SLAM and Petrel: who is behind whom?
Since the first announcement, the promising Burevestnik cruise missile has invariably attracted the attention of the press and the public. 15 August The American Post The Washington Post published an article by Gregg Gerken, “Russian mysterious 'new' nuclear weapons aren't really new.” weapon Russia is not really new ”), in which an attempt was made to compare the new Russian development and the old American project.
Model of a SLAM rocket in a wind tunnel, 1963, NASA Photo
The Washington Post author recalls that the Petrel rocket has made a lot of noise in the recent past. The Russian president called it a fundamentally new weapon - an invulnerable missile with an almost unlimited range. Foreign experts also drew attention to this rocket and called it a technological breakthrough.
However, according to G. Gerken, the new Russian development is based on ideas that appeared at the beginning of the Cold War. In the early sixties, American scientists were engaged in the Pluto project, whose goal was to create a nuclear rocket engine. Such a product was developed for the SLAM cruise missile (Supersonic Low Altitude Missile - “Supersonic Low Altitude Missile”).
Work on Pluto and SLAM was completed in the mid-sixties and did not lead to the creation of the desired weapon. At that time, a nuclear-powered rocket was not the best idea for a number of reasons. The author believes that even now such a concept cannot be considered successful.
The SLAM project proposed the creation of a cruise missile “the size of a locomotive,” capable of developing speeds three times the speed of sound. In flight, she had to drop thermonuclear warheads and leave behind a radioactive trail. Low-altitude flight, according to calculations, led to the appearance of a shock wave with a level of 150 dB at ground level. The red-hot parts of the structure could, as the famous movie hero used to say, “fry the hens in the bird's yard”.
However, a serious problem arose at that time. Scientists and engineers could not find the optimal test program. The SLAM missile was proposed to be tested over the Pacific Ocean on a figure eight route, but there was a risk of error and flight in the direction of populated areas. A suggestion was also made for testing on a circular path using a leash. The question remained of the disposal of the rocket after the flight was completed - it was planned to be flooded in the ocean.
Experienced Tory II-C Pluto nuclear engine. Photo Globalsecurity.org
In July 1964, the engine of the Pluto program was tested, and after a few weeks the program was closed. A promising missile was too dangerous and could not show sufficient effectiveness. Intercontinental ballistic missiles were more convenient, more profitable and safer for the operator.
G. Gerken believes that the old ideas were again accepted for implementation, which led to the emergence of the Petrel project. In addition, he recalls the project of the Poseidon underwater vehicle, similar to the giant torpedo with a thermonuclear charge proposed in the past. In the sixties these ideas were abandoned, but now they have returned to them.
However, there may be no cause for concern. The author recalls the opinion existing in the expert community, according to which new samples of Russian weapons are only part of the propaganda campaign. US authorities have announced their intention to modernize their nuclear forces, and Russia is responding to these plans. According to G. Gerken, in this case, V. Putin’s statements resemble the speeches of N. Khrushchev, who claimed that the USSR makes rockets like sausages.
The author does not argue that a cruise missile with a nuclear engine or an underwater vehicle with a thermonuclear charge can cause huge damage to the American infrastructure - if they exist and are used for their intended purpose. However, there are doubts about the reality of such developments. G. Gerken believes that such "Potemkin weapons" lead to a characteristic risk. Like boasting N. Khrushchev half a century ago, new statements by the Russian leadership could provoke the United States to return to forgotten concepts. As a result, the arms race will begin again, similar to the one in the past.
Rockets "Petrel" and SLAM began to compare almost immediately after the first announcement of the Russian project. Indeed, the well-known data on two developments allow us to talk about the implementation of at least similar ideas. In this case, of course, we are talking about the implementation of close concepts at different levels of technology. In the half century that has passed since the closure of the SLAM project, science and technology stepped forward, and the Petrel product should be distinguished by great design excellence.
Rocket "Petrel" at the manufacturer. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Comparing the two projects is interesting, but difficult for a number of reasons. First of all, this is a lack of necessary information. Quite a lot is known about the SLAM project - it has been declassified for a long time, and all the main materials on it are well known. With "Petrel" everything is much more complicated. Only fragmentary information is known, and everything else - estimates and assumptions. Thus, a full comparison of the two missiles is not yet possible, which contributes to discussions and speculation.
The American SLAM project proposed the construction of a cruise missile with a ramjet engine, in which a nuclear reactor acted as a source of thermal energy. The principle of operation of the propulsion system "Petrel" is still unknown, but it is very likely to use similar ideas. However, it is very likely that solutions aimed at reducing emissions will be applied.
The cruising speed of the SLAM product was to reach M = 3, which allowed it to quickly go to the target areas and break through the enemy’s air defense. Judging by the published videos, the Petrel is a subsonic missile. Both products must have a “global” flight range, but such capabilities of the propulsion system are used in different ways.
