Military Review

Nuclear-powered cruise missile: advantages and technical challenges

265

Rocket "Burevestnik" in the workshop of the manufacturer


The development of a nuclear-powered missile could give Russia huge arms advantages. President Vladimir Putin is convinced of this. However, to implement ambitious plans in life, you need to make a lot of efforts.

There is no doubt that the arrival of a nuclear-powered missile in Russia will give it significant advantages over a potential enemy. After all, such a missile would theoretically be capable of destroying any target on the planet. The range of such a missile will not be limited in any way.

As French military expert Corantin Brustlin said in an interview, the nuclear power plant removes the restrictions on the amount of fuel, which allows the missile to use trajectories not tracked by the enemy and strike weakly protected targets. Naturally, the presence of such a missile will make it possible to break through the enemy's anti-missile defense system. In the increasingly complicated world military-political situation, this will become a very serious trump card.

A nuclear-powered cruise missile has a fairly simple operating principle. Compartments with powerful heaters are located along the sides of the rocket. Atmospheric air, getting into these compartments, heats up to several thousand degrees, its outflow creates thrust.

However, the creation of a rocket with a nuclear power plant is fraught with a number of technical difficulties. First of all, it is necessary to create a nuclear reactor large enough to fit into a rocket. At the same time, both President Vladimir Putin and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation declare that Russia already has such a missile - the 9M730 Burevestnik, equipped with a small-sized nuclear power plant. American physicist Jeff Terry named the estimated useful power of the rocket's nuclear engine - 766 kW, which is quite comparable with the power of the new generation of compact nuclear power plants.


Launch of the Burevestnik rocket

At first, the West was dominated by a rather skeptical attitude towards the prospects of the Russian missile. By the summer of 2020, it was replaced by wariness. For example, the US President's Special Representative for Arms Control Marshall Billingsley said that something like this weapon should not exist at all, since it is a "flying Chernobyl".

This was followed in September 2020 by a statement from the head of British military intelligence, Lieutenant General Jim Hockenhall. He stressed that the Burevestnik rocket is capable of staying in the air for an almost unlimited time. This allows for unexpected strikes against targets.

In 2018, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation published a video of the tests of the Burevestnik missile. The rocket was fired from a ground-based launcher, and it was possible to film the rocket's flight from the fighter plane. Outwardly, the "Petrel" with its angular bow resembles the Kh-101 cruise missile. But if we talk about the size, the "Burevestnik" is much larger than the X-101. The Burevestnik is also heavier, which is not at all surprising, given the fact that a nuclear reactor is placed on board the rocket.

Separately, it is worth noting the Poseidon underwater vehicle, which is also equipped with a nuclear power plant. In fact, Poseidon can be called a kind of nuclear torpedo, whose main task is to deliver a warhead to the coast of an enemy country. According to Vladimir Putin's statement, the Poseidon has a nuclear installation that allows the drone to reach speeds "multiples" the speed of all other similar underwater vehicles and torpedoes, including the MU90 / IMPACT. The reactor used on the Poseidon, according to the president, is 100 times more compact than the reactors of modern nuclear submarines.

Thus, the presence of nuclear-powered missiles and torpedoes in Russia gives very serious advantages in the event of a global armed conflict. Of course, it is better that the matter does not come to the use of missiles in practice, but the paradox of the situation is that the very fact that our country has such weapons is one of the best guarantees against unleashing another war on a global scale.
Author:
265 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 12: 07
    26
    Actually, the creation of such a compact nuclear reactor is a breakthrough.
    After that, the Petrel, Poseidon, Nuclon became possible and we still don't know a lot of things.
    In fact, the technological eras of mankind are always associated with new energy sources. It is possible that this reactor is this new era.
    1. military_cat
      military_cat 27 September 2020 14: 05
      -14 qualifying.
      The thick smoke on the launch footage shows that this is not just a nuclear engine, but rather something generally chemical-solid fuel. Even completely non-nuclear kerosene planes or rockets do not smoke like that, and in a nuclear heater, in theory, there is no place to smoke. That is, the footage may well have the "Petrel", but definitely not the nuclear stage.
      1. Alexey Sommer
        Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 14: 08
        20
        Quote: military_cat
        The thick smoke on the launch footage shows that this is not just a nuclear engine, but, rather, generally something chemical-solid fuel

        This is a starter accelerator. This is how all the rockets start.
        1. military_cat
          military_cat 27 September 2020 14: 24
          +5
          In the video, from where the frame, there is a view from an airplane accompanying a rocket that has already been flying for some time. It's the same there.
          Of course, I am not against starting on solid propellants (especially for direct flow), but it was the operation of the reactor installation during the tests that we were not shown.
          1. Operator
            Operator 27 September 2020 16: 38
            -4
            "Burevestnik" is a supersonic cruise missile with a ramjet engine; to start its operation at M> 2, it needs to accelerate on a RTTD even in horizontal flight.

            Although the video can only record the acceleration phase on the solid propellant.
            1. Fan-fan
              Fan-fan 27 September 2020 17: 11
              +1
              In this case, the question is: how much more expensive is the Petrel Caliber? Something tells me that several times.
              1. Operator
                Operator 27 September 2020 18: 13
                +1
                Due to the presence of a nuclear reactor - not less than an order of magnitude (at the ICBM level).

                But on the other hand, unlike Caliber, it does not need a carrier (which also costs money) due to its unlimited range, and also has absolute combat stability by dispersing ground launchers throughout the territory of the Russian Federation (if there is a sudden strike) or an unlimited time loitering in air before receiving a signal to attack (if there is a threatened period).
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 29 September 2020 09: 53
                  0
                  Wouldn't the enemy destroy the side that launched this device with a massive ICBM / SLBM strike? Then what's the point?
              2. 3danimal
                3danimal 29 September 2020 09: 51
                0
                Probably more than an order of magnitude more expensive.
                And it is not clear what to do with the contamination of the territory through which the rocket flies, with the inevitable response with "old" ICBMs flying to the target for only half an hour. Then what is the benefit ??
                1. Operator
                  Operator 29 September 2020 11: 32
                  -2
                  Why would the enemy destroy the Burevestnik compact PGRK scattered throughout Russia (due to the unlimited flight range of this CD)? laughing

                  Regarding the contamination of the territory over which the "Petrel" will fly - take a look at how a ramjet engine with a heat exchanger in the heating chamber differs from a ramjet engine with a reactor core in the heating chamber.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 29 September 2020 14: 00
                    -1
                    Smoke you too, how do they differ in efficiency and mass dimensions wink
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 29 September 2020 16: 05
                      -2
                      What the hell is the efficiency of a ramjet engine in the presence of an onboard heat source with a thermal power of 30 MW? laughing

                      The mass-dimensional characteristics of a nuclear reactor with a lead coolant are several times less than that of a reactor with an air coolant.
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 29 September 2020 17: 12
                        0
                        You are confusing the nuclear submarine reactor and the lightest reactor required for the RC.
                        Ask the masses. The coolant is an unambiguous increase in its (mass).
                      2. Operator
                        Operator 29 September 2020 18: 27
                        -2
                        I do not confuse anything - in the topic "Poseidon" I gave the mass-dimensional characteristics of a fast neutron nuclear reactor using uranium fuel with 49% enrichment and a lead coolant with a thermal power of 30 MW (the description of the reactor is available on the Internet).
                      3. 3danimal
                        3danimal 30 September 2020 03: 38
                        0
                        The Poseidon reactor is just the nuclear submarine reactor (mini). And it is definitely not suitable for CD (is it so difficult to imagine?).
                        Question: how much does an additional circuit with a metal coolant weigh?
                      4. Operator
                        Operator 30 September 2020 09: 22
                        0
                        In connection with what the only heat removal circuit of the Burevestnik nuclear reactor suddenly became "additional"? laughing

                        I would estimate the weight of lead in the heat removal system at 500 kg.
                      5. 3danimal
                        3danimal 30 September 2020 15: 04
                        0
                        Pardon me, this is a whole warhead (conventional or 2 special) by weight. The designers will crucify you wassat
                        Let me remind you that we are talking about an aircraft. Otherwise, you can also implement a booking (per ton, say) smile
                        Contours are always loss and extra weight. Therefore, a more powerful reactor is needed. Which will be heavier again. Etc. Let me remind you that this is not Tony Stark's engine, it is much more difficult to fit it into the project parameters.
                      6. Operator
                        Operator 30 September 2020 15: 14
                        -3
                        "I have no other writers for you" (C) laughing

                        The take-off weight of the Burevestnik cruise ship can be estimated at five tons in terms of dimensions in the photo - like that of the P-500 Basalt supersonic cruise missile.
                      7. 3danimal
                        3danimal 30 September 2020 15: 22
                        0
                        Perfectly. How much weight do you think a reactor of sufficient power should be? Look carefully: many sources (primarily Russian) write about the absence of an intermediate circuit. To facilitate installation. Yes, "exhaust", unpleasant .. But those tasks are more important.
                        Let me remind you that in addition to lead, there are also pumps in the circuit, which must be fed with something. Which also have weight. Etc.
                      8. Operator
                        Operator 30 September 2020 15: 27
                        -3
                        Once again: a reactor cooled by metal (lead) is much lighter than a reactor cooled by gas (air) - without taking into account the weight of the coolant, of course.

                        Petrel Reactor Weight:
                        takeoff weight of the KR (5 tons) - weight of the airframe with a ramjet engine (2 tons) - weight of special warheads (0,35 tons) - weight of equipment (0,15 tons) - weight of coolant (0,5 tons) = about 2 tons
                      9. 3danimal
                        3danimal 30 September 2020 16: 21
                        0
                        Where does this weight data come from?
                        In addition, you ignore the fact that the additional circuit reduces the efficiency, increases the weight of the rocket, and therefore requires more total reactor power.
                        My point is that the mass / thrust ratio is not great enough to place the contour. NOT a Tony Stark engine.
                        As an example (of an unmanned vehicle equipped with a reactor), you only cited a mini-nuclear submarine.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 18: 49
    +3
    "Burevestnik" is a supersonic cruise missile. "- Where do the firewoods come from? Usually they write that it is subsonic.
    1. Operator
      Operator 27 September 2020 18: 51
      +4
      The ramjet does not work on subsonic.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 18: 54
        +3
        It’s not clear - some write a ramjet engine, others a turbojet engine.
        1. Operator
          Operator 27 September 2020 18: 57
          0
          Why install a heavy, complex and expensive turbojet engine on Burevestnik when you can install an order of magnitude lighter, simpler and cheaper ramjet engine?

