"Burevestnik" Nuclear-powered cruise missile

Subsonic cruise missile is is a very easy to intercept. The concept of a slow rocket powered by a nuclear engine is terribly dumb. As these are Putin's wonderful weapons, the US has nothing to fear.

Arrow wrote:Subsonic cruise missile is is a very easy to intercept. The concept of a slow rocket powered by a nuclear engine is terribly dumb. As these are Putin's wonderful weapons, the US has nothing to fear.

it is always great to hear to ingenious representative of Baltic countries! but ad rem: And how will you intercept it on on 20-50 meters on Mexican-US border? where is no radar coverage? Or over US - Canadian one, over woods?

Shown missile nose seems compatible with supersonic speed a wrote:

No subsonic speed.

that is the fun with retaliatory weapons like this or Poseidon

The most funny is that it needs like less than 1m of unprotected space at the thousands of km of US border to go through while US would need to protect every meter of the tousands of km of their borders with very expensive air defence systems 24/7.

Attack is always cheaper and easier than defence.

Until now there is no western air defence system capable of defeating cruise missiles. In the last two decades billions were poored into ABM systems = to shoot down high and straight flying targets. With Kaliber and Burevestnik and K-101/-50 and so on the west will have to spend more billions (it doesn´t have) into new AD systems capable of shooting down cruise missiles.

Arrow wrote:No subsonic speed.

Thanks for you invaluable insight, I see we have an insider among us [/quote]

Not trying to defend Arrow but the tass source said its subsonic, its a direct quote

The usual argument without all the facts.

If anyone bothers to recall what the animation released during Putin's speech represented. Burevestnik actively detects and avoids all
anti-missile installations both on land and over water. No long range detection system can be passive since the Earth's curvature gets
in the way at the very least. This active avoidance system of the Burevestnik is on par with its nuclear power plant as an innovation.
No existing cruise missile has this capability. Clowns can bloviate about easy take downs of subsonic missiles all they want. But it is
nothing but retarded pap. Since over 60% of the surface of the planet is covered by oceans, the Burevestnik will spend most of its
time over water and well out of range of any NATO missile cruiser. And there are no random villages with armed men to take pot shots at it.
Not that such pot shots are all that successful on land.

Subsonic cruise missile is is a very easy to intercept. The concept of a slow rocket powered by a nuclear engine is terribly dumb. As these are Putin's wonderful weapons, the US has nothing to fear.

Well if we look at the example of Syria... before they had an IADS then it was actually quite hard to intercept subsonic cruise missiles, but after an IADS was installed it became much easier.

For an area to defend the size of the US however, and a missile with unlimited range that could literally come from any direction... it could circle around Antarctica for a month before heading to the US for example, then it becomes rather harder...

Don't worry Arrow, by the time Burevestnik arrives to US there will be no air defence left, that is the fun with retaliatory weapons like this or Poseidon: you force the enemy to multiply their expenses in defensive coverage (just to avoid being checkmated in strategic field), for no practical benefit at all. Regardless, I don't think there is any nearly solid proof it is subsonic and Russian side has also not interest in clarifying this point to US, so better be cautious about such statements. Shown missile nose seems compatible with supersonic speed and we don't know if the missile has power enough to dash in the last part of an attack.

Subsonic or supersonic, it does not matter... the cost to the US of building an air defence network that covers the entire country would be enormous even if they could do it on the cheap... and they wont... just declaring they have the weapon ready for production costs the US taxpayer tens of trillions of dollars for the next 20 years... that is not going to help with the deficit...

No subsonic speed.

So they say with the first version.... but who is to say the next model doesn't go a little faster but can only do it for 50 years instead of forever...

And the next model is hypersonic, for ten years...

Well, Russia is not thinking about attack but about retaliation. And they would be dead or almost so by the moment they decide to release Burevestnik, so making US pay its offence with complete annihilation it is a relatively easy business.

The US might believe it can attack first and take out most of Russias nuclear capability, and then use its ABM systems to survive any retaliation the Russians might be able to put up... this adds to the retaliation and makes the initial US attack less likely to succeed...

Not trying to defend Arrow but the tass source said its subsonic, its a direct quote

The first prototype of a working example should be subsonic, but over time technology will improve and they will work out ways of improving performance... ie faster at the cost of range or time of operation... they might triple the speed to mach 2.4 or something at the cost of it only being able to operate for 10 years instead of 100 years...

Would be interesting to see what sort of design they come up with... will it eject the warhead over the target and continue to fly and perhaps land the NPP into the local water supply just for good measure?

Such a design could carry quite a few warheads that could be delivered over a period of days or weeks all over the US of A.

They might even adopt an idea of medium altitude flight at transonic speeds so it could fly over vastly greater distances in the time available and spread these extra warheads to unexpected places based on intel about the ultra rich and where their holiday homes are located...

