable I don't really see the point of this weapon. As can be seen in Ukraine KH-101s are said to be some of the missiles that have the lowest chance of penetrating Ukrainian air defense and the Burevestnik is expected to be both larger and heavier than that. Furthermore I think you can certainly achieve sufficient ranges with a conventional propulsion system given that nuclear armed cruise missiles such as the SM-62 Snark in 1958 could ranges of over 10,000 kilometers I am quite certain you can achieve sufficient range without relying on this nuclear propulsion. The United States during the Cold War themselves did not pursue nuclear powered missiles because if their inferior reaction times to ICBMs which is an important factor if you need to respond to a nuclear strike as you would imagine and I don't expect that dynamic to have changed. There is not alot known about the Burevestnik so maybe there is some factor that is being missed that give it an edge that is worth it but currently I don't really see it.
 

Attachments

  • B_0006_WERRELL_EVOLUTION_CRUISE_MISSILE.pdf
    16.4 MB · Views: 16
Many things were and are seemingly planned. May I mention the name Peresvet?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Uuuuiiiuu said:
What do you think the F-15EX is for?
Click to expand...

Why would these exist hours after an intercontinental strike after by Avangard HGVs and Sarmat ICBMs?

Desertfox said:
This weapon has one purpose, force the US to spend billions on 360 cruise missile defense coverage. The entire US border now requires robust cruise missile defenses...
Click to expand...

I don't think it has the range for a south pole route. That's what the FOBS Sarmat is for. I suppose it's possible, though.

I think it's just to eliminate the Tu-160s and Tu-95s as a strategic backbone by having a cruise missile that doesn't need to be lofted.
 
I'm not the one proposing we build the Golden Dome...

It doesnt need to overfly the South Pole, just go far enough South to approach over Mexico. The computer simulations definitely showed that was the intention.
 
Desertfox said:
And how many do you need to provide round the clock coverage of every single mile of border the US has? Including Canada, Mexico, both oceans and the Gulf of Mexico?
Click to expand...
Sortie generation isn't the only issue, survivability is (as in, will these still operate after the first exchange) and in peacetime such patrols eat millions in flight hours and the EX isn't cheap.
 
I wonder if nuclear powered recon drones flying over international waters will be a a thing - such a thing would be a viable alternative to satellites imo, and would naturally have a ton of onboard power to run powerful radars and sensors, datalinks etc.
lancer21 said:
Came across this, apparently Burevestnik is a mere warm-up, they are seemingly planning a Mach 3 and even faster nuclear powered cruise missile. Wowzers.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1985784956313035068
View: https://x.com/Pataramesh/status/1985784956313035068
Click to expand...
Especially considering this - if your powerplant has an edurance measured in months, any considerations of efficiency go out the window - why not make it fly high and go supersonic?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom