Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

D

defenceman

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hi,
so what will happen in case nuclear bomber been shot down out of sky, what are
the chances of nuclear radiation spreading
thank you
 
Q

qwerty3173

Junior Member
Registered Member
mack8 said:
This is exactly what i was thinking, nevermind nuclear recce drone, how about manned or unmanned nuclear powered bomber? Any idea how the Burevestnik nuclear engine compares to a normal jet engine in weight etc.?
Click to expand...
There's not much of a comparison, these types of engines are very heavy and very expensive with modern technologies. They probably won't be cheaper than an ICBM, but still good to have the option.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
At least for Burevestnik itself you probably just need some grams of fuel to have global range. Personally I think the radiation hazard is overrated. We don't even know for sure if it releases radionuclides in regular flight or not. It is all speculation.
 
EmoBirb

EmoBirb

New Member
Registered Member
mack8 said:
This is exactly what i was thinking, nevermind nuclear recce drone, how about manned or unmanned nuclear powered bomber? Any idea how the Burevestnik nuclear engine compares to a normal jet engine in weight etc.?
Click to expand...
There is no need for a nuclear powered bomber to carry long range missiles if you have a nuclear powered missile with unlimited range already.

Furthermore it's far easier to create a missile around the concept than a large aircraft, which would preferably unmanned anyway.

As for ISR drones, it would need to be fairly large and stealthy to be viable. Especially to shield the reactor otherwise radiation leaking could give away the position of the aircraft, as well as sheer heat from the exhaust. The juice is not worth the squeeze.

I've said it elsewhere and I will say it here too, while the Poseidon intercontinental nuclear torpedo is novel and has immediately identifiable advantages over conventional systems, I fail to see the practical advantage of Burevestnik over long range, stealthy, conventional cruise missiles and the ICBMs which can reach any place they need to at any time. To me it's an interesting engineering exercise, a proof of concept and a testimony to the prowess of Russian nuclear engineering, but I don't see much else if I'm honest.

In all fairness however, we know virtually nothing about the missile. It's characteristics, exact manner of propulsion, cost, potential platforms etc.

But if it's about circumventing NATO air defenses, I personally think submarine launched ballistic and especially cruise missiles with nuclear warheads prove more viable and arguably more cost effective. Not touching on things like launching stealthy ALCMs from strategic bombers.

People bring up the USN CSGs as targets, but these could in wartime be wiped out with Poseidon, which can trail and loiter much more discreetly than a screeching atomic missile flying figure-eights in the sky.

In my eyes an impressive feat but little actual value. Sarmat, Poseidon, Avangard, Zircon etc. are of a different caliber imo and more useful, with Zircon for example also being useful in conflicts that aren't straight up WW3.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
EmoBirb said:
There is no need for a nuclear powered bomber to carry long range missiles if you have a nuclear powered missile with unlimited range already.

Furthermore it's far easier to create a missile around the concept than a large aircraft, which would preferably unmanned anyway.

As for ISR drones, it would need to be fairly large and stealthy to be viable. Especially to shield the reactor otherwise radiation leaking could give away the position of the aircraft, as well as sheer heat from the exhaust. The juice is not worth the squeeze.

I've said it elsewhere and I will say it here too, while the Poseidon intercontinental nuclear torpedo is novel and has immediately identifiable advantages over conventional systems, I fail to see the practical advantage of Burevestnik over long range, stealthy, conventional cruise missiles and the ICBMs which can reach any place they need to at any time. To me it's an interesting engineering exercise, a proof of concept and a testimony to the prowess of Russian nuclear engineering, but I don't see much else if I'm honest.

In all fairness however, we know virtually nothing about the missile. It's characteristics, exact manner of propulsion, cost, potential platforms etc.

But if it's about circumventing NATO air defenses, I personally think submarine launched ballistic and especially cruise missiles with nuclear warheads prove more viable and arguably more cost effective. Not touching on things like launching stealthy ALCMs from strategic bombers.

