Military Review

The Petrel is not good for war

567
I will begin my article with this statement: the latest rocket with a reactor on board the Petrel is, of course, a wonderful product, only practically unsuitable for war.



According to some, this is the "Petrel" in flight


Of course, such a statement will cause a great passions of passion, as the "Petrel" simply causes bouts of delight among the cheers-patriotic public. But, nevertheless, there are arguments for that.

Strange adversary stupidity


The main advantage of the Petrel is that the missile, possessing a very long flight range and the ability to maneuver, will be able to bypass the boundaries of radar detection and the boundaries of interception, and then hit an important target.

And what exactly is the important goal? They say right there - the command center. Well, just which command center? The Americans and their allies have a lot of them. Major centers, such as the NORAD command post in Colorado Springs, are housed in well-protected bunkers with the expectation of a powerful nuclear strike, and it is doubtful that the Petrel can even hit them with nuclear equipment. Regional and functional commands, as well as fleet and aviation, are located, as a rule, at bases already covered by various means of air defense / missile defense. Moreover, this has been done a long time ago, since the appearance of the X-55.

The capabilities of the American air defense / missile defense systems are quite enough to detect and intercept the Petrel on the approach directly to the target. Even taking into account the stealth of the rocket (if it is made on the basis of X-101, the EPR of which, according to published data, is 0,01 sq.m), the detection range of the rocket by AWACS aircraft is still 100-120 km, F-22 can detect it at a distance from 65 to 80 km, and the Israeli Iron Dome missile defense system can detect from a distance from 70 to 90 km. By the way, the Americans are already buying the Israeli system and are planning to deploy at least two batteries by 2020, apparently, just to protect the most important objects from cruise missiles.


Israeli Iron Dome. Using it against makeshift Kassam raises questions, but against the very expensive Petrel, it’s just right


As soon as the Petrel is spotted on the way to the target, it will be relatively easy to shoot down, because, according to current estimates, the rocket has a subsonic flight speed. If there is an interceptor in the air, then under favorable conditions, he will be able to dump the Thunderbird with a burst of airborne guns, as a training target. It is also impossible to exclude the possibility of accidental detection of a missile in flight by some URO frigate, an airplane, or standing on watch of an air defense system that was in the right place.

It is an extreme degree of arrogance to believe that an adversary such as the United States will not cover its command centers, and indeed any other critically important objects, with air defense / missile defense systems designed to intercept air targets directly near the object. The bet that the enemy will be impenetrably stupid, in my opinion, is extremely unreliable in principle, and it’s hard to call recklessness to develop a complex and expensive model of weapons for such tactics “dumb”. Nevertheless, the tactical use of a new type of weapon should take into account a smart opponent and all his possible countermeasures.

Will there be enough missiles for all purposes?


The next program item: the number of goals. US Army Command Only - 11. Together with the commands of their allies (one cannot strike only at the American headquarters and leave the headquarters of their allies in NATO or other agreements untouched) the number of the highest priority goals freely reaches two dozen. If you collect all the goals, the defeat of which is critical in order to deprive the United States and its allies of the opportunity to conduct hostilities anywhere, I think that a list of 150-200 goals will be freely typed.

And it is hardly possible to seriously count on the fact that it is possible to destroy a large command center with one non-nuclear cruise missile.

And here a question arises, for which there is no answer yet: how many "Petrels" will be? The number plays an important role. Even if we assume that the Petrel can fulfill everything that is now attributed to it, that it can somehow circumvent or break through the enemy’s missile defense systems, it should be noted that the further effect is determined by the number of missiles. 3-5 of the best, "unparalleled in the world," missiles of victory in the war have not been achieved. If we keep in mind a certain Russian outcome of the well-known concept of a “quick global strike”, then in order to topple an opponent with a certain guarantee, you must have the 200-300 “Petrels” order.

Can Russia do so much? Interest Ask. Here you need to understand what it is all about. In my opinion, the Burevestnik propulsion system is a combination of a turbojet engine and a compact nuclear reactor, the heat of which is used to heat the working fluid instead of burning fuel in conventional turbojet engines. The reactor must be very compact and fit in the dimensions of the X-101, and at the same time be already quite well mastered. There was such a development, or rather, there was: a Topaz nuclear power plant designed for satellites. It is quite possible to adapt it to new tasks by creating a heat sink from the core to the heating chamber of the working fluid in a turbojet engine, as well as by creating a sealed protective shell of the core.


"Topaz" near. Most likely, this reactor became the prototype of the Petrel reactor. Other types of reactors are not suitable for size and weight.


But such a compact nuclear reactor is a complicated and expensive thing due to the abundance of special materials used in it. The USSR, with all the power of its military-industrial complex, was able to make only two "Topazs" for the Cosmos-1818 and Cosmos-1876 satellites. I do not think that the current Russian capabilities in the production of such compact reactors are significantly higher than in Soviet times. So, most likely, the construction of a large series of Petrels is an unattainable goal. They will do two or three for the sake of intimidation, and that’s all.

And in general, to make such a complex and expensive product for the sake of a single start-up is more than a dubious idea.

When to start the reactor?


There is another question that directly relates to the combat readiness of such a rocket: when to start the reactor? Now it is completely not considered, especially by those who consider the Petrel another Wunderwaffe, but it depends on this question whether the Petrel will be weapons, at any moment ready for battle, or it will be a device that, for launching, it will be necessary to “podshamanit” highly qualified specialists.

Three options are possible. First: the physical launch of the reactor is carried out after the launch of the rocket, already in the air. Second: the physical launch of the reactor is carried out on the ground, under the supervision of specialists, and then the start is made with the reactor already operating. Third: the physical launch of the reactor is carried out when the rocket is in position, then the power of the reactor is reduced to a minimum level, then to bring it to full power (before launch or in flight).

The first option is the most profitable, but also the most difficult, since the rocket at launch experiences serious overloads, and it is also difficult to monitor the state of the reactor. A technical malfunction in the control system or in the communication system may well lead to the reactor overheating and collapse. It is difficult to say how technically feasible this is.

The second option is more reliable than the first, since the reactor is under control at the time of start-up and exit to operating mode. However, the launch of the reactor, probably even with the loading of the fuel cells removed before that from a special storage, will require some rather significant time, which increases the time it takes to prepare the rocket for launch.

The third option is more reliable and better than the first two, since the rocket is as ready to launch as possible. However, there are two negative points. First, a rocket with a reactor operating at minimum power will need to be cooled, which will require additional equipment for the launcher with a refrigeration unit. Secondly, nuclear fuel gradually burns out, which limits the period during which the rocket can stand on alert. By the way, the maximum achieved campaign period for Topaz is 11 months.

There are still a number of questions that are difficult to answer. However, the choice between a complex and lengthy preparation of a rocket for launch and a very limited time spent on combat duty is already visible. Whatever we choose, this greatly limits the combat value of such a missile.

So the Petrel is not good for war. If it were a missile suitable for mass production, then we could still count on some effect with a salvo of a couple of hundred missiles. 2-3 missiles are only suitable for intimidation in words and for PR. It is better for this product to choose a different destination, more appropriate to its characteristics.
Author:
567 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mark1
    mark1 16 September 2019 05: 36
    +84
    I read something in the same tonality from Poseidon.
    We do one thing. comrade ?!
    And I repeat in the same tonality - how you can give an assessment of what you really don't know about!
    1. Zufei
      Zufei 16 September 2019 05: 57
      +31
      This is called "modeling", extrapolation, forecasting. In general, an attempt to predict the situation.
      1. Ilya-spb
        Ilya-spb 16 September 2019 06: 15
        +17
        I have a version. The petrel is not needed for war.
        And for interplanetary travel.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 16 September 2019 10: 09
          +28
          Quote: Ilya-spb
          I have a version. The petrel is not needed for war.
          And for interplanetary travel.

          I’ll venture to suggest that for interplanetary flights a turbojet engine is not very useful)) But seriously, for space exploration, a nuclear rocket engine in one form or another is much more needed than for military mixtures on an old Earth. Such a power plant does not give any fundamental advantages to military missiles.
          1. krot
            krot 16 September 2019 21: 00
            -8
            The dumbest analytics in the article! If the missile is subsonic, then it is easy to shoot down, which means you need 100 missiles for a couple of targets! Idiocy. If the missile is equipped with an electronic warfare system like the Khibiny, for example, or more steeply, and even pitch and yaw maneuvers, what air defense systems are capable of shooting down such targets?
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 17 September 2019 08: 37
              +2
              Quote: krot
              If the missile is equipped with an electronic warfare system like the Khibiny, for example, or more steeply, and even pitch and yaw maneuvers, what air defense systems are capable of shooting down such targets?

              You still forgot about the set of thermal traps, anti-radar missiles and a special laser for burning approaching missiles. Well, a couple of fighter cover still highlight, walk like a walk))
              1. IvanT
                IvanT 17 September 2019 13: 49
                +11
                This is you tell the Saudis. Which could not catch subsonic rockets of 60-70 years and drones.))))
                1. krot
                  krot 18 September 2019 07: 59
                  +3
                  Have you forgotten about the heat trap kit?
                  Mattress analytics ..
                  On modern missiles, we all have EW systems, and if for you it's fantastic, on a par with blasters, then it’s better to write child essays about dunno with your competence.
                  1. Alex777
                    Alex777 18 September 2019 19: 03
                    +3
                    I will begin my article with this statement: the latest rocket with a reactor on board the Petrel is, of course, a wonderful product, only practically unsuitable for war.

                    Cool article man writes. After all, do not be lazy!
                    There is no reactor at Petrel. It never happened. And never will be. laughing
                    1. krizis
                      krizis 19 September 2019 11: 08
                      +2
                      Putin just lied? why so modest?
                      What other secrets do you know? :)
                      1. Dmitry Hamburg
                        Dmitry Hamburg 19 September 2019 17: 28
                        0
                        Is this a secret for someone?
                      2. krizis
                        krizis 19 September 2019 17: 30
                        +3
                        How is the petrel actually made? judging by the discord at the highest level around the world - yes. Well, you are probably hiding the lord of the world. :)
                      3. krot
                        krot 19 September 2019 17: 34
                        +3
                        author of Murzilka magazine! I think they ate their words now that subsonic missiles are useless? When the ancient, primitive Hussite drones and cruise missiles bombed the Arabian refineries .. They simply did not intercept a single one !! Hussite cruise missiles, praised Aegis and Patriot! But the Saudis have a layered defense with a solid overlap! Well, much more clearly is that your analytics is worthless! )
            2. Cyrus
              Cyrus 17 September 2019 10: 57
              -5
              A dumb comment, the new French long-range missiles will easily knock down, beyond that.
              1. krot
                krot 18 September 2019 17: 02
                +3
                A dumb comment, the new French long-range missiles will easily knock down, beyond that.
                Shot down, sorry? New French missiles in-in, and even long-range))) Specialist in French new missiles? Or are we watching cartoons?)
                1. Cyrus
                  Cyrus 19 September 2019 00: 39
                  -3
                  Watching cartoons is about you)
        2. Barmal
          Barmal 16 September 2019 11: 17
          -20
          Americans bite their elbows - such a power plant may well make it possible to break away from the surface of the moon with astronauts on board on a descent habitable module. And then, after all the twists and turns, "there were Americans on the Moon - there weren't Americans on the Moon", it is the Russian "Zoldaten" who can put an end to it, after landing on the Moon))
          1. samaravega
            samaravega 16 September 2019 12: 44
            +22
            In your transcription:
            There is one small problem for the Russian Zoldaten: in order to launch the Purevestnik and get away from the Moon, they need to get to the Moon. She still has to drag this "Purebred" on the sepa.
            1. lis-ik
              lis-ik 16 September 2019 14: 57
              +7
              Quote: samaravega
              In your transcription:
              There is one small problem for the Russian Zoldaten: in order to launch the Purevestnik and get away from the Moon, they need to get to the Moon. She still has to drag this "Purebred" on the sepa.

              Someone else can translate the stream of consciousness.
        3. Dart
          Dart 16 September 2019 11: 21
          +6
          yeah, no worse than the author’s inventions ... you can also sprinkle an article with a bunch of useless conclusions, and cause a heated discussion on the discussion of a spherical horse in a vacuum. drinks
          1. Fan-fan
            Fan-fan 16 September 2019 16: 06
            0
            The author’s thoughts are quite logical and do not at all resemble those of the patient of ward No. 6. And if you criticize, then let's specifically, what fact did the author misinterpret?
            1. Vol4ara
              Vol4ara 16 September 2019 20: 37
              +22
              Quote: Fan-Fan
              The author’s thoughts are quite logical and do not at all resemble those of the patient of ward No. 6. And if you criticize, then let's specifically, what fact did the author misinterpret?

              For 11 months, Topaz worked at what capacity? Minimal? Is the topaz on the petrel? No? What the hell are the predictions
              The author himself came up with the purpose of the rocket, then he made the conclusion - no, this rocket is not suitable for hitting command posts, it needs to be adapted for something else.
            2. igorka357
              igorka357 17 September 2019 15: 03
              +3
              The simplest one, all the US KRs are also subsonic, and we’ll be able to shoot them down with our air defense..but they’ll bet on sound KRs!
            3. Alex777
              Alex777 18 September 2019 22: 27
              +1
              The author’s thoughts are quite logical and do not at all resemble those of the patient of ward No. 6. And if you criticize, then let's specifically, what fact did the author misinterpret?

              The presence of a reactor at the Petrel. hi
          2. Grits
            Grits 17 September 2019 13: 40
            +2
            Quote: Dart
            spherical horse in a vacuum.

            Everyone knows what it is, but no one knows what it looks like.
        4. samaravega
          samaravega 16 September 2019 12: 39
          +2
          In accordance with the rules of the "Russian language" the correct spelling of "interplanetary travel".
        5. Cyrus
          Cyrus 17 September 2019 10: 56
          -2
          Or to create aviation with a poison engine.
        6. Nick
          Nick 18 September 2019 04: 07
          +2
          Quote: Ilya-spb
          I have a version. The petrel is not needed for war.
          And for interplanetary travel.

          Alas, there is no atmosphere in the interplanetary space, and without it the Petrel engine will not create thrust.
      2. mark1
        mark1 16 September 2019 06: 20
        +22
        Fortune telling with a picking in the nose, this is called.
      3. Evil543
        Evil543 16 September 2019 07: 45
        +3
        Or maybe she’ll go for a finish ... they’ll just relax, but then getting rid of .. angry
        1. Lbt21
          Lbt21 16 September 2019 10: 12
          +7
          Finishing off after a serious mess our descendants will be with stone axes!
          1. Nastia makarova
            Nastia makarova 16 September 2019 12: 02
            +2
            and where will the iron go?
            1. Spambox
              Spambox 16 September 2019 18: 01
              -1
              Without technology and equipment, it is difficult to process). And after the conflict, we will return to the Stone Age. It will all start from scratch.
              1. Vol4ara
                Vol4ara 16 September 2019 20: 38
                +3
                Quote: Spambox
                Without technology and equipment, it is difficult to process). And after the conflict, we will return to the Stone Age. It will all start from scratch.

                To make fur from leather and wood and gypsum forge is hard?
                New Zealand, many countries in Africa, Iceland, etc. most likely will not suffer at all
                1. Lbt21
                  Lbt21 17 September 2019 01: 51
                  +2
                  Maybe not hard. But it seems to me that the modern average Muscovite will die of hunger than he can get his food! Most modern youth do not even know what leather furs and gypsum forge are!
                  1. Nastia makarova
                    Nastia makarova 17 September 2019 08: 04
                    +5
                    life will make)))) quickly learn everything
                  2. Zefr
                    Zefr 19 September 2019 06: 03
                    0
                    In Moscow, sales managers, most likely, will die.
                    But actually, specialists who know how to use hands, oddly enough, exist
                2. Spambox
                  Spambox 17 September 2019 08: 33
                  +2
                  How many people from your friends are able to make furs and uniforms from plaster, and in general have a concept about metalworking? Where to get ore? To melt modern, available in the form of debris, steel with the help of furs and sticks does not work. Change for more than one generation before these technologies are re-mastered to the required extent.
                  1. Vol4ara
                    Vol4ara 17 September 2019 09: 43
                    +2
                    Quote: Spambox
                    How many people from your friends are able to make furs and uniforms from plaster, and in general have a concept about metalworking? Where to get ore? To melt modern, available in the form of debris, steel with the help of furs and sticks does not work. Change for more than one generation before these technologies are re-mastered to the required extent.

                    I didn’t ask, but I think% 10 for sure, but I don’t need more, just 1 person per hundred is enough to train. Depends on the grade of steel, usually with difficulty but melts, if you want to be perverted, bog ore and charcoal will help you.
                  2. skif8013
                    skif8013 17 September 2019 13: 25
                    +2
                    Quote: Spambox
                    How many people from your friends are able to make furs and uniforms from plaster, and in general have a concept about metalworking? Where to get ore? To melt modern, available in the form of debris, steel with the help of furs and sticks does not work. Change for more than one generation before these technologies are re-mastered to the required extent.

                    Maybe they don’t know how, but everyone knows how to read. And if pripret will find literature. Have you thought about this? Or will the books die out too?)
                  3. Red_Baron
                    Red_Baron 17 September 2019 14: 37
                    +1
                    And again, nonsense. Furs are generally simple to make, nowhere simpler. Where do the skins come from? A piece of wood for easy pumping, too? Plaster molds? and from clay do not want?
                    And what kind of metalworking should one have a concept? Heat the metal and try to shape it? Remelting or reforging an already finished product?
                    What steel, for starters, the usual iron of the sea is perfect.
                    Quote: Spambox
                    Change for more than one generation before these technologies are re-mastered to the required extent.

                    Of course not. All that you have listed does not apply in any way to survival or to normal life. All this is primarily for convenience.
                    Quote: Spambox
                    sticks fail

                    As I understand it, you yourself do not understand anything in blacksmithing. Have you heard about coal, charcoal, gas, oil?
                  4. Nastia makarova
                    Nastia makarova 18 September 2019 07: 21
                    +1
                    which furs ???)))) is ridiculous, 90% of all material assets, including machine tools and equipment, will remain
                  5. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 25 September 2019 14: 09
                    0
                    Quote: Spambox
                    How many people from your friends are able to make furs and uniforms from plaster, and in general have a concept about metalworking?

                    and why did you decide that everything will take down? have you read post-apocalyptic science fiction novels, or have Metro passed several times? or are these conclusions based on Chernobyl? Well, there it is ... a few more generations and they will not be able to do anything except "to make fur and a shape from plaster." but it's not about nuclear war wink
                    in Russia, the best missile defense system has been successfully tested in Syria. the likelihood of events in your key is as great as the likelihood that no missile will hit at all. request
              2. Mordvin 3
                Mordvin 3 16 September 2019 20: 53
                +2
                Quote: Spambox
                Without technology and equipment, it is difficult to process).

                After the conflict, the population will decrease. I think there will be enough axes for several generations.
              3. Nastia makarova
                Nastia makarova 17 September 2019 08: 07
                +1
                Yes, everything will remain intact except for the epicenters of nuclear weapons
                1. Spambox
                  Spambox 17 September 2019 08: 16
                  +2
                  Indeed, everything will remain intact .... In addition to the climate, radiation background, radioactive fallout, infrastructure, and yes, the school is standing and no one is inside it)
                  1. Nastia makarova
                    Nastia makarova 17 September 2019 08: 21
                    -1
                    in Siberia and in the north it will be normal not to mention Africa and Australia
                  2. Red_Baron
                    Red_Baron 17 September 2019 14: 38
                    -2
                    You just decided to go in cycles on one unhealthy idea. If everything gets infected, it will light up and so on, then no one will survive. And there will be no stone age, just no one will be.
                  3. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 25 September 2019 14: 16
                    0
                    Actually, modern nuclear charges give a minimum of pollution. you are stuck at the dawn of the nuclear era. but it’s good that most people all believe that after a nuclear explosion there will be radiation pollution for hundreds of years ... better uneducated panic than nuclear won! laughing
              4. Red_Baron
                Red_Baron 17 September 2019 14: 31
                +2
                You are repeating a joke with a serious face. What stone age? It even sounds crazy. Any person, even the most stupid one, could see at least on TV simple objects of labor. A slightly smaller number used them and understands how what and why. Most of them do not require too complicated procedures for processing. And all modern technological refinements for the survival of civilization are generally not needed at all. As early as the beginning of the 20th century, extremely primitive technologies were used for many operations. Which can be adjusted in a matter of years. Even the wired phones have not gone. How small were you in the village or on the farm? If you remove the new phones, telly and computer, everything works just as well as centuries ago. Many processes in general over many centuries have not changed, only other propulsion systems began to be used for their implementation, and the designs were corrected for cheapness and mass.
                Quote: Spambox
                Without technology and equipment

                Iron? Yah? Tell us what kind of equipment and technology do blacksmiths have? An electric or steam hammer replaces the usual one only for convenience and speed. Manual metal heating is no worse.
                In general, do not invent. If you look at history, you will see that the revolutionary steps in the development of production were completely simple ideas, they simply provided great opportunities for mass production.
            2. Lbt21
              Lbt21 17 September 2019 01: 47
              -1
              They will change for bacon and vodka)))) I don’t know how with iron, but your smartphone and "coputer" will definitely remain with you, but will instantly become useless!
              1. Nastia makarova
                Nastia makarova 17 September 2019 08: 06
                0
                yes, there will be power outages
                1. Red_Baron
                  Red_Baron 17 September 2019 15: 55
                  -1
                  Not strong. To make a primitive generator, to make containers with lead and acid? Make windmills? I have a friend of the familiar windmill, though probably a more modern one feeds 2 houses and still has a large supply.
                  In the same way, primitive hydroelectric power plants, if they are destroyed. Or thermal.
                  1. Nastia makarova
                    Nastia makarova 17 September 2019 15: 56
                    +2
                    so I say that a lot of things will remain
            3. psiho117
              psiho117 17 September 2019 18: 57
              +2
              Quote: Nastia Makarova
              and where will the iron go?

              the existing one - picks up radiation, but they cannot make a new one - for those. the chains will be broken, and the carriers of sacred knowledge will be lost. bully
              1. surok1
                surok1 18 January 2020 08: 41
                0
                Paper carriers disappear without any war. They are optimized, and then the chick will be cut down. And there will be Fahrenheit 411. You are now more and more a thin client. On hard drive you probably have a lot of porn and not a single library.
          2. Cyrus
            Cyrus 17 September 2019 11: 00
            +1
            With figal, have you seen enough movies in games outplayed?
          3. Grits
            Grits 17 September 2019 13: 41
            +2
            Quote: Lbt21
            To finish off after a serious mess our descendants will be stone axes

            Nonsense. So many interesting and useful pieces of iron that look like a stone ax will remain on the ground.
      4. Chaldon48
        Chaldon48 16 September 2019 09: 25
        0
        This is another transition of quantity into quality!
      5. NOTaFED
        NOTaFED 16 September 2019 10: 05
        0
        This is called manipulation. The author talks about what he did not see and does not know. But he concludes that everything is bad.
        1. mikle1999
          mikle1999 16 September 2019 11: 11
          +6
          A comrade says that object air defense cannot be circumvented).
          1. Minato2020
            Minato2020 16 September 2019 11: 19
            +3
            Quote: mikle1999
            The comrade says that the object of air defense can not be circumvented)


            Until you try, you don’t know (i.e., test)
            1. topograf
              topograf 16 September 2019 18: 21
              +17
              The Huseyites have already tried to "bypass" the vaunted Patriot air defense system - they zhahnuli in Saudi Arabia (oil production areas) and apparently did not read this article. laughing
              1. Red_Baron
                Red_Baron 17 September 2019 15: 56
                0
                Why read it at all?
          2. dauria
            dauria 16 September 2019 13: 35
            +15
            A comrade says that object air defense cannot be circumvented).


