"Petrel" in the foreign press. Doomsday weapons or fake?
Doomsday Weapons?
An attempt at objective analysis is being undertaken by The National Interest. Sebastian Roblin's article “Russian Nuclear-Powered 'Skyfall' Missile with Unlimited Range: A Doomsday Weapon?” From 18 August discusses known facts and the latest news, after which conclusions are drawn that claim to be objective.
The author recalls that the goal of the Petrel project is to create a rocket with a nuclear power plant that has an almost unlimited flight range. First of all, he wonders why Russia is trying to create such a weaponcharacterized by great complexity.
The author considers Moscow’s fears related to the development of foreign missile defense systems to be the main reason for this. Intercontinental ballistic missiles fly fast and high, but are clearly visible. Using their developed systems, the United States can detect and hit part of the Russian ICBMs. A complete repulse of the attack is still impossible, but Moscow is worried about the possible development of the American missile defense.
Unlike ICBMs, cruise missiles fly near the surface and go around obstacles, making it difficult to intercept them. Ground radars will only be able to find such targets at a distance of tens of miles. Because of this, the creation of an “anti-missile umbrella” as a type of defense system against ICBMs is impossible.
Modern cruise missiles cannot carry enough fuel for intercontinental flight. In addition, their speed is also limited. A nuclear-powered rocket has a theoretically and virtually unlimited range. It can not only achieve the goal, but also fly along the optimal route, bypassing the air defense zone.
The National Interest recalls data from foreign intelligence. It is alleged that since 2016, at least a dozen test launches of the new missile were carried out at the Kapustin Yar, Pankovo and Nenoks training grounds, but only two were successful. In November 2017, a video was made, which later accompanied the speech of the Russian president. S. Roblin believes that the course of testing indicates the immaturity of the project. In addition, he recalls the estimates according to which the Petrel will not be able to influence the processes surrounding the new START treaty, since its adoption is a matter of the distant future.
The author believes that Russia is still far from a final solution to all pressing problems and putting a new missile on duty. At the same time, even the performance of all work will not save you from problems. Deploying dozens of Petrel products will be quite expensive, and in addition, it will not be without political consequences. You should also keep in mind security issues - as the August 8 incident shows.
Is the rocket fake?
On August 22, another publication about The Petrel appeared in Foreign Policy. The headline “Is Russian Doomsday Missile Fake News?” Set the tone for the article by Amy Mackinnon and Lara Seligman. The recent events were expected to be the reason for her appearance. At the same time, a very curious opinion is expressed, which contradicts numerous other media publications.
The publication cites the words of Michael Kofman, a specialist in Russia from the Center for Naval Analysis in Arlington. He indicates that the emergency reactor was for military purposes. Moreover, the available data does not allow us to unambiguously associate it with the Petrel product. Several projects using nuclear technology are currently being implemented in Russia, and in Nenoks they could test a component not only for a cruise missile.
FP also cites Ian Williams, deputy director of the Missile Defense Project of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In his opinion, the Russians simply “throw spaghetti into the wall and look what’s stuck.” He also doubts that Russia will be able to bring the Petrel project to the end and organize the production of such weapons. I. Williams recalls that no other country is trying to create such weapons. In the long run, the new missile can be considered the boldest in technical terms and probably the most expensive.
The authors recall last year’s announcement of new Russian weapons made personally by the head of state. They point out that all such systems are unattainable for US missile defense systems. This fact directly indicates the main fears of Russia. FP also provides a list of promising strategic weapons, and indicates that the United States should respond to them.
Absurd strategy
No less interesting opinions were published on August 21 by The New Republic in the article “The Absurd Strategy Behind Russian Nuclear Explosion”, authored by Ankit Panda. The beginning of the material touches upon the events of the beginning of August, and in it the author tries to find a connection between the Nenoks incident and the Petrel missile. Then, the article examines the actual rocket and its features of various kinds.
The author is looking for the reasons for the appearance of "Petrel". Such weapons can be used as a means of retaliation. Such systems are able to deter the enemy from the first disarming attack. During the Cold War, the first strike was a major cause for concern, but now the situation has changed.
The first blow from the United States does not bother Moscow. The Russian leadership directly says that the main problem is the US missile defense. With such systems, retaliation may be limited. The potential of the American missile defense is not too high, but Russian experts do not expect that the situation will not change in the future. Therefore, a hypersonic warhead, an autonomous underwater vehicle, and a cruise missile with unlimited flight range are being developed.
A. Panda considers this concept doubtful. Russia without the "Petrel" has a set of tools and systems that guarantee a retaliatory defeat of the United States. In this case, a cruise missile is needed only to "put an exclamation mark in the thermonuclear apocalypse."
There are also problems with the strategic importance of the new weapon. The United States, already faced with difficulties in the field of missile defense, can deploy air defense systems. Both Russian boasting and investing in controversial projects (the author points out that this is not only an American “tradition”) can be a good incentive for new research and projects.
FP also recalls exactly how US President Donald Trump reacted to news about the accident at the Russian landfill. He wrote that the United States has similar, but more advanced technologies. However, the publication indicates an attempt at boasting.
The article concludes with a passage affecting both Moscow and Washington. The author writes that in both countries, leaders make weapons a cult, and “military opportunists and manufacturers” support them, almost nothing can prevent the start of a new arms race with the advent of unusual and bizarre patterns.
Difference of opinion
It is curious that in the first days after reports of the 8 accident in August, foreign media mainly tried to establish the circumstances of the incident and connect them with well-known Russian-designed projects. Then the emphasis shifted, and now the accident is only an occasion for a new study of the Petrel project based on the available data.
Opinions about the new Russian missile vary. At the same time, everyone agrees in the extreme complexity and high cost of such a project. They also recognize the high technical characteristics and combat qualities of a rocket brought to the required state. However, there is no consensus on the strategic value of such weapons or on their impact on the international situation.
Obviously, new publications on promising Russian weapons will continue to appear in the future, and again they will reveal different points of view. The publication of certain data will remove some of the questions, but there is no need to wait for unity in assessments.
- Ryabov Kirill
- Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Information