          That at a speed of 900 km / h, that at 1800 km / h, the same aluminum cruise missile glider is used.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 19: 46
            +2
            Why is not the answer. For some reason, all planes fly on turbojet engines. And cruise missiles fly mainly in turbojet engines. And even supersonic aircraft and missiles. Since the Burevestnik is a cruise missile, it is vulnerable. The vulnerability can be reduced either by increasing the speed to hypersonic (this is not the case), or by lowering it to low and ultra-low altitudes - and it is extremely difficult to use supersonic and ramjet engine on them for a long time. Well, even if the rocket were supersonic, all the propagandists would already be fooled about it.
            1. Operator
              Operator 27 September 2020 19: 51
              -4
              Petrel, like any non-hypersonic missile launcher, is a second strike weapon, and therefore these weapons become invulnerable from air defense systems - clouds of ionized air from nuclear explosions of first strike weapons (ICBMs, SLBMs and GZKR) shield air defense radars, and dust and soot shield the OLS fighters.
            2. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 20: 08
              +5
              The hopes of young men are nourished. Can be screened, maybe not screened, the guidance system of "Petrel" can be. will withstand an electromagnetic surge from nuclear explosions, and m. and no. There is no special sense in it as a means of a second strike - nuclear winter and radiation sickness will finish off the dead. The task was posed as follows - if the adversary shoots down our ICBMs and SLBMs and celebrates the victory, then we will pinch him down with the Petrel and Poseidons. True, how the enemy will shoot down our ICBMs and SLBMs is unclear, America does not have such an opportunity.
            3. Operator
              Operator 27 September 2020 20: 24
              +3
              I didn't say a word about EMP, from which even the culinary foil protects the Petrel's guidance system.

              ICBMs and SLBMs are used to deliver special warheads at a distance of up to 18 thousand km (Sarmat). But there are targets in the Southern Hemisphere at a distance of up to 20 thousand km (for example, Australia and New Zealand with a massive development of nuclear bomb-shelters of the Western elite).

              It is for such purposes that the Petrel is mainly intended.
            4. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 21: 34
              +4
              And let's also zhakhnya Argentina! And in Papua New Guinea, so they don't think they will serve it! Easter Island again. Tahiti is all sorts. What a bloodthirsty you are today. In Australia and N-Zealand it is impossible to beat with "Petrels", there our oligarchs will show off.
            5. Operator
              Operator 27 September 2020 21: 54
              -4
              How else do you imagine ensuring the dominance of the Russian Federation in the post-nuclear world?
            6. Operator
              Operator 27 September 2020 23: 20
              -3
              I forgot to name other priority goals of Burevestnikov - nuclear power reactors, the total number of which abroad is about 400 units.

              To initiate a self-sustained nuclear reaction in uranium fuel, a direct hit of a special ammunition into the reactor is necessary, while the maximum accuracy of ICBM / SLBM warheads with astrocorrection is 90 meters (which is not enough), and the maximum accuracy of a cruise missile with optoelectronic guidance is several meters, which is the very thing for a nuclear explosion with a capacity of several tens of megatons and a huge area of ​​radioactive contamination with the decay products of uranium fuel.
            7. 3danimal
              3danimal 29 September 2020 09: 56
              -2
              How will this protect against a retaliatory strike ?? All these speculations about strikes on nuclear power plants (yeah, let's make it all harder) are meaningless, in view of the deaths of most of the population from strikes after a full-scale exchange of ICBM strikes.
            8. Operator
              Operator 29 September 2020 11: 35
              0
              Our attack on the enemy's nuclear power plants, concentrated on his national territory on a much larger scale than ours, will lead to the death of the entire mob resource (population) of the enemy, and not just part of it.
            9. 3danimal
              3danimal 29 September 2020 14: 02
              -2
              Are you going to plunder a full-scale nuclear war? What mob resource? For WW2 style battles? ..
            10. Operator
              Operator 29 September 2020 15: 55
              +1
              For battles in the style of the Battle of the Ice, of course.
            11. 3danimal
              3danimal 29 September 2020 17: 09
              -1
              A few thousand with sticks will be enough for this ..
        2. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 20: 46
          -1
          Have a drink of a sedative, and God forbid, do not watch the Poropagands and REN-TV on TV.
        3. tikhonov66
          tikhonov66 2 October 2020 13: 46
          0
          If the reactors are destroyed - there will be no "reactor explosions" - there will be fires accompanied by radioactive contamination of the area surrounding the reactor. And from this "death of mobresurs" - if there is - it is very NOT IMMEDIATELY - remember Chernobyl
    2. tikhonov66
      tikhonov66 2 October 2020 13: 40
      0
      - A literate girl!
      self-sustained nuclear reaction in uranium fuel ... for a nuclear explosion with a capacity of several tens of megatons ...
      - "uranium fuel" - CANNOT explode ... Learn MATCH.
      When the control rods are not lowered and the temperature carrier circuit is destroyed
      Warm up the fuel - maybe - that's of course,
      Then the fuel will melt, then there will be a relatively large PSHIK - as a result of which the fuel will evaporate trivially, infecting the area around ...
      - and it's all !!!
      At this point, the chain reaction stops, since the atoms of the fissile material are scattered too far (after evaporation, it is a GAZ, with the distance between the atoms tens of times greater than the atoms themselves).

      - And the whole trick of YadrenyVzdryff is to carry out a chain reaction as quickly and abruptly as possible - so that a significant part of the mass (atoms) of the active component of the warhead DOESN'T HAPPEN TO FLY (inertial confinement) - from the rapidly increasing temperature inside the warhead. And oh, how difficult it is ...
      - so the "nuclear vzdryff of nuclear fuel" is UTOPIA

      Remember Chernobyl - there was no explosion (or rather, there was an explosion - but it was CHEMICAL - it exploded and destroyed the reactor premises - an explosion of an explosive gas (oxygen + 2 hydrogen), into which the water of the nuclear reactor cooling loop decomposed - from the high temperature of the reactor core "gone into the fray")
      - and nuclear fuel - evaporated only PARTIALLY - but mostly just melted, turning into a kind of volcanic lava - and melting its way into the ground - WENT UNDER THE REACTOR, where it froze, mixed with molten concrete and soil.
    3. Operator
      Operator 2 October 2020 16: 46
      -4
      A direct hit of the Burevestnik special warhead into the nuclear reactor of a nuclear power plant is not necessary for its destruction, but for irradiating uranium fuel with neutrons from a nuclear explosion of a special warhead in order to transfer uranium to a supercritical state with a subsequent nuclear explosion of the reactor.

      PS The explosion of the reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was thermal
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 29 September 2020 14: 31
    0
    And what, in your understanding, is the RF in the post-nuclear world and in what should its dominance be manifested? Surviving 10-20% of the population dominate with neighbors for the remains of equipment and canned food (along the way, continuing to die of hunger, disease and the struggle for survival among themselves)?
  • Operator
    Operator 29 September 2020 16: 02
    0
    As part of humanity, only the citizens of the Russian Federation should survive (part, of course), so that there is no post-war struggle for resources.

    The territory of the Russian Federation (or the territory of the Sahara, which in the event of a nuclear winter will turn into a savannah with large reserves of groundwater) plus the oil and gas resources of the Persian Gulf will provide our post-war reconstruction.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 29 September 2020 17: 10
    -1
    As part of humanity, only the citizens of the Russian Federation should survive (part, of course), so that there is no post-war struggle for resources.

    Strange dreams, quite cannibalistic, and sad
  • tikhonov66
    tikhonov66 2 October 2020 13: 51
    0
    Sahara, which in the event of a nuclear winter will turn into a savannah with large reserves of groundwater

    - The Sahara will NOT be able to "transform".
    "Violent winter" in the worst case will last for several years. And then the ashes will settle - and the sunlight will be restored at the very least. During this time, the old vegetation will die - and the new one will not succeed.
    - so there will be no "savannah" in the Sahara
    Changing the type of biocenosis of the territory requires (at least!) Tens-hundreds of years of SMOOTH climate change.
  • Operator
    Operator 2 October 2020 16: 48
    -1
    I wrote - "in case" laughing
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 20: 44
    -2
    What the fuck is domination in the potiater world? Even now we have no chance to dominate, but if the country ceases to exist, how can it dominate? At best, the post-nuclear world will be dominated by Chinese and blacks, at worst - by spiders.
  • tikhonov66
    tikhonov66 2 October 2020 13: 18
    +1
    ―From here, guys, our Motherland dictates its unyielding will to the rest of the world community.
    ―Could we bang?
    ―We will definitely bang. And more than once. The whole world is in dust.
    - But after.