            The comrade simply thinks that nuclear weapons are for some military facilities.
            The main target of the mass strike is the city. Military facilities are scattered and redeployed. In a word, they are more or less designed for a nuclear war. And they will be hammered "especially". And the United States will never go to the destruction of even a dozen large cities with millions of victims. The real danger of war alone will cause a mass exodus from megacities - what will happen to these crowds, did you imagine? These are the unpredictable consequences of their cozy paradise system. And the main deterrent for everyone. Victory tantamount to collapse is not needed by anyone.
            1. Mikhail3
              Mikhail3 16 September 2019 14: 17
              +5
              Quite right. A simple altitude assault rifle will allow a rocket (which has no wings, therefore no "suction") to go even at a height of 10 meters above the sea. No air defense, no AWACS aircraft will detect it there for nothing. Most of the US industrial and human resources are concentrated on the coasts ...
              1. Fan-fan
                Fan-fan 16 September 2019 16: 11
                +5
                Misha, the author asked the question - how many such missiles will Russia make? And he explained that the price of a rocket is high because of a nuclear reactor. That price puts an end to this rocket, which is not clear?
                1. Mikhail3
                  Mikhail3 16 September 2019 17: 22
                  +10
                  I will answer you, nameless Fan-Fan, and the author immediately. And how much does it take to wipe American cities off the face of the earth so that Americans become a little uncomfortable? Considering it’s unrealistic to shoot down this rocket because of its height, will a couple of dozen be satisfied? We have just enough for so much, in addition to the remaining weapons. What is there a trifle worth saving? Burn to the base of Miami? And by the way, New York too, why trifle? Well and further down the list ...
                  The price is high, but compared to even the miserable, contingent New York that I mentioned to the heap, it seems adequate, no? This is not a ballistic trajectory along which it is so convenient to count and aim. No, Fanek, it doesn’t put an end to the undertaking, quite the contrary ...
                  1. Fan-fan
                    Fan-fan 16 September 2019 17: 28
                    -10
                    Mishan, this is what the doctor of technical sciences, professor, one of the most prominent specialists in nuclear physics and atomic energy, world-renowned scientist Igor Nikolaevich Ostretsov said: "There can be no Burevestnik rocket"
                    https://newizv.ru/news/society/20-08-2019/professor-ostretsov-nikakoy-rakety-burevestnik-byt-ne-mozhet
                    1. Mikhail3
                      Mikhail3 16 September 2019 17: 32
                      +17
                      Fanyusha, a "world-renowned scientist" can be absolutely free! Real scientists (not a couple of different ... the site still will not miss), and then they regularly sit in a puddle. The Crimean bridge is also impossible, by the way. Hehe ...
                      By the way, by the way, you choose something like that, impossible, or too expensive. It doesn't work at the same time! I love you, creatures of the American "mind" ...
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 September 2019 18: 40
                        +6
                        Quote: Mikhail3
                        And how much does it take to wipe American cities off the face of the earth so that Americans become a little uncomfortable?

                        What's the difference?
                        Quote: Mikhail3
                        The price is high, but compared to even the miserable, contingent New York that I mentioned to the heap, it seems adequate, no?

                        When it seems, you need to be baptized with a small cross, they say - it helps :))))
                        Mikhail, "it seems" to you wrong. Because 10-20-100, or even from half a thousand US cities, we can well destroy the ICBMs we have. Why do we need a nuclear missile?
                        Quote: Mikhail3
                        Given that knocking this missile down from above is unrealistic

                        More than real. To begin with, the discovery of such a missile is not to say that it is so technically difficult - it can be done even visually, with the help of good thermal imagers - the heat in flight from it will be decent. Also, such missiles can be detected using analogues of domestic radio intelligence stations such as Vega or the chain mail that Ukrainians inherited. And after its discovery, it can be destroyed by an ordinary combat aircraft.
                        That is, we are creating a new weapons system that can be easily intercepted even with the means available today. This is in the presence of the Vanguard ", which today is practically impossible to intercept. Why?
                      2. Mikhail3
                        Mikhail3 18 September 2019 11: 19
                        +1
                        Andrey, we cannot "destroy" these cities with the means we have. We can only hope so, and even so, hope is weak. Because our countries have had ICBMs for many years, and the lines of counteraction to well-known weapons have been carefully worked out. Personally, in my opinion, the successful defeat of ICBMs is unlikely to exceed 5%, or even will be significantly less.
                        For this, a new weapon is needed all the time - so that the enemy could not pick up resistance by the time of the military conflict. And you are not quite right about the discovery. Apparently because I saved time on my post. Of course, you can detect a nuclear missile. Another question is how, when, and how much time is left for the reaction?
                        So, if we consider nuclear missiles as the vanguard of a global nuclear strike, then the Americans will have to completely redo the missile defense system. See what that means? To completely redo the system that they built, got along and rolled in for many decades. All from scratch! And right now, they have practically nothing against such missiles.
                        According to American logic, Russia must ... attack! If we have at least a hundred of these missiles, we can just start shooting them, and we will cause America such damage that it will never recover. Oh, they’re burning there now ...
                      3. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 25 September 2019 14: 31
                        +1
                        Quote: Mikhail3
                        Andrey, we cannot "destroy" these cities with the means we have. We can only hope so, and even so, hope is weak.

                        it seems not quite right, or rather not at all wink
                        real events showed that American cities are not at all covered, not only by missile defense, but even by air defense. The United States relies on aviation. By the way, American experts also write about this. for example, they write that the ability of the "Vanguard" to overcome any missile defense system is not an advantage due to the fact that there is no missile defense system in the US (they have deployed their missile defense system in Europe). like that in plain text ... request
                        but missiles capable of circumventing US missile defense in the EU and achieving goals in the US are definitely useful.
                        and in general the article is strange ... there is a missile with an almost unlimited flight range and high accuracy of hitting a target. a statement about its futility can only sound from House No. 6. yes

                        PS
                        By the way, why did everyone decide that the Burevestnik was more expensive than an ICBM?
                      4. Cyrus
                        Cyrus 17 September 2019 11: 03
                        -1
                        Well, they are at least a product of the mind, unlike you).
                    2. Vol4ara
                      Vol4ara 16 September 2019 20: 45
                      +8
                      Quote: Fan-Fan
                      Mishan, this is what the doctor of technical sciences, professor, one of the most prominent specialists in nuclear physics and atomic energy, world-renowned scientist Igor Nikolaevich Ostretsov said: "There can be no Burevestnik rocket"
                      https://newizv.ru/news/society/20-08-2019/professor-ostretsov-nikakoy-rakety-burevestnik-byt-ne-mozhet

                      Ostretsov internet freak
                  2. Oleg Zorin
                    Oleg Zorin 17 September 2019 00: 18
                    +5
                    The use of existing means of delivery of nuclear weapons on both sides guarantees to both parties the situation after the conflict is worse than before the conflict. And worse by orders of magnitude. This is understood both in the Russian Federation and in the USA. There are no bad either there or here.
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal 17 September 2019 00: 49
              -1
              Do you think that a similar picture will not be observed in somewhat less wealthy Russian cities? Most nuclear weapons in the United States are SLBMs. That guarantees a retaliatory / counter strike. What to do with our fellow citizens?
            3. Cyrus
              Cyrus 17 September 2019 10: 54
              -1
              Why, you see, you didn’t read history, you didn’t teach, and you don’t know a damn thing, well, remind me when America entered the war with Japan, after what event?
        2. kig
          kig 16 September 2019 12: 29
          +2
          Quote: NOTaFED
          The author says that he did not see and does not know

          Well, let's write in a different key, who's stopping us? None. Here I declare: The petrel is a wonderful weapon that no one in the world has, and it is he who will make all enemies become our best friends. Has it become easier? But the essence is the same - I do not know anything about the subject matter.
          1. Roman070280
            Roman070280 16 September 2019 13: 05
            +5
            Here I am declareA: Petrel is a wonderful weapon that no one in the world has, and it is he who will make all enemies become our best friends.


            Arguments just forgot to give ..
            The author in his article, unlike you, for each item leads its speculation ..
            And not just saying that "The Petrel is a bad weapon that no one in the world needs, and he will not make all enemies become our best friends."

            It's one thing to try to analyze something objectively, it's another thing to simply "declare" ..
            The point is just the opposite ..
            1. kig
              kig 16 September 2019 14: 00
              +6
              The essence is the same - neither I, nor the author, nor even you know anything about the Petrel, but we undertake to reason, and the rest (including you) discuss our reasoning. Of course, unlike me, the author used some hints that can be extracted from the media. I’ll try to correct myself, and based on publicly available information, I will draw the following conclusion: most of the weapons that the President announced to the Federal Assembly do not exist in nature.
              1. Roman070280
                Roman070280 16 September 2019 15: 33
                +4
                Well, why, nothing .. We know a lot ..
                We know that this is a rocket .. we know that with a nuclear installation ..
                The physical principles for rockets and for reactors have also been known for a long time ..
                We already know quite a lot !!
                The author argues based on the information that is known .. and argues his arguments ..

                You can, of course, go through each item .. and refute the author ..
                But somehow no one did it .. but everyone knows how to shout that "he is wrong" ..
                1. dauria
                  dauria 16 September 2019 18: 25
                  +7
                  You can, of course, go through each item .. and refute the author ..


                  There are only two points.
                  The first is an expensive rocket
                  the second - you will not launch it "instantly"
                  The submarine is also expensive, and preparation for launch, taking into account the time of receiving the order, is not instant, as is strategic aviation.
                  It's ridiculous to count these pennies when millions of lives are at stake. The war will not start "suddenly", it will be preceded by a certain preparatory period, during which full combat readiness will be introduced by both sides. Enough time not only to drink tea, but also to go on vacation for a week.
                  And this cruise missile will be no worse than launched by the Americans from strategic bombers in the Arctic. She just does not need a carrier aircraft.
                  And the missiles will not chase after some "command posts". There are targets that will not run away - cities.
                  1. bk0010
                    bk0010 16 September 2019 18: 53
                    +1
                    Quote: dauria
                    The war will not start "suddenly"
                    Why? For a nuclear strike, there is no need to transfer masses of troops, deploy industry on a military track, etc. The time from making a decision to mushrooms over the enemy is half an hour.
                    1. dauria
                      dauria 16 September 2019 19: 04
                      +7
                      The time from making a decision to mushrooms over the enemy is half an hour.


                      laughing Now it will come to Trump's mind "I'll press the button" ..
                      Yes, under the white hands they will immediately put their own in the psychiatric hospital. We need tension in relations, a real impossibility to avoid war, preparation, even a little one, which no one can hide. This will instantly cause a change in the degree of combat readiness of the enemy (well, maybe they will warn you by communication - "What are you doing there, have you overeat?"
                      Or are all deaf and blind and do not track any movements, tweaks and jumps?
                      1. bk0010
                        bk0010 16 September 2019 19: 24
                        -2
                        Quote: dauria
                        We need tension in relations, a real impossibility to avoid war, preparation, even a little, that no one will hide.
                        Yes, come on, for a long time, nothing of this is needed. Remember the same Libya.
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 September 2019 01: 00
                        0
                        Libya is absolutely not that level.
                      3. Doliva63
                        Doliva63 17 September 2019 17: 42
                        -1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Libya is absolutely not that level.

                        It seems so until it happens. After the collapse of the Union, nothing seems impossible to me.
                      4. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 September 2019 18: 10
                        +1
                        In Soviet times, we were told that the “enemy” wants to capture us, etc. When the Union was in touch, there was a shortage of food, the enemy sent humanitarian aid (which was well stolen by compatriots, in St. Petersburg, for example).
                        There was also a geopolitical interest: the United States and Britain did not want (even feared) the collapse of the Union, only a change in its policy. Because there was a risk of uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons. They exerted pressure on the former republics to transfer their reserves to the Russian Federation.
                        However, there are many good and helpful people (friends live in Chicago).
                      5. krizis
                        krizis 26 September 2019 11: 28
                        0
                        The enemy had quite real plans for the occupation, and while we were falling apart, it was not needed. We simply did not reach enough weakness to lose everything, but on the other hand, the adversary was able to take away all of Europe from us militarily, and a lot - a lot in geopolitics.
                  2. Cyrus
                    Cyrus 17 September 2019 11: 08
                    -2
                    "... There are goals that will not run away - cities ..." I hope you counted your city?) This is where the Pepsi generation comes from, even though they would have read literature to begin with, otherwise you don't need to eat your brain and your hands. They will beat the cities, unlike you, there are smart and practical people who understand what is primary and what is secondary.
                  3. Roman070280
                    Roman070280 17 September 2019 11: 53
                    -1
                    Counting these pennies when millions of lives are at stake is ridiculous


                    On what other stake are a million lives ??
                    Firstly, when this rocket flies somewhere, we will no longer have these lives ..
                    Secondly, so that these millions of lives do not turn into millions of existences, those very "pennies" are needed ..

                    If you built a palace, then you have the right to think about protecting it ..
                    And if you are lying on the sidelines .. it’s ridiculous to hire a bodyguard for the last crumbs ..
                    With pensions of $ 160, something no one remembers about these millions of lives .. But in every way they try to protect them from someone ..

                    And this cruise missile will be no worse than launched by the Americans from strategic bombers in the Arctic. She just does not need a carrier aircraft.
                    Apparently, would you like to replace our entire nuclear shield with these cruise missiles ??)
                    Whatever the child is amusing ..
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 17 September 2019 18: 13
                      +2
                      Those who rebuilt palaces are trying to protect themselves. ("Pension-Fund-Russia"). Telling recipients at $ 160 that this is for their benefit.
      6. Dart
        Dart 16 September 2019 11: 22
        +2
        It's not. It's fortune telling on coffee grounds.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 16 September 2019 16: 14
          -8
          Vadik, but to refute with arguments at least one point in the article is weak?
          1. Dart
            Dart 16 September 2019 20: 15
            +3
            do not try to prick me by writing my name in a derogatory derogatory ... I’ve already been three times a grandfather, and if you have tripe in your head instead of brains, you will not have any arguments, you will endlessly arrange a srach ... I’ve been in the internet since its appearance in country, I have already seen you, flood masters.
            People have already expressed all the arguments without me, I just join them.
            1. Tatyana14
              Tatyana14 16 September 2019 23: 14
              0
              You know, I had not only seen grandfathers with tripe in my head, but also great-grandfathers, so age is not the same as smart, so either sniff arguments or sniff it.
              1. Dart
                Dart 17 September 2019 14: 12
                +1
                incarnation candy wrapper? ... whistle by, I looked at the profile ..
              2. gor
                gor 20 September 2019 15: 24
                0
                > you know, with tripe in my head, not only saw grandfathers but also great-grandfathers, so age

                I would have flogged my daughter for a similar attitude towards adults / seniors, and divorced my wife. The image of the country in people is family. How do you feel about family and country
          2. Nick
            Nick 18 September 2019 04: 01
            +3
            Quote: Fan-Fan
            and to refute with arguments at least one point in the article is weak?

            There is nothing to refute. some speculation and speculation. The invoice is missing. Such an assumption that a missile in nuclear equipment is unlikely to be able to destroy a protected KP, generally a song. In general, modern CRs have an accuracy of hitting a target measured by several meters. For any nuclear weapon, consider this a direct hit. A direct hit of a nuclear warhead even in an ultra-protected target for any one will disable its functionality, but most likely it will simply destroy it. The power of our nuclear warhead is 152 mm. shell 3BV3 still Soviet-made - 2,5 ct. On the petrels IMHO, you can set a modern charge once in 20 more powerful.
      7. Bratkov Oleg
        Bratkov Oleg 16 September 2019 11: 38
        0
        This is called liberal nonsense.
        In fact, the more different means of delivering charges to the enemy, the more difficult it is to destroy them. And not all decisions are made in Washington, in New York, it’s full of financial tycoons that affect US policy, and it’s also full of strategic resources - people. One Petrel, and there is no significant share of the enemy’s GDP.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 16 September 2019 16: 15
          +3
          One Petrel, and there is no significant share of the enemy’s GDP.

          Here is an example of frenzied cheers-patriotism.
          1. gurzuf
            gurzuf 16 September 2019 19: 02
            +6
            Refute the thesis "the more different means of delivery of charges to the enemy, the more difficult it is to destroy them." What's wrong with your point of view is not jingoistic patriotism?
            1. Greenwood
              Greenwood 17 September 2019 05: 08
              -2
              But why roll back a new super-expensive missile with dubious effectiveness, when we have several hundred ICBMs of various versions and types of basing for delivering nuclear warheads to the territory of a potential enemy. Is it not better to continue to produce and improve them than to spend money on an unknown wunderwafel ?!
          2. Cyrus
            Cyrus 17 September 2019 11: 11
            -1
            In general, this is an example of cretinism.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 September 2019 01: 03
          0
          But what about Moscow, St. Petersburg, Ekb, Novosib and other "millionaires"? Or are you hoping to sit out?
      8. sergo42
        sergo42 16 September 2019 11: 56
        +2
        It is possible to model and predict, if there is at least some, but reliable information. And so these are fortune-telling on tripe, wax and coffee grounds.
        1. Roman070280
          Roman070280 16 September 2019 13: 10
          +7
          if there is at least some, but reliable information


          No problem..
          Nuclear reactor - reliable information .. Dimensions are reliable .. cost, and therefore the potential number, are reliable .. Ways to start the reactor are reliable (all three options are considered)
          The number of targets, air defense systems - reliable information ..

          The author did not write anything based on NOT reliable ..
          All his assumptions are based solely on objective data ..
          1. Mityay65
            Mityay65 16 September 2019 14: 32
            +17
            Quote: Roman070280
            Nuclear Reactor - Reliable Information

            Why do you think that the Topaz nuclear power plant, of a thermionic type with a liquid metal coolant, is used in Burevestnik?
            This is definitely unreliable. bully
            Quote: Roman070280
            cost ... potential amount - reliable

            The author sculpts a hunchback on the number of reactors produced based on the number stewed satellites. Only 7 reactors were produced for testing. Reactors were also manufactured for non-launched satellites, as a decision was made to end the combat deployment. And there should have been several dozen.
            This is unreliable. bully
            Quote: Roman070280
            Ways to start the reactor - reliable

            Not true. A far-fetched problem: The reactor is started for several tens of minutes in automatic mode before starting. When entering the mode - start. Once again - who said that this is Topaz with a liquid metal coolant?
            This is unreliable. bully
            Quote: Roman070280
            Number of goals

            This is a weapon of retaliation. Not a scalpel.
            This is unreliable. bully
            Quote: Roman070280
            air defense systems - reliable information

            The author about air defense just invented everything. Especially on duty AWACS and two Iron Domes (they need 2000). The goal of the Petrel is to force the construction of a full-fledged air defense system of the continent, to spend an abyss of funds on this. Raise the price for canceling the ABM contract for the adversary to unacceptable.
            This is unreliable. bully
            Therefore, although the article is entertaining and I completely support it, it is lightweight and based on inaccurate data and assumptions.
            Well, at least something ...
            I would be in the place of VO would sing about the Petrel in a day ... laughing
            1. Roman070280
              Roman070280 16 September 2019 15: 49
              -1
              Why do you think that the Topaz nuclear power plant,

              I don’t think .. I wrote a nuclear reactor ..
              About Topaz was the author’s assumption .. This is simply the closest example of a nuclear power plant ..
              After all, we understand that there is not a "blue glow" from the cartoon about transformers .. Any nuclear powered device has very real limitations in terms of size and other characteristics ..

              This is unreliable. bully

              It is unreliable for you .. But I believe that definitely, this missile, if implemented, will be, to put it mildly, not cheap ..

              Not true. A far-fetched problem: The reactor is started for several tens of minutes in automatic mode before starting. When entering the mode - start.


              And what is the truth ?? And why is the problem ??
              This case is just described by the author as one of three options ..

              That is, the author described it ..
              You screamed that he did not have reliable information ..
              I commented that "The methods of starting the reactor are reliable"
              You suddenly changed your shoes, and you yourself recited the author .. Even shouting - it's not true ..))
              Anyhow to argue ??)

              Once again - who said that this is Topaz with a liquid metal coolant?
              Once again - no one said ..
              Options were considered .. real .. nothing more ..

              This is a weapon of retaliation. Not a scalpel.
              This is unreliable. bully

              Yes, even an iron .. This does not cancel the number of goals ..
              What is unreliable here ..))
              The fact that three missiles do not solve anything ?? This is just very reliable for retaliation weapons !!

              The author about air defense just invented everything. Especially on duty AWACS and two Iron Domes (they need 2000).


              Well, if you say so .. in this case, I’m ready to believe you .. So be it !!

              The goal of the Petrel is to make it build a full-fledged air defense system of the continent,


              And I've already read several dozen posts about how the Petrel will fly in the "third wave" .. when "the first two will already destroy all the enemy's air defense" ..))
              I somehow like your version more ..
              1. Mityay65
                Mityay65 16 September 2019 17: 23
                +7
                It seems that you didn’t read the article in order to save time, but you are a friend of the author, so you will persistently object to white that it is black ... wassat
                1. Roman070280
                  Roman070280 17 September 2019 15: 44
                  0
                  And then, just read the article ..))
                  Apparently, that’s why he saw there what the author wrote about .. his analysis and analysis .. where he does not shout that the rocket is bad, but explains for every point why he thinks so .. Yes, yes .. there’s far not one paragraph ..

                  Although, if you are an enemy of the author .. you will only see black everywhere ..))
      9. Serg4545
        Serg4545 16 September 2019 12: 34
        +22
        What an extrapolation !?

        If the author really simulated, he would reason like this:
        The petrel will be launched only in the event of a full-scale nuclear war. If the petrel is subsonic, then it will cut 15-20 hours to the States. Ballistic missiles fly a maximum of 30 minutes. So, by the time the Petrel reaches its target, more than 2000 ballistic missile warheads will go through the States.
        And if the author had so reasoned, then he would not have had strange ideas a la, one Petrel against all of NATO.
        What are AWACS aircraft? What are F-22s? What are Israeli systems and others? When the Petrel reaches the United States, most of the above will soar in the atmosphere in the form of radioactive dust.
        Again, the author’s strange idea is that Petrel is needed exclusively for hitting command posts. I want to notify the author that to destroy command posts, it makes sense only while the war is on. When the Petrel reaches its target, all parties will completely empty their strategic arsenals. That is, the war will actually be over. Why destroy command posts after the war?
        In my opinion, Petrel is a weapon for finishing and control. For 15-20 hours of flight, the Petrel will be hit by ballistic missiles, as well as data will be obtained on the effectiveness of these attacks. If any target turns out to be unaffected (for whatever reason), then the still flying Petrel will receive new coordinates. And destroy this goal.
        In general, the Petrel, this is what type of strategic ammunition)
        1. mark1
          mark1 16 September 2019 12: 47
          +7
          Quote: Serg4545
          In general, the Petrel, this is what type of strategic ammunition)

          This is a fresh thought, to you. + Conclusion from the impact of parts syas.
        2. Roman070280
          Roman070280 16 September 2019 13: 21
          -6
          When the Petrel reaches the United States, most of the above will soar in the atmosphere in the form of radioactive dust.


          Hence a simple conclusion - the Petrel is not suitable for war .. because it will not be needed anymore ..
          This is the first ..

          Well, and secondly .. you, most importantly, for some reason excluded from your conclusions ..
          The nuclear installation on board, like the missile itself, is positioned precisely for overcoming air defense / missile defense .. It is the "endless" maneuvering, avoiding obstacles and "forcing" to use a nuclear reactor on board !!
          And in a situation where "most of the above will float in the atmosphere in the form of radioactive dust" .. all meaning in Petrel is lost ..
          In any case, if you carefully watch the cartoon ..))
          1. Serg4545
            Serg4545 16 September 2019 13: 53
            +2
            A nuclear installation is needed for strategic range.
            And the ability to overcome missile defense, through the use of this chip, is an additional but not required option.
            1. Roman070280
              Roman070280 16 September 2019 15: 27
              -1
              For a strategic range, a nuclear installation has long been no longer needed ..))
              You watched the cartoons from Putin inattentively .. there they spoke Russian about the installation, and about the missile defense ..
              Key phrases "goes around all the lines of interception"
              Well, for the finally stubborn "video of the Ministry of Defense"




              Indeed, when there are certain "facts", they like to ignore them for some reason, and ridicule those who refer to them (as the author of the article) ..
              But when some "alyosha" from the ceiling decided that the rocket would go in some kind of third wave, when the entire missile defense system had already been destroyed .. other "alyosha" suddenly begin to vigorously develop this theme ..
              Option..))
              1. Dante Alighieri
                Dante Alighieri 16 September 2019 17: 12
                +1
                But when some "alyosha" from the ceiling decided that the rocket would go in some kind of third wave, when the entire missile defense system had already been destroyed .. other "alyosha" suddenly begin to vigorously develop this theme ..

                Roman, duck is just explainable. Tomorrow the president will tell them that the lying one is more effective than the standing one and believe me, after some time this mantra will be presented as an axiom. The main thing in this matter on the part of the leadership is by no means to bring any evidence system, but simply to systematically hammer this thesis into the ears of the population - hamsters themselves will come up with the rationale and believe in it, each of them in their own. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about, after all, the degree of master of political science obliges.
              2. Serg4545
                Serg4545 16 September 2019 17: 58
                +12
                // For a strategic range, a nuclear installation is no longer needed ..)) //
                About how!
                And what cruise missile do we have a range of 10 thousand km?
                The closest analogues have half the range. And at the same time they are launched only from strategic aircraft. What a risk. Will those planes take off in the event of an unexpected strike? Question.
                And Petrel can be placed in a small mobile complex. On the same planes, ships, under. boating.

