"Burevestnik" Nuclear-powered cruise missile

unlikely ethical, technical. To defect prone. It is not about doomsday scenario. this is about storage/tests and ability to deliver too. No I dot think anything like that is ever beed applied. In every case Putin said: with nuclear source of energy not engine.

What place does ethics have in a dooms day device?

In a jet engine the energy source is normally jet fuel... a ramjet engine with a nuclear reactor as a source of heat instead of burning fuel is perfectly feasable... especially for a subsonic missile... there is no need for a temperature of more than 1,300 degrees C.... most modern turbojet engines generate about that temperature already, so making it hotter offers nothing except problems.

More probable they have some intermediate medium to pass heat to the engine and moderate reactor.

Why?

Extra weight for no real benefit...

The idea that a thermal nuclear engine can't work using air as a thermal transfer media is just bullshit. FFS, its just a method of injecting heat into airflow and creating thrust via volumetric expansion... air-breathing engines do this everyday on a routine basis tongue Helium or xenon? WTF are you smoking?

Thank you...

So, the temperature margin of the Pluto reactor was 150 ceslius.

I gave that example to show a nuclear ramjet is possible, but it does not have to operate at anything like that temperature... the Pluto missile was enormous and carried 24 nuclear warheads... it also flew at low altitude at mach 3... none of which this new missile needs... one or maybe a couple of warheads, and subsonic speeds at low altitude... perhaps transonic speeds at higher altitudes... but nothing like the power of thrust requirements of the Pluto system.

Solid rocket boosters to get it airborne and a ramjet motor to gradually accelerate it and allow it to climb for a day and then it can fly off in a certain direction... including due south to go for its target.

It means that the steel burn like wood or coal.
And that temperature margin calculated for normal air pressure, the engine works with higher pressure, means the auto-ignition temperature is actually closer to the reactor normal operating temperature.

the operating temperature for a nuclear ramjet engine in a very much larger weapon flying considerably faster is going to be much higher than a nuclear ramjet engine in a much smaller and much slower missile... making the problems much less and the task much easier... they have been working on it the better part of two decades... since 2002 when the US withdrew from the ABM treaty...

So, if it ingesting a bird then it will melt down .

Why?

This is a ramjet... there are no blades or turbines... just heat transfer... design it with birdstrikes in mind and they could simply be sucked right on through...

like? what does it mean several thousands and if core is not moderated is there any limit of temp?

The core wont be running all the time from production to use... before the missile is launched the core will be moderated... upon launch the core can be heated up for thrust, but if there is a problem it could just as easily be shut down... or not... a blocked intake means the missile will crash so who cares about a meltdown at that stage... if I designed the missile I would set it up to detonate the warhead if it was going to crash as long as it was not in friendly territory...

and if air stops flowing then?

with multiple air intakes the chance of a bird strike blocking all the air flow are pretty much zero... but the obvious solution would be to have it launched vertically with a solid rocket motor and then for the nuclear ramjet to take over and climb to about 10,000m and then fly south and hit the US or Europe from the south pole rather than over the north pole...

2. It is very hard to test during the development phase.

Why is it hard to test?

It is subsonic... you can send fighter jets to fly along side it all the way... replacing them as they run out of fuel... paint the thing bright orange and do it in winter so everything is white and add a bright orange parachute system in the payload section in case there is a problem... in fact you could fly along side in an Il-476 with wireless monitoring of all its systems transmitted in real time the few hundred metres to your chase plane with a manual command to shut down the reactor and deploy the parachute if needed... then send in chem/bio warfare guys to the landing site to deal with any issues if it crashes... fly it away from any populated areas... not a big deal.

Hell, you could design it so that if there is a problem the whole thing is inflated like a huge hot air balloon that is orange and it descends slowly to the ground... the chase plane with all the instruments can monitor core temperature and other aspects including radiation levels and it can fly circles around the crash site until units arrive to deal with the clean up... but a balloon and parachute system would minimise the debris problem and probably localise everything into one crash site... nice and tidy.