    - Remember the movie "DMB"

    The army is not just a kind word, but a very quick deed. This is how we won all wars. While the enemy is drawing a map of the offensive, we change the landscapes, and manually. When the time comes for the attack, the enemy is lost in unfamiliar terrain, and comes to full non-readiness.
    This is the point, and this is our strategy.
  • basmach
    basmach 27 September 2020 19: 21
    -1
    With what fright does it not work? FAU-1 doesn't say anything?
    1. Operator
      Operator 27 September 2020 19: 27
      +3
      The FAU-1 had a pulsating WFD (PuVRD).
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 29 September 2020 09: 54
    0
    So here the source of energy is different - not fuel. The air passes through the fuel rods and, when heated, flies out, creating thrust.
  • Snail N9
    Snail N9 27 September 2020 14: 09
    -8
    Video is the same as "cartoons". The only result of all these games with nuclear reactors on a rocket is lying around or has already been pulled from the bottom of the bay near Nenoksa ...
    1. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 16: 01
      +1
      Quote: Snail N9
      The only result of all these games with nuclear reactors on a rocket is lying around or has already been pulled from the bottom of the bay near Nyonoksa ...

      laughing The only one?
      Well, you can think as you like best, I'm not going to argue with you on this topic. hi
    2. blackice
      blackice 28 September 2020 05: 05
      0
      https://www.popmech.ru/weapon/8841-verkhom-na-reaktore-atomnyy-samolet/
      The only one or not, no one will tell you, but the fact that the topic is no longer new is a fact.
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 28 September 2020 17: 59
        0
        The petrel has a completely different principle of engine operation)))
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 27 September 2020 16: 45
    +1
    The video showed a start using a turbojet engine - but the flight itself should take place on a nuclear ramjet engine, judging by the sweep of the rocket's wings and nose cone, the rocket speed is at least transonic.
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 27 September 2020 17: 13
      +2
      transonic
      What is this new term?
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 18: 52
        +5
        "What is this new term?" - Transonic speed - see Transonic speed. Aviation: An Encyclopedia. M .: Great Russian Encyclopedia. Chief editor G.P. Svishchev. 1994
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 27 September 2020 22: 22
        0
        The speed is from Mach 0,8 to Mach 1,2, in short, flight at the speed of sound is neither higher nor lower.
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 18: 56
      +4
      "but the flight itself must take place on a nuclear ramjet engine" - in the first test flights, they could have used a conventional WFD instead of a nuclear one.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 27 September 2020 22: 23
        0
        Most likely, this was the case for testing the aerodynamics of the new rocket.
  • Vol4ara
    Vol4ara 27 September 2020 19: 02
    0
    What is the article about? what kind of bone washing?
  • blackice
    blackice 28 September 2020 05: 00
    +2
    I remember that Myasishchev also suggested installing a TRDA.
    So the groundwork was already there.
    https://www.popmech.ru/weapon/8841-verkhom-na-reaktore-atomnyy-samolet/
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 27 September 2020 12: 07
    +2
    In essence, not only with a nuclear SU, which is put on Poseidon and Petrel, but also with Peresvet, there will be an advantageous advantage. With such a nuclear power plant, we can create a UAV with such a power plant, which will be able to roam for years without going down to the ground, which will give an advantage in this matter as well.
    Although, in fact, the same Petrel or Poseidon is a UAV, with kamikaze inclinations.
    1. mark1
      mark1 27 September 2020 12: 18
      +2
      Quote: NEXUS
      we can create a UAV with such a power plant that will be able to roam for years without going down to the ground

      And run a couple of dozen clockwise along the border of the adversary, let his head spin.
    2. General failure
      General failure 27 September 2020 14: 02
      10
      UAV with such a power plant

      It is unlikely. A UAV, unlike a rocket, is reusable.
      And the reactor after the flight will be "hot" enough to turn post-flight maintenance into a great crap.
      And because of the weight restrictions, it will not work to cram radiation protection.
      1. Operator
        Operator 27 September 2020 16: 41
        -8
        Smoke shadow radiation shielding.
        1. Vol4ara
          Vol4ara 27 September 2020 19: 18
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          Smoke shadow radiation shielding.

          And where is it used? Where are the research results? By the way, by the way, did anyone conduct them? or a "smart" idea came up, filed a patent and hello ... In short lol
          1. Operator
            Operator 27 September 2020 19: 22
            0
            Shadow protection was installed on American and Soviet experimental bombers with nuclear reactors. There she did not roll, since the bombers had to land at the airfield from time to time to change the crew, and all ground personnel were strictly prohibited from approaching the aircraft except from the bow.
    3. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 28 September 2020 07: 55
      +2
      Quote: NEXUS
      In essence, not only with a nuclear SU, which is put on Poseidon and Petrel, but also with Peresvet, there will be an advantageous advantage. With such a nuclear power plant, we can create a UAV with such a power plant, which will be able to roam for years without going down to the ground, which will give an advantage in this matter as well.
      Although, in fact, the same Petrel or Poseidon is a UAV, with kamikaze inclinations.

      Firstly, they have not yet invented jet engines without exhaust, but here the exhaust will be nuclear, and secondly, the operation of such missiles increases the likelihood of nuclear incidents by an order of magnitude in terms of accidents. So think it's worth it. By the way, the Americans have already developed this and refused
      1. Nastia makarova
        Nastia makarova 28 September 2020 08: 21
        -2
        the breakthrough here is not so much in the petrel itself, but in a new compact nuclear power plant
    4. Roman13579
      Roman13579 28 September 2020 11: 16
      0
      UAVs with such a power plant that will be capable of glare for years without going down to earth


      In the power plant, not only fuel plays a role .. various pumps, and other auxiliary equipment are quite "not nuclear" for themselves .. and fail with a bang ..

      I already once wrote - how many hours are spent on preparing an aircraft for flight ?? And how much is he able to fly after that without new service ?? We will not take into account the time for refueling ..))
    5. 3danimal
      3danimal 29 September 2020 10: 00
      -2
      Will they infect our territory while flying? Structural strength of materials will not allow loitering for years. Where will this thing fall in case it doesn’t come in handy, a false alarm?
      What is the advantage over ICBM, including those with hypersonic gliders? Which reach the target in just half an hour?
  • KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 27 September 2020 12: 22
    28
    Some article about nothing. Pouring from empty to empty. The only thought in the opus is that in the West, from the stage of denial (these are just cartoons) they move on to the next one - "this is dangerous for the environment" and "such a weapon should not exist"
    1. HAM
      HAM 27 September 2020 12: 33
      +4
      This is the same feeling after reading ...
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 27 September 2020 14: 24
      -1
      They have been at this stage since they shut down Project Pluto. The same Petrel is only bigger and more powerful.
  • Gust
    Gust 27 September 2020 12: 29
    +2
    These are weapons of nuclear war, not for every day and not for everyone. The main advantage is stealth and autonomy.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 29 September 2020 10: 01
      -1
      The nuclear war could end before this thing gets through. What is the point of striking at the ruins when their cities and command centers have also turned into them?
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 27 September 2020 12: 45
    +5
    Probably, such a reactor will give a hell of a radiation and irradiate, so the issue of storing such missiles in peacetime is a rather acute thing .. If they are equipped with a compartment with a reactor just before launch, the efficiency of use is absolutely lost ..
    The exhaust from the operation of such a reactor will apparently be very "dirty", and its operation will not be particularly predictable, because apparently we are talking about a ramjet engine, which means that a very powerful flow of unevenly heated air will flow through the reactor elements - and I have there is not the slightest idea how such a thing will "endlessly long" loitering in such an extreme mode.
    Of course, physicists know it better, but such a reactor and a highly enriched load for it will cost decently, very decently. Such an expensive toy will also need a nuclear warhead - and it will come out even more expensive. And all this will probably sound like a Christmas tree and graze somewhere near the storage bases, and more likely even exist in a semi-disassembled form. In general, at first glance - horror and immorality.
    1. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 12: 59
      -3
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      Probably, such a reactor will FUCKING radiation and irradiate, so the issue of storing such missiles in peacetime is a rather acute thing.

      In non-activated mode, where does the background come from? So, I think everything is in order with efficiency.
      The exhaust in operating mode is so dirty, but what to do? War! It will fly over our heads, even if they lie, but it will quickly disperse it, anywhere to Scandinavia, or Ukraine.
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      and I have not the slightest idea how such a thing will "endlessly long" loitering in such an extreme mode.

      And this is why? The Nuclon reactor will operate for 10 years at a temperature of 1600C.
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      Of course, physicists know it better, but such a reactor and a highly enriched load for it will cost decently, very decently.

      Well, let's count? Firstly, war is expensive and income is not considered here.
      Secondly, let's talk about the peaceful application. 1 watt of electricity costs 5 rubles / watt in Russia
      A small-sized reactor will generate 24 MW per day. This is about 120 million rubles of electricity generated per day in rubles! Speak dear?
      1. Xenofont
        Xenofont 27 September 2020 13: 24
        +8
        We made a mistake exactly 1000 times. The price is per kW.
        1. Alexey Sommer
          Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 13: 41
          +2
          You are right. hi But still not enough. count the year then.
          1. astepanov
            astepanov 27 September 2020 20: 20
            +2
            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            But still not enough. count the year then.
            No, the error is not a thousandfold, but more. A power of seven hundred and a half kilowatts is the thermal power of the reactor. Electricity will be 2,5 - 3 times less, i.e. at the level of 250 - 300 kW. And what is the manner of counting energy in kilowatts? Do you understand the difference between power and energies and units for expressing these quantities? It is from ignorance of the basics that you have confusion in estimates.
        2. AUL
          AUL 29 September 2020 09: 55
          0
          Quote: Xenofont
          We made a mistake exactly 1000 times. The price is per kW.

          And even worse - for kWh! laughing
      2. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 27 September 2020 13: 32
        0
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        The Nuclon reactor will operate for 10 years at a temperature of 1600C.


        Why do you refer to the Nuclon reactor to describe the Burevestnik reactor?
        1. Alexey Sommer
          Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 13: 40
          +4
          One line of reactors. This is a new generation of reactors.
          The work of steam was known under Archimedes, but the steam engine was created in the 18th century. So it is with nuclear reactors.
          New compact reactors are a revolution. It's like Watt's steam engine and the steam turbine under Archimedes, you know?
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 27 September 2020 14: 24
            0
            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            One line of reactors. This is a new generation of reactors.


            Is this statement based on official data or on your personal understanding of the problem?

            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            New compact reactors are a revolution.


            What is their revolutionary nature? Just for the record: the United States had a nuclear-powered cruise missile project 50-60 years ago. It was not implemented, but they worked out the principle.

            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            It's like Watt's steam engine and the steam turbine under Archimedes, you know?