SLAM was proposed to be equipped with means for transporting and ejecting 16 warheads. Such combat equipment has become one of the prerequisites for the large dimensions and mass of the rocket. The Petrel is almost three times shorter and noticeably lighter than an American missile, which may indicate the use of a warhead traditional for cruise missiles. Apparently, the Russian missile carries only one combat unit and cannot hit multiple targets.
Thus, the old American and the new Russian missile, having the general principles of the propulsion system, differ in everything else. Probably all this is connected with different requirements and tasks. The SLAM product was created as an alternative to the developed intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of breaking through the enemy’s defenses and striking at several targets. "Petrel", in turn, should complement other weapons of strategic nuclear forces, but not replace them.
"Petrel" in flight. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Another important difference between the two projects should also be noted. The SLAM missile never reached the test, while the Petrel product was already tested in the air. What was the complete set of the Russian missile is unclear. However, the necessary checks were carried out and work continued.
The SLAM cruise missile with the Pluto engine did not enter service and did not have any impact on the military-political situation in the world. Around the Russian "Petrel" and other promising developments is a different situation. This missile is still at the testing stage, but it is already causing controversy and may even affect the relations of countries.
As noted by The Washington Post and other foreign publications, the appearance of the Petrel missile could provoke the United States in retaliation and actually give a start to a new arms race. However, real steps on the part of Washington so far are not connected precisely with the new cruise missile.
Recent events show that the United States considers the emergence of hypersonic systems of third countries, as well as Russia's "violation" of the treaty on intermediate and shorter-range missiles, a formal reason for the development of its strategic weapons. The product "Petrel" is not yet included in such a list and is not an official reason for certain works. However, as practice shows, everything can change at any time.
In an article in The Washington Post, the promising Russian Burevestnik rocket was compared with the American SLAM product developed in the past. Such a comparison was hinted at by the fact that Russian specialists were only able to repeat the project of American industry only a few decades later.
However, this thesis can be considered from the other side. The United States could not bring the Pluto and SLAM projects to full tests, not to mention the adoption of the missile into service. Thus, already at the stage of development work, the Russian "Petrel" bypasses foreign development. In the foreseeable future, he will complete the tests and enter service, strengthening the defense. After that, the current American attempts to recall the SLAM project can be considered clumsy attempts to justify its lag in the advanced field.
Article "Russian mysterious 'new' nuclear weapons aren't really new":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/15/russias-mysterious-new-nuclear-weapons-arent-really-new/
Model of a SLAM rocket in a wind tunnel, 1963, NASA Photo
Old and new
The Washington Post author recalls that the Petrel rocket has made a lot of noise in the recent past. The Russian president called it a fundamentally new weapon - an invulnerable missile with an almost unlimited range. Foreign experts also drew attention to this rocket and called it a technological breakthrough.
However, according to G. Gerken, the new Russian development is based on ideas that appeared at the beginning of the Cold War. In the early sixties, American scientists were engaged in the Pluto project, whose goal was to create a nuclear rocket engine. Such a product was developed for the SLAM cruise missile (Supersonic Low Altitude Missile - “Supersonic Low Altitude Missile”).
Work on Pluto and SLAM was completed in the mid-sixties and did not lead to the creation of the desired weapon. At that time, a nuclear-powered rocket was not the best idea for a number of reasons. The author believes that even now such a concept cannot be considered successful.
The SLAM project proposed the creation of a cruise missile “the size of a locomotive,” capable of developing speeds three times the speed of sound. In flight, she had to drop thermonuclear warheads and leave behind a radioactive trail. Low-altitude flight, according to calculations, led to the appearance of a shock wave with a level of 150 dB at ground level. The red-hot parts of the structure could, as the famous movie hero used to say, “fry the hens in the bird's yard”.
However, a serious problem arose at that time. Scientists and engineers could not find the optimal test program. The SLAM missile was proposed to be tested over the Pacific Ocean on a figure eight route, but there was a risk of error and flight in the direction of populated areas. A suggestion was also made for testing on a circular path using a leash. The question remained of the disposal of the rocket after the flight was completed - it was planned to be flooded in the ocean.
Experienced Tory II-C Pluto nuclear engine. Photo Globalsecurity.org
In July 1964, the engine of the Pluto program was tested, and after a few weeks the program was closed. A promising missile was too dangerous and could not show sufficient effectiveness. Intercontinental ballistic missiles were more convenient, more profitable and safer for the operator.
G. Gerken believes that the old ideas were again accepted for implementation, which led to the emergence of the Petrel project. In addition, he recalls the project of the Poseidon underwater vehicle, similar to the giant torpedo with a thermonuclear charge proposed in the past. In the sixties these ideas were abandoned, but now they have returned to them.