People bring up the USN CSGs as targets, but these could in wartime be wiped out with Poseidon, which can trail and loiter much more discreetly than a screeching atomic missile flying figure-eights in the sky.

In my eyes an impressive feat but little actual value. Sarmat, Poseidon, Avangard, Zircon etc. are of a different caliber imo and more useful, with Zircon for example also being useful in conflicts that aren't straight up WW3.
Click to expand...
With flight altitude as low as 100 m, it is still surprising due to the radar horizon. It can launch on extremely unpredictable paths too.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
EmoBirb said:
As for ISR drones, it would need to be fairly large and stealthy to be viable. Especially to shield the reactor otherwise radiation leaking could give away the position of the aircraft, as well as sheer heat from the exhaust. The juice is not worth the squeeze.
Click to expand...
Like I said we just don't know if it has radiation in the exhaust in normal operation or not. As for the heat signature, this is a problem regular jet powered aircraft also have. There are ways to mitigate it.

EmoBirb said:
I fail to see the practical advantage of Burevestnik over long range, stealthy, conventional cruise missiles and the ICBMs which can reach any place they need to at any time. To me it's an interesting engineering exercise, a proof of concept and a testimony to the prowess of Russian nuclear engineering, but I don't see much else if I'm honest.
Click to expand...
Just look at the video. See how compact Burevestnik is? Good luck making an ICBM that size. Even the Midgetman was much larger. This means it can likely be more easily hidden.

And since it has global range you do not need expensive bomber platforms to carry it.
 
EmoBirb

EmoBirb

New Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
Like I said we just don't know if it has radiation in the exhaust in normal operation or not. As for the heat signature, this is a problem regular jet powered aircraft also have. There are ways to mitigate it.

Just look at the video. See how compact Burevestnik is? Good luck making an ICBM that size. Even the Midgetman was much larger. This means it can likely be more easily hidden.

And since it has global range you do not need expensive bomber platforms to carry it.
Click to expand...
Even if the exhaust wouldn't radiate, insufficient shielding of the reactor compartment could lead to leaks, it's a genuine possibility.

It is rather compact, thus it's warhead is of limited yield as compared to larger ballistic missiles. Which in essence just makes it a slightly larger, longer range Kh-102. Just with added cost and environmental concerns.

An ICBM on the other hand has multiple warheads of significantly more powerful yield, has re-entry vehicles that travel significantly faster and they are also able to be launched via Silo, road mobile TEL, submarines in form of SLBMs and in the past via train as well.

Burevestnik doesn't offer any significant advantage over existing missiles, be it cruise missiles or ballistic missiles. It's subsonic, as far as we know it doesn't incorporate significant stealth features and it's propulsion and it's effectiveness is an enigma. A subsonic cruise missile with global range is as vulnerable as any other subsonic aircraft or munition. Difference here is that upon shoot down you increase the fallout over a conventional missile with nuclear warhead. Compare this with Poseidon, which can loiter and possibly even "rest" undetected while shadowing CSGs or being put in an ambush position near naval bases or harbors. The Burevestnik cannot land and take off again, it's a subsonic piece of kit that takes hours to get from point A to point B and can be tracked upon launch and possibly during flight as well. Both are intercontinental, nuclear powered and nuclear armed, but one is infinitely more sensible and valuable than the other. Quite frankly, I see little reason for the Russians to develop this further while Avangard and Zircon provide superior performance albeit with regular range.

I doubt this will go anywhere in the long run, especially when a new generation of conventional subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles arrives for Russian long range aviation to equip the Tu-160M and PAK DA. The advantages aren't great enough to outweigh the hurdles. It's one of these "let's see if we could" things where one should have asked of they should. But that's purely based on what little we know about the system.
 
Last edited:
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
EmoBirb said:
Even if the exhaust wouldn't radiate, insufficient shielding of the reactor compartment could lead to leaks, it's a genuine possibility.
Click to expand...
If it malfunctions yes there could be leaks. But such a small missile won't have that much nuclear fuel.

EmoBirb said:
It is rather compact, thus it's warhead is of limited yield as compared to larger ballistic missiles. Which in essence just makes it a slightly larger, longer range Kh-102. Just with added cost and environmental concerns.
Click to expand...
Probably around 250-500 kt warhead. It is big enough.

EmoBirb said:
An ICBM on the other hand has multiple warheads of significantly more powerful yield, has re-entry vehicles that travel significantly faster and they are also able to be launched via Silo, road mobile TEL, submarines in form of SLBMs and in the past via train as well.
Click to expand...
This missile has global range. You don't need a carrier platform.

EmoBirb said:
Burevestnik doesn't offer any significant advantage over existing missiles, be it cruise missiles or ballistic missiles. It's subsonic, as far as we know it doesn't incorporate significant stealth features and it's propulsion and it's effectiveness is an enigma. A subsonic cruise missile with global range is as vulnerable as any other subsonic aircraft or munition. Difference here is that upon shoot down you increase the fallout over a conventional missile with nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...
The early claims were it is barely supersonic. But this test was clearly subsonic at least on average.
They probably kept the reactor core temperature down to increase reliability.

By increasing core temperature, or getting better air compressors they can increase the speed more. Or they could add an afterburner on terminal approach. Just carry some kerosene, and ignite it mixing it with the heated air exaust from the nuclear reactor on the terminal stage.

As for stealth it seems to have a low RCS design.

EmoBirb said:
I doubt this will go anywhere in the long run, especially when a new generation of conventional subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles arrives for Russian long range aviation to equip the Tu-160M and PAK DA. The advantages aren't great enough to outweigh the hurdles.
Click to expand...
The bombers are vulnerable like heck to a first strike, they keep them in the open and modern satellite constellations have short revisit times, and this does not have those issues.
Even if you make shelters for the bomber aircraft they will be huge and hard to disguise.
 
M

mack8

Junior Member
EmoBirb said:
Even if the exhaust wouldn't radiate, insufficient shielding of the reactor compartment could lead to leaks, it's a genuine possibility.

It is rather compact, thus it's warhead is of limited yield as compared to larger ballistic missiles. Which in essence just makes it a slightly larger, longer range Kh-102. Just with added cost and environmental concerns.

An ICBM on the other hand has multiple warheads of significantly more powerful yield, has re-entry vehicles that travel significantly faster and they are also able to be launched via Silo, road mobile TEL, submarines in form of SLBMs and in the past via train as well.

Burevestnik doesn't offer any significant advantage over existing missiles, be it cruise missiles or ballistic missiles. It's subsonic, as far as we know it doesn't incorporate significant stealth features and it's propulsion and it's effectiveness is an enigma. A subsonic cruise missile with global range is as vulnerable as any other subsonic aircraft or munition. Difference here is that upon shoot down you increase the fallout over a conventional missile with nuclear warhead. Compare this with Poseidon, which can loiter and possibly even "rest" undetected while shadowing CSGs or being put in an ambush position near naval bases or harbors. The Burevestnik cannot land and take off again, it's a subsonic piece of kit that takes hours to get from point A to point B and can be tracked upon launch and possibly during flight as well. Both are intercontinental, nuclear powered and nuclear armed, but one is infinitely more sensible and valuable than the other. Quite frankly, I see little reason for the Russians to develop this further while Avangard and Zircon provide superior performance albeit with regular range.

I doubt this will go anywhere in the long run, especially when a new generation of conventional subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles arrives for Russian long range aviation to equip the Tu-160M and PAK DA. The advantages aren't great enough to outweigh the hurdles. It's one of these "let's see if we could" things where one should have asked of they should. But that's purely based on what little we know about the system.
Click to expand...
Fwiw i posted elsewhere my rationale for why i think the russians went this way, pasted below.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top