            I understand that a steam turbine (Herona, not Archimedes), a steam turbine and a steam engine are fundamentally different things.
            1. Motorist
              Motorist 27 September 2020 16: 00
              +1
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              a steam turbine and a steam engine are fundamentally different things

              Eye, welcome! hi The principle of operation of heat engines is the same. In both cases, steam inlet with some parameters, and in the outlet with others, plus work on the shaft. The first law of thermodynamics has never been broken by anyone ...
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 27 September 2020 16: 38
                +1
                Welcome

                Quote: Motorist
                The principle of operation of heat engines is the same.


                Quote: Motorist
                The first law of thermodynamics has never been broken by anyone ...


                As in that joke, you reduced all engine building to the first law of thermodynamics (why not the Carnot cycle, for example? smile). But my opponent gave an example with a jet engine (if the "Archimedes impeller" is actually a Heron's ball), a turbine and a piston engine. And these are fundamentally different engines, whatever the first law of thermodynamics says. And I'm curious where the same jump is in reactors.
                1. Motorist
                  Motorist 28 September 2020 20: 06
                  0
                  No, according to Carnot, only a steam engine and a refrigeration unit with an expander (in reverse) work. And then - not quite: polytropics instead of adiabats. There is no jump at all. It's just that the prototype has been turned into useful mechanisms. Without belittling, of course, the merits of the inventions of Polzunov, Watt and the Cherepanovs! And so - the principle is the same: expansion of the working fluid, at the exit - work (internal combustion engine - there). I am keeping quiet about reactors, I studied at the wrong faculty.
            2. Alexey Sommer
              Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 16: 20
              -2
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              It was not implemented, but they worked out the principle.

              This is the key!
              Because they couldn't.
              The principle of operation of a photon engine for a rocket has long been worked out.
              But they cannot realize it. hi
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 27 September 2020 17: 00
                +2
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                Because they couldn't.


                Because they considered and understood that ICBMs are cheaper.

                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                The principle of operation of a photon engine for a rocket has long been worked out.


                Nonsense. And read something about the SLAM project.

                PS about the reactors you have not answered.
                1. Alexey Sommer
                  Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 17: 01
                  0
                  Quote: Eye of the Crying
                  Because they considered and understood that ICBMs are cheaper.

                  Yes, it is cheaper to shoot down an ICBM with a missile defense missile. The trajectory of the ICBM is predictable. A Petrel can fly from Mexico, a week after the start of the war.
                  Quote: Eye of the Crying
                  PS about the reactors you have not answered.

                  Remind me?
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 27 September 2020 17: 06
                    -1
                    Quote: Alexey Sommer
                    Yes, it is cheaper to shoot down an ICBM with a missile defense missile


                    For the Petrel and missiles, missile defense is not needed. Both SAM and URVV will do.

                    Quote: Alexey Sommer
                    And the Petrel can fly from Mexico.


                    ... with the speed of an airplane.

                    Quote: Alexey Sommer
                    Remind me?


                    "New compact reactors are revolution. It's like Watt's steam engine and steam turbine under Archimedes, you know?" - I understand the difference between a piston engine, a jet engine and a turbine. And what is the revolutionary nature of the Burevestnik reactor - I do not understand. Explain?
                    1. Alexey Sommer
                      Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 17: 08
                      -1
                      Quote: Eye of the Crying
                      And what is the revolutionary nature of the Burevestnik reactor - I do not understand. Explain?

                      Compactness and power.
                      Those. power-to-weight ratio.
                      No country has such reactors. hi
                      1. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 27 September 2020 17: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexey Sommer
                        Compactness and power.
                        Those. power-to-weight ratio.


                        Excuse me, but how do you know its power?

                        Quote: Alexey Sommer
                        No country has such reactors.


                        It is not known whether the Petrel reactor already exists.
                      2. Alexey Sommer
                        Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 17: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Eye of the Crying
                        Whether the Petrel reactor already exists is unknown

                        Yes Yes..
                        All cartoons hi
                      3. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 27 September 2020 17: 37
                        0
                        If you have links to something else - post them.
                      4. Local from the Volga
                        Local from the Volga 27 September 2020 19: 21
                        -2
                        Are you from massad ?! rummage through the waste paper yourself!
                      5. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 27 September 2020 19: 22
                        +2
                        Quote: Local from the Volga
                        Are you from massad ?!


                        Intelligence of New Guinea.

                        Quote: Local from the Volga
                        rummage through the waste paper yourself!


                        At least tell me where the waste paper is.
              2. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 19: 06
                +2
                Judging by the published information, the use of the Burevestnik reactor for peaceful purposes is impossible. It is cooled by air, which is absolutely unacceptable both in peaceful life and in a conventional war. Yes, and in a nuclear war, he is not needed. While the sowing miracle bird reaches the target, instead of the target there will already be a vorok with radioactive ash.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 27 September 2020 13: 37
    +2
    I think there is a certain element of guile in such calculations) This is not some kind of small-sized reactor - but apparently a product based on very highly enriched isotopes. In the case of a peaceful option, we would have a completely quiet closed-loop reactor, which does not even come close to the required (probably required for Petrel) parameters of the heat given off per unit of time, the accompanying requirements for the materials of the ducts through which the air flow will pass from the difference in temperature levels from the side of the conventional fuel element and the conventional air flow + the pressure of this flow and the inhomogeneity of its gas composition, humidity, etc.
    I am not a guru in physics - I just see that such a product (specifically the Petrel version) cannot be compared with peaceful reactors. Option for Poseidon / Peresvet - and that will be closer to peaceful constructions.

    As for the fact that the war is an expensive thing, I agree. However, the feasibility of this particular variant of using the reactor causes me great skepticism. It will be very expensive, but not very lethal (mass and dimensions), not fast, and probably not so reliable (in comparison with ballistic missiles or conventional cruise missile engines). For all this, we get LIKE AS a range, in practice and at such speeds - also relative (taking into account the operating conditions).

    Compared to Nuclon, there will probably also be a closed loop, inside which special, maximally inert coolants will circulate, with predicted cooling that will occupy most of the structure. Neither the pressure, nor the aggressiveness of the environment, nor the compactness of the design, nor the requirements for the degree of enrichment will be even close to those that will have to be taken into account in Burevestnik.

    IMHO this project is a dead end waste of funds (which I cannot say about Nuclon or Poseidon)
    1. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 13: 46
      +3
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      In the case of a peaceful option, we would have a completely calm closed-cycle reactor, not even close to the required (probably required for Petrel) parameters of heat given off per unit of time

      Is not a fact. A more complex cooling system, of course, but the principle is the same. I think.
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      Option for Poseidon / Peresvet - and that will be closer to peaceful constructions.

      So this is what they are.
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      However, the feasibility of this particular variant of using the reactor causes me great skepticism. It will be very expensive, but at the same time not very lethal (weight and dimensions), not fast, and probably not so reliable

      But judging by the fears of our "partners" flies. )
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      Compared to Nuclon, there will probably also be a closed loop, inside which special, maximally inert coolants will circulate, with predicted cooling that will occupy most of the structure. Neither the pressure, nor the aggressiveness of the environment, nor the compactness of the design, nor the requirements for the degree of enrichment will be even close to those that will have to be taken into account in Burevestnik.

      Maybe. But this is not necessary. In Nuclon there is a closed circuit of the coolant, in Petrel, the open atmosphere there is a working fluid.
    2. bar
      bar 27 September 2020 16: 22
      -3
      This is not some kind of small-sized reactor - but apparently a product based on very highly enriched isotopes.

      You're not right. Radioisotope energy sources should not be confused with nuclear reactors.
      A radioisotope energy source is fundamentally different from a nuclear reactor in that it does not use a controlled nuclear chain reaction, but the energy of the natural decay of radioactive isotopes.

      Accordingly, the power of the RIE is incomparably less than the power of the nuclear reactor.
      IMHO this project is a dead end waste of funds

      Any waste of money on weapons is a "dead end waste of funds" until the need arises to use it. yes
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 27 September 2020 16: 44
        +5
        Do you generally imagine how much heat an assembly capable of being placed in the body of this rocket should emit so that with the help of the VPJE it would be able to move forward and maneuver as a result? I perfectly understand the difference between an RTG and a nuclear reactor - but I assure you, since we are talking about a compact reactor, you cannot do without the highest degree of enrichment within such a technical problem.
        The reactor itself in such a product will be even smaller than the diameter of the vessel - the real darkness is linking the reactor with heat-removing channels, the task of which in this case will be not only uniform removal of heat from the assembly (as is the case with a conventional nuclear reactor) - but also the utilitarian use of this heat at modes close to critical during, probably, hours. In theory, all this is very beautiful - in practice, these heat-dissipating channels will be very long (and they cannot be thick, due to design limitations), therefore the air and heated air pressure in them will be very high, it will be an inhomogeneous mixture of gases if the rocket flies low over the water surface or just low over the terrain - water vapor and salts will also be present in the mixture - and all this will pour through numerous thin-walled heat sinks and under high pressure for hours, warm up to 1000+ degrees.
        Actually, this moment strains me IN THE THEORY of such a product. As far as I can imagine, there is an extremely high probability of cracks and corrosion of various kinds in the heat sinks of the product, which, coupled with high speeds and pressure, will quickly lead to a cascade of destruction of the reactor and coolants - the fall of the apparatus and radio octaves. contamination of the area. The likelihood of this outcome during operating hours is obscenely high for an expensive and high-precision military product, which also has limited power.