Could explain why Rosatom got an Il-976 plane. Originaly four planes of that type were built for the armed forces to analyse and re-transmit telemetry data from the testing of cruise missiles in remote areas.

Just to see, the new technology has high failure rate.

And in this case the failure means in good case a reactor impact on the ground, bad case a long radioactive trail in the test area.

Those are rocket tests...

Tests with fuel pumps and hoses through which exotic chemicals that were either very hot or very cold and or highly corrosive or highly flammable were all bundled together in a very enclosed space on a platform subject to very high g forces and acceleration.

A nuclear ramjet is nothing like that.

They are not going to make a random design they think might work... material science isn't at the guess work stage.

Computer models can be used to create something that is very very likely to work first time, but further tests will be needed to refine and improve performance and make sure everything actually works as expected...

Attaching an entire complete missile in the engine pylon position of an Il-76LL could be used to test the missiles electronics in direct proximity to the working nuclear ramjet for days with inflight refuelling of the aircraft...

BTW I am surprised you are against such an idea... I would have thought this sort of ground breaking new technology would be something you were actually interested in.

Typically a ramjet is restricted to subsonic fuel burning, and to go really fast supersonic combustion is needed requiring a scramjet.

In this case... there is no chemical burning with oxygen... just heat exchange, so in theory there is no issue with supersonic combustion of fuel to heat an airflow so the concept of a scramjet becomes redundant... a jet engines performance is largely determined by the amount of exhaust thrust it can generate and that normally is based on internal temperatures... which generally have to be carefully managed to prevent damage to the engine and its moving parts.

The very idea that cool air flows could be used to separate the hot air from the internal surface of the engine, while the reactor could superheat the air as it enters the intake, could allow rather enormous thrust levels independent of altitude and flight speed... no flame outs... no running out of fuel even at full thrust settings.

Obviously this weapon is supposed to be a subsonic low flying cruise missile but could easily become hypersonic medium altitude missile that changes direction and speed every 20 seconds and flys for up to 5 years.

GarryB wrote:Those are rocket tests...

Tests with fuel pumps and hoses through which exotic chemicals that were either very hot or very cold and or highly corrosive or highly flammable were all bundled together in a very enclosed space on a platform subject to very high g forces and acceleration.

A nuclear ramjet is nothing like that.

They are not going to make a random design they think might work... material science isn't at the guess work stage.

Computer models can be used to create something that is very very likely to work first time, but further tests will be needed to refine and improve performance and make sure everything actually works as expected...

Attaching an entire complete missile in the engine pylon position of an Il-76LL could be used to test the missiles electronics in direct proximity to the working nuclear ramjet for days with inflight refuelling of the aircraft...

BTW I am surprised you are against such an idea... I would have thought this sort of ground breaking new technology would be something you were actually interested in.

Typically a ramjet is restricted to subsonic fuel burning, and to go really fast supersonic combustion is needed requiring a scramjet.

In this case... there is no chemical burning with oxygen... just heat exchange, so in theory there is no issue with supersonic combustion of fuel to heat an airflow so the concept of a scramjet becomes redundant... a jet engines performance is largely determined by the amount of exhaust thrust it can generate and that normally is based on internal temperatures... which generally have to be carefully managed to prevent damage to the engine and its moving parts.

The very idea that cool air flows could be used to separate the hot air from the internal surface of the engine, while the reactor could superheat the air as it enters the intake, could allow rather enormous thrust levels independent of altitude and flight speed... no flame outs... no running out of fuel even at full thrust settings.

Obviously this weapon is supposed to be a subsonic low flying cruise missile but could easily become hypersonic medium altitude missile that changes direction and speed every 20 seconds and flys for up to 5 years.

It is one of the best flying object developed in the past 50 years : )

Anyway, the problems define the way of development.

They will conduct a lot of test without reactor, and they test the reactor on test benches .
When they are confident about the operational ability of the aircraft they will fly it say three times.

Afterwards they will make a pile of them, and make ready for launch.

As a bonus it means that the US claim about the "failed" tests true , they haven't tested the missile with core.

It is one of the best flying object developed in the past 50 years

Not with those reliability issues...

Anyway, the problems define the way of development.