                // You inattentively watched cartoons from Putin .. there Russian was spoken about the installation, and about missile defense ..
                Key phrases "goes around all interception lines" //

                And what? How does this contradict my statements?
                If you remember Putin’s speech, he linked the creation of new types of weapons with the intensification of development of missile defense in the United States (from ballistic missiles).
                That is, he directly said:
                Create effective protection against our ballistic missiles, we will print the Petrels. And from them you have no protection so far. For range and the ability to bypass those very areas of air defense / missile defense.
                Of course, you can create protection against the Petrel. Yes, the very one that the author mentioned. AWACS, interceptors, anti-aircraft systems. Tokmo will have to invest. After all, a petrel can fly from any direction. That means creating reliable protection personally against the Petrel will have to be around the entire perimeter. And this is sooooo expensive.
                Well, let's say they made protection from the Petrel. Here is Poseidon)
                Invested in protection from Poseidon, we’ll come up with something else.
                Torment dust swallow.
                1. Roman070280
                  Roman070280 17 September 2019 11: 47
                  -6
                  Will those planes take off in case of an unexpected blow? Question.
                  And Petrel can be placed in a small mobile complex. On the same planes


                  Quietly with myself, I have a conversation ..))

                  And what cruise missile do we have a range of 10 thousand km?

                  It was about a strategic range !! And here generally winged or not winged ..

                  And what? How does this contradict my statements?

                  And it contradicts .. that a cruise missile is made precisely so that it can fly around the PRO .. and to do this for a long time - a reactor is set up ..

                  You argue with yourself ..
                  At first:
                  A nuclear installation is needed for strategic range.
                  And the ability to overcome missile defense, through the use of this chip, is an additional but not required option.

                  Later:
                  let’s print the Petrels. And from them you have no protection so far. For range and the ability to bypass those very areas of air defense / missile defense.


                  That is, rushing from side to side, then this way, that way ..

                  Well, let's say they made protection from the Petrel. Here is Poseidon)
                  Invested in protection from Poseidon, we’ll come up with something else.
                  Torment dust swallow.

                  Blah blah blah .. We got a magic wand, waved .. and here you are ..
                  While we have several corpses during the tests .. and, believe me, this, unfortunately, is not the last ..
                  It would be better if gasoline prices were reduced, but pensions were raised .. Yes, so that travel from Voronezh to Moscow cost a quarter of that pension !!
                  This is where the dust is tortured to swallow .. But you think that all these wunderwafers are taken by the pike - "here you are" ..
                  1. Serg4545
                    Serg4545 17 September 2019 14: 54
                    +6
                    // Quietly with myself, I have a conversation ..) //
                    What is what?
                    I point out that Petrel not only has many times greater range compared to its closest competitor. But it can, unlike a competitor, be launched not only from an airplane, but also from other carriers. What is buzzing. For tactical flexibility and combat stability.
                    In general, I have the feeling that you, not finding arguments to challenge my point of view, have switched to pulling out individual phrases. And giving these torn phrases a convenient interpretation for you.

                    // And it contradicts .. that a cruise missile is made precisely so that it can fly around the PRO .. and to do this for a long time - a reactor is put ..

                    Sorry, but you wrote nonsense!
                    Since the advent of full-fledged cruise missiles (about 80 years ago), designers are striving with all their might to increase the range of cruise missiles (in given mass and size characteristics). For an increase in range, greatly increases the combat potential of a rocket.
                    What is the benefit of the Petrel from unlimited range? Firstly, you do not need to create a special medium that should deliver cr. rocket to the launch site. Secondly, there is no need to fight an adversary who will try to prevent the carrier from reaching the launch site.
                    Just run from our territory and that's it. See what a saving of manpower, resources and resources. As well as minimizing military risks.
                    Here for this we need an extra-large range! And the fact that this very extra long range allows rounds of missile defense / air defense centers to be circumvented, as I have already said, is an additional pleasant feature that may remain unclaimed! Just because now in the United States only a couple of small pieces of territory are more or less covered by good air defense / missile defense. Moreover, these pieces are so scanty (in comparison with the entire territory of the United States) that you can get into these pieces only if you SPECIALLY chart a course through them)

                    // You argue with yourself .. 
                    At first:

                    A nuclear installation is needed for strategic range.
                    And the ability to overcome missile defense, through the use of this chip, is an additional but not required option.


                    Later:

                    let’s print the Petrels. And from them you have no protection so far. For range and the ability to bypass those very areas of air defense / missile defense.



                    That is, rushing from side to side, then this way, that way ..//

                    And again, tearing out phrases.
                    I wrote quite clearly:
                    Now that the enemy has a tiny amount of territory defended by air defense / missile defense, the chip to bypass these territories will remain unclaimed. Especially if before the arrival of the Petrel the States will go through ICBM warheads.
                    If in the future the States create high-quality protection against our ICBMs, in the form of air defense / missile defense points, then the Petrel chip will be in demand.
                    Now the option is not claimed, if the situation changes, the option will be in demand.
                    Do not pretend you do not understand this.

                    // It would be better if the prices for gasoline were reduced, but the pensions were raised .. Yes, so that travel from Voronezh to Moscow would cost a quarter of that pension !! //

                    Oh. Again.
                    Do you know that these expressions can be applied to any weapon?
                    They made Kalash, but they could buy medicines for a pensioner.
                    They made a fighter, but they could ....
                    Etc. can be infinite.
                    But if, due to the lack of weapons, we are bent by a nuclear club, then the problem of the size of pensions will certainly disappear. No pensioner, no pension needed.
                    Yes?
                    1. Roman070280
                      Roman070280 17 September 2019 16: 19
                      -3
                      What is what?

                      I kind of even highlighted with a bolt what was happening in your words ..
                      Will they succeed aircraft take off in case of an unexpected hit? Question.
                      And Petrel can be placed in a small mobile complex. On the same airplanes

                      Aircraft will not have time to take off .. but the Petrel to place on planes the very thing ..)) And even when I directly point out this nonsense .. you don’t notice ..

                      unlike a competitor, it can be launched not only from an airplane, but also from other carriers.

                      Any YR can be launched from other media .. The concept of "nuclear triad" is familiar, no ??

                      In general, I have the feeling that you, not finding arguments to challenge my point of view, have switched to pulling out individual phrases.
                      So it’s not my fault that almost every phrase you make is absurd ..
                      when a word has to be corrected ..
                      And I do not pull out phrases, but only share them and highlight .. in order to emphasize EVERY moment. where are you wrong ..
                      Here we’ve sorted the error above with planes .. we’ve sorted the error with other carriers .. Go ahead ..

                      For an increase in range, greatly increases the combat potential of a rocket.
                      What is the benefit of the Petrel from unlimited range?


                      Any existing strategic missile already has a sufficient range to reach anywhere in the world .. The benefits of the Petrel are not here .. Let’s finally. from the fifth time you will understand this simple rule ..))

                      Firstly, you do not need to create a special medium that should deliver cr. rocket to the launch site. Secondly, there is no need to fight an adversary who will try to prevent the carrier from reaching the launch site.
                      Any mine-based missile fits this description .. So, have closed this topic ..


                      And the fact that this very extra-long range allows rounds of missile defense / air defense centers to be circumvented, as I have already said, is an additional pleasant feature that may remain unclaimed!


                      Stupidity ..))
                      For this, they make a cruise missile a cruise so that it can circumvent obstacles. such as missile defense .. Have you ever read that I wrote this several times already ??) Or again merge into the fact that I pull out phrases ??)
                      I repeat for the eleventh time - It is the unlimited range for a cruise missile that is the key !! For only this allows you to wind up 30 thousand kilometers, evade missile defense, and fly where you need to ..
                      For everything else, there are ballistic missiles .. They are also capable of reaching any point. with the only difference that can be shot down ..
                      All!! We also figured it out, I hope ..


                      Just because now in the United States only a couple of small pieces of territory are more or less covered by good air defense / missile defense.

                      Just because the US is deploying its missile defense system on the European continent .. for it is most advantageous to shoot a missile on takeoff ..

                      And again, tearing out phrases.

                      This is not tearing, but an indication that you are changing your mind ..))
                      I brought two of your quite complete phrases .. without tearing out pieces of words ..

                      Now that the enemy has a scanty amount of territory defended by air defense / missile defense, the chip to bypass these territories will remain unclaimed
                      Are you in all seriousness ??)
                      In fact, everything is exactly the opposite !!
                      If there weren’t a missile defense, no one would have fenced this garden, with the possibility of overcoming it .. For retaliation weapons have existed for more than half a century .. As if for this, an ABM treaty had been concluded between countries at the time .. I don’t know this ..

                      Do you know that these expressions can be applied to any weapon?
                      They made Kalash, but they could buy medicines for a pensioner.
                      They made a fighter, but they could ....


                      I’m in the know .. so I don’t scream
                      "let's say we made protection from the Petrel. Here's Poseidon)
                      Invested in protection from Poseidon, we’ll come up with something else.
                      You are tormented to swallow dust. "
                      For I understand perfectly well what everyone is allowed to say / come up with / still / torment .. It’s easy in words, but in reality everything costs big money !!

                      They made a fighter, but they could ....
                      Etc. can be infinite.

                      Apparently, you propose to do some fighters .. and live this ..
                      Believe me, the joy and meaning of life is far from limited to this ..))

                      But if, due to the lack of weapons, we are bent by a nuclear club, then the problem of the size of pensions will certainly disappear.

                      You confuse sequence and consequence ..
                      Nobody bent us with a nuclear club .. But there are no pensions ALREADY .. at the moment ..
                      And they do not exist precisely because a lot is spent, including the fight against this spherical "if" ..

                      I have already given you an example .. You have an RFP of 15 thousand .. Well, hire a security guard for yourself for 10 thousand .. Do not you want ?? Do you feel sorry for giving the last money ?? But if you suddenly get killed on the street ?? Nah ?? Not okay??)

                      PS, by the way, the fact that you (or me) can be hit on the head with a brick in a dark alley, much more likely than a nuclear baton ..))
                      1. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 17 September 2019 17: 00
                        +4
                        //What is what?

                        I kind of even highlighted with a bolt what was happening in your words ..
                        Will those planes take off in the event of an unexpected strike? Question.
                        And Petrel can be placed in a small mobile complex. On the same planes

                        Airplanes will not have time to take off .. but the Petrel to place on planes the very thing ..)) And even when I directly point out this nonsense .. you don’t notice ..//
                        And further.
                        // And I don’t take out the phrases, but only separate them and highlight them .. so that EVERY moment is emphasized. where are you wrong ..
                        Here we’ve sorted the error above with planes .. we’ve sorted the error with other carriers .. Go ahead ..//

                        You do not take out phrases !?
                        My mistake!?
                        And let me translate my phrase, which you still circumcised FULLY:
                        And Petrel can be placed in a small mobile complex. On the same planes, ships, under. boating.

                        Oppochki! And the meaning of the full phrase has changed. It turns out that Burevestnik, unlike its closest competitor, the KR101 rocket X102 / 101, can be launched not only from an airplane, but also from other carriers. And X102 / XNUMX, ONLY from the plane.
                        And after that you will say that you do not pull out phrases to give them the meaning you need !!?
                      2. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 18 September 2019 09: 21
                        -2
                        And let me translate my phrase, which you still circumcised FULLY:
                        And Petrel can be placed in a small mobile complex. On the same planes, ships, under. boating.


                        And ?? What is torn out here ?? About the planes it was said that ??
                        First, that they won’t have time to take off .. then right there, what if a petrel is placed on them, it will be very wow .. Are these your words or mine ??
                        The meaning has not changed at all .. For if "ships, sub. Boats." somehow it was appropriate to write, then "On the same planes" - this is stupidity already turned out .. Let's just say, you wrote half a phrase with meaning, and the other half is not very good ..)) That's what I singled out .. and did not rip it out ..

                      3. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 17 September 2019 17: 52
                        +3
                        // Any existing strategic missile already has a sufficient range to reach anywhere on the planet .. The benefits of the Petrel are not here .. Let’s finally. from the fifth time you’ll understand this simple rule ..)) //

                        Well, you messed up!
                        And five more times (according to your words).
                        For your information, most of the very strategic Russian ICBMs have a range of 10 thousand-11 thousand km.
                        If you google the distance from Yekaterinburg to cities in Australia or Brazil, then you will finally take your words back:
                        // Any existing strategic missile already has a sufficient range to hit anywhere on the planet .. //
                      4. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 18 September 2019 09: 29
                        -2
                        Most strategic missiles can cover the entire territory of the United States .. this is more than half a century since ..
                        You can, by the way, google .. it’s become interesting to yourself ..
                        R-36M2 “Voevoda” - 16km
                        RT-2PM2 "Topol-M" -12km
                        Yars or PC-24 -12km

                        Actually, as much as enough ..

                        By the way, if I were wrong for at least a second - the nuclear engine would be blocked not on the Petrel, but on some Poplar. Only now this is not necessary for Poplar .. because he already gets where he needs to !!
                      5. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 18 September 2019 10: 19
                        +1
                        Well, it's good that you stopped writing:
                        // Any existing strategic missile already has a sufficient range to hit anywhere on the planet .. //
                      6. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 18 September 2019 12: 18
                        -1
                        Why did it stop .. I still adhere to this point of view ..))
                      7. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 17 September 2019 19: 22
                        +1
                        // A cruise missile is made to be a cruise missile so that it can circumvent obstacles. such as missile defense .. Have you ever read that I wrote above several times already ??) //
                        Uzbagoysya. I read it. I just don’t have the habit of commenting on obvious nonsense.
                        But once you several times) insist. Good.
                        So. The first cruise missile, with a decent range, is the FAU-1.
                        The Germans used it very actively. And in practice, we found out its low efficiency. For in flight, the fig wasn’t maneuvering and could not go around the air defense points.
                        The Germans scratched their turnips and piled FAU-2. And although the FAU-2 was many times more expensive, it was put into service, because it was ABOUT the air defense points from above)
                        The final result:
                        The enemy shot down the FAU-1, in the amount of several thousand pieces.
                        The number of FAU-2s shot down is zero.
                        This is precisely Ballistic missiles that were designed to go around air defense points. And they successfully cope with this mission to this day.
                        And cruise missiles learned to do something similar only after 30 years. When progress in electronics allowed to conduct flights in the mode of enveloping the terrain.
                        And the reason why cruise missiles are used at all is because they are much cheaper than ballistic missiles, at the same range.
                      8. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 18 September 2019 09: 50
                        -1
                        Takshta is just that Ballistic missiles were designed to round air defense points. And they successfully cope with this mission to this day.


                        What ??????
                        Yes, the moderators will forgive me ..)) In my head there is only a phrase from the famous movie .. "Uncle, you are a fool" (c)

                        Does ballistics go around something ??))) and this person is telling something about nonsense ??)
                        Dear Sergey .. take the trouble to learn at least the basics ..
                        The stone flies just in an arc .. it never goes around anything !!
                        You are proving with such fury that twice two is six .. Perhaps you were taught this somewhere .. but if you don’t want to believe me, just read it .. or turn on your head .. think logically ..
                        What did the Germans not maneuver ?? The Wright brothers didn’t fly a plane either ..)) V-1 is generally a plane for the most part .. It's silly to compare this with modern systems !! It is all the more strange to read about air defense points during the development of the FAU-1 .. Indeed, the broadest scope of thought ..))


                        And the reason why cruise missiles are used at all is because they are much cheaper than ballistic missiles, at the same range.


                        )) Surprisingly .. it seems like we live in one country .. went to some schools, institutes .. And we are different ..))

                        Cruise missiles NEVER flew at the SAME range !!
                        A cruise missile flies in the air, unlike a ballistic ..
                        Therefore, a cruise missile flies much slower !!
                        Because of the slower speed, a cruise missile cannot fly around the earth globe, as a ballistic one does !!
                        Ballistic one-on-one flies like a brick, which you throw with your hand .. the position of the rocket is known in advance at any moment of time .. It is not difficult to knock it down, because the rocket is not capable of maneuvering and circling something ...
                        The main difference between a cruise missile is that it has wings ..)) And it MAY maneuver .. which means it can go around obstacles .. and air defense / missile defense .. This and only this makes a cruise missile more advantageous for heavier / more powerful ones high-speed ballistic ..
                        It is the fact that the United States is stubbornly promoting the missile defense system (in particular in Europe) that has forced Russia to seek new methods of combating this missile defense .. Hence the attempt to switch to a cruise missile .. which, unlike a ballistic missile, can circumvent these points. For you, even a cartoon was shot, which shows how this rocket flies, and taxis the red glasses on the map ..))
                        And do not write more stupidity ..))
                      9. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 18 September 2019 11: 20
                        0
                        // Ballistic one-on-one flies like a brick that you throw with your hand ..
                        the rocket is not capable of maneuvering and flying around something from the word AT ALL ..//
                        Googled the word to go around:

                        Pass, drive by side, passing smth .; pass by
                        pass, drive side bypassing anything

                        (Source (print version): Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes / RAS, Institute of Linguistic Research; Edited by A.P. Evgenieva. - 4th ed., Erased. - M .: Rus language; Polygraph resources, 1999; (electronic version):)

                        Takshta if a ballistic missile MINIMIZED the air defense zone, then it flew around it. But she passed this zone from above, from the side or below, according to the Dictionary, it does not matter. Also, according to the Dictionary, it does not matter, the rocket maneuvered when it MINOVED the air defense zone or flew along a stable trajectory. Passed means rounded.
                      10. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 18 September 2019 12: 26
                        -1
                        And why did you decide that the ballistic missile MINIMIZED the missile defense zone ??)
                        Or maybe she was just shot down by this missile defense system ??
                        You come up with something yourself, and on this you develop a whole poem ..))

                        according to the Dictionary, it doesn’t matter if the missile maneuvered when it MINOVED the air defense zone or flew along a stable path.

                        According to the dictionary, it does not matter ..)) But according to the ability to be or not to be shot down - it’s absolutely categorically important for a rocket to be able to maneuver ..

                        Pass, drive by side, passing smth .; pass by

                        Missile defense systems are built on the path of the passage of ballistic missiles .. And since the missile cannot maneuver - then it cannot pass this section of its path ..))
                      11. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 18 September 2019 12: 42
                        +1
                        Campaign You are the author of this article.
                        Otherwise, it is not clear why you, already having no arguments, continue to defend the thesis of the article.
                      12. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 18 September 2019 11: 27
                        0
                        // It’s all the more strange to read about air defense points during the development of the FAU-1 .. Truly, the broadest scope of thought ..)) //

                        Do you deny the existence of air defense points in World War II !?

                        But it’s enough to type in Google:
                        points of air defense in the second world war - and the truth will be revealed to you.
                      13. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 18 September 2019 11: 39
                        0
                        // Cruise missiles NEVER flew at the SAME range !! //

                        In general, that in the world there was and exists a huge assortment of ballistic missiles with a range of 300 to 1500 km. And there is also a huge assortment of cruise missiles with a range of 300 to 1500 km.
                        Therefore, this is your message, I did not understand.
                        Or did you mean only strategic ballistic missiles?
                        But we are discussing the Petrel here. No?
                        Just a cruise missile with a range like that of the most long-range ballistic missile.
                      14. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 18 September 2019 12: 52
                        -2
                        You can land after a kilometer .. Why deliberately slide into the opposite topic ?? We are interested in the maximum range ..

                        And the reason why cruise missiles are used at all is because they’re much cheaper than ballistic missiles, at the same range.

                        A cruise missile CANNOT fly at the same range ..
                        We repeat this so many times until it is deposited in the head ..))

                        But we are discussing the Petrel here. No?
                        Just a cruise missile with a range like that of the most long-range ballistic rockets.

                        And here you finally corrected yourself .. We really are discussing just that !! It is the maximum range !! And not some 300km there ..

                        And now, having a ballistic missile, we suddenly needed to create the same in range, but in the winged version ..
                        Question per million - why ??)

                        PS .. for google lovers give a hint:
                        "Cruise missile.
                        Advantages
                        The ability to set an arbitrary course of the rocket, including, winding trajectory, which creates difficulties for missile defense the adversary.
                        The ability to move at low altitude with envelope relief, which makes it difficult to detect missiles radar means.
                        Disadvantages
                        Relatively low speeds (on the order of the speed of sound ~ 1150 km / h). "
                      15. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 18 September 2019 14: 11
                        0
                        // At the same range a cruise missile CANNOT fly ..
                        We repeat this so many times until it is deposited in the head ..)) //

                        And why should I repeat this incorrect information?
                        You yourself tried to answer the question why a cruise missile with a range of 10-20 thousand kilometers cannot be built on a conventional (non-nuclear) engine?
                        In fact, there are no problems making such a rocket.
                        Proof, here it is:
                        https://www.popmech.ru/technologies/7928-posledniy-odinochka-krugosvetnyy-polet-bez-dozapravki/

                        A single jet aircraft made a non-stop flight, without refueling, around our balloon.
                        So range is not a problem.

                        Of course, I understand that you will now begin to wave your hands. Like this is not safe. Like this is a plane.
                        Yes, the plane. I gave this example, only so that you have no doubt that with a conventional engine and conventional fuel you can fly under 40 thousand km.
                        Is the height big? So many cruise missiles fly even higher.
                        What more can you say?
                        Are the dimensions large? Shoot down easily?
                        So we are not discussing this. And here it is:

                        // At the same range a cruise missile can’t fly ..//

                        And I’m already writing not for you, but only for those who read our correspondence)
                      16. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 18 September 2019 14: 37
                        0
                        And why should I repeat this incorrect information?

                        Because it is true .. For a cruise missile cannot fly from the territory of the Russian Federation to the USA ..

                        You yourself tried to answer the question why a cruise missile with a range of 10-20 thousand kilometers cannot be built on a conventional (non-nuclear) engine?


                        And I already answered this question above .. it was necessary to read carefully ..
                        A cruise missile flies in the air .. and not in space .. Hence the speed / range is several times less .. It’s as if it weren’t even a question .. this is the source data for starting any dialogue / debate on this subject ..
                        Well, what you have given by the link .. "The configuration of the aircraft is optimal for long flights with a tailwind" You can fly around the earth in a hot air balloon .. But what does this have to do with rocketry ??)
                        The task is to fly as quickly as possible, as accurately as possible, with as much load as possible unnoticed ..
                        And recommend this miracle plane to the developers of the Tomahawks and Caliber ..))
                        For decades, countries have been struggling to increase the range of their missiles .. Or do the Americans don’t want to launch their TGs by 10 km ?? Or Russia would not want to have a caliber with a range, like a ballistic ??
                        They want it ... everyone wants it !! But they can’t ..
                        For - At the same range a cruise missile can’t fly ..
                        Askioma-sss ..

                        I gave this example, only so that you have no doubt that with a conventional engine and conventional fuel you can fly under 40 thousand km.

                        I repeat .. you can and a balloon .. You can even run, and carry a nuclear charge on yourself .. All this is possible !!
                        That's just we're talking about missiles .. Maybe because the FAU-1 went astray so often in its time that it looked like this "plane" .. did you think ??)

                        Is the height big? So many cruise missiles fly even higher.

                        Above what ?? The height of cruise missiles is not critical .. it’s just more convenient for them to fly around the relief .. So it’s more difficult: A. detect it with a radar. B. bring down a missile defense ..

                        Are the dimensions large? Shoot down easily?
                        So we are not discussing this.
                        That is what we are discussing !!
                        Namely, to make it harder to shoot down a rocket - it is made winged .. This and only this compares favorably with the ballistic one ..))

                        And this:

                        // At the same range a cruise missile can’t fly ..//

                        Yeah .. and this we also discussed .. that a cruise missile cannot fly at the same range ..
                        Otherwise, if I could already - no one would even invent a nuclear engine for it .. How could you have guessed it yourself, and not when I’ll unclench this for the fifth time ..))


                        And I’m already writing not for you, but only for those who read our correspondence)


                        In vain did you do it .. someday, because someone will read these your pearls ..))
                      17. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 18 September 2019 15: 21
                        0
                        // Namely, to make it harder to shoot down a rocket - they make it winged .. This and only this compares favorably with the ballistic one ..)) //

                        Ahh, it’s only now!
                        What do you think, that to bring down a ballistic missile is easier than a cruise missile !!!!!!
                      18. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 18 September 2019 15: 31
                        -1
                        Ahh, it’s only now!

                        Better late than never..))

                        What do you think, that to bring down a ballistic missile is easier than a cruise missile !!!!!!
                        This is not what I think .. it is considered by those who are trying by all means to create a missile with unlimited range in winged performance., Despite the fact that there have long been ballistic .. And they are guided by physical principles ..