        Something like this.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 27 September 2020 17: 21
          +1
          dead-end waste of funds
          I agree with this conclusion of yours.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 19: 14
            +1
            By the way, at the end of the 50s, the intercontinental KR "Storm" and "Buran" were created in the USSR, and the KR "Stark" in the USA. Technically, now there is no difficulty in drying an intercontinental cruise missile without any "vigorous" engines. The X-101 already has a range of 5000 km. To do a little more - it will fly by 10. It will be much cheaper and much safer. Although it is clear that in the presence of ICBMs and SLBMs and developed air defense systems, both they and the Burevestnik are not needed from the word at all.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 27 September 2020 17: 07
      -6
      The unlimited flight range for a rocket is 40000 kilometers the diameter of the Earth at the equator, so when using a nuclear-powered rocket engine, there is nothing surprising about fuel uranium carbide absorbing inserts Cadmium housing with the addition of boron itself the combustion chamber from Tantalum and Graphite cooling system through quick-detachable pipes from the launcher with a circulation pump radiators and a fan system - the rocket start on the TTRD the cooling system stops the liquid circulation pipes are disconnected the rocket starts accelerates to 400 - 500 meters per second the absorbing inserts leave the core the assembly comes to a near-critical state the hearth begins to flow into the mixing part of the combustion chamber the working mixture passes through the hot assembly takes warmth and the combustion process takes place - everything ingenious is simple.
    4. Nastia makarova
      Nastia makarova 28 September 2020 08: 44
      -3
      spend money not on the petrel itself, which is really of little use, but on technology that can be used everywhere
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 September 2020 14: 19
    11
    Quote: Alexey Sommer
    Firstly, the war is expensive and income is not considered here.

    Money must be counted BEFORE the war. Because the budget of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is not dimensionless, and all this expensive, but, by and large, unnecessary nonsense leads to the fact that much less money is spent on what is really needed
    1. bar
      bar 27 September 2020 16: 24
      -2
      And who decides "what is really needed"? Are you offering to arrange a vote?
    2. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 27 September 2020 17: 23
      -1
      not really needed
      Yes, this is by and large, but by the very least it is very necessary, as it greatly raises the authority of the authorities.
  • Operator
    Operator 27 September 2020 16: 45
    -6
    The exhaust of the Petrel ramjet with a reactor heat exchanger in the heating chamber is absolutely clean (unlike the American Pluto ramjet with a heating chamber in the reactor core).
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 19: 19
      +4
      "The exhaust of the Petrel ramjet with the reactor heat exchanger in the heating chamber is absolutely clean" - how do you know this? And about the heat exchanger and about cleanliness? Everyone criticizes the project precisely because of its radioactive exhaust, and the Ministry of Defense is heroically silent, there is no way to reassure those who doubt that everything is clean there.
      1. Operator
        Operator 27 September 2020 19: 26
        -3
        Damn, where is the radiation in the coolant?

        Moreover, there was no radiation in the air as such, passing through the core of Pluto's reactor - with the exception of induced radiation in the dust suspended in the air.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 19: 52
          +2
          "except for induced radiation in dust suspended in the air" - let me remind you that one free radical model may be enough for the development of cancer.
          "where does the radiation come from in the coolant?" - why, then, is the first circuit with a coolant at nuclear reactors radioactive?
          1. Operator
            Operator 27 September 2020 20: 00
            -3
            In the presence of oxides and products of destruction of the housing and cladding of fuel elements in the primary circuit, these particles actually become radioactive (with the help of induced radiation). But the radiation power of this radiation is orders of magnitude less than the radiation power of the reactor core (as in the Pluto ramjet engine). Therefore, the degree of radiation guidance in the air aerosol pumped through the Petrel's ramjet will be comparable to the external natural background.
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 20: 14
              +3
              The first circuit of the reactors was in no way comparable in terms of radiation to the external background. In general, it is useless to talk about this now because of the secrecy of all the details of the project, but almost all experts are talking about the danger of air pollution. And even more so about the danger in case of accidents.
              1. Operator
                Operator 27 September 2020 20: 26
                -1
                I am not talking about the secondary radiation of the primary circuit, but about the tertiary radiation induced by it in the composition of the air aerosol.
                1. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 20: 30
                  +4
                  Is there a first circuit there? How much will he weigh with him? This is a cruise missile, not a strategic bomber. Usually they write that the reactor is cooled with air. Not a word about the circuit with the carrier.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 27 September 2020 20: 32
                    -4
                    I have already referred to the official information from the President of the Russian Federation about the similarity of the Poseidon and Burevestnik reactors.
                  2. Sergey Sfiedu
                    Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 20: 51
                    0
                    I will not say anything. What the advisers wrote to Vladimir Vladimirovich, he announced. And for advisers, all reactors are of the same type.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 29 September 2020 10: 03
    0
    The Nuclon reactor will operate for 10 years at a temperature of 1600C.

    The structural strength of the materials of the rocket itself will not allow it to fly for so long. The nozzle will burn out, etc.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 27 September 2020 13: 13
    0
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    horror and immorality

    Nuuuuuu.
    War is, in principle, immoral and always horror.
    The murder of some people by others so that someone else slept softer and ate better.

    And does it really matter how strong the rocket will give off during the flight, if at the end there is a big nuclear "badabum" and the whole world is in dust?
    1. Knell wardenheart
      Knell wardenheart 27 September 2020 13: 41
      +3
      I just imagine how this rocket is falling apart in the air over a couple of neutral states, and what they will say about this.
      No, if we consider the epic doomsday war - and so it will do, in principle .. But then it's better to develop a cobalt bomb, it will be juicier)
      1. Alexey Sommer
        Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 13: 52
        +3
        Quote: Knell Wardenheart
        I just imagine how this rocket is falling apart in the air over a couple of neutral states, and what they will say about this.

        So you can criticize anything you want!)))
        Are you serious? And if a US B-1B bomber with nuclear missiles falls apart over a NATO country, what then?
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 27 September 2020 17: 27
          0
          Already falling apart, over Spain once and over Greenland for the second time. Only with Spain there were problems, the contaminated soil had to be removed and disposed of. It's simple - no need to fly over densely populated areas.
          1. Alexey Sommer
            Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 17: 39
            +2
            Petrel, he is also a Petrel, that he will not just fly.
      2. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 27 September 2020 14: 07
        -1
        Quote: Knell Wardenheart
        I just imagine this missile falling apart in the air over a pair of neutral states.

        The probability that it will fall apart over the territory of Russia is much higher. More precisely, it has already happened. Poseidon and petrel are more dangerous to us in peacetime than to them in wartime. There was no new challenge for NATO. Classic air defense and anti-aircraft defense systems will cope with these targets, new unmanned and unmanned aircraft and ships will simply reset them to zero.
        1. Disant
          Disant 29 September 2020 21: 22
          0
          NATO did not face a new challenge

          already deployed Aegis system on land and at sea with constantly improving missiles and, in general, modifications of the entire system. By 2024 they will want to confidently shoot down all ICBMs in all flight phases
      3. bar
        bar 27 September 2020 16: 29
        +1
        I just imagine how this rocket is falling apart in the air over a couple of neutral states, and what they will say about this.

        Whatever they say, they've already been answered
        1. Knell wardenheart
          Knell wardenheart 27 September 2020 16: 48
          -3
          There was already an example of such an attitude, the example itself ended in a bunker, and the attitude in particular was expressed in the flooding of the Berlin metro, like there is no need for the Germans to live in such a world.
          The tale does not always end pompously, for the frequent bills you then have to pay a long and long time to subsequent generations.
          1. Fan-fan
            Fan-fan 27 September 2020 17: 29
            -3
            It is not for him to live in another world, since now he can only live in the world that he himself created.
          2. bar
            bar 27 September 2020 17: 41
            +3
            There was already an example of such an attitude, the example itself ended in a bunker

            Young man, hold your tongue. Your leader, who ended in the bunker, himself stubbornly walked towards this end. And Russia is a peaceful country, read the military doctrine. "And whoever comes with a sword" is the way to him. angry
    2. Vladimir61
      Vladimir61 27 September 2020 13: 52
      +4
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      And does it really matter how strong the rocket will give off during the flight, if at the end there is a big nuclear "badabum" and the whole world is in dust?

      Russia is not the United States and does not suit the whole world, let them know: "Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword."
      1. KERMET
        KERMET 27 September 2020 16: 04
        -2
        In order for them to know this, a 100 percent guarantee of inevitability of death is needed - how many more series of cartoons will convince the partners of this? And a dozen successful test flights over our common ball of this miracle will add so much positive to all countries that even potential allies will twist a finger at their temples
    3. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 19: 21
      +1
      "War, in principle, is immoral and always horror. The killing of some people by others so that someone else sleeps softer and ate better. And does it matter how much the rocket will give off during the flight, if at the end there is a big nuclear" badabum "and all the world to dust? "
      Well, yes, the existing nuclear arsenals make it possible to destroy all life on Earth 10 times, and with the "Petrel" - as many as eleven! It's just lovely and very moral!
  • ycuce234-san
    ycuce234-san 27 September 2020 18: 07
    -1
    Technically, there are also safer options for storage and use of nuclear flying devices - but they require even higher technologies than are now in the world.
    For example - thermonuclear "explosions", flying on the energy of fusion and having laser systems for initiating the reaction that propels such an apparatus. Systems that, when microcapsules of nuclear fuel explode, generate electromagnetic energy, which heats up the outflowing gas and plasma. Or even non-nuclear laser booster systems (Starshot) - advanced versions of the cannons of the future, which are even more futuristic than railguns and Gaussian cannons. So far, people are not able to master any of this.
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 27 September 2020 13: 29
    +6
    such a missile would theoretically be capable of destroying any target on the planet. The range of such a missile will not be limited in any way.


    ICBMs have been able to do this for 50 years. Or 60?
    1. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 27 September 2020 13: 55
      0
      The ICBM flies along a ballistic trajectory and predictably, the Petrel flies like an airplane, wherever and whenever you want. hi
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 27 September 2020 14: 19
        +7
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        ICBM flies on a ballistic trajectory and predictably,


        Haven't you heard of maneuvering warheads?

        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        The petrel flies like an airplane, anywhere and as long as you like.


        It does not fly anywhere and in any way yet. And the fact that it will fly like an airplane makes it vulnerable to conventional air defense.
      2. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 19: 24
        +2
        To shoot down ICBMs is somehow bad. They learned how to shoot down planes and cruise missiles long ago.
  • Dizel200
    Dizel200 27 September 2020 13: 33
    +9
    We will go to heaven, and they will die?
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 19: 25
      +5
      There is no heaven or hell. In the event of a nuclear war, there will be hell on earth, and the living will envy the dead.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 27 September 2020 13: 42
    +7
    Rocket creation with nuclear power plant could give Russia huge advantages in the field of weapons.