GarryB wrote:

The first prototype of a working example should be subsonic, but over time technology will improve and they will work out ways of improving performance... ie faster at the cost of range or time of operation... they might triple the speed to mach 2.4 or something at the cost of it only being able to operate for 10 years instead of 100 years...

Thats what i think, this is a weapon, but this is also a developing weapon technology concept.

There are no official information on Burevestnik's tests like Awangard, Sarmat.. TASS is a bad source. So it's not known about the missiles and the work on it.

Arrow wrote:There are no official information on Burevestnik's tests like Awangard, Sarmat.. TASS is a bad source. So it's not known about the missiles and the work on it.

true, the only reliable info is that X-51 keeps failing.  Again and again.  SiM-3 too. And Us has ~20 years backlog in fielding hyprsonic gliders too.

Take care then, I hear you have many rich bastards building their armaggedon bunkers over there in NZ!

Those are the bastards that are actually pulling the strings.... so if WWIII actually kicks off I can head up there safe in the knowledge that they will have prepared nice little nests with years of food and water supplies, and I can chat to some of the people responsible for what has happened.

Sort of like a mix between Stalker and one of those end of world Metro type games set in picturesque Central Otago...

There are no official information on Burevestnik's tests like Awangard, Sarmat.. TASS is a bad source. So it's not known about the missiles and the work on it.

Well there is the obvious information that supersonic flight takes a lot of energy/fuel, so making missiles supersonic really only happens when it is critical... most Soviet anti ship missiles are supersonic because their targets have modern IADS that would eat normal subsonic Anti Ship missiles for breakfast and you would therefore need thousands of missiles to penetrate the defences. With supersonic missiles and some other tricks then you might only need dozens... which is rather easier and cheaper to achieve.

The main problem was that the older generation of missiles were huge... 5-7 tons each to get a decent warhead and decent range, so they could not fit them on just any platform... they needed big vessels (Kirov, Slava, Kuznetsov, Oscar, Oscar II, Tu-22M3), but then they made a breakthrough... with ramjets they managed to shrink the size down to 2.5 tons and even smaller so with Onyx they can fit the missiles onto anything from a corvette up to a carrier and everything in between, and with Zircon they will have missiles flying even faster at hypersonic speeds.

That happened in the space of the 1970s for the Granit and Vulkans on Kirovs and Slavas to the mid 1990s with the Onyx and Kh-32, and through to today... just short of the 2020s with hypersonics like Kinzhal and Zircon...

Development of nuclear power plants for cruise missiles is just in its infancy and will further develop over time... satellites and space craft and even moon and mars bases would benefit from compact reliable power supplies, not to mention remote stations on earth... deep in the ocean or in the middle of the steppe in siberia... these are going to be useful... why would they not pour money into them?

LMFS wrote:Yeah, remember to give them some "greetings" from the rest of us which will be "dust in the wind" by then

Meh, GB will try to run from zombie apocalypse his city on unmanned cr breaking before everybody

Test results KRBD Burevestnik (thoughts)

It is believed that the Burevestnik, possessing an unlimited range of a cruise missile with a nuclear jet engine, carries the index 9M730 - this is, as it were, derived by the method of exceptions, but has not yet been disproved by anyone. And a couple of weeks ago, the media passed the information that "in January (2019) at one of the landfills, the most important stage of the test of the Burevestnik cruise subsonic missile - testing of a nuclear power plant" was completed (source). Confirmed the declared characteristics of the reactor and missiles, respectively. This is generally expected, although it is likely that tests of this kind were conducted without rocket launches. But, quite possibly, on the same proving ground on Novaya Zemlya.

And, of course, it will be an innuendos connection of this news with the news about the discovery in Norway from January 28 to February 4 of minor contamination with radioactive iodine-131 in January-February 2019 (source). The half-life of iodine is only 7-8 days and therefore the release did not happen before January 20, 2019. It may well be that these are completely unrelated events, but, of course, if an missile’s nuclear power plant fails, a decent amount of radioactive materials. Of course, we have no information about the characteristics of the nuclear installation of the Petrel missile, and even less about its radioactive noise in the normal position. That's why I'm talking about insinuations.
And the material on the rocket should be updated. An article on Military has long been asking for additions.

https://militaryrussia.livejournal.com/441203.html

ARMY

March 5, 2019, 00:02
Winged "Petrel": what is known about the mysterious Russian weapons

https://iz.ru/852592/aleksei-ramm/krylatyi-burevestnik-chto-izvestno-o-tainstvennom-russkom-oruzhii

IMHO russia should develop a conventional warhead version of the burevestnik. If the country that is getting bombed has to deal with a small but of isolated radioactive material so be it. NATO got away with polluting 2 countries with DU. A busted radiocative engine is nothing compared to that.

They got Kaliber and Kh-101 for that purpose. Burevestnik is a pure strategic weapon.