                        "Cruise missile.
                        Advantages
                        The ability to set an arbitrary course of the rocket, including, winding trajectory, which creates difficulties for missile defense the adversary.
                        Possibility movement at low altitude with envelope relief, which makes it difficult to detect missiles radar means.
                        Disadvantages
                        Relatively low speeds (on the order of the speed of sound ~ 1150 km / h). "


                        No wings - no way to maneuver and bypass missile defense ..

                        PS .. well, and even a small appendage from the expanses of the web ..
                        Cruise missiles also fell under the ban - several hundred American Gryphon (the ground version of the Tomahawk, capable of carrying, including a nuclear warhead) and several dozen Soviet RK-55 Reliefs that had just entered service. Cruise missiles do not have the main advantage of ballistic missiles - a short approach time to the target (their speed is comparable to a passenger plane), but due to the low profile of the flight with "envelope relief" they are hardly noticeable to radars. Moscow, as a “goodwill gesture”, undertook to destroy the Oka short-range missiles, although their range did not reach 500 kilometers.
                      19. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 18 September 2019 15: 50
                        -1
                        // This is not what I think .. this is considered by those who are trying by all means to create a missile with unlimited range in winged performance., Despite the fact that there have long been ballistic .. And they are guided by physical principles ..//

                        And these principles are called - economics.
                        For cruise missiles with a range of up to 2500 kilometers are several times cheaper than ballistic missiles with a range of up to 2500 kilometers.
                        And there is reason to believe that with the increase in the range of cruise missiles this ratio will continue (not in favor of ballistic missiles).

                        Well, just in case, I remind you that shooting down an ICBM combat unit is much, much, much more difficult than any cruise missile. Despite all the maneuvers of the latter.
                      20. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 18 September 2019 16: 02
                        -1
                        And these principles are called - economics.


                        Yeah, and because there’s a nuclear engine.))

                        cruise missiles with a range of up to 2500 kilometers at times cheaper ballistic missiles with a range of up to 2500 kilometers.

                        And here up to 2500km, when we need AFTER 2500 ..
                        Up to 2500 a lot of things fly and you can choose depending on your needs ..
                        But at 10 thousand km only ballistics can .. And the price has nothing to do with it ..

                        Well, just in case, I remind you that shooting down an ICBM combat unit is much, much, much more difficult than any cruise missile. Despite all the maneuvers of the latter.

                        Everything is so .. but exactly the opposite ..))
                        Otherwise, no one would have created the Petrel ..


                        Lastly, a little more information for you ..

                        As a guidance operator, I still remember that for our horror these CDs were at the training grounds ... They darted around the monitor, trying to jump out of it, they “flew” into the background from the relief, could turn around almost 180 degrees and jump out of the sector capture. And we reacted only with our eyes and hands - against the onboard computers of the Tomahawks. Our hit rate is 0,1 at best. 1 out of 10! Because air defense missile defense, covering strategic facilities, stood in three echelons. Therefore, the air defense systems were reinforced by fighter-interceptors, and right next to the objects were front-line air defense systems - those that were designed to destroy everything that flies above the parapet parapet.


                        objects, I repeat, located in the zone of destruction of the "Caliber". If these facilities are destroyed, disabled, the strategic balance in favor of Russia will be upset.
                        Minimum - 36 objects. It remains to be understood - are they covered by air defense from the attack with “Gauges” or not? Yes, yes, I do ask a question with a question, that's right. Before 7 in October, 2015 was in service with Russian cruise missiles. Could a mentally normal American designer of anti-aircraft missiles lay in his creations a safety factor in the event of an attack of what-no? We study.

                        The main US anti-aircraft missile system for early warning today is the Patriot PAC-3, which was adopted in 2001. There is nothing newer. According to his performance characteristics, "the probability of defeating a tactical missile is 0,6-0,8." As if with luck, only 2 out of 10 missiles can reach the target. Not bad? We read again: we are talking about a tactical missile. What is this tactical missile, obviously from its more precise name: front-line ballistic missile. Ballistic. That is, her trajectory is not like that of a cruise missile, it follows a ballistic trajectory. Consequently, the remarkable coefficient in the performance characteristics of the Patriot is not about KR "Caliber".


                        Amazing yes ?? A man writes that it’s more difficult to shoot down a Caliber with a Patriot than a ballistic missile ..))
                        There are also many interesting things you can read about the radar ..
                        By the way .. who wrote this, and in general the article is in full - here on the site:

                        https://topwar.ru/85380-chem-nato-sobiraetsya-sbivat-kalibr.html
                      21. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 18 September 2019 16: 56
                        0
                        // "the probability of defeating a tactical missile is 0,6-0,8." As if with luck, only 2 out of 10 missiles can reach the target. Not bad? //

                        Well, here the Americans have overestimated their numbers at 2. XNUMX. Well, it doesn’t matter.

                        // Read again: this is a tactical missile. //

                        Indeed, we are talking about a tactical missile.
                        Do you know how a tactical missile differs from a warhead (hereinafter BB) ICBM.
                        First size. A tactical missile is a bit larger than the BB. Razikov 100. Do not believe me? Google about the size of tactical missiles Scud or Eye. And BB is a cone, a little higher than a meter.
                        And this means that a tactical missile is 100 times easier to detect and 100 times easier to hit.
                        And BB is at least 3 times faster.
                        That is why the Patriots have a chance to shoot down tactical missiles, but even a thousand Patriots have no chance to shoot down even one BB. This incidentally is not an unfounded statement. The Americans tried to modernize the Patriots to intercept the BB at their landfills. No chance.

                        By the way, Patriot can fight tactical ballistic missiles, planes and WING missiles. But it can’t intercept the BB ICBMs.
                        Is this not an indication that the BB is a much more complex target than a cruise missile)?
                      22. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 19 September 2019 10: 46
                        -1
                        A tactical missile is a bit larger than the BB. Razikov 100. Do not believe me? Google about the size of tactical missiles Scud or Eye. And BB is a cone, a little higher than a meter.
                        And this means that a tactical missile is 100 times easier to detect and 100 times easier to hit.
                        Well, it’s only you who’ll get your warheads to your goal .. without a rocket ..))

                        That is why the Patriots have a chance to shoot down tactical missiles, but even a thousand Patriots have no chance to shoot down even one BB

                        That is why no one knocks down military blocks .. A ballistic missile is most conveniently shot down at the stage of dispersal and spacewalk .. This was already written a couple of days ago .. just someone is not a reader ..))

                        Is this not an indication that the BB is a much more complex target than a cruise missile)?
                        Once again you convince yourself that you yourself have come up with ..))
                        We somehow didn’t even talk about war blocks .. the comparison was between a ballistic missile and a cruise missile ..

                        Do you like to argue about anything .. then jump over to dictionaries, then from a rocket to shared blocks .. (this is understandable, because the author of the article worked on this specificity, and writes that it’s more difficult to bring down a winged one, so you need to quickly change the subject to something else)

                        I think, in fact, you understood everything perfectly for a long time .. because you have never even been able to answer even yourself, for which it was necessary to try to create a cruise missile with an unlimited range, when similar ballistic missiles have long existed (in your opinion, more "unbreakable")

                        Like self-deception or something ..))
                      23. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 19 September 2019 11: 01
                        0
                        // I think, in fact, you understood everything perfectly for a long time .. because you have never been able to answer even yourself, for which it was necessary to try to create a cruise missile with an unlimited range, when similar ballistic missiles have long existed (in your opinion persuasion, more "unbeatable") //

                        How not to answer !? Yes, many times. Here is an example:

                        //And what? How does this contradict my statements?
                        If you remember Putin’s speech, he linked the creation of new types of weapons with the intensification of development of missile defense in the United States (from ballistic missiles).
                        That is, he directly said:
                        Create an effective defense against our ballistic missiles, we will print the Petrels. And you have no protection from them yet. //

                        Everything is clearly written. ICBMs are now the most effective weapon. If this does not happen in the future, Petrels will take their place.
                      24. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 19 September 2019 11: 52
                        0
                        linked the creation of new types of weapons with the intensification of the development of missile defense in the United States (from ballistic missiles).


                        Here is the circus ..))
                        I’ve been explaining to you here for three days that the winged Petrel is needed in order to fly around the missile defense .. for ballistic missiles cannot do this, and run the risk of being shot down ..
                        And he even recommended that you carefully review the cartoon, where Putin focuses on this .. how a cruise missile maneuvers, bypassing enemy missile defense points ..
                        For three days you have been proving to me something completely inaudible and the opposite .. They say that it’s easier to bring down a cruise missile than a ballistic and other heresy ..

                        But as soon as you think a little yourself .. how then the insight descended ..
                        Create effective protection against our ballistic missiles, we will print the Petrels. And from them you have there is no protection so far.


                        I am glad that, finally, they understood a simple truth - there is no protection against a cruise missile ..
                        (more precisely, protection, of course, is from everything .. but the effectiveness of such protection is lower)
                      25. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 19 September 2019 11: 19
                        0
                        // That’s why no one shoots down warheads .. It’s most convenient to shoot down a ballistic missile at the stage of dispersal and spacewalk .. This was already written a couple of days ago .. just someone is not a reader ..)) //

                        I read. But why comment on this !!?
                        It is obvious that ANY rocket is more convenient to shoot down immediately after launch. But now there is no missile defense that, if launched from any NATO country, could bring down our launching ICBMs. The distance between the missile defense system and the launch sites of our ICBMs is from 1000 to 5000 km. An irresistible distance for missile defense.
                      26. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 19 September 2019 12: 06
                        0
                        Well, I'm glad that this is "completely obvious" to you .. And then for some reason they started talking about warheads and their sizes ..))
                        there is no missile defense that, if launched from any NATO country, could bring down our launching ICBMs.

                        The concept of "starting" does not mean that right at the departure from the mine ..))
                        A multi-stage rocket accelerates over a long period before it goes beyond the atmosphere .. and the Earth, unfortunately (or fortunately) is round ..))




                        And then how do you listen .. BB can’t be shot down .. at the start, too, can not .. generally straight rocket turns rocket ..))
                        And what for then only the ABM Treaty was created, if this ABM can not be brought down ..))
                      27. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 20 September 2019 09: 07
                        -1
                        // And then how do you listen .. BB can’t be shot down .. at the start you can’t either .. generally a direct rocket turns out to be missile ..)) //

                        No. I did not write that the BB cannot be shot down, but wrote that it is very, very difficult. But our ICBMs, starting from the start and ending with the separation of the BB from them, are currently impossible to shoot down. Just nothing.

                        // And what for then only anti-missile defense treaties were created if this missile defense cannot be brought down ..)) //

                        You confuse cause and effect. Indeed, ballistic missile defense is now not very developed. And this is due to the fact that in 1972 an ABM treaty was concluded. The United States withdrew from this treaty in 2001. That is, for 30 years, missile defense systems from ICBMs have not actually developed.
                        That is, the ABM agreement was not concluded because the missile defense missile defense showed good effectiveness. On the contrary, the rather low effectiveness of modern missile defense from ICBMs is associated with a 30-year stagnation in this area.
                        Now missile defense from ICBMs, in terms of effectiveness, does not differ much from those indicators that were shown before 1972. At the same time, those missile defense / air defense systems that were not limited to this treaty (missile defense / air defense against aircraft, cruise missiles, tactical ballistic missiles) showed a manifold increase in efficiency, in all respects, compared to 1972.
                      28. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 20 September 2019 09: 28
                        0
                        missile defense agreement was concluded not because missile defense from ICBMs showed good effectiveness. On the contrary, the rather low effectiveness of modern missile defense from ICBMs is connected with 30 years stagnation

                        At that moment, when the contract was concluded, there was no 30 stagnation yet ..
                        So yes .. confuse the cause with the consequence ..))
                      29. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 19 September 2019 11: 29
                        0
                        // Once again, you convince yourself that you yourself have come up with ..))
                        We somehow didn’t even talk about warheads .. the comparison was between a ballistic missile and a cruise missile .. //

                        That's interesting.
                        When I compared cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of up to 2500 km, you said that we are talking only about intercontinental range.
                        But the fact is that our ICBMs hit targets EXCLUSIVELY BB. And it doesn’t matter the parts divided there or one warhead.
                        When one, it is called monoblock (one BLOCK).
                        So that:
                        // We somehow didn’t even talk about war blocks .. //
                        If we are talking about our ICBMs, then we will have to speak about the blocks.
                      30. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 19 September 2019 12: 20
                        -1
                        But the fact is that our ICBMs hit targets EXCLUSIVELY BB

                        So what??

                        If we are talking about our ICBMs, then we will have to speak about the blocks.

                        What for?? To once again evade the topic ??)
                        But when you started talking about blocks, you started to refer to their low weight and high speed. stealth, etc. But this in no way makes the ICBM itself light and inconspicuous ..

                        But the fact is that our ICBMs hit targets EXCLUSIVELY BB. And it doesn’t matter the parts divided there or one warhead.
                        When one, it’s called monoblock (one BLOCK)


                        Yes, I just agree that it doesn’t matter .. I don’t understand why you jumped to these BBs ..))
                        Flying over the territory of the European continent and the missile defense system located there, the ICBM is not divided into any blocks .. it generally runs the risk of being shot down somewhere else over Moscow ..
                        And when we consider the degree of this risk, we don't care about any BB from the word "at all".
                        But a cruise missile can spread along the ground at the level of a 10-story building .. and it’s much harder to detect it .. and even to shoot down even more .. For no one knows where it will be in 20 minutes ..
                      31. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 20 September 2019 08: 38
                        -1
                        // Flying over the territory of the European continent and the missile defense located there, the ICBM is not divided into any blocks .. it generally runs the risk of being shot down somewhere else over Moscow .. //

                        No risk.
                        I seem to understand why you repeat the wrong information from time to time.
                        Indeed, some time ago, the possibility of creating systems that could shoot down our ICBMs during take-off and / or flight over Europe was quite actively discussed. Perhaps from that time in your head it was postponed that such systems ALREADY exist.
                        This is not true. Such systems have not been created, tested, and all the more not placed in Europe. Those missiles that are now deployed in Europe cannot threaten our ICBMs either in range or in height.
                        So at the moment, neither during take-off, nor in the middle part of the trajectory, nor when flying to any country in the world, nor in any situation, our ICBMs can be shot down. Even theoretically.
                        But in the final section there is an opportunity to bring them down. But by that time, only BBs were in flight.
                        And since after the launch of our ICBMs with the BB, at the moment, the enemy can only shoot down the BB, then I quite reasonably discuss this option.
                      32. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 20 September 2019 09: 31
                        0
                        I seem to understand why you repeat the wrong information from time to time.

                        If this information were incorrect, and if ballistic missiles were "unbreakable", no one would have invented an unlimited-range cruise missile .. But you never understood this ..
                      33. Bratkov Oleg
                        Bratkov Oleg 24 September 2019 22: 11
                        0
                        However, launchers located in Europe can launch medium-range missiles, which can destroy ICBMs before they even leave the launcher. Has the USA left the treaty for nothing? For nothing, what did they want to do in the Crimea a naval base?
              3. Tatyana14
                Tatyana14 16 September 2019 23: 20
                -3
                There are no haters to defeat you.
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 September 2019 01: 10
          -2
          Well, you talk so easily about radioactive dust there, but I see Russians turning to ashes here. Have you ever thought that after exchanging thousands of ICBMs, it’s lost for the few survivors to spend time, effort and resources on launching something else there?
          1. Serg4545
            Serg4545 17 September 2019 15: 41
            +2
            // Have you ever thought that after exchanging thousands of ICBMs, it’s lost for the few survivors to spend time, effort and resources on starting something else there? //

            The petrel will not be launched after the ICBM, but simultaneously with them.

            // So you talk so easily about radioactive dust there, but I see the Russians turned to ashes here.//

            That's to prevent such garbage from happening, neither here nor there is needed the Petrel.
            What is holding back nuclear war in recent decades?
            Fear of receiving unacceptable damage. You may not like the situation, but such is the reality. And by the way, it all worked well. There was no nuclear war. The number of nuclear weapons has decreased significantly.
            And in recent years, instead of continuing to gradually and proportionally reduce nuclear weapons, the United States has become a runaway. We left the ABM Treaty. Then the INF Treaty.
            There is talk of withdrawing from START-3.
            As a result, the balance of power can change significantly and as a result, a nuclear war can begin. And so, to restore balance, the Petrel will be needed.
            The Petrel currently has no advantage over the ICBMs. Rather, it doesn’t even have a price.
            But if the States create effective protection against our ICBMs, then instead of becoming ineffective ICBMs, we will produce a sufficient number of Petrels. And the balance will be restored. And the danger of nuclear war is down.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 17 September 2019 16: 08
              0
              To begin with, the United States is much richer than the Russian Federation. And in the confrontation mode, it’s in their interests to start an expensive arms race in order to undermine the opponent’s economy (let’s not talk about the dollar, which “will crash tomorrow”).
              It is practically impossible to create effective protection against a massive attack by the ICBM MS. for each warhead, you need to have about 10 interceptor missiles. And a tracking system of at least 1000 GPU in real time.
              The best option is to develop new technologies, namely GZ gliders, to create a serial scramjet. Instead of pulling out old drawings rejected by both sides due to an unacceptable price / efficiency ratio and turning part of their territory / water area into unsuitable mini-Chernobyls from dusty shelves.
              1. Serg4545
                Serg4545 18 September 2019 08: 34
                +2
                // It’s almost impossible to create effective protection against massive raids for each warhead, you need to have about 10 interceptor missiles. And a tracking system of at least 1000 GPU in real time .//

                This is so.
                But! Suppose the adversary was able to deliver an unexpected disarming strike. Well, as an example, we were able to somehow deceive / drown our system about a warning about a missile attack.
                Of course, absolutely everything cannot be destroyed. But instead of about 2500 warheads, 100-200 will fly to the States. But the developed missile defense system can cope with this amount. Of course, there is a risk that 1-5 warheads will break through (out of 100-200), but so much damage cannot be done. And accordingly, to whom on the other side this plan may seem acceptable.
                That's so that no one looks in this direction and the Petrel (and Poseidon) is needed. Because the small size and weight of the Petrel (compared to ballistic missiles of comparable range) allows them to be placed on a much larger number of carriers and makes this missile highly mobile. Accordingly, the enemy, purely physically unable to detect a larger number of Petrels. And so it will not be able to destroy them with a disarming strike. So the surviving Petrels will be able to inflict unacceptable damage on the enemy. And the enemy, knowing this, will not start a nuclear war against us.
                1. Roman070280
                  Roman070280 19 September 2019 10: 50
                  0
                  But instead of about 2500 warheads, 100-200 will fly to the States.

                  How much is needed, so much will fly ..)) Everything will fly, not 100-200, as someone just thought from the ceiling ..

                  Of course, there is a risk that 1-5 warheads will break through (out of 100-200), but so much damage cannot be done. And accordingly, to whom on the other side this plan may seem acceptable.
                  So that no one looks in this direction and the Petrel is needed


                  The USA and the RF are armed with approximately the same number of nuclear weapons .. so these fantasies are not appropriate .. Which means that all other conclusions do not make sense ..))
              2. Serg4545
                Serg4545 18 September 2019 08: 40
                +2
                // The best option is to develop new technologies, namely, GL gliders, to create a serial scramjet //

                But can Vanguard not be used in glider mode?
                Does Zircon not use a scramjet?
                So what are you unhappy with?
              3. Serg4545
                Serg4545 18 September 2019 08: 44
                +2
                // Instead of pulling old drawings rejected by both sides due to an unacceptable price / performance ratio from dusty shelves //

                Sorry, but neither you nor I have a clue whether old technologies are used or new ones.
                And what kind of price / efficiency ratio is also unknown.
        4. Bratkov Oleg
          Bratkov Oleg 24 September 2019 22: 06
          0
          The words that the blows will be delivered to the decision-making centers indicate that in the event of a "limited war" in Europe, the United States will not stand aside, in particular, because the decision to start a "limited war" against Russia will be made in the United States. This means that Poland will attack us, and Washington will evaporate.
        5. kvs45
          kvs45 4 October 2019 17: 09
          0
          Quote: Serg4545
          In my opinion, Petrel is a weapon for finishing and control. Ballistic missiles will be hit in 15-20 hours of the Petrel’s flight, as well as data on the effectiveness of these strikes


          Something Petrel is more like a first strike rocket. Slowly launched the reactor, flew over the air defense lines and delivered a disarming blow to command centers?
          1. Serg4545
            Serg4545 4 October 2019 20: 11
            0
            It is now impossible to launch a large cruise missile unnoticed. From satellites everything is fixed.
            Especially mass launch.
            In the US, the command post is built in a rock mass. There is no nuclear warhead of such power that could destroy it (they did so on purpose).
            So your option will not work)
      10. codetalker
        codetalker 16 September 2019 19: 17
        +4
        For modeling, you need, and most importantly, a certain methodology that has demonstrated its suitability. And, of course, trusting source data is needed. As for the petrel, it is known (and even with reservations) only about its unlimited range. Everything else: speed, potential goals, etc., etc. - unreasonable assumptions.
        So this work has nothing to do with modeling, from the word at all.
        This does not mean that you do not need to do this. Hobbies, education at the lowest level.
      11. Nagaibak
        Nagaibak 16 September 2019 19: 29
        +4
        Zufei "This is called 'modeling', extrapolation, forecasting."
        In a word, WANG.)))
      12. YOUR
        YOUR 17 September 2019 12: 08
        +1
        Somehow the author is not very successful in modeling, extrapolation and forecasting. All forecasting boiled down to the fact that the KR will fly at an optimum height for detection
        In principle, any cruise missile is an ideal target that can be found in 70-100-200, etc. km, if not for one but its altitude. So the Tomahawk CR flies to the target at an altitude of 15-50 meters, firstly, not every air defense system can fire at such a target for technical reasons. See TTX SAM Patriot minimum target height 60 meters. And it can detect it at such heights at a distance of 15 to 35 km. Whatever modern English scientists say, but the Earth is still not so flat. But let's say that they can fire. The question is whether a state, even one as rich as the United States, can direct air defense systems throughout the country, taking into account the overlap of the affected areas at a distance of about 50 kilometers from each other.
      13. Nick
        Nick 18 September 2019 03: 23
        0
        Quote: Zufei
        This is called "modeling", extrapolation, forecasting. In general, an attempt to predict the situation.