US rocket development has nothing to do with Russian nuclear ramjet development... they are simply not related.

They will conduct a lot of test without reactor, and they test the reactor on test benches .
When they are confident about the operational ability of the aircraft they will fly it say three times.

They started full development in 2002 so they have had over 15 years to develop this technology... and they also have a history of testing new engines on Il-76LL aircraft.

Why do you think 3 operational tests will be done?

Afterwards they will make a pile of them, and make ready for launch.

What makes you think they are not already in service and full production somewhere in the Ural mountains in some secret facility?

As a bonus it means that the US claim about the "failed" tests true , they haven't tested the missile with core.

Who gives a fuck about US claims... why do you feel the need to substantiate US claims?

Perhaps you can also prove that Assad is preparing a batch of Novichok and is going to attack Israel with it to get back the Golan Heights... perhaps a chart showing the development of the Ford escort motor car would suffice for that proof?

GarryB wrote:Perhaps you can also prove that Assad is preparing a batch of Novichok and is going to attack Israel with it to get back the Golan Heights... perhaps a chart showing the development of the Ford escort motor car would suffice for that proof?

Big chuckles!!    Spilled my coffee down my crotch but the sizzle was worth it!!... still laughing after 5 minutes...

GarryB wrote:

It is one of the best flying object developed in the past 50 years

Not with those reliability issues...

Anyway, the problems define the way of development.

US rocket development has nothing to do with Russian nuclear ramjet development... they are simply not related.

They will conduct a lot of test without reactor, and they test the reactor on test benches .
When they are confident about the operational ability of the aircraft they will fly it say three times.

They started full development in 2002 so they have had over 15 years to develop this technology... and they also have a history of testing new engines on Il-76LL aircraft.

Why do you think 3 operational tests will be done?

Afterwards they will make a pile of them, and make ready for launch.

What makes you think they are not already in service and full production somewhere in the Ural mountains in some secret facility?

As a bonus it means that the US claim about the "failed" tests true , they haven't tested the missile with core.

Who gives a fuck about US claims... why do you feel the need to substantiate US claims?

So, it is hard to test, reason why there is no one in existence.

Three successful test, without quantitative result ( example temperature profile across core, max/min temperature differences) can give at least 40% chance (with 95% confidence) to see thee serial produced aircraft (if manufactured with the same tolerances/process like the proto) to reach the target.
With quantitative results it can be increased.

The question is never that what happens if everything goes well, but how to mitigate the issues.

The chap who design the experiments/ design/validation process will use the same mathematical / risk analysis model like me.
So , they assemble the core and frame separately, they run all test on bench/maybe flying aircrafts, and test the airframe without engine as many times as it makes sense.

And finally, when they are extremely confident they will fly the rig three times.
Maybe less, but I don't think they will fly it more.

Singular_Transform wrote:
And finally, when they are extremely confident they will fly the rig three times.
Maybe less, but I don't think they will fly it more.

3 here is a "kabalistic" number or math is behind it?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:
And finally, when they are extremely confident they will fly the rig three times.
Maybe less, but I don't think they will fly it more.

3 here is a "kabalistic" number or math is behind it?

: D
2 success from two trial 22% or better reliability.

And three sample is the minimal comfortable statistical sample size.

It is nearly impossible to asses the standard deviation from three result, but from two it is impossible

Singular_Transform wrote:
: D
2 success from two trial 22% or better reliability.

And three sample is the minimal comfortable statistical sample size.

It is nearly impossible to asses the standard deviation from three result, but from two it is impossible

for such a complicated weapon 3 times integration tests sint too little still? it should be pretty much working when "time comes".

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:
: D
2 success from two trial 22% or better reliability.

And three sample is the minimal comfortable statistical sample size.

It is nearly impossible to asses the standard deviation from three result, but from two it is impossible

for such a complicated weapon 3 times integration tests sint too little still? it should be pretty much working when "time comes".

3 successfully test means that the reliability of the weapon is 40% or better.

2/2 test is about 22% or better reliability.

Singular_Transform wrote:
3 successfully test means that the reliability of the weapon is 40% or better.

2/2 test is about 22% or better reliability.

40% so for 3 missiles 1 should get through to the USA? kinda weak result to me... I hope more tests were performed.

So, it is hard to test, reason why there is no one in existence.

Why is it hard to test?

They have dedicated aircraft design intended to test new engines that has likely been used to test literally hundreds of different engines... they can use ground testing... hell if they wanted they could try underwater testing...

They have experience with reactors, they are planning to develop nuclear engines for space... which in absence of air would need to be some sort of rocket system, but it is likely they are already working on this for a long time... in 2002 they likely got significant funding for this work so it can be more practical test and less theoretical.

Three successful test, without quantitative result ( example temperature profile across core, max/min temperature differences) can give at least 40% chance (with 95% confidence) to see thee serial produced aircraft (if manufactured with the same tolerances/process like the proto) to reach the target.
With quantitative results it can be increased.

Who is to say they have not already done a dozen tests?

The question is never that what happens if everything goes well, but how to mitigate the issues.

Often more can be learned from a test failure than a success...

And finally, when they are extremely confident they will fly the rig three times.
Maybe less, but I don't think they will fly it more.

It is a doomsday weapon... Russia needs to have 100% confidence that these things will work, and more importantly her enemies should have 100% confidence these things will work too... that is the point of the system.

40% so for 3 missiles 1 should get through to the USA? kinda weak result to me... I hope more tests were performed.

I would suspect dozens of tests... for test missiles the payload can be replaced with extra protection for the reactor core so in the event of a crash it remains intact and secure with no leaks...

This is not a reactor that needs to power a city, or work for ten years... its purpose is to generate a lot of heat... it could actually be rather small... in fact the smaller the better...

The operational model could be designed to carry 10 tiny nuke warheads developed from 152mm nuclear artillery shells... that would equate to about 40kgs each, so a total of 400kgs payload... but a 40kg nuclear warhead would be more compact than 40kgs of HE so these ten warheads could take up less space in the missile than the normal 400kg HE warhead often fitted to such weapons... also with a nuclear engine and no 1-1.5 tons of liquid fuel for a jet engine you could distribute those 10 warheads along the length of the missile... ejecting a warhead upwards and have it fall down behind the missile flying at medium altitude on a small stabilising parachute... by the time the warhead goes boom the missile would be out of blast range and on its way to the next target...

Areas of water supplies and populated areas could be targeted... and you could also analyse the targets you will be hitting with faster weapons and determine where the civilian population would go to and send the cruise missiles there... to hit in 6 months time after the war was seemingly finished...

Would make an interesting video game... set in the US midwest, with everyone armed to the teeth and people from the cities looking for somewhere safe to go to... cruise missiles flying overhead at 10km altitude out of reach and then after 6 months they start randomly dropping 10Kt bombs around the place...

It was absolutely tested on the ground before flight tests. Every russian engine in history was testet like this.

GarryB wrote:

So, it is hard to test, reason why there is no one in existence.

Why is it hard to test?

They have dedicated aircraft design intended to test new engines that has likely been used to test literally hundreds of different engines... they can use ground testing... hell if they wanted they could try underwater testing...

They have experience with reactors, they are planning to develop nuclear engines for space... which in absence of air would need to be some sort of rocket system, but it is likely they are already working on this for a long time... in 2002 they likely got significant funding for this work so it can be more practical test and less theoretical.

Three successful test, without quantitative result ( example temperature profile across core, max/min temperature differences) can give at least 40% chance (with 95% confidence) to see thee serial produced aircraft (if manufactured with the same tolerances/process like the proto) to reach the target.
With quantitative results it can be increased.

Who is to say they have not already done a dozen tests?

The question is never that what happens if everything goes well, but how to mitigate the issues.

Often more can be learned from a test failure than a success...

And finally, when they are extremely confident they will fly the rig three times.
Maybe less, but I don't think they will fly it more.

It is a doomsday weapon... Russia needs to have 100% confidence that these things will work, and more importantly her enemies should have 100% confidence these things will work too... that is the point of the system.