However, there may be no cause for concern. The author recalls the opinion existing in the expert community, according to which new samples of Russian weapons are only part of the propaganda campaign. US authorities have announced their intention to modernize their nuclear forces, and Russia is responding to these plans. According to G. Gerken, in this case, V. Putin’s statements resemble the speeches of N. Khrushchev, who claimed that the USSR makes rockets like sausages.
The author does not argue that a cruise missile with a nuclear engine or an underwater vehicle with a thermonuclear charge can cause huge damage to the American infrastructure - if they exist and are used for their intended purpose. However, there are doubts about the reality of such developments. G. Gerken believes that such "Potemkin weapons" lead to a characteristic risk. Like boasting N. Khrushchev half a century ago, new statements by the Russian leadership could provoke the United States to return to forgotten concepts. As a result, the arms race will begin again, similar to the one in the past.
Similarities and differences
Rockets "Petrel" and SLAM began to compare almost immediately after the first announcement of the Russian project. Indeed, the well-known data on two developments allow us to talk about the implementation of at least similar ideas. In this case, of course, we are talking about the implementation of close concepts at different levels of technology. In the half century that has passed since the closure of the SLAM project, science and technology stepped forward, and the Petrel product should be distinguished by great design excellence.
Rocket "Petrel" at the manufacturer. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Comparing the two projects is interesting, but difficult for a number of reasons. First of all, this is a lack of necessary information. Quite a lot is known about the SLAM project - it has been declassified for a long time, and all the main materials on it are well known. With "Petrel" everything is much more complicated. Only fragmentary information is known, and everything else - estimates and assumptions. Thus, a full comparison of the two missiles is not yet possible, which contributes to discussions and speculation.
The American SLAM project proposed the construction of a cruise missile with a ramjet engine, in which a nuclear reactor acted as a source of thermal energy. The principle of operation of the propulsion system "Petrel" is still unknown, but it is very likely to use similar ideas. However, it is very likely that solutions aimed at reducing emissions will be applied.
The cruising speed of the SLAM product was to reach M = 3, which allowed it to quickly go to the target areas and break through the enemy’s air defense. Judging by the published videos, the Petrel is a subsonic missile. Both products must have a “global” flight range, but such capabilities of the propulsion system are used in different ways.
SLAM was proposed to be equipped with means for transporting and ejecting 16 warheads. Such combat equipment has become one of the prerequisites for the large dimensions and mass of the rocket. The Petrel is almost three times shorter and noticeably lighter than an American missile, which may indicate the use of a warhead traditional for cruise missiles. Apparently, the Russian missile carries only one combat unit and cannot hit multiple targets.
Thus, the old American and the new Russian missile, having the general principles of the propulsion system, differ in everything else. Probably all this is connected with different requirements and tasks. The SLAM product was created as an alternative to the developed intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of breaking through the enemy’s defenses and striking at several targets. "Petrel", in turn, should complement other weapons of strategic nuclear forces, but not replace them.
"Petrel" in flight. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Another important difference between the two projects should also be noted. The SLAM missile never reached the test, while the Petrel product was already tested in the air. What was the complete set of the Russian missile is unclear. However, the necessary checks were carried out and work continued.
Rockets and politics
The SLAM cruise missile with the Pluto engine did not enter service and did not have any impact on the military-political situation in the world. Around the Russian "Petrel" and other promising developments is a different situation. This missile is still at the testing stage, but it is already causing controversy and may even affect the relations of countries.
As noted by The Washington Post and other foreign publications, the appearance of the Petrel missile could provoke the United States in retaliation and actually give a start to a new arms race. However, real steps on the part of Washington so far are not connected precisely with the new cruise missile.
Recent events show that the United States considers the emergence of hypersonic systems of third countries, as well as Russia's "violation" of the treaty on intermediate and shorter-range missiles, a formal reason for the development of its strategic weapons. The product "Petrel" is not yet included in such a list and is not an official reason for certain works. However, as practice shows, everything can change at any time.
Unsuccessful comparison
In an article in The Washington Post, the promising Russian Burevestnik rocket was compared with the American SLAM product developed in the past. Such a comparison was hinted at by the fact that Russian specialists were only able to repeat the project of American industry only a few decades later.
However, this thesis can be considered from the other side. The United States could not bring the Pluto and SLAM projects to full tests, not to mention the adoption of the missile into service. Thus, already at the stage of development work, the Russian "Petrel" bypasses foreign development. In the foreseeable future, he will complete the tests and enter service, strengthening the defense. After that, the current American attempts to recall the SLAM project can be considered clumsy attempts to justify its lag in the advanced field.
Article "Russian mysterious 'new' nuclear weapons aren't really new":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/15/russias-mysterious-new-nuclear-weapons-arent-really-new/
Information