    What?
    1. Nastia makarova
      Nastia makarova 28 September 2020 08: 49
      -4
      development of compact nuclear power plant technologies
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 27 September 2020 14: 08
    +3
    Nuclear-powered cruise missile: advantages and technical challenges ...
    1. Advantages ...: It will allow the creation in the future of "long-playing" air platforms that will serve as the basis for the creation of "quasi-satellite" ("pseudo-satellite") air networks (constellations) for monitoring large areas of the Earth, relaying communications, navigation systems, local missile defense / air defense constellations ( "quasiSOI") ...
    2.Complexity ...: 2.1 -It is still unclear how it turned out to be possible to create a nuclear power plant of sufficient power in the given dimensions, mass, using, as it were, known technologies! "Known technologies" say that it may be possible to create an engine; but only he will not be able (or barely ...) to move this CR, not that to make it fly at a sufficiently high subsonic speed and for a very long time! ; 2.2 - There are doubts about the "very high" effectiveness "of the" Petrel "as a strategic weapon!
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 27 September 2020 14: 28
      -2
      Isn't it cheaper to use satellites after all?
    2. Operator
      Operator 27 September 2020 16: 48
      -7
      49% uranium enrichment, fast neutrons, liquid metal coolant - and voila, meet a one-cubic meter nuclear reactor with a thermal power of 30 MW.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 27 September 2020 14: 14
    -2
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    I can imagine how this rocket is falling apart in the air over a pair of neutral states, and what they will say about this.

    You yourself answered - this is an option for the last blow in the last war.
    Who will ask whom and what will be asked?

    And so yes, it is doubtful. Expensive, long, troublesome, and not very reliable.
    I think a dozen other ICBMs with ten warheads will solve the issue no less effectively.
    And you can also blow up the "mother Kuzma" megaton commercials at 100 where the thread is in Iturup and / or Chukotka, in Kaliningrad, in the Caucasus, in the Pamirs, in Istanbul .... and many other places.
    And that's it, no neutrals for you with stupid questions.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 27 September 2020 15: 21
      +3
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      And you can also blow up the "mother Kuzma" megaton commercials at 100 where the thread is in Iturup and / or Chukotka, in Kaliningrad, in the Caucasus, in the Pamirs, in Istanbul .... and many other places.

      See a psychiatrist !!!
      You have obvious suicidal tendencies!
      This is dangerous - for you and those around you.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 27 September 2020 15: 53
        +1
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        You have obvious suicidal tendencies!
        It is dangerous - for you and others

        I have?
        Funny.
        And those who, for example, are here seriously talking about the attack on American aircraft carriers?
        Not?

        In modern conditions, any serious war with a serious enemy ultimately threatens with suicide.
        So if the bottom line is clear, why complicate things?
        We will quickly go to Paradise, and let them die long and painfully.
      2. KERMET
        KERMET 27 September 2020 16: 09
        +3
        The same can be advised to the author of this atomic winged miracle
  • fa2998
    fa2998 27 September 2020 14: 50
    +4
    Quote: KVU-NSVD
    "such a weapon should not exist"

    After the warhead is triggered, the nuclear engine turns into dust. RADIOACTIVE DUST! I think if such a missile is created and put into service, then it can only be used during a global nuclear war, there and so everywhere radiation.
    To use such ammunition in local conflicts (for example, Tomahawks in Iraq, or Caliber in Syria) - after all, people live there afterwards! Without fear of radioactive contamination.
    I think, in view of the complexity, all missiles will be equipped with special warheads, and included in the limitation agreements. hi
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 19: 31
      +2
      "To use such ammunition in local conflicts (for example, Tomahawks in Iraq, or Caliber in Syria) - after all, people live there afterwards! Without fear of radioactive contamination" - such ammunition must first be tested. In flight. More than once! With a considerable risk that something will happen to him. And the world will receive the next batch of radioactive isotopes on the ground, in water and in the air. Wonderful car, give me more !.
  • fa2998
    fa2998 27 September 2020 15: 12
    +3
    hi
    Quote: Alexey Sommer
    and there is a breakthrough.

    During World War II, British pilots on the Hurricennes and Spitfires successfully fought F-2 cruise missiles, without radars and rockets on a sling. PULMETS! What is the difference in the performance characteristics of this "nuclear missile", only in the range? A subsonic light LA. It is easy to knock down. Well, of course, after nuclear strikes, all the radars, control points, airfields, etc. are in ruins, then it will fly.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 27 September 2020 16: 51
      +3
      Quote: fa2998
      Without locators and rockets on the suspension. PULMETS!

      A machine gun is bad manners. They flew as close as possible to the rocket, the wing of the aircraft pryed off the wing of the FA, after which the rocket lost control and fell.
  • demo
    demo 27 September 2020 15: 19
    +6
    Darn!
    Another thing worries me.
    Suppose we launched this rocket for the purpose - "the ax hangs over the head."
    The enemy got scared and asked for a truce.
    How and where will we plant this crap?
    Or so it will patrol until a new exacerbation of the political situation.
    Since the invention of individual means of protection / attack - revolvers, the principle has been known - draw the weapon, use it.
    Or don't take it out.

    The speed of this thing is subsonic.
    Consequently, the most outdated air defense systems will shoot it down.

    Professor, specialist in nuclear physics and atomic energy Igor Nikolayevich Ostretsov told about what exactly happened at the test site in the Arkhangelsk region, where a jet propulsion system exploded, in the engine of which a radioactive isotope power source was used. Could it be the new Burevestnik intercontinental missile? And, can such a rocket exist in principle?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6XDRH41RRY
    1. Operator
      Operator 27 September 2020 16: 52
      -6
      Planting "Petrel" (in the event of a peaceful end of the special period) will be after the full production of uranium fuel for water in the Arctic Ocean.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 19: 35
        +7
        The complete depletion of nuclear fuel is simply the transition of one radioactive substance to another radioactive one. You plant, plant "Buovestniki" in the Arctic Ocean, the inhabitants of the Russian North will be very grateful to you! and in a couple of months all the fish in the world's oceans will glow.
        1. Operator
          Operator 27 September 2020 19: 45
          -3
          The full production of nuclear fuel (uranium 235) is needed not to deactivate the reactor, but to save money - to scatter a fig by carriers of special warheads in peacetime: if the Petrels were already launched into the sky during a special period, then after its end, let them hover in the air for several years for fear of the foe.

          You are clearly not in the know - the reactors, both in the composition of decommissioned Soviet nuclear submarines and those already dismantled from the hull of nuclear submarines, were flooded in the Arctic Ocean (near the coast, of course) until the level of radiated radiation decreases in a hundred years. A damped nuclear reactor emits itself, but does not spread radioactive particles.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 27 September 2020 20: 00
            +2
            Oh yeah, that changes things radically. Especially considering that nuclear submarine reactors are fucking strong and protected. And the Burevestnik reactors are lightened to the limit. And the nuclear submarine reactors were flooded, I hope very carefully, and the Burevestnikov reactors still need to be put on water or on ice, extremely softly and gently, and this bird is a rocket, not an airplane, and it is unlikely that a soft landing.
            1. Operator
              Operator 27 September 2020 20: 16
              -2
              What is the problem to gently land the Petrel on the ice slush (natural or filled with an icebreaker in the form of a landing strip in the ice mass), which practically does not experience wave action?
        2. Svetlana
          Svetlana 28 September 2020 11: 30
          0
          Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
          all fish in the world's oceans will glow.

          In Burevestnik, there is a maximum of 50 kg of nuclear fuel, and practically not used until full depletion (which occurs after years of operation at full load). For comparison - in the exploded nuclear reactors of Fukushima (about 1 km from the ocean) of this spent radioactive fuel tens of tons, i.e. a thousand times more than on Petrel. And this radiation, together with groundwater, seeps into the ocean (bypassing the ice barrier of frozen soil). The question is - from whom will the fish shine more, from the very real groundwater of Fukushima, or from the hypothetical planting of the Petrel?
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 21: 03
            +1
            How many tons of spent nuclear fuel from Fukushima ended up in the ocean? The answer is simple - not at all! Radioactive contamination in the Fukushima accident took place mainly due to the release of radioactive gas formed at the time of the explosion and the discharge into the ocean of radioactive water used to cool the reactor. Emissions accounted for 20% of the emissions from the Chernobyl accident. So the comparison is inappropriate. And if the Japanese like radioactive fish, that's their business, and our northerners and Nenoksa will have enough, dying of cancer is a rather nasty pleasure.
            1. lucul
              lucul 29 September 2020 21: 13
              +1
              Radioactive contamination in the Fukushima accident took place mainly due to the release of radioactive gas formed at the time of the explosion and the discharge into the ocean of radioactive water used to cool the reactor. Emissions accounted for 20% of the emissions from the Chernobyl accident. So the comparison is inappropriate.

              And the fact that the reactor is further cooled with seawater (and not a closed cycle), and which continuously pours back into the ocean, contaminating the Pacific Ocean with radiation, is nothing, right?
              Or are you not aware that the reactor is further cooled with seawater? )))
              1. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 21: 18
                0
                Yeah, they pour it straight into the reactor. Well, it is not enough to read something on the topic before writing nonsense. The Japanese are not suicidal to eat radionuclides, they very quickly made a closed system with purification, there were problems with groundwater, but they also dealt with them.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 29 September 2020 21: 30
                  +1
                  Yeah, they pour it straight into the reactor. Well, it is not enough to read something on the topic before writing nonsense. The Japanese are not suicidal to eat radionuclides, they very quickly made a closed system with purification, there were problems with groundwater, but they also dealt with them.

                  Laughter, the reactor melted the protection and went deeper, its temperature is still high, so water is pumped into the reactor))))
                  And tell us in more detail, when was it that the Japanese, under a sagging reactor with a high level of radiation, were able to install a closed loop of its cooling? )))
                  1. Sergey Sfiedu
                    Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 21: 34
                    0
                    Google and Wikipedia will help you.
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 29 September 2020 21: 40
                      +1
                      Google and Wikipedia will help you.

                      Pfff ....))))
                      Since May 2011, electric pumps have been installed at the NPP, supplying fresh water through the reactor makeup system. Since June 2011, cooling water has been circulating in a sufficiently long circuit, which includes a reactor, a containment, basements of the reactor and turbine buildings... The water taken from the turbine compartment, before returning to the reactors, passes through the radionuclide purification systems and the desalination unit

                      Ie there is no closed loop and radioactive water seeps through the soil into the ocean))))
                      Which was required to prove.
                      1. Sergey Sfiedu
                        Sergey Sfiedu 30 September 2020 06: 23
                        0
                        And a lot leaked out? What is the background in the ocean at Fukushima now? Read the article further - - there is a set of measures for pumping out groundwater.
                      2. Svetlana
                        Svetlana 30 September 2020 15: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                        And a lot leaked out?

                        The last operating nuclear reactor was shut down in Japan last week. It seems that the Japanese generally want to abandon the use of atomic energy due to the impossibility of bringing the situation with the Fukushima NPP under control. At the problem station, a leak of radioactive water occurred again. The operator has officially admitted that the situation is out of control. The head of Rospotrebnadzor Gennady Onishchenko said that his department intends to strengthen control over the quality and safety of Far Eastern fish due to the deteriorating situation at the Japanese nuclear power plant.
                        Source: https://versia.ru/fukusima-mozhet-zarazit-65-procentov-rossijskogo-ulova
                      3. Svetlana
                        Svetlana 30 September 2020 15: 08
                        0
                        Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                        there is a set of measures for pumping out groundwater.

                        The official indicators of the background radiation near "Fukushima": in the samples of greenplants caught in the 20-km zone around "Fukushima", the level of cesium was 25,8 thousand becquerels per kilogram. At a rate of 100 becquerels. As you can see, the indicators are hundreds of times higher than the norm. And this despite the "complex of measures for pumping out groundwater"
                        Source: https://versia.ru/fukusima-mozhet-zarazit-65-procentov-rossijskogo-ulova
                      4. Sergey Sfiedu
                        Sergey Sfiedu 1 October 2020 05: 11
                        0
                        Therefore, it is worth adding more and peaceful "Petrels". Nenoksa will not be enough.
  • garri-lin
    garri-lin 27 September 2020 20: 06
    +1
    Rather, it will be a "finishing move" weapon. And it will start in the third echelon. Dead hand. And the targets will be selected specifically to inflict maximum and lasting damage. Although as a weapon for a new type of SSBNs patrolling off the coast of Antarctica is also suitable.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 21: 20
      0
      Wow, now the third echelon has already gone! What's not the tenth?
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 29 September 2020 21: 26
        0
        In the tenth there will be a stone crumb and a skull with tibia.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 21: 39
          0
          "In the tenth there will be a stone crumb and a skull with tibia." Why not in the first? By the way, START-3 is still in effect and the warheads for the third echelon will have to be removed from the first, which the generals are unlikely to allow.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 29 September 2020 21: 46
            0
            Extremely strange logic. How can you remove anything from the first echelon if it has long gone to the targets at maximum speed.
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 30 September 2020 06: 27
              0
              Once again, for the inattentive - the number of warheads in both Russia and the United States is still limited by the START-3 Treaty. You cannot just take and assemble an additional number of new warheads without disposing of the old ones. What's the use of writing about the third echelon if there are not enough warheads for the first echelon. The Americans on the Minutemans have half of the warheads empty.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 30 September 2020 08: 38
                0
                ☠ everything is clear. Instead of uranium, we wake up to beat with iron.
    2. Operator
      Operator 29 September 2020 21: 49
      -1
      Do not start (the command to start the RC must pass before the arrival of enemy ammunition), but fly in the third echelon (due to the multiple lower speed of the RC).

      At the same time, a set of targets can be laid in the BIUS of each missile, depending on the situation: a local nuclear conflict, a global nuclear conflict or a total nuclear conflict (with a strike on the reactors of nuclear power plants).
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 29 September 2020 22: 17
        0
        The primary task is to survive the burst, disarming blow of the enemy. Liba start earlier or be able to survive the blow. In any case, you will need to aim the Petrel at the target after clarifying the results of his first strikes. Nobody will cancel the blow and return the Petrel. This will complicate the rocket too much. The Petrel's main goal is not a military one. Economic. Even a dozen missiles that can come from Mexico or other directions will force America to spend on covering these air defense areas.
        1. Operator
          Operator 29 September 2020 22: 24
          0
          The choice of the type of targets for the Petrels (lifted into the air on command to start the enemy attack) will be made according to the nature of the attack:
          - a massive strike using conventional ammunition;
          - local strike with the use of nuclear weapons;
          - a global strike with the use of nuclear weapons.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 29 September 2020 22: 30
            0
            I think it's more logical to distribute targets for each missile personally, so to speak. Nastya missiles to send to priority targets that were not hit by the first strikes. I think at the first stage, reconnaissance and interception of the enemy's information exchange can provide information about the effectiveness of strikes.
            1. Operator
              Operator 29 September 2020 22: 40
              -1
              So I say that in the BIUS of each Petrel, only its individual targets (by type) will be protected - so that there are no overlaps in the form of striking one target with two or more ammunition.

              Immediately after the first nuclear strikes, radio communications will disappear (due to clouds of ionized air), and dust and soot will rise into the air (blocking optical sensors of satellites), so collect and, moreover, transmit data on the completeness of target destruction by means of the first and second strike will fail.

              Therefore, the choice of target types for the Petrel can be made only before the first nuclear explosions - according to the nature of the enemy's attack (see my previous comment), especially since, according to our Military Doctrine, we plan to deliver only a retaliatory or counter-retaliatory strike.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 30 September 2020 00: 59
                0
                Alas, one can only guess. Nobody is going to tell us about the intricacies of the application.
  • Errr
    Errr 27 September 2020 15: 19
    +6
    From the text of the article:
    The atmospheric air entering these compartments heats up to several thousand degrees belay , its outflow creates thrust.
    As they say, thanks hi for neighing. laughing
    Here it would be better to say: "The atmospheric air, getting into these compartments, heats up to less than 2000 ° C", because already at 1950 ° C, the ramjet design does not begin to have problems for children, but there are also fuel rods to boot. The horses of fantasy must be held back, however. smile
    1. c2020
      c2020 27 September 2020 15: 47
      +7
      An indisputable indicator of the technological level of any country is the aviation industry. It makes no difference - civilian or military, since they are closely interconnected. Russia flies on Boeing and Airbus. You don't need to know anything else. The topic of some kind of miracle of achievements can be closed immediately, without reading at all.
      1. Errr
        Errr 27 September 2020 16: 07
        +5
        To the question of Second Lieutenant Semyon:
        How to kill you right away, or do you want to suffer?
        Comrade Sukhov replied:
        Better, of course, to suffer.
        And I completely agree with him. smile
      2. Nastia makarova
        Nastia makarova 28 September 2020 08: 52
        -4
        well, do not know)))) in the nuclear facility Russia is still ahead of the whole planet
    2. Operator
      Operator 27 September 2020 16: 54
      -7
      The air in the heating chamber of the Petrel ramjet is heated to the temperature of the coolant - molten lead (~ 1000 degrees Celsius).
      1. Errr
        Errr 27 September 2020 17: 59
        +9
        There is no coolant there. The air passing through the reactor core is directly heated from the fuel assemblies and, thus, is itself a cooling element of the reactor.
        And further. When heated to 1000 ° C, no one will fly anywhere. This is clearly not enough. At least 1400 ° C is needed.
        1. Operator
          Operator 27 September 2020 18: 16
          -3
          There is a coolant, since the reactor is of the same type as Poseidon.

          I don't argue about the temperature, that's why I used the "approximately" sign in front of the numerical value in degrees.
          1. Errr
            Errr 27 September 2020 18: 24
            +4
            The Poseidon Reactor is a completely different song. smile
            1. Operator
              Operator 27 September 2020 18: 40
              -2
              I trust the President of the Russian Federation in this matter.
          2. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 21: 11
            0
            All reactors are of the same type. And they are all different. What heat carrier would you recommend for 2000gr.C?
            1. Operator
              Operator 29 September 2020 22: 05
              +1
              Silicon carbide (shell of spherical fuel rods) melts at 2700 degrees Celsius, zirconium (shell of rod fuel rods) melts at 1900 degrees, liquid lead (coolant) evaporates at 1700 degrees.

              Consequently, the temperature of the reactor core should be ~ 1200 degrees (with a margin).
            2. Svetlana
              Svetlana 29 September 2020 22: 12
              0
              Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
              What heat carrier would you recommend for 2000gr.C?