40% so for 3 missiles 1 should get through to the USA? kinda weak result to me... I hope more tests were performed.

I would suspect dozens of tests... for test missiles the payload can be replaced with extra protection for the reactor core so in the event of a crash it remains intact and secure with no leaks...

This is not a reactor that needs to power a city, or work for ten years... its purpose is to generate a lot of heat... it could actually be rather small... in fact the smaller the better...

The operational model could be designed to carry 10 tiny nuke warheads developed from 152mm nuclear artillery shells... that would equate to about 40kgs each, so a total of 400kgs payload... but a 40kg nuclear warhead would be more compact than 40kgs of HE so these ten warheads could take up less space in the missile than the normal 400kg HE warhead often fitted to such weapons... also with a nuclear engine and no 1-1.5 tons of liquid fuel for a jet engine you could distribute those 10 warheads along the length of the missile... ejecting a warhead upwards and have it fall down behind the missile flying at medium altitude on a small stabilising parachute... by the time the warhead goes boom the missile would be out of blast range and on its way to the next target...

Areas of water supplies and populated areas could be targeted... and you could also analyse the targets you will be hitting with faster weapons and determine where the civilian population would go to and send the cruise missiles there... to hit in 6 months time after the war was seemingly finished...

Would make an interesting video game... set in the US midwest, with everyone armed to the teeth and people from the cities looking for somewhere safe to go to... cruise missiles flying overhead at 10km altitude out of reach and then after 6 months they start randomly dropping 10Kt bombs around the place...

99% confidence means 309 successful trial.

The protocol with the unsuccessful trials is to found the root cause, eliminate it (proven , not repeatable ) and by this way you can remove the failure from your sample series.

However again, one failure mode is worrisome , the meltdown of the reactor core.

However the CCCP had the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burya project, maybe this is nothing else than the resurrection of that project.

14 success and 3 failure.

Singular_Transform wrote:

99% confidence means 309 successful trial.

The protocol with the unsuccessful trials is to found the root cause, eliminate it (proven , not repeatable )  and by this way you can remove the failure from your sample series.

However again, one failure mode is worrisome , the meltdown of the reactor core.

Me thinks that since this is a strategic weapon (and qualitatively new) number of tests should be more than any of ICBM. Bulava had 27? 30? some failures but still.

However the CCCP had the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burya project, maybe this is nothing else than the resurrection of that project.
14 success and 3 failure.

meh Now we have Burevestnik before was Burya BTW hypersonic nuclear missile would make sense flying 70-90km above surface. (isnt there a layer where radars have poblems with detection?) butmy understanding is subsonic missile which is stealthy as much as it can and which can fly low without heating too much of air.

As I said, you often learn more from failures than from successes...

A success might just be because you were lucky that certain things didn't happen this time.

A failure that is evaluated and correctly attributed to an issue can help correct the design, but many problems can be anticipated and prevented... these things are designed.... it is not all trial and error.

I mean it is pretty much standard PWR design to have the control rods being held up out of the core with a magnetic system powered by the reactor, so if there is a power failure gravity makes the control rods fall back into place to stop the reaction.

People questioned how it was possible to squeeze a nuclear reactor safe enough and reliable enough to fit in a cruise missile. I almost convinced that it's not a typical uranium nuclear reactor, but in fact a 'Liquid Floride-Thorium Reactor' (LFTR). Here's a article I posted a couple years back in the Nuclear deals thread:

In Russia will prepare proposals on the prospects for the use of thorium

....LFTR reactors have a multitude advantages over your standard Uranium reactors that make it possible to fit in a cruise missile. For one LFTR in it's design is far more scalable than a Uranium reactor meaning a LFTR design is likely to succeed no matter what size of the actual reactor develops in to; from large scale to small. LFTR reactors are said to be orders of magnitude safer than it's uranium based cousin, as in hydrogen explosions as seen in Fukushima, is said to be virtually impossible, making it far more reliable. Thorium-232 fuel is said to be incredibly cheap because it's said that the world's Thorium mineral deposits are 4-5 times greater in quantity than Uranium, is said to be much easier to access excavation wise, and is no where near as high of demand as Uranium; the lack of supply and demand making it cheaper as well. Just like the Fast-breeder neutron reactors, LFTR's are theoretically capable of recycling waste and using it as fuel.

