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

Scott Kenny said:
Most likely?

Picture a jet engine. Replace the combustion chamber with the reactor or at least the reactor cooling loop. Reactor heats air, which expands and drives a turbine (and produces thrust), the turbine spins a compressor to stuff more air in the front and make more thrust. That's a nuclear turbojet in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
Spot on, and from my recent understanding, Pratt indirect cycle was to do exactly that with 4 x J58s - also known as JT-11s, hence the name: JTN-11. Those four J58s would get a liquid metal reactor loop inside their combustion chambers. The whole thing called NJ-18A.

So this brings an interesting question. The Soviets once created the Alfa submarines with liquid metal reactors. Does Burevestnik use that past experience to pull a small, indirect cycle ? a liquid metal reactor as the heart of a jet engine ?
 
I don’t think the mechanism has ever been described, but I would assume some kind of secondary loop like the nuclear turbojet described above. The repercussions of testing a nuclear engine with an open primary coolant loop would probably be undesirable.
 
Archibald said:
Do we have any clue about how the engine works ? indirect cyle (I hope !) ? How does it compares to the never build NX-2 ? or Pluto (shudders) ?
Click to expand...
Realistically? It runs by burning kerosene (or something similar) and air in combustors; the exhaust gases flow past turbines which drive compressors. It's "nuclear" in that the metal alloys, fuel and oxygen are made up of atoms that have nuclei.

The physics of a cruise-missile-scale nuclear turbojet are dubious. And this is the same country that can't seem to field a modern tank or a passable aircraft carrier. So I believe these claims about as much as Putins claims about not hving started the current war.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Realistically? It runs by burning kerosene (or something similar) and air in combustors; the exhaust gases flow past turbines which drive compressors. It's "nuclear" in that the metal alloys, fuel and oxygen are made up of atoms that have nuclei.

The physics of a cruise-missile-scale nuclear turbojet are dubious. And this is the same country that can't seem to field a modern tank or a passable aircraft carrier. So I believe these claims about as much as Putins claims about not hving started the current war.
Click to expand...

I think they legitimately are building a nuclear powered engine, based on the fact there have been radiation spikes in the region during failed tests.
 
Josh_TN said:
I don’t think the mechanism has ever been described, but I would assume some kind of secondary loop like the nuclear turbojet described above. The repercussions of testing a nuclear engine with an open primary coolant loop would probably be undesirable.
Click to expand...

Pluto was a full and entire nightmare. The damn thing had so many different ways of killing people...
- kill them with the shockwave
- kill them with the sound
- kill them dropping H-bombs
- kill them with the exhaust
- kill them crashing a white-hot reactor
Whoever imagined that weapon should have been hanged by his testicles. Cold War insanity as its worst.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think they legitimately are building a nuclear powered engine, based on the fact there have been radiation spikes in the region during failed tests.
Click to expand...
Somehow my previous reply to this seems to have been... nuked. But the summary: there are other explanations than an actual nuclear engine. If you want the world to *think* you have a nuclear engine when you actually don't, an "accident" that you promptly deny but can't actually hide is a dandy way to get the idea across. As well as eliminate problematic staffers.
 
You sound as ideologically boxed in as the people running our foreign policy. You cannot just assume it doesnt exist because ebil putler said it.
 
Nah. He makes good posts and clever ones too. If he is secretly Dubya or Putler I do apologize. Dont regime change or polonium me pls.
 
Archibald said:
Do we have any clue about how the engine works ? indirect cyle (I hope !) ? How does it compares to the never build NX-2 ? or Pluto (shudders) ?
Click to expand...
Claimed performance, plus requiring a booster rocket to get up to flight speed suggests a Pluto-style engine. Sadly.
 
TMA1 said:
You sound as ideologically boxed in as the people running our foreign policy. You cannot just assume it doesnt exist because ebil putler said it.
Click to expand...

I don't assume it exists because physics argues against it. *Small* reactors with the power for subsonic cruise missiles tend to be far too heavy to fly.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Claimed performance, plus requiring a booster rocket to get up to flight speed suggests a Pluto-style engine. Sadly.
Click to expand...
Pluto is the most reasonable approach for "small," but "ramjet" pretty much means "supersonic."

The Pluto development effort was relatively vast. It would not go unnoticed by satellites today.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Somehow my previous reply to this seems to have been... nuked. But the summary: there are other explanations than an actual nuclear engine. If you want the world to *think* you have a nuclear engine when you actually don't, an "accident" that you promptly deny but can't actually hide is a dandy way to get the idea across. As well as eliminate problematic staffers.
Click to expand...
:D Terrible pun, perfectly delivered.

