"Burevestnik" Nuclear-powered cruise missile

BTW the best explanation is that 2-2,5 tons missile cannot have nuclear source of energy. And who said that is has 2 tons? or Tu-160 can have 6 in revolver launcher?

Uranium and lead are very dense materials that don't take up much room... the MTOW of the Blackjack is 45 tons in the current upgraded model, so the limit is volume and not weight... and why would you put it on a bomber?

It can fly all the way to any target on earth with a much smaller RCS...

A 2KT nuclear bomb can be fitted into an artillery shell 152mm wide and 40kgs in weight... to be perfectly honest, I really don't think a nuclear turbojet would need to be much bigger or heavier than that... but with a 2-2.5 ton cruise missile you wont need about 1.8 tons of fuel, so even if the nuclear propulsion is 1.5 tons, it would still be 300kgs lighter than a normal turbojet powered version of the same missile... except with unlimited range...

GarryB wrote:

BTW the best explanation is that 2-2,5 tons missile cannot have nuclear source of energy. And who said that is has 2 tons? or Tu-160 can have 6 in revolver launcher?

... and why would you put it on a bomber?

that's precisely my idea... can be land based can be sea based who told is has to be aairborne? ah I forgot western experts columnists.

... to be perfectly honest, I really don't think a nuclear turbojet would need to be much bigger or heavier than that... but with a 2-2.5 ton cruise missile you wont need about 1.8 tons of fuel, so even if the nuclear propulsion is 1.5 tons, it would still be 300kgs lighter than a normal turbojet powered version of the same missile... except with unlimited range...

I dont know what is size or weight of this installation... or kind of engine there . The whatever assumption we make is it good IMHO it iw more like 10-20tons and as strategic weapon unlikely has 2 or 20kn warhead. I bet on something closer to 2Mt

The MTOW (Maximum take off weight) of the Tu-160 is 275 tons.
Its maximum weapons load is 40 tons.

Hole wrote:The MTOW (Maximum take off weight) of the Tu-160 is 275 tons.
Its maximum weapons load is 40 tons.

it still has size restrictions though if you refer to Burevestnik.

I was refering to the post from GarryB. He wrote the MTOW of the Tu-160 is 45 tons.

The Burevestnik will be launched from the ground. But a version of the Kh-101 with a nuclear engine is likely.

I was refering to the post from GarryB. He wrote the MTOW of the Tu-160 is 45 tons.

Sorry, put MTOW by mistake.... the maximum weapon load of the upgraded Tu-160M is 45 tons.

We don't know what the max weapon load for the new Tu-160M2 will be.

And ground launched actually makes the most sense... it does not violate the INF treaty because the INF treaty only applies to intermediate range missiles so unlimited range missiles are not included... perhaps the cruise missiles fitted to Iskander are nuclear propelled..

Maybe they will wire it like Igla so any unused fuel adds to the power of the warhead.....

Looks like the INF treaty will be gone in a few month because "the evil russians breaking it".

They need to accuse Russia of breaking it so no one notices that the standard MK41 launchers they are installing in their European ABM system are designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, which is a direct violation of the INF treaty...

kvs wrote:

Hole wrote:Looks like the INF treaty will be gone in a few month because "the evil russians breaking it".

If the INF goes then Russia must pull out of the START (whatever version number).   America thinks it has an advantage
without arms control.   Let them eat the consequences of this pathological delusion.

I suggest that Russia increases the deployed warhead count by 5-10 times.    That will get NATO ubermenschen wetting
their diapers.

Ooh please, everyone here knows full well which arms control treaty America fears most, the MTCR, if Russia leaves that, it's all over, imaging the madness that would happen if Russia starts exporting some real long ranged missile systems the U.S would be in deep sh%t, having all their precious ships turn into fish in a barrel.

kvs wrote:

I suggest that Russia increases the deployed warhead count by 5-10 times.    That will get NATO ubermenschen wetting
their diapers.

Iam not sure it this is th best option. Every missile costs money. Best solutions are asymmetric - like Burevestnik, Kinzhal or Avangard. You cannot go in pair with economy 5,5 times (PPP) bigger.

I like the notion of a cruise missile of unlimited range, however could there be some absolute upper limit to its endurance in terms of airframe fatigue and the like?
Also what are the potential applications in peacetime? Reconnaissance versions patrolling the oceans endlessly or entire flocks shadowing and pestering carrier groups from afar?
The possibilities are endless, but the nuclear source of propulsion might pose political and diplomatic restrictions as to usage in the conventional role.

[ F l a n k e d ] wrote: I like the notion of a cruise missile of unlimited range, however could there be some absolute upper limit to its endurance in terms of airframe fatigue and the like?

Of course, wear and tear is inevitable

[ F l a n k e d ] wrote:Also what are the potential applications in peacetime? Reconnaissance versions patrolling the oceans endlessly or entire flocks shadowing and pestering carrier groups from afar?
The possibilities are endless, but the nuclear source of propulsion might pose political and diplomatic restrictions as to usage in the conventional role.

None whatsoever

Potential problems with contamination (especially on takeoff from your territory) don't make it worth the hassle, this is doomsday scenario system, nothing more

Video on Russian MoD twitter purporting to show Burevestnik missiles in the assembly shop!

https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/1019849881052213248

Big_Gazza wrote:Video on Russian MoD twitter purporting to show Burevestnik missiles in the assembly shop!  

https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/1019849881052213248

Fuck yeah! I can already feel USA & It's allies are burning out of frustration lol. I just want to bitch slap all those NATO fanboys who were saying that these weapons are only exist on papers.

The missile is smaller than i thought. In the first video it looked as big as a P-500.

Big_Gazza wrote:Video on Russian MoD twitter purporting to show Burevestnik missiles in the assembly shop!

https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/1019849881052213248

https://i.servimg.com/u/f60/19/14/38/61/00114210.png

More like final check-up and packaging shop, I doubt we will be seeing actual assembly shop for these things anytime soon

I do wonder what's under those covers...

The red colour indicates that these are part of a test batch. The transport container looks great.

It seems the missile is the same size as the Kh-101, maybe a little bit larger. Probably heavier. Let´s say it weights 5 tons, than Russia could put one or two on a medium truck or four or even six on a heavy truck. Around 2025 they will have 250 - 300 of them. Until now the strategic bombers would be needed to bring cruise missiles close to the enemy territory (3000 km for the Kh-55MS, 5000 - 5500 km for the Kh-555 and the Kh-101/-102), with the Burevestnik this will no longer be neccessary. They can be launched from home and hit the enemy territory, which will free bombers for other targets.

RF loses n.-capable CM in Barents Sea. US intelligence finds it
http://www.pravdareport.com/science/tech/24-08-2018/141449-russia_new_missile_lost-0/

I doubt that they would be testing it there, over water, potentially contaminating all fish, & complicating salvaging it. The Kapustin Yar range, Siberia & the Far East r big enough for closed circle flight testing & recovery of downed CMs.

There was zero evidence of such. Majority of ships operating in area are doing seizmic research for potentially oil. Someone took that story and made up a "looking for missile"

In end, if missile crashed in Sea last year, they wouldn't be looking for it now.

Someone in Amiland farts and everybody takes it for the truth.

Actually a feature of nuclear propulsion means oxygen content of air is not relevant... so these missiles could be given enormous narrow wings and operate at enormous altitudes... low oxygen content at 50km altitude would not be important as there is no combustion going on... the thin air means very low drag.... so high speed should be possible... it could fly in a circuit within Russian territory slowly climbing and accelerating till it is at rather high altitude and high speed and then it could head off in any direction to eventually attack the intended target from an unexpected direction... the US will have to redirect its radars to face south and west and east as well as north... and it will have to reposition aircraft bases to south, east and west, to cover these new directions of attack...

So the addition of defence costs, for fairly little outlay... sounds like a good idea to me.

Hole wrote:Someone in Amiland farts and everybody takes it for the truth.

CIA finds it just before Trump's impeachment?