Much of this has been known since the 60's, but however their were relative 'drawbacks' to LFTR's. For one back in the 60's, it's been known that Thorium reactors were completely incapable of creating weapons grade material, which is the main reason why it fell to the wayside compared to standard uranium reactors. Also as always uranium was also considered far less profitable for private nuclear industries, which played a part in it's demise.

The type of reactor will likely be a closely guarded secret, however if it turns out to be LFTR, don't be so surprised if other strategic aircraft have 'extended' flight patterns because LFTR's scalability is nothing that should be ignored.

magnumcromagnon wrote:People questioned how it was possible to squeeze a nuclear reactor safe enough and reliable enough to fit in a cruise missile. I almost convinced that it's not a typical uranium nuclear reactor, but in fact a 'Liquid Floride-Thorium Reactor' (LFTR). Here's a article I posted a couple years back in the Nuclear deals thread:

In Russia will prepare proposals on the prospects for the use of thorium

....LFTR reactors have a multitude advantages over your standard Uranium reactors that make it possible to fit in a cruise missile. For one LFTR in it's design is far more scalable than a Uranium reactor meaning a LFTR design is likely to succeed no matter what size of the actual reactor develops in to; from large scale to small. LFTR reactors are said to be orders of magnitude safer than it's uranium based cousin, as in hydrogen explosions as seen in Fukushima, is said to be virtually impossible, making it far more reliable. Thorium-232 fuel is said to be incredibly cheap because it's said that the world's Thorium mineral deposits are 4-5 times greater in quantity than Uranium, is said to be much easier to access excavation wise, and is no where near as high of demand as Uranium; the lack of supply and demand making it cheaper as well. Just like the Fast-breeder neutron reactors, LFTR's are theoretically capable of recycling waste and using it as fuel.

Much of this has been known since the 60's, but however their were relative 'drawbacks' to LFTR's. For one back in the 60's, it's been known that Thorium reactors were completely incapable of creating weapons grade material, which is the main reason why it fell to the wayside compared to standard uranium reactors. Also as always uranium was also considered far less profitable for private nuclear industries, which played a part in it's demise.

The type of reactor will likely be a closely guarded secret, however if it turns out to be LFTR, don't be so surprised if other strategic aircraft have 'extended' flight patterns because LFTR's scalability is nothing that should be ignored.

Thorium is not fissile material.Th-232. Even mass.

Thorium is used to create U233.

People questioned how it was possible to squeeze a nuclear reactor safe enough and reliable enough to fit in a cruise missile. I almost convinced that it's not a typical uranium nuclear reactor, but in fact a 'Liquid Floride-Thorium Reactor' (LFTR). Here's a article I posted a couple years back in the Nuclear deals thread:

Safe is a relative term... safe to handle and store is not the same as safe to use... these are doomsday devices so safe to use is not really relevant at all... this thing could spew out super toxic material that kills for all it will matter... its purpose is to kill everyone...

Also in this case with a nuclear ramjet basically the atmosphere is the cooling system to stop overheating of the core... overheating coolant is not really an issue... in fact if it heats the atmosphere to the point where the oxygen and hydrogen separate and combust then that is fine...

The scalability would make it useful, but in terms of cost it would not need weapons grade material to operate as a ramjet, and as you mentioned the new breeder reactors they are putting in to service should provide an unending supply of fuel to operate these ramjets with... and with a bit more processing the warhead material to detonate them too.

Low price is interesting, but with the abundance of breeder reactors then any spent DU fuel rod could be enriched to fuel level easily enough... the fact that it could never get to weapons grade suggests it might be useful for power supplies on the Moon or Mars or the asteroid field.

JohninMK wrote:
Ankit Panda
‏Verified account @nktpnd
1h1 hour ago

Update from a source: Russia's Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile has a NATO designator — SSC-X-9 SKYFALL. (USIC also calls this missile the KY30.)

and link?