        If extrapolated, it turns out that we do not need subsonic missiles at all, because the United States has object-based air defense, and F-22. And on the question of the capabilities of today's technologies of our Rosatom, a song in general. The author does not think that we are far from 80's technology. Why he does not think so, the question is open.
        1. Bratkov Oleg
          Bratkov Oleg 24 September 2019 22: 18
          0
          The American rover and the Chinese station on the moon are working on a Russian nuclear power source. To say that Rosatom has the technology of the 80s, my language doesn’t turn around, and the leading capitalists and communists of the Earth simply know how to count money.
      14. mkop
        mkop 19 September 2019 10: 53
        +1
        For all of the above, you need at least some input. The author does not have them. The input is both those guesses and conjectures. And the author, at least somehow, had to change the last paragraph, he was completely out of place in an article based on speculation and estimates.
    2. Same lech
      Same lech 16 September 2019 06: 00
      +27
      smile A comrade can be a wide-profile specialist in misinformation of an adversary and our gullible citizens.
      The photo with Burevestnik is muddy ... the article is also muddy ... in short ... the characteristics of this product are unknown ... at what stage is the development of the product also unknown and the assumptions and articles of different kinds are full wagon.
      1. Oleg123219307
        Oleg123219307 16 September 2019 09: 35
        +24
        Given the hypothetical nature of the article, several equally conjectural comments can be made on the subject matter. 1) An engine requiring scarce materials, protection, complex start-ups and other things. What for? People fly on it? Save ecology in the midst of a nuclear war? Should it be planted and reused? Does she fly in a vacuum with a crap heatsink and a limited supply of working fluid, requiring high efficiency and reactor temperatures? Probably not. Why, then, comparisons with space nuclear power plants? There is such a good thing GERD, dirty, inefficient, everyone will die on the entire flight path, but when the fur-bearing beast has already come and don't give a shit. Cheap, it works, protection is not needed. Start fuel injection. Without a reactor in general as such, only a magnetic trap and a lot of atmospheric air, both for work and for cooling. There were projects. 2) Tactical inefficiency. Yes, 2-3 weather rockets will not do. I don’t see any problems riveting half a hundred, taking into account the above, and this is a threat. If it were still necessary to know which side would arrive and have air defense / missile defense throughout the territory. If you get to know better with US air defense, it turns out a lot of fun. Yes, most bases are covered. From the directions of the most probable blows and from the upper hemisphere. And from the bottom, from the very small, these are other complexes, radars, missiles, and this nichrome is not present in most states. And now, if you want to, you want to have to worry. And it's expensive. Anyway, who said that a dirty nuclear missile is designed for bases, or is it generally carrying a warhead? It can simply barrage over the enemy’s territory for days, especially in conditions when aviation and air defense are busy with a couple of thousand more priority targets, and after a month, the survivors suddenly discover that the half of the country is shining brighter than from Chernobyl ... I think it's still a weapon containment rather than shock. It is not TTX that matters, but the very fact of the possibility of use, forcing either to put up with the enormous damage to the infrastructure, or to spend time and money on creating complete protection. It seems to me that all these cartoons are intended for Western politicians who forget little by little that it is impossible to win a nuclear war. They are told by representatives of their corporations, having drank state money that they are now invulnerable, behind a shield of f35 and 50 missile defense with controversial characteristics, and they begin to build on this policy. Well, since normal arguments like almost 2 thousand ICBM warheads no longer work, such horror stories might work, who knows ...
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 16 September 2019 10: 05
          -3
          It seemed to me somehow more that this missile was just designed to organize continuous airborne alert (in the United States, continuous strategic airborne alert was organized after Gagarin’s flight (sort of), in the USSR - after the Pershing was deployed to Europe). The rocket is subsonic, so you can put a screw with an electric motor (without emissions from the reactor).
          1. Oleg123219307
            Oleg123219307 16 September 2019 10: 21
            +4
            There is a problem with the word reactor. If you try to convert the heat of a nuclear reaction into something useful, such as rotational motion or electricity, then the mass and dimensions of the installation will increase dramatically, by orders of magnitude. And she barely gets into the plane, what can I say about the rocket ...
          2. DED_peer_DED
            DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 12: 38
            +3
            Quote: bk0010
            It seemed to me somehow more that this missile was just designed to organize continuous duty in the air

            This is not real. It is necessary to separate the flies from cutlets.
            1. Fan-fan
              Fan-fan 16 September 2019 16: 27
              -9
              Everything is unrealistic here. Here is the information: "Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, one of the most prominent specialists in nuclear physics and atomic energy, a world-renowned scientist Igor Nikolaevich Ostretsov said that there can be no Burevestnik rocket"
              https://newizv.ru/news/society/20-08-2019/professor-ostretsov-nikakoy-rakety-burevestnik-byt-ne-mozhet
              So the thoughts of the author Dmitry Verkhoturov and the thoughts of Professor Igor Ostretsov coincide. If you consider Dmitry to be incompetent, then Igor was just dealing with these issues in the defense industry; you cannot consider him incompetent.
              1. Operator
                Operator 16 September 2019 16: 42
                +7
                Your Pedovikia: "Igor Nikolayevich Ostretsov, born in 1939, is one of the authors of the hypothetical NRT-power engineering (from Nuclear Relativistic Technologies, heavy-nuclear relativistic power engineering). Representatives of the RRC KI and VNIIAM noted the unscientific nature of the NRT-power concept."

                In other words, the 80-year-old Ostretsov crossed the border of senility laughing
              2. Bratkov Oleg
                Bratkov Oleg 24 September 2019 22: 21
                +1
                Quote: Fan-Fan
                ... Here is the information: "Doctor of Technical Sciences, professor, one of the most prominent specialists in nuclear physics and atomic energy, a world-renowned scientist Igor Nikolaevich Ostretsov said that there can be no Burevestnik rocket" ...

                A lot of things cannot exist. The bridge to the Crimea. eg. But he is.
        2. demo
          demo 16 September 2019 10: 43
          +12
          And from the bottom, from the very small, these are other complexes, radars, missiles, and this nichrome is not present in most states.

          And especially from the south and from the north.
          Trump's wall Petrel won't stop.
          And Canadians do not even want to spend money.
          I once wrote about how many hundreds of billions of dollars are needed to create an air defense missile defense system from the south and north.
          And how old.
          1. Oleg123219307
            Oleg123219307 16 September 2019 11: 11
            +11
            It’s easier not to run into ... What apparently they wanted to say with this rocket.
        3. Tatyana14
          Tatyana14 16 September 2019 23: 26
          -1
          how many real launches you need to make and where it is guaranteed to know that the system is really working -
          (There is such a kind thing GNRD, dirty, inefficient, everyone will die on the entire flight path, but when the fur-bearing animal has already come and don't give a shit. It’s cheap, it works, protection is not needed. Starting with fuel injection. Without a reactor as such, only a magnetic trap and a lot atmospheric air, both for work and for cooling. Projects were. 2) Tactical inefficiency. Yes, 2-3 weather rockets will not do. Still I see no problem riveting half a hundred,)
          1. The comment was deleted.
        4. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 September 2019 01: 23
          +1
          The design you describe raises the question: how many thousand square meters. km of its territory / water area need to be crippled for testing and refinement of this prodigy? And how many people (ours) will still light up and sinter in the process?
          1. Oleg123219307
            Oleg123219307 17 September 2019 08: 33
            0
            Take a look at the answer to the previous comment, there I answered almost the same question. But in general, the answer is a lot. I don’t know about people, but the territories will definitely be decapitated decently. Of course, much depends on the isotopic composition of the fuel, it can decay after 3 months, or maybe after 3 millennia. Here, in fact, fortunetelling ...
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 17 September 2019 11: 31
              -2
              Then the reasonable question 2 arises: maybe, well, him, this Petrel? And what about efforts to focus on creating your own scramjet and a hypersonic long-range cruise missile?
              (If there is so little existing IBCR)
              1. Oleg123219307
                Oleg123219307 17 September 2019 11: 47
                +1
                There is no longer an operational tactical issue, but a political one. ICDB is certainly enough. Only here are some Western politicians campaign firmly believed in their immortality and absolute power. I read the Western press, they seriously discuss options for war with Russia and China without a single hit on the territory of the states. They have about, all things ... It is clear that in a real conflict it will not help them in any way, but the task is not to destroy them, but to prevent war ... Maybe in this context the crap islands in the icy ocean are better than the whole crap country by thousands of American warheads? Of course, they, too, will not be left without a gift, but we feel better from that, except morally.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 17 September 2019 12: 40
                  -2
                  You probably haven’t read everything. Why crap in my yard (although it is close to many compatriots - I often see) when you can switch resources and develop technologies (create a serial scramjet) and not crap?
                  1. Oleg123219307
                    Oleg123219307 17 September 2019 12: 49
                    +1
                    Hypersound is impossible near the ground. And at altitudes of 20-30-50 km that warhead, scramjet as you call it pretty easy to shoot down. ICBM warheads are now flying fast, faster than hypersound in the understanding of the scramjet, but however, anti-missiles exist, both atmospheric and atmospheric. And their development for the interception of hypersound is more a technical issue than a conceptual one. And the resources of our opponents are not an example more than ours.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 17 September 2019 16: 01
                      -3
                      I am sure that among the decision-makers in the West, there are very few maniacs. And the system of turnover of politicians of the highest level allows them not to break away from the needs of the population and reality. And none of them wants to lead the world into a nuclear disaster. Ordinary people - 100%.
                      IMHO, enough ICDB, the development of their warheads (GB gliders).
                      And the technology written off earlier by both (!) Parties (due to the too unfavorable utility / price ratio) should be left on the shelf.
                      1. Cat man null
                        Cat man null 17 September 2019 16: 15
                        +3
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        And the system of turnover of top-level politicians allows them not to break away from the needs of the population and reality

                        #granite good laughing good

                        The number of commentators exaggerating this topic (what comes from your Ukraine, what is "not from") has always been ... sufficient, and from the nonsense they wrote, you can make a small multivolume.

                        But you, IMHO, managed to get around all of them combined ... again (we are talking about the United States, bearing in mind that the conversation, in fact, about the use of nuclear weapons)

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        ... the system of turnover of politicians of the highest level allows them not to break away from the needs of the population ...

                        In granite. Definitely yes
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 September 2019 18: 18
                        -2
                        And here is Ukraine ??
                        I live in Russia and I am not indifferent to the degree of adequacy of people who make critical decisions. As for ours, there are doubts. (Jokes about paradise, although maybe this VIP bunker is so named?) I don’t have my own bunker, but there is responsibility for the family.
                      3. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 17 September 2019 16: 52
                        +2
                        Too optimistic outlook on things. The ABM Treaty is destroyed - there is a global US missile defense. The INF Treaty is destroyed, they are already testing the corresponding missiles. Not today, START will fall apart. At any moment, a war with Iran will erupt and the floor of the world will flare. And you about their rationality?
                      4. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 17 September 2019 17: 50
                        0
                        Yes, yes, more tales of a global catastrophe. And as now everything will bomb. The same told us that now America will collapse. The same people shouted about the Middle East and so on. But everything turned out to be completely wrong, and when they shouted it was clear. The difference is one thing - they shout it for the implementation of certain ideas. You, just out of thought.
                        No nuclear treaty is needed at all. Because it is violated as soon as it becomes unprofitable. And accordingly, it has long been not an instrument in itself but a tool. The war with Israel has been going on for decades and somehow the world does not blaze.
                      5. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 17 September 2019 18: 26
                        +1
                        In my opinion, it’s sometimes better to stay awake ... America will not collapse of course, and no one is consciously seeking disaster. Time has shown that economic methods are more effective. But if for many years everyone firmly believes that they are immortal, invulnerable and in general any conflict occurs somewhere in Bananastan, one day someone might consider it a good idea to demolish our base, sink a ship, or something else like that. That's so that such thoughts do not arise means better to have. And the more of them, the better, all the same, the total military budget does not even reach a two-week squandering of money for social programs ...
                      6. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 September 2019 18: 59
                        -1
                        About the military budget and social programs: are you talking about us, that is, about the Russian Federation ??
                        You didn’t compare budget expenditures, say for 18 years? How much does it go for medicine, for education?
                        At least 25% goes to the military market, not counting the mega-expenditures on internal control forces.
                      7. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 17 September 2019 23: 20
                        -1
                        17% goes to the military. And under 30, on social programs WITHOUT accounting for education and health. With them under 40. We need more subsidies for loans, maternity capital, pensions for not a day working, state support for business in a country where anyway one of the lowest taxes on business in the world, and then everything will be fine. But you can’t give a damn about defense ...
                      8. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 17 September 2019 19: 27
                        -1
                        Well, better not re. And soberly and correctly calculated. But you must be prepared for everything, you are absolutely right. and you need to have the means, the more the better, here they are also right.
                      9. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 September 2019 18: 21
                        -6
                        During the operation in Iraq in 2003, nothing flared up. Iran is stronger, but by no means an order of magnitude. The clerical regime will fall, and the world will remain (and become a little better) if a similar military campaign is conducted. I consider radical Islamists a threat to most people.
                      10. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 17 September 2019 18: 31
                        +1
                        I agree on the threat from radical Islamists. But there are nuances. Iran has a different paradigm of power, religion, tasks, economy. Their leadership, that the highest, that the average has no chance to surrender peacefully in case of anything. In fact, Saddam did not use widely either chemical or biological weapons, and he didn’t have a radiological (dirty one). Iran, in principle, having started to lose, can pour all of the above onto the heads of Israel and the Saudis. Plus, several hundred million Muslim refugees in the states and Europe, half of whom are very sympathetic to Iran. This is a bomb that will explode from the inside when it hits Iran. And what the hell will be next. Therefore, everything is now so restrained and generally happening. But this does not mean that this will be forever.
                      11. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 September 2019 18: 38
                        -4
                        As they say in Israel, "we do not have nuclear weapons (there are 30+ charges), but if it is very necessary, we will apply." What will happen to Iran after such an answer ?? The main goals, of course, will be the bunkers of the army’s leadership and especially the IRGC (IMHO, a kind of Islamist SS).
                        Ordinary Iranians only need to offer a reasonable alternative (most would like to have a secular government). Then the guerrilla guards will be quickly over.
                      12. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 17 September 2019 23: 11
                        +1
                        Will this greatly help Israel after the radiological strike? The promised land will glow beautifully at night for 5 thousand years ... Do you think the states have not tried to remove religious fanatics there for all these years? Looks are not so simple.
                      13. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 September 2019 23: 36
                        -1
                        Move to deserted Iran)
                        In general, the Israelis did well in the field of air defense / missile defense
                      14. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 18 September 2019 00: 03
                        0
                        In this way, Iran, which has been emptied in your way, will shine at night not much fainter ...
                      15. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 September 2019 23: 40
                        -1
                        There was no reason to start a sufficiently large company. It would be a leader regime - then everything is simple, "I said - you went." And you need a good justification, otherwise people will say - what the hell is this for us? In 2003, the justification was 9/11 terracotta and the linking of the Hussein regime with the support of terrorists (and more about chemical weapons).
                      16. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 18 September 2019 00: 05
                        0
                        Ordinary Iranians have been living in a religious society for more than half a century. 2 full generations grew up on the ideas of the Islamic revolution. I don’t think it will be as easy as with Iraq. And the States do not think so, otherwise, for an occasion they would not have rusted ...
                      17. 3danimal
                        3danimal 18 September 2019 03: 59
                        -1
                        It is not that simple. Look, in Iran there were / are protests and demands are quite secular. People just want to live a normal life. In the Union, too, several generations grew up in the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. But the need to maintain a scientific and technical level, and therefore educational, reduces the perception of propaganda.
                      18. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 18 September 2019 09: 26
                        0
                        So yes, there are protests. Only mostly student ones. And almost 80 million Iran has only about 9 million people with higher education. And for the most part these are not IRGC fighters. The Iranian leadership has learned the lessons of history and does not produce too much a liberal environment. Plus, Iran is not a western country where parents are called once a year to congratulate them on their birthday. There is a very strong nepotism and family ties. After a nuclear strike, the aggressors will become not just enemies, but personal bloodlines for the entire population. My discussions about the ease of victory over Iran somehow remind me of the talk about Afghanistan at the time. Both we and the states were incredibly stronger than Afghanistan. And what do you say there someone won?
                      19. 3danimal
                        3danimal 25 September 2019 12: 12
                        0
                        I repeat, Zhirinovsky had similar arguments in January 2003.
                        And 200000 of the "best" were defeated.
                        Afghanistan has a difficult terrain, in Iran - everything is easier.
                      20. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 25 September 2019 15: 12
                        0
                        Afghanistan did not have a serious army, missiles, aviation, biological, chemical and radiological weapons. Mountains, caves, machine guns and a lot of a lot of desire not to let anyone take their land. It seems that the Iranians have this desire no less. And with regards to the simplicity of the relief, look at the picture ...
                      21. 3danimal
                        3danimal 25 September 2019 15: 44
                        -1
                        Iraq captured, do you think?
                        He had one of the most powerful armies in the region, he fought on equal terms with Iran.
                        And a number of people assumed that the Iraqis would fight very hard for their dictator (he is his own, dear). It turned out - in a different way.
                        Radiological ... Its one-time use will free your hands in the use of nuclear weapons, tactical, at least. And here it is not a matter of the possibility of killing many residents, but of decapitating the military leadership and the Iranian SS. Effective self-organization will not be, IMHO.
                        As a result, the region will get better.
                      22. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 25 September 2019 16: 04
                        0
                        Iraq fought on equal terms with Iran almost 30 years ago. And all this time, Iran did not stand still. We are already talking about a scenario using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, at least by Israel, this is your position. Without this, state losses during ground operations would be disastrous for the US authorities. I just say that there will be no easy walk in Iran, and they will have enough strength to set fire to the whole region. They certainly won’t win, but the floor of the world flares up. On the other hand, I am not saying that this is bad for us. The main thing is not to climb. And oil for 200 bucks is not bad ...
                      23. 3danimal
                        3danimal 25 September 2019 16: 56
                        0
                        The losses will not be catastrophic, we again return to similar forecasts regarding Iraq and Hussein.
                        I just said that if Iran uses WMD, opponents are free to use (limited) nuclear weapons. To accelerate the elimination of the threat.
                        It is unlikely that there will be 200, up to 100 would.
                      24. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 25 September 2019 17: 57
                        0
                        And how can the use of nuclear weapons help eliminate the threat of radiological strikes? If, for example, they take away spent fuel from a nuclear power plant after the first blows to villages and will use it in terrorist attacks and guerrilla warfare? 100 is also good ...
                      25. 3danimal
                        3danimal 25 September 2019 19: 07
                        0
                        They themselves will die in the process of "being pulled away." It will be effective enough only in warhead missiles.
                        And when the command is destroyed, the performers are demoralized and disorganized.
                        Partisan war already involves the defeat of combined arms units.
                      26. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 25 September 2019 19: 38
                        0
                        Do not die. This is a fairly long process, and containers are very easy to do. But the consequences of a dozen terrorist attacks with such a filling in the United States or Europe will be catastrophic from an economic point of view. They are afraid of radiation there in a panic, and with the help of 2-3 kg of mining they can force an entire city with the size of New York to be evacuated ...
                      27. 3danimal
                        3danimal 25 September 2019 20: 18
                        -2
                        Dream wimp: insignificant forces to wreak havoc on a giant)
                        Unlikely. Security measures will be taken, it is not as simple as it seems. How lucky are you with the loud content? In the expectation that in the USA there is not enough money for Geiger counters?
                        And again, the theme of terrorist attacks implies a military defeat. This means that the supply and supply of saboteurs will be stopped. On bare enthusiasm you will fight for many days.
                      28. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 25 September 2019 22: 21
                        0
                        Well, if the question is to spoil the winner and avenge 30-40 million corpses after a nuclear bombing, then believe the problem is solvable. Especially if sabotage groups are recruited from intelligence professionals who have personally lost everything, and without the task of surviving and returning. 2-3 kg of mining is not 200 kg of plutonium. A container with lead walls a centimeter thick and aluminum sheathing, the total size of a half a cup of soda. It will only flash if this same counter is shoved inside, well, or at least it would be brought very close. Gamma and neutron flux will be eaten by lead, there is nothing to talk about alpha and beta. There will be a little X-ray, but just a little. Unless you specifically look for each centimeter of each cargo container in each port, searching with counters, you will not find it. I’m not talking about the ways in which smuggling, cocaine, illegal migrants and other pleasures of life fall into the same states ... As for replenishment and supply - a kilogram of gold, which stopudovo is in zashashniks, and does not depend on sanctions, exchange rates and other nonsense of exchange, and a diversionary group of 5-10 people can, with such resources, without hurrying anywhere, send a couple of small towns, a dozen trains with people, or skyscrapers in a large metropolis. About the degree of disgust on strategic communications, which you can’t really protect like gas and oil pipelines, power lines, fiber-optic communication lines, water pipelines, water treatment plants and other things, I’m silent. Unless, of course, we approach the issue thoughtfully and professionally, at least as our partisans in the war, and not as modern idiots (thank God) terrorists.
                      29. 3danimal
                        3danimal 26 September 2019 05: 01
                        0
                        Here you are upside down: where does 30-40mln come from? Stay in 1, if you have to use limited nuclear weapons. And this is only if the regime of Iran uses weapons of mass destruction.
                        How many Iraqi people died in 2003? There is no purpose to kill civilians.
                        Highly radioactive elements will be harder to transport than migrants and cocaine. Strongly phonite, and if properly shielded - the questions "why so much lead."
                        “In the name of the hereditary spiritual leader” is a weak motivation for a sufficiently large number of educated people.
                        And after the fall of the regime, you will not go far with bare enthusiasm (without serious support). Who dumped our partisans with loads of weapons, supplies, landing new specialists?
          2. Bratkov Oleg
            Bratkov Oleg 24 September 2019 22: 34
            +1
            You are guided by the experience of Americans in whom such a missile was terribly dirty. But this is not America, it is Russia - the leader in the nuclear industry, it was the first nuclear icebreaker in the world in Russia, it was a floating nuclear power plant in Russia, the first in the world, both the American Mars rover and the Chinese lunar station operate on Russian nuclear batteries. It was invented in Russia by an atomic battery for pacemakers, it can be in the body for life. And it was in Fokushima that the spent rods were stored on the roof of the reactor, according to the super-duper of American technology, and when the American reactor exploded, they were scattered around the Japanese terrified. And in Chernobyl, a technology was being worked out that would rule out a case similar to Fokushima, and if it were not for the rotten party elite of the USSR, there would be no catastrophe. But, decades after Chernobyl, the American super-duper nuclear power plant explodes, and if only one block!
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 25 September 2019 12: 16
              0
              What a mess!
              Chernobyl was built with gross structural violations (catching the holiday). The catastrophe itself is a symbiosis of classified design defects and blatant sloppiness. The Swedes, uncontrolled by the CPSU, began to sound the alarm first. And already had to admit the existence of a problem.
      2. LON
        LON 16 September 2019 10: 09
        -7
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        the characteristics of this product are unknown ... at what stage is the development of the product also unknown

        But what is known is that the Americans had a similar project called Pluto. Discussed in 2013 at the VO .. But the United States had to suspend work on the creation of the Pluto rocket (analogue of the Burevestnik). Dumping many radiation-contaminated missiles into the ocean off Wake Island, located 5000 km from the mainland, was recognized as very dangerous and the program was closed according to this parable. The Americans refused to test even at such a distance, and ours found this place 80 km from Arkhangelsk. What is it like a feeling of complete irresponsibility and impunity. We are reaping one more result of non-turnover of power. https://topwar.ru/35496-pluton-yadernoe-serdce-dlya-sverhzvukovoy-nizkovysotnoy-krylatoy-rakety.html
        1. Igor Aviator
          Igor Aviator 16 September 2019 10: 43
          +6
          Quote: LON
          The Americans refused to test even at such a distance, and ours found this place 80 km from Arkhangelsk.

          Firstly, the name of the city, according to the rules of the Russian language, is a proper name, and you should write it with capital letters - Arkhangelsk. Secondly - did you personally report the investigation of the circumstances of the emergency? If you have official access to these materials (top secret, it will be known) - then you, my friend, a state criminal, and your place is not on the couch, but in Kolyma, at best (also a proper name, by the way laughing ) If you do not have access - then you are yap-couch and liar am
          1. LON
            LON 16 September 2019 20: 04
            -2
            Oh oh oh. How terrible we are. Putin personally reported to me from the cartoon that we have it. So they are testing it. And where in Russia you can test such weapons, further 5000 thousand km from the mainland. It is not yet known to whom the Kolyma shines, to me, or to those who develop these weapons.
            1. Bratkov Oleg
              Bratkov Oleg 24 September 2019 22: 39
              0
              The Americans could not make an analogue of the Petrel, they are behind Russia in atomic technology.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 25 September 2019 16: 59
                0
                They abandoned the development.
                And there is no leader and his entourage capable of spitting on citizens for the sake of ambition.
        2. DED_peer_DED
          DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 12: 41
          0
          Quote: LON
          What is it like a feeling of complete irresponsibility, and impunity.

          All sorts of "dirt" on the ground (including ours), so much that the last hair can stand on end, if you know all this.
          Do not spoil the porridge oil.
          1. LON
            LON 16 September 2019 20: 10
            +1
            I really do not want this mud to be kneaded on our territory, and on our citizens. And therefore, as Arkhangelsk was chosen for a waste landfill, I would not be surprised at the fact of the tests of this dirty thing, under the nose of the residents.
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 September 2019 01: 26
          +2
          Humans will suffer, they decided. And if they are indignant - the doctors of the people, to their fingernail)
        4. krizis
          krizis 26 September 2019 11: 44
          0
          On the contrary, Pluto in practice produced less pollution than expected, stopped it for completely different reasons. Even today, the United States needs neither Pluto nor Petrel.
          Well, there is no reason to argue that in the modern version, even a straight-through circuit will litter comparable to Pluto.
    3. Berber
      Berber 16 September 2019 08: 43
      +5
      Putin's speech on the latest weapons is the same as Reagan's speech on the declaration of the "Star Wars" program. Half of what the GDP has announced exists, and half is a bogeyman for the United States. Let their capitalists tense up and spend money. And we will throw firewood into this "fire" and laugh.
      1. vic02
        vic02 16 September 2019 09: 09
        -1
        Putin's speech on the latest weapons, the same as Reagan's speech on the announcement of the "Star Wars" program
        Absolutely correct comparison. "Star Wars" in fact turned out to be a cut of the US budget and were secretly covered up. "Burevestnik" appears to have cut the same cut, only this time the Russian budget.
        1. Igor Aviator
          Igor Aviator 16 September 2019 10: 45
          +4
          Quote: vic02
          "Burevestnik", apparently, has the same cut, only this time the Russian budget.