Yes, it is a possibility that the Skyfall is a distraction. Didn't we think that their hypersonics were a distraction until they flight tested one, though?

Orionblamblam said:
Pluto is the most reasonable approach for "small," but "ramjet" pretty much means "supersonic."

The Pluto development effort was relatively vast. It would not go unnoticed by satellites today.
Click to expand...
Thought this missile was claimed to be supersonic?

As to scale of development, the operational tests the US did at Jackass Flats required a large supply of compressed air. If the test location already has a large volume of compressed air storage, it wouldn't take much new construction to arrange for testing a Skyfall reactor.
 
Some back of the envelope math:

Power delivered by a jet engine is thrust X airspeed. So far as I'm aware, we don't know the airspeed, don't know the thrust. So... let's assume that our hypothetical nukular cruise missile is twice the thrust of a Tomahawk at the same speed... so 2X3.1 KN at 250 m/sec (900 km/hr). That's a power output of 1.55 megawatts.

Small reactors, like large ones, work by using radioactive decay to produce heat. Here's a small reactor project (for space):
en.wikipedia.org

Kilopower - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
This one produces 43 kilowatts thermal output at a weight of 226 kg for the core. Scaling up to 1.55 megawatts would result in a core weight of 8,146 kilograms. The Williams F107 turbofan weighs about 30 kilograms.

Obviously this is a half-assed analysis, and doubtless a reactor designed for a short duration with minimal shielding and no thought to durability could be made to weigh a lot less, and a space-power reactor is a crappy basis for a turbojet-reactor. But eight tons is a hell of a starting point. So for this "nuclear cruise missile" to actually be practical, they must be using some remarkable type of novel new reactor.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Claimed performance, plus requiring a booster rocket to get up to flight speed suggests a Pluto-style engine. Sadly.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t assume claimed performance is evidence in this case. Any ground launched air breathing weapon is going to need a booster, IMO. I personally just can’t believe even the Russian government would run an open cycle air cooled reactor.
 
Josh_TN said:
I wouldn’t assume claimed performance is evidence in this case. Any ground launched air breathing weapon is going to need a booster, IMO. I personally just can’t believe even the Russian government would run an open cycle air cooled reactor.
Click to expand...
Why not? The cutaway for STATUS-6 shows an unshielded reactor that's only using pure water because salt water would plug up the tubes...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Claimed performance, plus requiring a booster rocket to get up to flight speed suggests a Pluto-style engine. Sadly.
Click to expand...
Erm... why exactly the need of booster rocket suggest anything besides that it's supposed to launched from ground? Zero-lenght launch, remember such term? It's more practical to put booster on the missile, than provide it with long launch rail - even if missile in quiestion is capable of taking off under its own power.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Thought this missile was claimed to be supersonic?
Click to expand...

As said here before;-

If what’s been displayed to the world is what this thing really is, it an’t supersonic. Also being boosted to flight it will only needs a constant cruise power output, way more than an RTG can provide but a small fraction of Pluto. If you were going to all that cost, why not crank up the power and make it supersonic?

Also it’s standard practice not to significantly shield the outbound facing aspect of sub nuclear reactors, the water outside works great , it’s only beneficial for heavy shielding fore and aft…. Best to not toast the crew and complex electronics..
 
I take it you've seen these recent images...
Shipbucket drawings are very good (I may be biased here) - as a community we're quite proud that Heads of State get briefed using our artworks but it's not exactly what you would expect.
Actually it was ascertained the drawing was one by fellow SPF member Gollevainen but modified by some unknown Russian Navy person - who probably now qualifies as a SB artist too - though sadly they removed the original image credits and thus broke our copyright rules...

Anyhow its proof that top brass aren't always shown the super top secret plans, most of the time its amateur Powerpoint stuff.

1696673875130.png
 
Hood said:
I take it you've seen these recent images...
Shipbucket drawings are very good (I may be biased here) - as a community we're quite proud that Heads of State get briefed using our artworks but it's not exactly what you would expect.
Actually it was ascertained the drawing was one by fellow SPF member Gollevainen but modified by some unknown Russian Navy person - who probably now qualifies as a SB artist too - though sadly they removed the original image credits and thus broke our copyright rules...

Anyhow its proof that top brass aren't always shown the super top secret plans, most of the time its amateur Powerpoint stuff.

View attachment 709322
Click to expand...
Generated more than a few of my own amateur powerpoints back in the day, though did take care to label everything correctly.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom