Since this occurred Aug 8, I think it’s not the event of the “Big boomsky in Siberia” thread that began Aug 5.

“A U.S. intelligence assessment has reportedly indicated that the mysterious explosion involving Russia's nuclear cruise missile prototype occurred during a salvage mission, rather than a test.

The mysterious explosion on August 8 at the Russian navy's range in Nyonoksa killed seven and spurred fears that Russia was testing its nuclear-powered Burevestnik missile, also known by the NATO codename 'Skyfall.'

But U.S. intelligence indicates the fatal explosion occurred as Russia attempted to salvage a downed Skyfall missile from the ocean floor, two sources with direct knowledge of the report told CNBC.

'This was not a new launch of the weapon, instead it was a recovery mission to salvage a lost missile from a previous test,' one source told the outlet…”

https://mol.im/a/7409607

Wait...

I thought nuke tipped cruise missiles were banned by treaty.

This is a nuclear powered missile. It may not have a nuclear bomb on it. Or, maybe the russkies are cheating.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Wait...

I thought nuke tipped cruise missiles were banned by treaty.

They are, but the Russians do not havae a great track record of playing by the rules. IAW the INF treaty, we took GLCMs and Pershing II missiles out of Europe and destroyed them.


I think this missile used some kind of nuclear propulsion.

From the article:

"Nuclear-powered cruise missiles use the heat from an un-shielded nuclear reactor to power a ramjet engine at supersonic speeds, and have a virtually unlimited range.

The U.S. dabbled with the idea of nuclear cruise missiles in the 1960s but abandoned the project, at least officially, as too dangerous and provocative. "

quote:

"Nuclear-powered cruise missiles use the heat from an un-shielded nuclear reactor to power a ramjet engine at supersonic speeds, and have a virtually unlimited range.

Hmmm...still needs some sort of fuel.

quote:

Hmmm...still needs some sort of fuel.

No, the nuke superheats the air directly to provide expansion. No onboard fuel needed.

An informative animation on the whole nuclear-powered ramjet missile thing. Wow, these things are far more nefarious than I thought...

The very fact that the Russians are testing this technology implies it will be put into production once the bugs are worked out. I would put it past the Chinese to be actively doing the same thing.

We need to continue refining a viable laser based type weapon. Mount the damn things on every craft that can accommodate them. Zero time of flight weaponry (laser) would be the most effective means of removing virtually every flying threat that can be detected. Even a hypersonic missile would be vulnerable to instant destruction if laser targeting systems could keep up with evasive maneuvers.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
The very fact that the Russians are testing this technology implies it will be put into production once the bugs are worked out. I would put it past the Chinese to be actively doing the same thing.

We need to continue refining a viable laser based type weapon. Mount the damn things on every craft that can accommodate them. Zero time of flight weaponry (laser) would be the most effective means of removing virtually every flying threat that can be detected. Even a hypersonic missile would be vulnerable to instant destruction if laser targeting systems could keep up with evasive maneuvers.

I’ve been saying this for years. Then a missile’s range/speed is meaningless.

So, if it is nuclear powered what happens to the fuel when the thing hits its target?

My point being why even worry about a payload of explosives or a lot since the thing is going to be spreading radioactive material all over the place?

quote:

“A U.S. intelligence assessment has reportedly indicated that the mysterious explosion involving Russia's nuclear cruise missile prototype occurred during a salvage mission, rather than a test.

So, Boris, do I cut the red wire, or the blue wire? I can never remember....

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:

quote:

Hmmm...still needs some sort of fuel.

No, the nuke superheats the air directly to provide expansion. No onboard fuel needed.

Well, there IS onboard fuel... in the form of nuclear fuel for the nuclear reaction...

EOD really had a bad day...

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:

quote:

Hmmm...still needs some sort of fuel.

No, the nuke superheats the air directly to provide expansion. No onboard fuel needed.

Well, there IS onboard fuel... in the form of nuclear fuel for the nuclear reaction...

I was wondering if I should add the phrase, "except for the nuclear fuel itself"... nah, no-one on this forum will call me on this...

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
So, if it is nuclear powered what happens to the fuel when the thing hits its target?

My point being why even worry about a payload of explosives or a lot since the thing is going to be spreading radioactive material all over the place?

That was mentioned in the video I posted above. A nuclear-powered cruise missile would not even need a warhead, as it could linger over large areas spreading its radioactive waste, then eventually come down on a specific target as a radioactive "dirty bomb".

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
So, if it is nuclear powered what happens to the fuel when the thing hits its target?

My point being why even worry about a payload of explosives or a lot since the thing is going to be spreading radioactive material all over the place?

Because the energy released from a modern nuclear warhead is several orders of magnitude greater than what's released from the missile just flying around. With a conventional cruise missle, which are you more worried about: the pollution it causes or the explosion? Spreading a little radiation around isn't going to kill a million people. One 800 pound warhead with a 475 ton yield (more than 20x Fat Man) will.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds: We need to continue refining a viable laser based type weapon. Mount the damn things on every craft that can accommodate them. Zero time of flight weaponry (laser) would be the most effective means of removing virtually every flying threat that can be detected. Even a hypersonic missile would be vulnerable to instant destruction if laser targeting systems could keep up with evasive maneuvers.

Agreed, but developing a tracking system that will find and continue to provide targeting accurate enough to put a laser on a hypersonic target is quite a challenge. I have rudimentary experience with finding and tracking Mach+ targets from a moving aircraft and can say that the faster a target the less time a weapon system has to deal with it. I know I sound like Captain Obvious, but Mach 2 targets are difficult enough. Mach 8 targets? Holy cow...

Tracking an object going 1 mile/second is going to require multiple tracking sensors along it's path, relay the target's precise position and trajectory info to a weapon system, and then getting the laser within range to be effective. Then there's the problem of firing a laser accurately enough to get it on the hypersonic target, and then long enough to be effective. From the ground or from aircraft, there's atmospheric dispersion issues which make the laser less effective at increasing ranges. And if shooting from above (from high-altitude aircraft or from space), there's always the problem of what's behind the target in case you miss. ("Oops, sorry about that laser damage to your city, Mr. Mayor.")