          It's not for you to judge, "dear"! tongue
          1. Fan-fan
            Fan-fan 16 September 2019 16: 33
            -2
            And you do not shut your mouth to people.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 16 September 2019 10: 48
          -6
          But the Petrel development team tragically died in its entirety during the latest accident. sad so the price was high ...
          1. srelock
            srelock 16 September 2019 11: 48
            +10
            Quote: voyaka uh
            But the Petrel development team tragically died in its entirety during the latest accident. sad so the price was high ...
            Who told you that?
          2. meandr51
            meandr51 16 September 2019 11: 59
            0
            For Russians, this usually impresses the opposite of what was expected in the West. There is a desire to take over the baton and finish the job. We never stand at a price. Do not bargain, what to do ...
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 17 September 2019 01: 29
              -1
              No, just for leadership “little people” are cheap, you can still spend on your Wishlist. Well, they should continue to brainwash that they were lit in the name of a great goal (victory of the world international) ..
              1. Bratkov Oleg
                Bratkov Oleg 24 September 2019 22: 41
                0
                Peace on Earth is possible only as long as the United States knows about the inevitability of a retaliatory strike. And then, these aggressors have been continuously waging wars for the past 200 years.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 25 September 2019 12: 20
                  0
                  What about RI and the USSR? Never waged a war, peacefully grew territory? ) Especially in the 19th century ...
                  The behavior of people, countries, customs has changed all this time (for the better).
                  Read less all sorts of Starikov, yes Prokhanov with Medinsky ..
      2. Kalmar
        Kalmar 16 September 2019 10: 11
        +4
        Quote: BerBer
        half of what the announced GDP exists, and half of the scarecrow for the United States. Let their capitalists strain and spend money.

        Well, if "their capitalists" base their financial plans only on speeches of the GDP, then their affairs are bad)) But if all their CIA comrades are tracking the real state of affairs, then our affairs are so-so ...
      3. meandr51
        meandr51 16 September 2019 11: 57
        +1
        Also a good option. We need to make even more inflatable models ...
    4. NEXUS
      NEXUS 16 September 2019 09: 17
      +9
      I will begin my article with this statement: the latest rocket with a reactor on board the Petrel is, of course, a wonderful product, only practically unsuitable for war.

      Hmm ... an article-fantasies about spaceships plowing the vastness of the universe. The author apparently does not know that weapons can be deterrent, so that war does not happen.
      What does the public know, including the author about Petrel? Nothing but what pops up in the media. Then what is the reasoning?
      1. Dangerous
        Dangerous 16 September 2019 10: 14
        +1
        A deterrent weapon is SNF. So called. A winged subsonic missile cannot be deterrent in any way. Even with a huge range of flight
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 16 September 2019 17: 26
          +1
          Quote: Dangerous
          The restraining weapon is SNF

          Dear, the point is not that the Petrel is subsonic, but that it has a nuclear warhead, that is, it is a weapon of retaliation, which is any nuclear weapon. And that means that he, like Poseidon, is a deterrent weapon, along with the Governor, Sineva, Mace, and so on ...
          1. Greenwood
            Greenwood 17 September 2019 05: 16
            -1
            And what the hell is it needed if there is a Voivode, Sinev, Mace, and also Topol-M, Sarmat, etc.? Is it better to increase the rate of production and modernization of these ICBMs than to spend money on another, and subsonic, missile with dubious effectiveness?
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 17 September 2019 09: 27
              0
              Quote: Greenwood
              And what the hell is it needed if there is a Voivode, Sinev, Mace, and also Topol-M, Sarmat, etc.?

              The petrel, like Poseidon, is a nuclear weapon, let’s say, of the second wave. When all of the above delivery vehicles have worked out.
              1. Bratkov Oleg
                Bratkov Oleg 24 September 2019 22: 42
                +1
                The greater the variety of delivery vehicles, the greater the likelihood of delivery.
      2. Igor Aviator
        Igor Aviator 16 September 2019 10: 48
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        Then what is the reasoning?

        I agree with you! Just someone really wants to assert themselves, in the absence of information, at least by noisy emission of intestinal gases
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 16 September 2019 16: 35
          -3
          So now you have emitted such a stream of gases.
      3. Minato2020
        Minato2020 16 September 2019 12: 05
        +3
        Quote: NEXUS
        ... What does the public know, including the author about the Petrel? Nothing but that pops up in the media. Then what is the reasoning?


        Quite right - the public is kept in the dark, so the public does not know anything other than what pops up in the media.
        Now, if they held open hearings on issues of public interest ...
        And so the public only has to speculate, for example, does the Navy need helicopter carriers of the Mistral type?
        1. DED_peer_DED
          DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 12: 45
          +1
          Quote: Minato2020
          Quite right - the public is kept in the dark, and the public knows nothing

          And why should she know. From an increase in "public knowledge" that Russia's military power will also increase?
          1. Minato2020
            Minato2020 16 September 2019 13: 00
            +3
            Quote: DED_peer_DED
            ... And there is no need for her to know. From an increase in "public knowledge" that Russia's military power will also increase?


            The military power of the RF Armed Forces will not grow from an increase in additional knowledge, but the level of patriotism, which is currently not too large, may increase.
          2. LON
            LON 16 September 2019 20: 46
            -1
            Quote: DED_peer_DED
            And why should she not know.

            And let's try this thing near you. When you find out, then just dump where to go further.
      4. Tatyana14
        Tatyana14 16 September 2019 23: 39
        +1
        In order to restrain someone with what it needs to be in sufficient quantities, otherwise no one will perceive it as a real threat, and even if you don’t argue then why then the head, it’s necessary not only for eating but also for you to think I’ll open one secret. The brain is also needed to draw the correct conclusion on incomplete and possibly not reliable data.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 17 September 2019 09: 32
          -1
          Quote: Tatyana14
          In order to restrain someone with what it needs to be in sufficient quantities, otherwise no one will perceive it as a real threat

          It is precisely because the Russian Federation has nuclear weapons in sufficient quantity, and the only people in the world who are capable of actually destroying the United States, our strategic nuclear forces are a deterrent weapon.
          Quote: Tatyana14
          even if you don’t argue then why then head

          You can argue, dear, if you have at least some VALID information on the topic. And in this case, those present do not have this information, but there are journalistic fantasies and rumors, therefore these arguments are fairy tales of the Vienna forest.
    5. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 16 September 2019 10: 10
      0
      The question is different - the article gives the impression that there is nothing to threaten the thief except for the Petrel?
      The missile is subsonic, everyone who is not lazy will find it, in short - it’s all gone!
      Yes, yes, there are no ballistic missiles, there are no KR from submarines and long-range aviation, there are no SKIFS and ... in general, we are naked and barefoot.

      Sorry, Mr. Verkhoturov, but Petrel is the latest strike weapon with "unlimited" range. The newest of those voiced.
      Those. missiles of the second, and maybe third shock wave - missiles of guaranteed destruction.
      If it comes to a specific "babakh", then ballistic missiles and means of destroying satellite constellations will be the first to fly to all addresses, perhaps several satellites will "suddenly break down", go out of orbit and "successfully" land on, say, Fashington, Norfolk and San Diego ...
      At the same time, aviation and SD missiles, ground, where underwater can reach, start from patrol areas (this is the second wave),
      Petrels and everything else that has not yet started in ports or for some reason is put on the route (this is the third wave).
      Scythians and other bookmarks (probably there are such) - this is the last argument of the kings.
      Well, and then, the survivors will get food, water and clean air using commonplace AKs, machetes and just dubes. But not for long ...
      I think so.
      1. Potato
        Potato 16 September 2019 10: 44
        -2
        Well, why then are these Scythians and petrels needed if the first wave blows everyone? Nothing to spend more on? You have uraic illogical nonsense
        1. meandr51
          meandr51 16 September 2019 12: 09
          +1
          You can't spoil porridge with butter! After all, the enemy allows himself not to believe that the first 2 waves will get him. Plans to break through "no-fly zones", etc.
          1. Roman070280
            Roman070280 16 September 2019 13: 27
            0
            After all, the enemy allows himself not to believe that the first 2 waves will reach him

            If the enemy believes in this, then why not he will become afraid of the "third wave, which is calculated on the basis that the first two will have destroyed everything by that time."
            Really problems with logic ..))
    6. boriz
      boriz 16 September 2019 12: 12
      +5
      Nonsense is all about a turbojet. We must listen carefully to what Putin is saying. He is in 2018. said that Petrel and Poseidon (names, of course, came later) have the same engines. It is clear that the screws in Poseidon in the cartoon - it's just a cover, a smoke curtain. At the declared speed, there can be no screws in the water.
      Therefore, the engine is straight-through. The design is simple, like a rake, molded from plutonium-containing heat-resistant ceramics, Rosatom in this topic ahead of the rest. The core consists of two parts of the precritical mass. At start, the front moves into the back, a critical mass is reached and the process has begun. All air ducts are molded directly in ceramics. Losses of the core are minuscule because it is made of ceramic. The front part of the front half is best made of the same ceramics, but without plutonium, it is for the passage of cold air.
      The engine, of course, is a one-time one, Putin’s words about using it on civilian planes are a cover. A year and a half has passed and nothing is heard.
      In Poseidon, the principle is the same, only seawater is heated until vaporization.
      In my opinion, the latest missile accident is testing a variant of Petrel from a launcher, with an accelerator. There was an abnormal connection of the two engine parts before starting. A chain reaction began, the accelerator in the engine exploded, the engine crashed into small fragments, and the reaction stopped (the critical mass disappeared). Hence the initial r / a infection and its absence afterwards.
      Therefore, you can make a lot of such rockets, the launch of the "reactor" is a matter of seconds (or, rather, fractions of seconds).
      If 3 - 4 such missiles simultaneously fly up to the object’s air defense zone from different sides, the object will help if only the Lord.
      Of course, these are all fabrications of a sofa analyst with education and work experience "design and production of electronic equipment". But explain where I am wrong?
      1. DED_peer_DED
        DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 12: 50
        -1
        Quote: boriz
        A chain reaction has begun

        Like a chain reaction this is an atomic explosion.
        There was no atomic explosion. There was a spread of radioactive materials caused by external exposure, an explosion.
        1. boriz
          boriz 16 September 2019 20: 51
          +3
          A chain reaction is also going on in the reactor at nuclear power plants, just the neutron dilution coefficient is much lower than in an atomic bomb. It depends on the content of active isotopes in the core. There is a reaction in the nuclear power plant, but there is no explosion. Well, if the operator is sober.
      2. mark1
        mark1 16 September 2019 17: 00
        +2
        I liked it, very entertaining. +
      3. Mityay65
        Mityay65 18 September 2019 01: 45
        0
        Quote: boriz
        Therefore, the engine is straight-through. The design is simple, like a rake, molded from plutonium-containing heat-resistant ceramics, Rosatom in this topic ahead of the rest. The core consists of two parts of the precritical mass, etc.

        Quote: boriz
        But explain what I'm wrong in?

        I wish you were right. And we really have an ultra-high-tech atomic WFD of the type that you described.
        Where can I read about it? Is there any source thread?

        P / S However, in this way he looks like the magic engine that Gary Potter invented when he grew up and began to drink the bitter ... laughing
    7. Roman070280
      Roman070280 16 September 2019 13: 00
      0
      Something in the same tonality read already on "Poseidon"


      For some reason you wrote it as if in fact the "tonality" was fundamentally wrong, and Poseidon is already plowing our open spaces ...

      That's right, the author writes on the Petrels ..
      You can’t really know a lot of things, but it doesn’t stop you from understanding the prohibitive cost, and, as a result, the limited number .. And by whom to shoot, and the reliability / duration of work (options for turning on the reactor), and the probability of hitting the target ..
      Not to mention that it is not yet known at all when there will be at least one rocket .. and whether there will be at all ..
      1. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat 16 September 2019 15: 55
        +1
        I agree with the author - the "petrel" as a weapon has only one "justified" function - the contamination of the atmosphere with radiation. It is much easier, cheaper and more effective to ditch the whole world with radiation, it is possible to use a cobalt bomb - it does not even need delivery vehicles - it blew up on its territory and around the world - kirdyk.
        https://tech.onliner.by/2015/11/24/deadly-weapon
        https://nsn.fm/army-and-weapons/army-and-weapons-glupaya-strashilka-ili-oruzhie-sudnogo-dnya-eksperty-o-statuse-6
      2. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 16 September 2019 16: 46
        -3
        That's really complete nonsense. Instead of completing the Barguzin BZHRK, which the Americans were afraid of like fire, or adopting the ready-made Rubezh RS-26 missile, they suddenly took up some dubious wunderwaffe. In my opinion, these cartoons about "Petrel" were just Putin's election campaign, counting on the local audience.
        1. Greenwood
          Greenwood 17 September 2019 05: 21
          +1
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          In my opinion, these cartoons about "Petrel" were just Putin's election campaign, counting on the local audience.
          And so it was. In the conditions of an indistinct foreign policy, flirting with "partners" and a completely failed domestic policy with a regular increase in prices and falling incomes of citizens, all that remains is to rub the game about new wunderwaals to citizens.
    8. astepanov
      astepanov 16 September 2019 16: 34
      +3
      I would venture to suggest that "Poseidon", Burevestnik "and the space transport and energy module based on a nuclear power plant of a megawatt class are close relatives in which they use practically the same reactor or its modifications. Judge for yourself: they were born simultaneously, all require autonomy , compact, have an extremely high power density. What will come of them - TEM? Petrel? Poseidon? All three? - time will tell. And the approach is great: a multipurpose reactor will save a lot of money.
      I cannot judge about "Petrel": not an expert. It seems that the author sounds convincing, but does he have sufficient competence? Is the author a specialist? I would like to know.
      1. Mityay65
        Mityay65 18 September 2019 02: 31
        0
        Quote: astepanov
        "Poseidon", Burevestnik "and the space transport and power module based on a nuclear power plant of a megawatt class are the closest relatives

        Yes, hardly. The developers are different, and the differences are big.
        From Wiki: Developer TEM NIKIET and Keldysh Center. That's for sure, as they tried to sell everything to the adversary.
        Poseidon most likely has a liquid metal cooling circuit. Such reactors were able to make 2 offices: Gidropress and Afrikantov Design Bureau.
        But with "Petrel" nothing is known. I think it is made by the same office that Topazy made. This is just a guess.
        And everyone has different customers. Historically, they are isolated.
    9. Karabas
      Karabas 17 September 2019 07: 03
      0
      I read something in the same tonality from Poseidon.
      We do one thing. comrade ?!
      And I repeat in the same tonality - how you can give an assessment of what you really don't know about!

      I agree. But the desire to write something edakava outweighs. The author himself comes up with the problem and immediately solves it according to his own understanding. A drill is a weapon of the second strike, it will finish that the ICBMs have not finished off, or finished off, it will simply re-work on the coordinates a day after the strike. I will not say anything about copyright inventions. Previously, there were such newspapers, they were called toilet because read them on the toilet. Well, I read it, well, I was glad, I wiped it and went. hi
    10. Cyrus
      Cyrus 17 September 2019 10: 49
      0
      Just as you can praise something that you really don't know about.
    11. ichudov
      ichudov 17 September 2019 20: 26
      -1
      Poseidon, too, cannot actually be used for the declared purposes of destroying entire regions of the enemy. By the way, such goals are war crimes. But the point is not in the legal crime of Poseidon, but in its relative slowness, vulnerability (for example, for deep nuclear bombs), and because of this it is impossible to use it as a means of nuclear blackmail.

      How to stop a nuclear war if Poseidon has already been launched and it takes a day or two before it arrives and blows up?

      The only real use of Poseidon is the destruction of carrier strike groups.
  2. letinant
    letinant 16 September 2019 05: 46
    +18
    The article is about nothing. Logical thoughts are sucked out of the finger. The only thing I saw in the text, I don’t know what it looks like, I don’t know the TTX, but now I will give an expert assessment and it is necessarily negative. There is already such a writer here, the letter D.
    1. Pike
      Pike 16 September 2019 07: 20
      +1
      Here, too, remembered about him, reading these thoughts)
    2. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 16 September 2019 09: 12
      +17
      Well, ignorance of the technical characteristics of Petrel and Poseidon does not prevent other authors from flooding with laudatory articles about the superiority of such weapons. Something I did not see the same skeptical comments under those articles. Those. can secret weapons be praised, but not criticized? You have a strange prism.
      1. thekhohol
        thekhohol 16 September 2019 09: 44
        +2
        Of course it is possible. If you have nowhere to go, you can praise and criticize. To suck a topic out of your finger (or whatever is at hand) and heroically overcome it forward.
      2. Dali
        Dali 16 September 2019 12: 08
        +3
        Quote: arkadiyssk
        Those. can secret weapons be praised, but not criticized?

        1) It is possible to criticize, but for some reason, our liberoid critics always slip into shit.
        2) You can criticize when you know exactly the characteristics, and not yourself inventing.
        3) Why it is more logical to praise in this case - because the characteristics for which they are praised are made public by people who are at least really dedicated to at least part of these characteristics, and basically the growers did not even come close !!!
      3. Roman070280
        Roman070280 16 September 2019 13: 29
        -1
        Very true remark about praising / criticizing ..
      4. letinant
        letinant 16 September 2019 14: 28
        +1
        Where did you read in my text that I praise "Petrel" ?! I know nothing about this weapon, except for the characteristics declared by the Ministry of Defense. Although to admit, if unlimited flight range is implemented, these are very great opportunities !!! I did not argue how it looks, and who said that the freed up space inside the rocket, instead of fuel, cannot be used for installing an electronic warfare system.
        I wrote that the article was not thought out, the logical capabilities were not calculated, an example of an attack on an object is linear, on the one hand, while the number of ammunition of an air defense system has not been calculated. The dispersal of enemy air defense objects over the area, for some reason, the author has sailed missile defense objects, which definitely will not take part in repelling the attack by these missiles. And I repeat, if an unlimited flight range is really realized, this missile with any EPR in the group will create a situation for an air defense breakthrough.
    3. Tatyana14
      Tatyana14 16 September 2019 23: 58
      -1
      Yes, but I know two examples of positive assessments of myself and negative opponents that led to a catastrophe and 1 - a colossus with feet of clay and without a head and we will end the war before winter, 2 - "If the enemy imposes a war on us, the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army will be the most attacking of all the armies that have ever attacked. "In any conditions and in all cases, the powerful blows of the Red Army should lead to the complete destruction of the enemy and the rapid achievement of a decisive victory with little blood."
  3. evgen1221
    evgen1221 16 September 2019 05: 52
    +3
    And the author didn’t make such an option that the gimlet would take off after exchanging blows and being unlimited in the air and scanning the ether for the signals of command centers he needed using a special algorithm, it would look for survivors and attack those that were left and there would be no way to save it because it wasn’t anymore or no one to sit behind him a year after the impact and the gimlet flies nearby this whole year and go knock if everything is in ruins
    1. vic02
      vic02 16 September 2019 08: 59
      +3
      scanning the air for the signals of command centers he needs according to a special algorithm, he will search for survivors and attack them
      Sorry of course, but what you said is unrealistic.
      1. Dali
        Dali 16 September 2019 12: 18
        -1
        Quote: vic02
        Sorry of course, but what you said is unrealistic.

        Because you want it so much?
        Your arguments to the studio !!!
        1. DED_peer_DED
          DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 12: 55
          +1
          Quote: Dali
          Your arguments to the studio !!!

          We would listen to your arguments.
          To radio engineering and electronics, do you have a relationship?
        2. vic02
          vic02 16 September 2019 15: 35
          +1
          Your arguments to the studio !!!
          Yes, to begin with, present your arguments as possible. What kind of "command centers", what "signals" (SOS or something belay), in what frequency range, how will these "signals" be distinguished from false signals, including civil ones ???
          1. Fan-fan
            Fan-fan 16 September 2019 16: 52
            -4
            Yes, he simply blurted out that without thinking, and we refute him, why? Well, what is there to discuss, how did he write that the Petrel will fly all year around the USA and wait for something? So such nonsense can not be discussed.
            1. Tatyana14
              Tatyana14 17 September 2019 00: 07
              0
              Are you wrong? He (the petrel) will fly with hats, and when Adam leaves his shelter, we will use his hats with hats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE4HlKcSHmg
    2. Harry.km
      Harry.km 16 September 2019 09: 59
      +8
      Quote: evgen1221
      and the gimlet flies all this year

      It will be erased in a year ... about the air))) Do you even think when you write? Unlimited range (within the earth's surface), not equal to unlimited time
      1. Dali
        Dali 16 September 2019 12: 38
        -3
        Quote: Harry.km
        Unlimited range (within the earth's surface), not equal to unlimited time

        For example, I don’t know about how long a petrel can fly in time, but do you know?
        Are you a developer? No - but how do you know then, a source in the studio !!! For one and hands for handcuffs, cook !!! laughing laughing laughing
        1. Roman070280
          Roman070280 16 September 2019 13: 35
          -2
          Well, if you don’t know, then why write about "the whole year flies" ..
          You people who know, and therefore replied that it will be erased ..))
      2. DED_peer_DED
        DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 12: 58
        +1
        Quote: Harry.km
        It will be erased in a year ... about the air)))

        Faster.
        There will not be a resource for materials for even a week of work. For a year, so that it is necessary for the nuclear submarine cruiser to fly in the sky.
    3. Kalmar
      Kalmar 16 September 2019 10: 15
      +8
      Quote: evgen1221
      the gimlet will take off after exchanging blows and being unlimited in the air and scanning the air for the signals of command centers it needs according to a special algorithm, it will search for the survivors and attack those

      Class, straight plot for the next "Terminator")) Evil "Petrel" like vultures swarm over the ruins of civilization, looking for and finishing off the survivors))
    4. Roman070280
      Roman070280 16 September 2019 13: 34
      +1
      will search for survivors and attack those


      Sergey Lukyanenko ??)

      and there is already no air defense will not save because it is no longer


      What a bad luck .. "Petrel provides the ability to overcome the lines of air defense and missile defense"
      It’s as if a lawnmower is tied to a shaving machine ..))
  4. The comment was deleted.
    1. Andrey Sukharev
      Andrey Sukharev 16 September 2019 06: 27
      +2
      This is what Washington are you going to hit there ??? There the son of whom it is necessary lives! You can’t endanger it, especially nuclear missile ...
      1. Mestny
        Mestny 16 September 2019 09: 00
        -1
        And who do you need?
        Or scared to call?
        Let me guess - Grudinina?
        1. Andrey Sukharev
          Andrey Sukharev 16 September 2019 09: 47
          +2
          Hmm, I didn’t guess!
        2. LON
          LON 16 September 2019 10: 12
          -5
          Quote: Mestny
          Let me guess - Grudinina?

          I did not guess, did not guess, did not guess.
      2. Lbt21
        Lbt21 16 September 2019 10: 16
        +1
        Vornonezh can there are no children of Putin)))
  5. Vilensky
    Vilensky 16 September 2019 06: 09
    -5
    Well, just which command center? The Americans and their allies have a lot of them.

    So the Petrel will not be alone. fellow
    But such a compact nuclear reactor is a complicated and expensive thing due to the abundance of special materials used in it.

    Yes, it’s better with trilinearies at the ready. soldier
    Once the Burevestnik is spotted on its way to the target, it will be relatively easy to shoot it down because, according to existing estimates, the missile has a subsonic flight speed.

    And where do these ratings exist? Putin said that he would be hypersonic and I believe him. Since the engine is direct-flow and can operate, starting at speeds of the order of 3000 km-h. hi
    1. U-58
      U-58 16 September 2019 09: 25
      0
      They wrote another version.
      The engine is air-jet driven by an electric motor.
      Electricity is generated by TVL from the reactor by conversion.
      Indeed, it is suitable for finishing the enemy when his missile defense is no longer
    2. NN52
      NN52 16 September 2019 09: 34
      +6

      I only counted 6 items in this photo .. and the photo is old ..
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 16 September 2019 16: 55
        -6
        But who will let you take a picture with the Petrels?
        1. NN52
          NN52 16 September 2019 20: 10
          +5
          Fan-fan
          And what's that? In the photo that was posted a year ago on all channels?
          Where were you at that time?
    3. Kalmar
      Kalmar 16 September 2019 10: 21
      +5
      Quote: Vilensky
      So the Petrel will not be alone.

      I apologize wildly, but we haven’t even built any significant quantities of “Caliber” yet. "Petrel" is clearly more complicated and more expensive

      Quote: Vilensky
      And where do these ratings exist?

      Well, kakbe "accidentally" leaked photos of fragments of this miraculous rocket: something hypersound is not visible there.

      Quote: Vilensky
      Putin said that he would be hypersonic and I believe him

      I would not want to go into the political plane, but our guarantor generally said a lot of things during the years of his presidency, which remained so with words. Tongue scratching, as you know - not tossing bags.
      1. Igor Aviator
        Igor Aviator 16 September 2019 10: 55
        -4
        Quote: Kalmar
        but we haven’t even built any significant quantities of “Caliber” yet.

        What are you saying! Do you for certain know where, what and how much the Sun of the Russian Federation has? It should not be argued that you do not (and should not) have an idea No.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 16 September 2019 16: 58
          -4
          Igor do not disgrace, open Wikipedia and read about the number of Caliber carriers and the number of launch cells on them, I read that there are hundreds of them that are not ready for an immediate start.
      2. meandr51
        meandr51 16 September 2019 12: 13
        -3
        As regards the military topic, he never pierced. He did even more than he promised. Crimea, for example, returned.
        1. DED_peer_DED
          DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 13: 04
          0
          There the EAO will do soon. Like this.
      3. Mimoprohodil
        Mimoprohodil 16 September 2019 15: 31
        +2
        Putin did not say anything about the speed of the Petrel.
  6. Graz
    Graz 16 September 2019 06: 09
    -2
    that everything is gone, the plaster is removed, the client leaves? tongue
  7. Shuttle
    Shuttle 16 September 2019 06: 26
    +26
    The author exercises himself in refuting the hypothesis put forward by himself. Like, such a thing as "Petrel" is intended for war. This is a false hypothesis. Neither the Petrel nor the Poseidon are intended for war. More precisely, they are intended to prevent war. How? Exactly the same as the notorious "dead hand". There is no point in launching an attack on the American continent with the Petrel and / or Poseidons, except for suicide. The only reason for using such systems (remember, "Petrel", "Poseidon", "Perimeter" and other hellish inventions) and strategic nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general, is precisely to prevent war with the Americans and their allies. Prevention with guaranteed unacceptable damage from retaliation by all of these systems.
    They have no other task. And so that the enemy has no doubts about the existence, operation and power of these systems, as well as the decision to apply them, it is imperative to demonstrate them in one way or another, to inform the sworn friends of the prospects for those who "again decide to test our strength." Therefore, Status-6 flashed on the screen, and therefore the names of "Poseidon" and "Petrel" were popularly chosen. To know that if something happens, "we are in paradise, and they just die." Guaranteed to die. For this, there is absolutely no need to attack control centers or missile defense / air defense. To do this, it is enough to convey to ordinary Americans the idea that even if they roast us all in advance, all these toys will get them guaranteed. And then the living will envy the dead.
    1. parma
      parma 16 September 2019 06: 45
      -11
      Quote: Shuttle
      The author exercises himself in refuting the hypothesis put forward by himself. Like, such a thing as "Petrel" is intended for war. This is a false hypothesis. Neither the Petrel nor the Poseidon are intended for war. More precisely, they are intended to prevent war. How? Exactly the same as the notorious "dead hand". There is no point in launching an attack on the American continent with the Petrel and / or Poseidons, except for suicide. The only reason for using such systems (remember, "Petrel", "Poseidon", "Perimeter" and other hellish inventions) and strategic nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general, is precisely to prevent war with the Americans and their allies. Prevention with guaranteed unacceptable damage from retaliation by all of these systems.
      They have no other task. And so that the enemy has no doubts about the existence, operation and power of these systems, as well as the decision to apply them, it is imperative to demonstrate them in one way or another, to inform the sworn friends of the prospects for those who "again decide to test our strength." Therefore, Status-6 flashed on the screen, and therefore the names of "Poseidon" and "Petrel" were popularly chosen. To know that if something happens, "we are in paradise, and they just die." Guaranteed to die. For this, there is absolutely no need to attack control centers or missile defense / air defense. To do this, it is enough to convey to ordinary Americans the idea that even if they roast us all in advance, all these toys will get them guaranteed. And then the living will envy the dead.

      There are a lot of beeches, there is little sense ... the means of attack and defense evolve in parallel, you can believe as much as you like that having a sufficient number of ICBMs from the times of the USSR and a "pair" of wunderwafels (by the way, only declared ones) we are safe, but the world does not stand still, or Do you think the Americans are investing in the NATO missile defense system in such a way as to put money somewhere? Or is our leadership “expressing concern” in vain? Yes, and you have to decide on the use of strategic nuclear forces, and this is difficult when you have citizenship, a family and a house in the country that you need to strike ... In general, I think that Poseidon, that of petrels, that for Armata, that for Su-57 (which IMHO PAK FA, maybe not accepted for service and did not deserve the letter) just a product for domestic consumption, to show that in 30 years we could at least do something
      1. V1er
        V1er 16 September 2019 07: 03
        +9
        that "Su-57" (which IMHO PAK FA, maybe not adopted for service and did not deserve the letter)

        What does it mean not accepted? A series of 76 aircraft is already under construction, the first to enter the army later this year. Before the start of the series, 10 flight prototypes were built. An export version was presented at max 2019, it has already been offered to buy in Turkey, India and China. The export version will be advertised worldwide and offered for sale. Your information is not correct.
        1. parma
          parma 16 September 2019 07: 25
          +2
          Quote: V1er
          What does it mean not accepted? A series of 76 aircraft is already under construction, the first to enter the army later this year. Before the start of the series, 10 flight prototypes were built. An export version was presented at max 2019, it has already been offered to buy in Turkey, India and China. The export version will be advertised worldwide and offered for sale. Your information is not correct.

          But our Ministry of Defense only plans to complete the tests by the end of the year, which means it has not been put into service .... and the series and the adoption of things in general are not directly related ... Regarding the "export" version, the aircraft presented was only a mock-up (and then converted from an aircraft for ground tests if memory serves), of those who were offered to us they answered - China will buy what for disassembly and study, Turkey - may think, but hopes for the F-35 (all NATO "friends" will spit like that), India is not interesting without technology ...
          PS: maybe back to the rockets?
          1. bars1
            bars1 16 September 2019 10: 46
            +5
            The supply of weapons to combat units does not necessarily coincide with the adoption of weapons, at least in our country. The sample is already in full operation in parts, and only then sign a paper on acceptance in service. And the Yak-28 in general was not officially adopted for service
          2. DED_peer_DED
            DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 13: 09
            -1
            Quote: parma
            But our MO is only planning to complete the tests before the end of the year, which means it has not been adopted ....

            Read the story of how the USSR adopted equipment. Here, for example, the Yak-28 fighter-interceptor served the Motherland a bunch of years. But so adopted and was not ...
            FaceWithout need to go through.
      2. glk63
        glk63 16 September 2019 08: 44
        +4
        which IMHO PAK FA, maybe it’s not accepted for service and did not deserve the letter

        And what of that? For example, the Yak-28P was never put into service, but this did not prevent them from putting 435 units of this product into the troops ...
        1. DED_peer_DED
          DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 13: 10
          0
          Quote: glk63
          For example, the Yak-28P was never adopted

          To blame. I read it after my inflection :)
      3. KCA
        KCA 16 September 2019 09: 02
        +2
        Three people have to "press the button" - the President, the Minister of Defense and the Chief of General Staff, they have no children in the US, no accounts, and if they don't press the button, then the "Perimeter" will work, so he simply cannot have children
    2. U-58
      U-58 16 September 2019 09: 26
      +4
      That is, all our lotions are a weapon of the apocalypse.
      When nobody needs it anymore
      1. Shuttle
        Shuttle 16 September 2019 09: 36
        +2
        Quote: U-58
        That is, all our lotions are a weapon of the apocalypse.
        When nobody needs it anymore

        Yes, that's right. But this weapon is necessary not after, but before. It is necessary to have it in good combat readiness and, as strange as it seems, also in t.s. public condition. To know and think those against whom it will automatically be applied.
        After all, why is the apocalypse good? No one wants to let him in.
        1. parma
          parma 16 September 2019 09: 53
          -3
          Quote: Shuttle
          After all, why is the apocalypse good? No one wants to let him in.

          Do you know why he is bad? You never know whether it will be possible to create it until you try ..... So it turns out - we say that we can, but do little, and opponents meanwhile are preparing resistance, I always thought that the defense does not take foreign capitals ...
          1. Shuttle
            Shuttle 16 September 2019 10: 01
            +1
            Quote: parma
            Quote: Shuttle
            After all, why is the apocalypse good? No one wants to let him in.

            Do you know why he is bad? You never know if you can create ituntil you try ..... So it turns out - we say that we can, but do little, and opponents, meanwhile, are preparing a reaction, I always thought that the defense does not take other people's capitals ...

            You are mistaken. Something about the apocalypse, about some of its aspects is very well known. It is precisely because people who make the decision to deliver light and heat to the territory of a geopolitical opponent are well acquainted with the consequences of this hypothetical apocalypse in the long run and make a decision, which is why for the past ten years there have been no such large-scale wars as in previous periods of history. This does not mean that they will not start in the future. But this means that they will not start for the reasons for which they started earlier. Now the reasons will be different. Until today, mankind has more or less successfully coped with the task of preventing a global nuclear fox.
          2. DED_peer_DED
            DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 13: 13
            -2
            Quote: parma
            I always thought that defense doesn’t take foreign capitals ...

            What to take there?
            There, and without us, it soon suffers so that Mama does not grieve. Let them then put out their own burnout. If there is anything.
        2. Minato2020
          Minato2020 16 September 2019 12: 29
          0
          Quote: Shuttle
          ... After all, why is the Apocalypse good? No one wants to let him in.


          Pentagon bacteriological laboratories located in Ukraine are working on a managed Apocalypse at the Spanish level in the early twentieth century.
          Will modern countermeasures adopted at that time be used?
          1. Shuttle
            Shuttle 16 September 2019 12: 39
            0
            Quote: Minato2020
            Quote: Shuttle
            ... After all, why is the Apocalypse good? No one wants to let him in.


            Pentagon bacteriological laboratories located in Ukraine are working on a managed Apocalypse at the Spanish level in the early twentieth century.
            Will modern countermeasures adopted at that time be used?

            Well, let's say that they have a strain of the virus, or else God knows which bacillus that acts only on ..., only on ... But who should it act on, by the way?
            Only in Russian? Then Shoigu will survive. Yes, we have half the country have genes to put it mildly not quite Russian. And they, the Americans, also have a lot of Russians. They also kirdyk?
            Only for the inhabitants of Europe? Even greater absurdity.
            Only on white? Only in black? Only on yellow? Well this is complete nonsense. Such an invention covers America at a time.
            I understand if they invented a virus there against ... buckwheat! After all, it’s only the Russians who eat it. Even the Germans closest to us use it as dietary, therapeutic food and sell it in pharmacies. wassat
            1. Minato2020
              Minato2020 16 September 2019 12: 56
              +1
              Quote: Shuttle
              ... Yes, we have half the country have genes to put it mildly not quite Russian ...

              Which is true, it’s true - half the country has genes that are not completely Russian

              And among them, among the Americans, Russians are not few. They also kirdyk?

              Russian with Brighton Beach - kirdyk. This is also true. Maybe someone will regret them ...

              Only for the inhabitants of Europe? More absurdity ...

              The Spanish woman covered only the inhabitants of Europe.

              Only on white? Only in black? Only on yellow? ..

              For the Chinese - SARS, for blacks - Ebola

              Well this is complete nonsense. America covers such an invention at a time ...

              The best minds of Western civilization are working to overcome this problem.

              I understand if they invented a virus there against ... buckwheat! After all, it’s only the Russians who eat it. Even the Germans closest to us use it as dietary, therapeutic food and sell it in pharmacies.

              Other organizations like Monsanto work on food.
              GMO wheat, corn, soy, and so on - it's already done. Buckwheat is next in line.
            2. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 16 September 2019 20: 31
              0
              Quote: Shuttle
              After all, it’s only the Russians who eat it. Even the Germans closest to us use it as dietary, therapeutic food and sell it in pharmacies.

              Cabbage soup and porridge - our food! Each nation has its own food preferences, and if the British come up with a virus against buckwheat, I offer the answer in the form of a virus for oatmeal, or turkeys, and for Germans - for peas. laughing
      2. dirk182
        dirk182 16 September 2019 09: 51
        +1
        Therefore, there is nothing to think about it. We still can’t see if it will work or not.
        1. Shuttle
          Shuttle 16 September 2019 10: 28
          +1
          Quote: dirk182
          Therefore, there is nothing to think about it. We still can’t see if it will work or not.

          And we don’t need to see. No one needs to see. But to think about it (and about the apocalypse, and about the weapons of the apocalypse, and about the causes and consequences of this event) is very useful for the cause of world peace. And not so much to us as to them.
    3. LON
      LON 16 September 2019 10: 22
      -7
      Quote: Shuttle
      it is precisely the prevention of war with the Americans and their allies
      "All this made the officials from the Ministry of Defense call the project“ too provocative. " . " It doesn't tell you anything that some back in 1964 recognized this weapon as insane, although its development was successful, and Russia is all in one place .. https://topwar.ru/162473-ne-goditsja-burevestnik-dlja- vojny.html
      1. Dart
        Dart 16 September 2019 11: 39
        +2
        Man, what are you, a foreigner ... ??
        1. Dali
          Dali 16 September 2019 12: 26
          +1
          Quote: Dart
          Man, what are you, a foreigner ... ??

          Perhaps naglosaks, with knowledge of the Russian language, or formerly even from the ground up, at least from Russia, working in England in naglosansonskie infovoski.
          1. LON
            LON 16 September 2019 20: 18
            -3
            Quote: Dali
            Possibly Naglosax

            No, I'm just a free person. Free from your pros and cons, free from the fear of losing an asterisk on shoulder straps. I say what I think is right in this situation, and I feel great satisfaction from it.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. Dart
            Dart 16 September 2019 20: 20
            +1
            And we have a situation here ??? lol Truth ?? In Russia, sentences are not expressed like that and they are not built like that .. It's a pity there are no philologists here, they would have spelled you out.
            Read more press and authors, maybe you can tighten your ... "Russian" laughing
            1. LON
              LON 17 September 2019 00: 39
              0
              Look, dig around. Traitors circle around.
              1. wehr
                17 September 2019 01: 01
                -1
                I remind you of an old Soviet joke:
                - Hello, mother!
                - Hello, American spy!

                Lexical error leads to failure laughing
                1. LON
                  LON 17 September 2019 01: 10
                  -1
                  This is just paranoia and insanity. With the 37th of you.
                  1. wehr
                    17 September 2019 12: 38
                    -1
                    If you want real, vigorous paranoia, then I recommend Rakitin's book "Death Walking on the Trail." When I get bored, I reread it.
        3. LON
          LON 16 September 2019 20: 19
          -3
          Quote: Dart
          Man, what are you, a foreigner ... ??

          No, I'm just a free person. Free from your pros and cons, free from the fear of losing an asterisk on shoulder straps. I say what I think is right in this situation, and I feel great satisfaction from it.
    4. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 16 September 2019 10: 57
      +1
      Quote: Shuttle
      Neither the Petrel nor the Poseidon are intended for war. More precisely, they are intended to prevent war.

      Respect! It is intelligible, accurate and unvarnished! love
    5. meandr51
      meandr51 16 September 2019 12: 20
      0
      With them the only way.
  8. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 16 September 2019 06: 42
    +7
    A year ago, the Kaptsovs / Skomorokhovs wrote that these were all "Putin cartoons", impossible, impossible, impossible. The phase of denial has passed, now it is "not for war" - it is not needed. :-D
  9. Amateur
    Amateur 16 September 2019 06: 43
    +4
    Only the commands in the US Armed Forces - 11. Together with the commands of their allies (you cannot hit only the American headquarters and leave the headquarters of their NATO allies or other agreements untouched). If you collect all the goals, the defeat of which is critical in order to deprive the United States and its allies of the opportunity to conduct hostilities anywhere, I think that a list of 150-200 goals will be freely typed.

    Well, just like Boris Nikolaevich with 38 snipers. I’ve counted everything.
    Or maybe like a kid who knew how to count to 10?
    But the most important thing is that the author is a humanist. He's gonna hit the adversary with a nuclear missile
    ... a large command center with one non-nuclear cruise missile.
    .
    THOSE. nuclear engine, and a head with leaflets: "Guys, let's live together." fool
  10. carstorm 11
    carstorm 11 16 September 2019 06: 44
    +11
    the biggest mistake of such analytics is a complete misunderstanding of modern warfare with the use of nuclear components. Why would the petrel strike attacks on the enemy command centers if these are the primary targets and in the event of war missiles of another class will fly there? etc. etc. in short, next time write how the machine is not suitable for war, since the opponents are not fools and they can fill the areas where it can be used with tanks.
  11. Per se.
    Per se. 16 September 2019 06: 47
    +1
    So "Petrel" is not suitable for war.
    The whole question is what kind of war. To begin with, we recall what our president and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief on Valdai said.
    "Our concept is a response to a counter strike," he said. He explained: the essence of Russia's nuclear doctrine is that "the aggressor must know: retaliation is inevitable, he will be destroyed anyway."
    "And we, as a victim of aggression, we, as martyrs, will go to heaven, and they will simply die," Putin said. And he added: "Because they won't even have time to repent."
    Putin had to explain, speaking about his readiness to use nuclear weapons, that Russia would do this only after making sure that the potential aggressor was delivering a strike.

    Most importantly, why should the United States strike a global blow at Russia if our powers that be are already dependent on the West, are doing what the owners of capitalism need? Yes, the West does not need a strong Russia, with a powerful economy and the military might of a nuclear missile shield that was left of the superpower, the Soviet Union. It is destroyed even without a war, the laws that the United Russia puts into practice, the optimizations and reductions in factories, the "reforms" of education and health care, decimate Russia better than a global strike, albeit not so quickly. So, it turns out that we are already "martyrs", the question is - will our oligarchs repent for robbing their people, keeping their treasures in the currency and banks of Russia's potential enemies? As for the "Petrel", so, whether it is in him, the main thing is that he raises the rating of the authorities.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 16 September 2019 10: 08
      +3
      We no longer have time to carry out a counter-strike (flight time less than 10 minutes), we must officially move on to the concept of a preemptive strike.
    2. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 16 September 2019 11: 09
      -2
      Quote: Per se.
      It is destroyed even without a war, the laws that the United Russia puts into practice, the optimization and reductions in factories, the "reforms" of education and health care, decimate Russia better than a global strike, albeit not so quickly. So, it turns out that we are already "martyrs"

      Is it that bad? It is strange, for some reason, at the end of the half-year, the budget surplus, the public debt is negative, new factories are opening, the trade balance in the country is positive. pensions, quietly, but are growing, deflation is already in the first quarter, salaries are only a few percent by 15-20 percent, but they are growing, health problems are being solved slowly, embezzlers are actively imprisoned, the NSE of the Russian Federation is growing - "why, you, dog, need more? " - (c) "Ivan Vasilyevich changes his profession" Ah! I understood - like "Navalnyonku" - freedom is not enough! To meet in person - would "heap" this freedom. to love the Motherland!
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 16 September 2019 12: 31
        0
        Quote: Igor Aviator
        To meet in person would "heap" this freedom. to love the Motherland!
        Are you going to "pile" on me? Son, I have served my country for the Motherland, no need to jump out of your pants in hurray-patriotic ecstasy. I expressed my opinion on the article, and they taught me to love my homeland from childhood, and I swore an oath. So, there is no need to portray a "firewall" on the topic and write with boiling water.
      2. Foul skeptic
        Foul skeptic 16 September 2019 16: 06
        +1
        deflation short quarter already

        is it?
    3. meandr51
      meandr51 16 September 2019 12: 25
      0
      Do you offer your logic to the West and hope that it will accept it? The Anglo-Saxons have always had a different logic in relation to Russia. They only needed one thing from her: that she was not. Hence their wet dreams of a multitude of "Cossack" and "independent Siberian republics." Looks like that would suit you too. Just like replacing Russians with Asians and Negroes.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 16 September 2019 12: 39
        +2
        Quote: meandr51
        Do you offer your logic to the West and hope that it will accept it?
        Andrei, if you are on my subject, I propose to return to the independent pole of power, reviving socialism, if it is possible to "propose" this way. It is hard to believe that those who have everything over the hill, including kids, real estate, bank accounts and other junk, will want to lose it. It is hard to believe that being in capitalism, under other people's rules, one can be truly independent. Believe in the bright capitalist future of Russia - your right.
    4. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 13: 19
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      the question is, do our oligarchs repent for stealing their people, storing their treasures in the currency and banks of potential enemies of Russia?

      Our....
      It’s like a dog’s flea. It seems like not strangers ... but after all - not your own?
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 16 September 2019 13: 36
        +1
        Quote: DED_peer_DED
        It’s like a dog’s flea. It seems like not strangers ... but after all - not your own?
        The analogy is not very good, fleas are not the owners of the dog, only one thing coincides, both in general are parasites. You look at the list of Russian oligarchs, what they own, what they influence ... Unfortunately, they are "ours", and laws are sagging under them, they make politics under them, and not under the interests of "Vasya the locksmith" and millions of similar, ordinary people ...
        1. DED_peer_DED
          DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 14: 17
          +3
          Quote: Per se.
          The analogy is not very, fleas are not the owners of the dog,

          But parasites.
          They drink our blood, bite, breed, and even ride on us. Like fleas, they can even eat.
          Our souls are not masters. I want to believe it.
          1. Fan-fan
            Fan-fan 16 September 2019 17: 16
            +1
            They are busy with our souls, look at TV, after the USSR was surrendered, they mass-washed our brains, remember what rushing into our ears and eyes from all the horns of propaganda that Chumak, Kashpirovsky, horoscopes inspired us, do you think differently now? Everything continues, but on a larger scale, see the Skabeevs, Kiselevs and Solovyovs.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 17 September 2019 15: 59
              0
              Now, for the most part, they are watching the Internet.
  12. rocket757
    rocket757 16 September 2019 06: 48
    0
    There are still a number of questions that are difficult to answer.

    Everything is correct ... the level of knowledge as it really is, the less, the further immersed in any discussion!
    This is natural, it is expected ... so everyone is fooled.
  13. Ka-52
    Ka-52 16 September 2019 06: 52
    +16
    Of course, such a statement will cause a great heat of passion, since "Petrel" simply causes bouts of delight among the cheers-patriotic public.

    the author by such statements himself likens to a biased public. I wanted to read materials in a neutral tone, without referring either to "hurray-patriots" or to any other audience. The author should know that the majority of citizens are poorly informed about the technical essence of the issue, not only because of their rabidness (as the author thinks), but because of the closed nature of the project. After all, even the arguments of the author himself are nothing more than an attempt to pull an owl onto the globe. In other words, just speculation and assumptions.
    The capabilities of the Americans' air defense / missile defense systems are quite enough to detect and intercept the Burevestnik on its way directly to the target.

    Once the Burevestnik is spotted on its way to the target, it will be relatively easy to shoot it down because, according to existing estimates, the missile has a subsonic flight speed. If an interceptor plane is in the air, then under favorable conditions it will be able to knock down the Burevestnik with a burst from the side cannon, as a training target.

    Question: how often has the author been to air defense exercises? Did he himself see such a “lightness” occurring? Or, as always, advertising and booklet statements are being replicated? I would like the author to personally talk with the air defense officers and pilots of the air defense IAP. Over a glass of vodka he can learn a lot of interesting and new
    1. alstr
      alstr 16 September 2019 11: 55
      0
      Yeah. it’s enough just to ask:
      What is the minimum number of missile guidance radars needed for the circular defense of a point target? And with a double overlap?
      Those. not the number of missiles, but the radars that control and capture missiles.
      And this data will only be true for the plain. For a more complex terrain, the amount will only grow.
    2. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 13: 26
      +1
      Quote: Ka-52
      Question: how often has the author been to air defense exercises? Did he himself see such "lightness" occurring?

      And the other day, the Saudis had it. In the light. And who ? Basurman ... Horror.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 17 September 2019 06: 12
        +1
        And the other day, the Saudis had it. In the light. And who ? Basurman ... Horror.

        What is the role of air defense? The fact that they were not there? laughing Sheikhs are used to chasing maseratis; it’s difficult for them to think about air defense - the wind in their ears interferes
    3. goblin xnumx
      goblin xnumx 16 September 2019 19: 57
      +1
      you're scaring me .. I certainly guess that not everything in the army is smooth, but ... problemma with a single subsonic target for air defense ??? What did you want to say now? "The question is: how often has the author been to air defense exercises? Did he himself see how such a" lightness "happens? Or, as always, advertising brochure statements are replicated? I would like the author to personally talk with the air defense officers and pilots of the air defense IAP. Over a glass of vodka he can learn a lot of interesting and new things "
  14. Monar
    Monar 16 September 2019 06: 55
    +7
    And what exactly is the important goal? They say right there - the command center.

    And why the command center? Well, there are still industrial areas. Yes, the same New York. Do you think with a nuclear kirdyke someone will think about humanity?
    1. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 13: 29
      +1
      Quote: Monar
      And why the command center?

      Here.
      "Post, telegraph, telephone ..."
      Even when it was said, but how - relevant!
  15. Thrifty
    Thrifty 16 September 2019 06: 59
    -1
    Dmitry, in your photo you have one of the variants of the "petrel" prototype! In reality, it is different. ...
  16. shinobi
    shinobi 16 September 2019 07: 04
    0
    A petrel, a technology demonstrator. Its potential use, or rather its descendant, will be most rational for surviving as a result of a major US AUG war. And these will be. From 1st to 5th. Here the Petrels will show themselves. Against the general background of radiation after a nuclear hell, Dvigun’s exhaust will be invisible and since the flight resus is not limited to fuel, such a munition is relevant and will find its purpose. Poseidon and Petrel in conjunction with the Perimeter complex, weapons of nuclear revenge.
  17. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 16 September 2019 07: 09
    +4
    This is an extreme degree of arrogance - to believe that an adversary such as the United States will not cover its command centers, and indeed any other critical objects, with air defense / missile defense systems,
    The author is once again confusing a "fork with a bottle"! He criticizes "Petrel" as a "first strike weapon"! But the media have already suggested that the "Petrel" is likely to serve as a "weapon of retaliation" .... a weapon of the "dead hand"! And it may turn out that finishing off the objects that survived an ICBM strike will not be a priority task for the Petrels ... The priority targets of the Petrels will be the largest economic centers of the United States, large cities in which a significant part of the human and industrial potential of the United States is concentrated ... That is, the principle: "When we die, we will take you with us!" And the American leadership should know about this! So that the playful little hands do not itch too much near the "nuclear button"!
    There is such a development, or rather, there was: the Topaz nuclear power plant designed for satellites. It is quite possible to adapt it to new tasks by creating a heat sink from the core into the heating chamber of the working fluid in a turbojet engine, as well as creating a sealed protective shell of the core.
    The use of a "similar" principle in "Petrel" is not excluded; but all assumptions are still related to the definition: "on the water are written with a pitchfork ..."! To do this, it is enough to take the "energy" characteristics of "Topaz" and the "needs" of an air-jet engine ... and then it will be clear ...
    There is another question that directly relates to the combat readiness of such a rocket: when to start the reactor? .... it will take some fairly considerable time, which increases the time it takes to prepare the rocket for launch. Let's start with the third option ... Does the Author know the organization of combat alert ... the possibility of adapting the "statutory order" to new realities?
    1. It is not necessary to organize "hot" combat duty in peacetime for "years" ... Such duty can be "launched" only in case of "aggravation of the international situation" ... 2. CR with nuclear power plants of the first stage can be in a "working condition" for a certain time ... then they will be replaced by CDs of the second stage ... CDs of the first stage go to "recharge". 3. "Petrels" can be "two-stage" ... that is, equipped with the first ("starting") stage, equipped with a turbojet engine "on kerosene". Not the fact that the "Petrel" will be put into service in the ground version! Such an option is not excluded: KR will be launched from light "civil" aircraft of the An-2 type ... (or from those that will "replace" this ...) ... "In short," from those aircraft that can take off from a clearing in the taiga ... 4. You can recall the idea expressed already on the pages of VO about the "transformation" of outdated nuclear submarines into "containers" of the KR, which can be "flooded" in the "okey seas" ... the CD will be launched when there is no need to rush ...
    1. dzvero
      dzvero 16 September 2019 08: 43
      +1
      There is a fourth option for the reactor - it is equipped, but not launched. The only heat is “standard” TVELs, which shouldn't be a big problem. The reactor is started before starting, and the start itself - after it reaches the operating mode. Pre-starter training is, of course, longer, but the rocket can be kept on duty for a rather long time and without problems.
  18. Andrey Gurenkov
    Andrey Gurenkov 16 September 2019 07: 12
    +1
    And I heard that such a rocket must necessarily collapse somewhere in the end, and this is like a nuclear explosion, and also a nuclear exhaust loop during flight. Such flies leaves the background. Or have you already invented a safe atom? People reasoned based on Soviet promising developments that were never implemented probably for the above reasons.
  19. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 16 September 2019 07: 17
    +8
    I fundamentally disagree with the author's logic. The Americans use the concept of acceptable / unacceptable damage, and this does not include command posts. This includes cities and people. If we are going to deliver a preemptive strike, then of course we need to hit the command posts. But if our national military doctrine has the principle of a retaliatory strike, then there is no point in hitting the command centers that have already worked out, and then the targets become just the cities and the population. That is, the American concept of acceptable / unacceptable damage was not born from scratch, but just from the analysis of our military doctrine. And for us Petrel is the second "dead hand".
  20. Molot1979
    Molot1979 16 September 2019 07: 22
    +12
    It is amazing how many experts roam the net. Or does Comrade the Supreme Commander himself write under the nickname Dmitry Verkhoturov? It just kills me when it is not known who knows where from and a priori considers himself smarter than everyone: the designers, the General Staff, the Supreme and the Lord God himself, as it sometimes seems. So no one, you know, had thought of obvious questions before him, but Dima appeared and tore off his veils. And what is typical, it’s precisely to such Katz who constantly offer to surrender, who constantly take their place in the room. Maybe enough stupid opposition?
    1. wehr
      16 September 2019 19: 47
      -2
      All those listed by you collectively can and often even do great stupid things.
    2. Tatyana14
      Tatyana14 17 September 2019 00: 28
      -1
      I am also surprised that a person sees how his bosses surround him, from his immediate superior and above. A man comes to work and sees here it is coming to him this mind and perfection and gives him a task and he reverently performs this task. Do you really believe in the immaculate conception of designers, the General Staff, the Supreme.
  21. Pike
    Pike 16 September 2019 07: 26
    +8
    In my opinion, the heading for the article is "Opinions", not "Analytics" and even more so "Armament"
    1. Shuttle
      Shuttle 16 September 2019 07: 34
      +7
      Quote: Pike
      In my opinion, the heading for the article is "Opinions", not "Analytics" and even more so "Armament"

      That's right. Moreover, it is an idle opinion, not an expert opinion.
  22. Ros 56
    Ros 56 16 September 2019 08: 03
    +3
    The article is sheer fabrications on the topic: "but it seems to me so", and no specifics, but it cannot be, because all the data is classified as "top secret".
  23. Evil echo
    Evil echo 16 September 2019 08: 26
    -6
    And what exactly is the important goal? They say right there - the command center. Well, just which command center? The Americans and their allies have a lot of them.

    There is a good target and a lot of missiles are not needed.
    . The volcano is located in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming (USA), its basin is 55 by 72 kilometers in size, which is about a third of the entire park and almost twice as large as New York and Moscow.
  24. Ezekiel 25-17
    Ezekiel 25-17 16 September 2019 08: 48
    0
    The main thing is not to worry: the FAU-1 was also a crude product, now we have X-101 and Axes. Will finalize. And the second and this is a very bitter pill, it is from the scope of the CRDRD. They will fly last when decision centers and other objects of categories 1 and 2 are destroyed: their goal is cities.
  25. archiroll
    archiroll 16 September 2019 08: 48
    +1
    Since the article is a "modeling" and poking fingers in a joke, I'll poke it too:
    And how will the negotiating position on various issues change if (even 1 such thing) circled a couple of months or years around the planet or at least along the northern borders?
    1. Tatyana14
      Tatyana14 17 September 2019 00: 33
      0
      Anglo-Saxons pragmatists to the marrow of the bones they simply do not take this into account.
  26. KCA
    KCA 16 September 2019 08: 52
    +1
    The capabilities of the US air defense / missile defense were clearly demonstrated on 11.09.2001/XNUMX/XNUMX, Boeings, a little bigger cruise missile, right?
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 16 September 2019 11: 40
      0
      11.09.2001/4/3 there was an attack not from outside, but from within. And here the air defense will not help. Moreover, the XNUMXth plane was shot down, but the XNUMXrd one simply wasn’t (but there was a KR), although the official version is different.
  27. Basarev
    Basarev 16 September 2019 08: 53
    +1
    What did I say? Piece expensive products can not win the war. We need new workhorses to replace the aging Soviet. And the main question is - is war really necessary? Isn’t it better to establish a peaceful life, to finally begin to come up with substantive agreements with rich and developed countries? And then we really remind the Reich at the end. In the same way, we scare the wunderwaffles, and in conventional weapons it is full of seams.
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 16 September 2019 11: 31
      0
      1. They will be negotiated only with equal force. And the West must still be convinced of this, including by military successes.
      2. War is not a whim of kings. The formula - "War is the continuation of politics by other means" - has not been canceled, just like "Politics is a concentrated economy."
      3. Comparison with the Reich at the end - an empty allegation. It is better to compare the United States with the Roman Empire.
  28. Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 16 September 2019 08: 54
    0
    Bure BULLETIN - this weapon can be suitable for a war in space, and the likelihood of a space war increases every day. The author too literally believes that for the Petrel there are no targets on the planet earth besides the command posts))) The goal can serve not only what can be destroyed, but also what needs to be discovered ... and the psychological suppression of the enemy during the pre-war and military is of little importance ... You can also bang on the areas of oil production, oil refining and storage areas of strategic oil reserves (this goal was recently suggested to me by the Yemeni rebels), you can demolish the ground communication system, or you can just cause panic among the population ... weapons, and targets will always be found !!! So the author - do not worry so much about the Petrel because all diseases are from "experiences")))
    1. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 13: 37
      +1
      Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
      Bure NEWSLETTER - this weapon may be suitable for war in space

      Well, that is unlikely. There is no air.
      The weakest points of modern civilization are not KP, but infrastructure. Communication, internet, electricity.
  29. yousha1980
    yousha1980 16 September 2019 08: 54
    +1
    As a deterrent weapon, it’s also a good thing, if you keep secrecy and skillfully use disu. Imagine that enemy headquarters (air defense, navy and other bases) received infa about the launch of 30 petrels from the territory of the Russian Federation. This, by the way, can be false starts. Provided that they do not know their real quantity. To start triggers, at the very least, they can. But to track in dynamics - to hell there, with all the space technology. This will force their large forces to take measures to protect themselves, to be in the highest degree of readiness, to keep airborne AWACS and other interceptors in the air around their (!) Territory or in the vicinity. It is one thing to be on duty at a particular line in Europe, another thing over your entire continent. But there are no missiles and no, either circulating somewhere above the ocean at an altitude of 20-30 meters, or already over some desert in the USA, they are waiting for target designation or commands ... We still need to see if they have a lot and what quality air defense facilities on its own territory.
  30. IGOR656
    IGOR656 16 September 2019 09: 19
    +1
    July 17, 2016 an unknown unmanned aerial vehicle entered the airspace of Israel in the Golan Heights. Throughout the flight, it was conducted by Israeli air defense, making three attempts to intercept. One of the MIM-104 Patriot anti-aircraft missile missiles missed, and the second exploded near the drone, which did not prevent the UAV from continuing the flight. The F-16 fighter of Israeli air defense that flew to intercept was also not successful. According to the IDF press service, the mysterious drone could be Russian-made.
    "Petrel" all over the planet can shake the enemy, there is not enough kerosene, they will be tortured to swallow dust! And most importantly, what resource should be used for detection, interception and destruction! And here he says that it will not do!
  31. Pavel57
    Pavel57 16 September 2019 09: 21
    +2
    At one time, they wanted to make a nuclear-powered bomber. Thank God they thought better of it. If during a test such a bomber would fall on Zhukovsky? .....
    1. Oleg1
      Oleg1 16 September 2019 11: 01
      +1
      And what is the important goal? They will immediately say - the command center. Okay, just what kind of command center? The Americans and their allies have a lot of them. Major centers, such as the NORAD command post in Colorado Springs, are housed in well-defended bunkers for a powerful nuclear strike, and it is doubtful that the Petrel, even nuclear-armed, can hit them.

      why? What power does the bg rocket carry, what kind of explosions will be ground-based or after being buried in the ground? The degree of protection of the gearbox and the accuracy of the hit of BG? The author does not know any of this, but he doubts why? It is unknown to see everything in his beloved among the Russians is bad ... ... already interesting ...

      The capabilities of the Americans' air defense / missile defense systems are quite enough to detect and intercept the "Petrel" on the way directly to the target. Even taking into account the low signature of the missile (if it is made on the basis of the Kh-101, the EPR of which, according to published data, is 0,01), all the same, the missile detection range by AWACS aircraft is 100-120 km, the F-22 can detect it at a distance from 65 to 80 km, and the Israeli Iron Dome missile defense system can detect from a distance of 70 to 90 km.

      The time for which this distance will be overcome by the Petrel and will the vaunted Amer’s air defense manage to work for it? How (at what speed will the rocket fly, at what altitude, can the Amer’s air defense work for such purposes? Nothing is known, but the author makes conclusions!
      Informativeness is zero, except for USE LOST THE CHEF! Children's pants with straps ...
    2. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 16 September 2019 13: 45
      0
      The Americans put nuclear reactors under ice in Norway at their base.
      Now, glacier rupture began there (specifically where the base was), and there remained a lot of liquid radioactive waste - a bunch. And nothing. They can ...
      They have a "democratic atom"!
    3. navarin
      navarin 17 September 2019 23: 24
      -1
      Quote: Pavel57
      At one time, they wanted to make a nuclear-powered bomber. Thank God they thought better of it. If during a test such a bomber would fall on Zhukovsky? .....
      and what would happen then in your opinion?)
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 18 September 2019 00: 46
        0
        Contamination of the area.
  32. ultra
    ultra 16 September 2019 09: 37
    +6
    No "command centers", the priority is to hit the industrial and most densely populated areas.
  33. al252ex
    al252ex 16 September 2019 09: 39
    0
    From the very beginning the question was posed incorrectly. "Petrel" is definitely not intended to destroy headquarters for this there are missiles that have been keeping these headquarters at gunpoint for many years. I think the "petrels" will have to finish off newly emerging targets, and for this they are very suitable.
    1. balunn
      balunn 16 September 2019 10: 30
      -1
      IMHO the question arises. And who will give target designation if this product is "Moscow's Dead Hand"?
  34. welder
    welder 16 September 2019 09: 43
    +2
    I wrote it in an interesting way, but at one time the "best minds" said that trains would not be able to run on the railroad (they would slide) and the air would "fly out of the carriage".
  35. The comment was deleted.
  36. NOTaFED
    NOTaFED 16 September 2019 10: 03
    +2
    He invented it, he exposed it himself! Classic manipulator.
  37. Galleon
    Galleon 16 September 2019 10: 22
    +1
    Quote: Per se.
    As for the "Petrel", so, is it in him, the main thing is that he raises the rating of the authorities.

    The best commentary on the topic of the article.
  38. Operator
    Operator 16 September 2019 10: 32
    0
    "hit an important target", - "Petrel" are designed to destroy VIP bunkers for survival in a nuclear war, located outside the range of ICBMs and SLBMs: in South America, Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica.

    A megaton-class thermonuclear warhead for each of the bunkers is enough for the eyes, and missile defense around the bunkers is not installed to mask their position.

    The mid-flight section of the Burevestnikov flight lasting up to 20 hours at a speed of 2000 km / h will take place in comfortable conditions of disabling enemy air defense / missile defense systems using EMP from massive nuclear explosions of warheads of ICBMs, SLBMs and RSDs with a flight time of no more than 40 minutes , as well as the emergence of vast areas of ionized air, blocking radar and radio communications for several days.
    1. Operator
      Operator 16 September 2019 10: 49
      0
      And yes: why fence unnecessary entities ("Topaz"), when the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the RF Armed Forces unambiguously stated about the same type of nuclear reactors BPA Poseidon and UAV Burevestnik (a fast neutron reactor with a lead coolant in the cooling circuit) with the only difference that in the BPA lead heats the coolant of the secondary circuit, and in the UAV - the air in the heating chamber of the supersonic ramjet engine.
      1. Operator
        Operator 16 September 2019 11: 17
        +1
        KR "Burevestnik" with launch solid propellants

        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 16 September 2019 11: 38
          -1
          The air intake is visible on the photo - most likely there isn’t any combined turbojet engine on the Burevestnik, but there is an open circuit YaPRD.
          .
          1. Operator
            Operator 16 September 2019 11: 44
            0
            A nuclear-powered rocket engine with a coolant in the form of outboard air will not work - a change in the concentration of water vapor and aerosols along the route causes sharp fluctuations in the reactivity of a nuclear reactor until it explodes, which is why the Americans closed their SLAM / Pluto project with nuclear-rocket engine in 1964 year.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 16 September 2019 15: 46
              -1
              This is how Makar water vapor in the free stream can lead to the explosion of a nuclear assembly?
              "Project SLAM / Pluto with YAPVRD in 1964" - Now is not the 64th year then and the reactors of nuclear power plants were damp, let alone the reactors for nuclear submarines, and even more so for missiles.
              1. Operator
                Operator 16 September 2019 16: 05
                -1
                Water is a neutron moderator, the suction of its vapor into the reactor causes a fluctuation in the intensity of the neutron flux in the nuclear reactor, the drive speed of the control rods lags behind the rate of increase / decrease in the concentration of water in the outside air when the CR enters / leaves the clouds / from the clouds, after which the reactor goes into spacing.

                The same thing happens when you enter / exit aerosol clouds.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 16 September 2019 20: 18
                  -1
                  At a speed of 1000 kilometers per hour, this effect will not be possible, since there will be very little water in the incoming flow, and there will be no rods in the assembly, since the assembly itself will be in a precritical state — heat removal by the air-fuel mixture.
  39. comradChe
    comradChe 16 September 2019 10: 34
    +2
    Sound thoughts have been expressed, but they will not reach the mind of the pseudo-patriots. From myself I will add: this bluff in the game of the "elites" for the right is listed in the "golden billion".
  40. Spiridonovich2
    Spiridonovich2 16 September 2019 10: 48
    -1
    In the USSR, new military developments were a secret behind seven seals. Now we can only hear about our new missiles, which we are trying to intimidate. In fact, it is not possible to create anything in a country with a completely ruined and destroyed economy. Therefore, we will continue to scare and demonstrate cartoons. It may be possible to establish the production of rubber galoshes, which were produced and supplied to Africa in Soviet times.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 September 2019 11: 45
      0
      Of course, it is impossible to create something in a country with a completely destroyed economy - only the Russian economy is the sixth in the world in terms of GDP and creates everything from pins to nuclear reactors, aircraft turbines and spacecraft - like this
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri 16 September 2019 17: 50
        +1
        Russia’s sixth in the world in terms of GDP and creates everything from pins to nuclear reactors, aircraft turbines and spacecraft

        They also said something similar about the crust-baked Roseya, which we lost. Then, however, it was about baby carriages and armadillos. Only that's not a task. That baby strollers up to 17 years old, that spacecraft today are all piece production, but real power is achieved due to a mass product put on stream. This is how the Soviet Union won in the Great Patriotic War: its T-34, Yaki and Migi were not the most perfect weapons of that period, they were, as they say, strong average, but they were well mastered by industry and, no less important, were easy to maintain, because large-scale industry is not only production itself, but also post-series technical support of manufactured goods. And this thesis remains relevant to this day. To make sure of this, you don't have to go far, just look at what money car manufacturers earn on official services, where for astronomical amounts you are offered not only to service your car, but to buy additional functionality for it, starting from body elements and ending with a heated steering wheel and the color of the armrests. But every item sold to you is a part in the general chain of deepening the division of labor, which starts from the procurement and ends with the final product. Conditionally ends, because as I have already noted, post-production service is also incorporated into it. Undoubtedly, this is an example from "peaceful" life, however, the laws of economics have not been canceled - they work the same for both military and civilian products.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. sabotage
        sabotage 17 September 2019 01: 21
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        only now the Russian economy is the sixth in the world in terms of GDP

        PPP leave to housewives and viewers of the first channel.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 17 September 2019 16: 03
          -1
          "Leave the teaching staff to housewives and viewers of the first channel." And that - Russia's GDP is in 11th place out of 197 countries of the world - it's still an excellent indicator.
  41. 257950
    257950 16 September 2019 11: 00
    -2
    Another "PUK" of the sofa-chair expert. Who, in his fantasies, devoted himself to working in the field - nuclear, rocketry, materials science and knows what they know in the design bureau laughing
  42. EXPrompt
    EXPrompt 16 September 2019 11: 02
    +1
    The meaning of Bruevesnik is not even to knock out NORAD.
    The fact is that in the states there is no centralized air defense system in our understanding with air defense missile radar fields.
    The meaning of the gimlet is to make our likely friends build not one system but two ...
    Air defense of America, and missile defense of America.
    It’s not possible to rebuild one Pro alone for new threats by the state, it will be very expensive and time-consuming, and here you also need to do air defense to prevent a strike at the states from all sides with cruise missiles.
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 16 September 2019 11: 22
      +2
      It is necessary to build 3 - air defense, missile defense and anti-aircraft defense (from Poseidon).
    2. Old tanker
      Old tanker 16 September 2019 11: 46
      -1
      US zonal air defense does not need to be built. They resolved this issue by constant duty in the air of AWACS and fighters. For the facility during the threatened period, Patriots will be removed from storage in the United States.
      1. Victorio
        Victorio 16 September 2019 12: 14
        +1
        Quote: Old Tanker
        US zonal air defense does not need to be built. They resolved this issue by constant duty in the air of AWACS and fighters. For object during the threatened period, Patriots will be removed from storage in the United States.

        ==
        they will remain, these objects, protected in the midst of a nuclear desert. not sure other Americans like this prospect
  43. yehat
    yehat 16 September 2019 11: 14
    +4
    The author of the article does not understand basic things.
    a missile capable of flying anywhere on a difficult route forces the defense to be echeloned, which is why the cost of maintaining them greatly affects offensive capabilities, and
    defense itself is spread over countless objects and becomes less effective.
    Recently, Americans were left without Aviks in the Atlantic and without money to repair a cloud of destroyers - I’m sure that part of this was affected by the forced costs of countering the Russian offensive potential. The petrel by its very existence strongly influences events and military dispositions, even if it has never been launched. In addition, we have hundreds of other missiles without it.
    And if the author does not understand this, his whole analysis is simply miserable.
  44. Donetsk2019
    Donetsk2019 16 September 2019 11: 23
    -1
    Maybe the author is right, or rather, most likely right. But about the "Petrel" - already announced, the cartoon - done, now it is necessary for the "Petrel" to fly. It doesn't matter that it will be useless or that its efficiency will be lower than that of existing analogues without a reactor instead of an engine. It is important not to look ridiculous in the eyes of the whole world, which has long been laughing at our "achievements".
  45. Mestny
    Mestny 16 September 2019 11: 24
    +1
    Quote: LON
    But the United States was forced to suspend work on the Pluto rocket (analogue of the Petrel). Dumping many radiation-contaminated missiles into the ocean off Wake Island, located 5000 km from the mainland, was recognized as very dangerous and the program was closed according to this parable.

    It breaks through even a tear - which Americans are humane. It’s dangerous, they’ve stopped ...
    Yeah of course. There are still many different Papuans in the world who are not at all sorry for the Americans. They would transfer the tests there.
    But to see, it did not grow together. Could not overpower.
  46. Berg berg
    Berg berg 16 September 2019 11: 26
    +2
    And whoever said that our troops would bombard the Petrels with defensive defenses like a leaky Dome, but would not pre-launch a missile strike with an electro-magnetic impulse charge, these are and are in service. And the Petrels are the last strike missiles, since they have unlimited flight, they are clearly designed look for the slipped target after its new contact.
  47. Vadim237
    Vadim237 16 September 2019 11: 29
    -3
    "If it were a missile suitable for mass production, then one could still count on some effect when a salvo of a couple of hundred missiles was fired. 2-3 missiles are only suitable for intimidation in words and for PR." And the author, and where did you get the idea that these hundreds of missiles and to them YAPVRD Rosatom and KTRV will not be able to release? These missiles are intended primarily for combining our airborne nuclear components, should such weapons suddenly appear that will destroy all our strategic bombers' airfields in the shortest possible time.
  48. Old tanker
    Old tanker 16 September 2019 11: 35
    -1
    And from the bottom, from the very small, these are other complexes, radars, missiles, and this nichrome is not present in most states.

    This issue has long been resolved by the Americans without any ground-based missile defense / air defense. By the constant duty in the air of AWACS aircraft and fighters in conjunction with them.
  49. PPD
    PPD 16 September 2019 11: 41
    +1
    Strange article, eaten honestly. The petrel is still a secret one, the author knows what and how.
    Accidents at work-out, ask how many M 4 bombers crashed and how many accidents were before it became a normal machine.
    The next nit-picking has a subsonic flight speed, and the Caliber also has a subsonic speed and ....
    What is the speed of the X101-trouble-also subsonic .....
    Then recognize them as frivolous weapons.
    By the way, they will fly away after arriving from Topol, Yars, Liner, Mace, etc.
    At this moment, of course, before searching for cruise missiles that could fly in, God knows where.
    Such Hiroi Reich, with blazing surroundings catch with an unbending hand ...
  50. Flatter
    Flatter 16 September 2019 11: 44
    +3
    "Petrel" is a prototype of the doomsday rocket. By placing the government and the Ministry of Defense in it, you can soar for a very long time.