              Compressed helium. And if in the Saber scramjet engine, hot air is cooled in a helium-air heat exchanger from ~ 2000C to subzero temperatures, then why not in a similar heat exchanger,
              having turned the gas flows back, do not heat the air entering the heat exchanger from the pressure air intake of the Petrel ramjet engine to the same ~ 1500..1900C?
              1. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 30 September 2020 06: 36
                0
                Has the Saber already flown? The gaseous heat carrier is "not gud". And this system will definitely not work for years.
  • gridasov
    gridasov 27 September 2020 15: 26
    -1
    The creation of the so-called nuclear engine is fully written in our
    in technology
    1. c2020
      c2020 27 September 2020 15: 53
      +3
      The creation of the so-called nuclear engine is fully written in our
      in technology

      We slurp cabbage soup in the aviation industry, and crow about the nuclear engine. Chickens laugh. The same applies to all sorts of vanguards, Poseidons and other similar starships.
      1. Nastia makarova
        Nastia makarova 28 September 2020 08: 53
        -5
        fools, study the topic
  • Galleon
    Galleon 27 September 2020 15: 58
    +6
    If you think a little about the device of this rocket, then the question arises: how long will the electronics of this rocket be able to work in the presence of a very powerful source of radiation? Isn't the talk about unlimited flight time just another cartoon, taking into account such a simple and indisputable fact as the impossibility of long-term operation of electronics at a high (and in this case, very high)) level of radiation? Further, the reader can think out the very influence of this factor in time on the operation of the guidance unit or flight router, the operation of target search channels, etc.
    Another question: "unlimited" range and flight time is a positive or negative characteristic for overcoming enemy air defense? Yes, they are not at all - these are absurd achievements in themselves, and the speed is subsonic.
    The article specifically mentions
    weakly protected objects
    the enemy, i.e. it will not be government facilities, military, infrastructure or energy facilities. Then for the destruction or destruction of what "insignificant" objects such a missile is needed, the cost of which is comparable to the budget of the city in the central zone of the Russian Federation?
    Well, from the moral ... yes, dear opponents, from the moral point of view, such a rocket seems to me the last chance for salvation ... no, not for salvation, but to frighten the opponents of the ruler, cornered, and a crime against humanity. This is not a weapon of mass destruction, but a weapon of mass excreta: to release something that will pollute millions of cubes of air, spill radioactive rains and, when defeated, scatter its mortal radioactive fragments. And no need to nod at depleted uranium shells and other enemy abominations. Despite all these abominations, the enemy did not win his wars either in Serbia or in Vietnam, and you should not get on all fours yourself if someone, somewhere, turns into cattle. hi
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 27 September 2020 16: 48
      -2
      Quote: Galleon
      will the electronics of this rocket be able to work in the presence of a very powerful source of radiation?

      In general, the performance of electronics under radiation conditions is recorded in GOSTs for military products.

      Quote: Galleon
      , from the moral point of view, such a rocket seems to me ... a crime against humanity.

      And simply killing people in any hostilities is better?

      Again, the object can become weakly defended as a result of the outbreak of hostilities.
      For example, for the same Americans - first you need to destroy the air defense / missile defense system with the first strike, and then clear the rest with the second and next.
      True, they plan to do this with ordinary planes with bombs.
      Ours, apparently, are not such optimists.
  • Operator
    Operator 27 September 2020 16: 03
    0
    The compartments with air heaters (heat exchangers of the primary circuit of a nuclear reactor) are called heating chambers, probably.
  • Galleon
    Galleon 27 September 2020 16: 58
    +3
    Quote: Jacket in stock
    In general, the performance of electronics under radiation conditions is recorded in GOSTs for military products.

    This is understandable, as well as the fact that these GOSTs were developed after studying the damaging factors of nuclear weapons. But this is not JV. Here with this it is declared "unlimited" to fly ...
    Your second thesis - yes, perhaps from the outside my complaint looks like excessive sensitivity. But I won't give it up. It's like poisoning water sources. But not to the enemy - but to EVERYONE: enemies, civilians, neutrals, their own civilians (!). And taking into account the fact that these "cows" need to graze until the time "H" in a neutral or controlled area - so mainly the civilian population and mainly their own.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 27 September 2020 19: 56
    +6
    There was nothing to write, but it was necessary to write. This is me about the article. Another retelling of everything that has already been heard. Salary graphomania is killing journalism.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 27 September 2020 19: 56
    -1
    Quote: Galleon
    EVERYTHING IN A ROW: enemies, civilians, neutrals, their civilians (!). And given the fact that these "cows" need to graze until the time "H" in a neutral or controlled area

    What does "graze" mean?
    According to our doctrine, they can take off only in a retaliatory / counterstrike.
    Actually, they will have no need to graze, they will simply be cunning and take a very long time to get there.
    And after 3000 ICBM warheads are "banged", the neutrals will no longer care why they were inflated, from these explosions or from the glowing engines of the "petrel".
    And it will be possible not to think about your own or the enemy civilian population at all.
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 27 September 2020 20: 19
    +1
    a small question, but it already flies above us and when where it will splash down because its landing on land is an analogue of Hiroshima, if not right where are the specialists
  • fa2998
    fa2998 27 September 2020 20: 30
    +6
    Quote: Operator
    after its end let them hover in the air for several years in fear of the enemy.

    Airplanes rarely fall to the ground just because of fuel consumption. Mechanical, electronic malfunctions, lightning strikes or just got into a storm, fire, etc. Many offer that the CD would fly for months-UTOPIA!
    1. Operator
      Operator 27 September 2020 20: 36
      -5
      Petrels during a special period and after its end in peacetime will patrol over the Arctic Ocean - in the event of an accident, the burial of a nuclear reactor under water is guaranteed.
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 27 September 2020 20: 32
    +3
    just specifically Putin is not literate
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • fa2998
    fa2998 27 September 2020 20: 42
    +4
    Quote: Operator
    peacetime will patrol over the Arctic Ocean -

    In my mind, "loitering" means flying for 6-8 hours instead of 1,5-2. Well, a day or two (and then when setting records) The technique is capricious, where does the fairy tale come from that the aircraft will "in peacetime" fly somewhere?
    1. Operator
      Operator 27 September 2020 20: 47
      -6
      Technological progress is changing our ideas - modern nuclear reactors operate non-stop for 30-40 years, and there is simply nothing to break in a ramjet.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 28 September 2020 00: 29
        +1
        And the glider's resource is still limited.
        1. Operator
          Operator 28 September 2020 00: 52
          -3
          Aluminum gliders B-52 have been in operation for 70 years with a hook.
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 28 September 2020 01: 43
            +1
            First, not 70; secondly, not continuously; thirdly, in a different mode.
            1. Operator
              Operator 28 September 2020 03: 20
              -3
              The B-52 has been in service since 1955, and now its service life has been extended until 2030. During this time, they will wind flight hours, equivalent to several years of continuous loitering - the very same for the Petrels. Moreover, the operating mode of the B-52 is more intense - apart from cruising flights, they perform takeoffs and landings.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 28 September 2020 10: 39
                +2
                Quote: Operator
                The B-52 has been in service since 1955, and now its service life has been extended until 2030.


                Those that were released in 1955 have long been decommissioned.

                Quote: Operator
                During this time, they will wind flight hours, equivalent to several years of continuous loitering - the very same for the Petrels.


                Sure. These years alone, they have flown over several decades, with regular maintenance in between flights.

                Oh yes, and there is no reason to claim that a cruise missile airframe will be as durable as a B-52 airframe.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 28 September 2020 11: 11
                  -3
                  There is nothing to break in the airframe and propulsion unit of the Petrel - a simple hull, wings without mechanization, an elementary tail unit and a ramjet engine without a single moving part. There is no pilot's cabin, chassis, bomb bay, fuel system, barrel armament, etc.

                  The reliability of control equipment is decided by redundancy, the reliability of a nuclear reactor - by the quality of performance.
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 28 September 2020 11: 30
                    +3
                    Quote: Operator
                    In the glider and propulsion of the Petrel


                    Does the Petrel have a mover? Which one?

                    Quote: Operator
                    nothing to break


                    Everything breaks down. Metal gets tired under load, the resource of any engine is limited.

                    Quote: Operator
                    Ramjet without a single moving part


                    Yeah. Well, just think, a jet of gases with a temperature of 1500 degrees and a speed of several hundred meters per second.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 28 September 2020 11: 35
                      -3
                      Propeller - a pipe with a diffuser / confuser and a tubular heat exchanger between them.

                      Who can argue that after flying 15 million km per year, the Petrel's glider will develop its resource laughing
                      1. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 28 September 2020 11: 36
                        +1
                        Quote: Operator
                        Propeller - a pipe with a diffuser / confuser and a tubular heat exchanger between them.


                        Clearly understood.
                      2. Operator
                        Operator 28 September 2020 11: 39
                        -4
                        I forgot to say - after the splashdown of the Petrel, the sealed and most expensive parts of it (nuclear reactor and special warheads) may well be installed on a new glider with new control equipment.
                      3. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 28 September 2020 11: 42
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        after splashdown of Petrel


                        And he also knows how to splash down ... wow.
                      4. Operator
                        Operator 28 September 2020 11: 51
                        -3
                        On the water landing strip with ice sludge, obviously.
                      5. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 28 September 2020 11: 57
                        +1
                        I wonder how you know all this? smile
                      6. Operator
                        Operator 28 September 2020 13: 04
                        0
                        From the aircraft design course of the USSR MAI.
                      7. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 28 September 2020 13: 07
                        +1
                        If in MAI you were taught that an aircraft with a ramjet engine and a nuclear reactor would splash down into slush, without landing gear and floats ... no, you were definitely not taught this in MAI.

                        I wonder if your words about MAI are as valid as your words about Petrel, or worse.
                      8. Operator
                        Operator 28 September 2020 13: 09
                        -2
                        We were also taught how to land / splash down any aircraft, including spacecraft.
                      9. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 28 September 2020 13: 12
                        +1
                        You were definitely not told about the methods of splashing the Petrel into the sludge.
                      10. Operator
                        Operator 28 September 2020 13: 30
                        -1
                        And how does the Petrel in this sense differ from other aircraft?
                      11. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 28 September 2020 13: 34
                        +1
                        Yes, a lot. Wings without mechanization, elementary tail assembly, no landing gear. And he also has a nuclear reactor on board.
                      12. Operator
                        Operator 28 September 2020 13: 38
                        0
                        I asked about the landing characteristics for splashdown on ice sludge.
                      13. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 28 September 2020 16: 11
                        0
                        I answered that.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 21: 13
    0
    Have you tried to write fairy tales? Or fantasy? All the makings are there, proceed.
  • Mikhail Zakharov
    Mikhail Zakharov 28 September 2020 02: 25
    +2
    Petrel is a super-expensive, complex and therefore not reliable prodigy. probably worth it as an airplane and whether it will fly or not is not a fact. not spending money on that
    1. Nastia makarova
      Nastia makarova 28 September 2020 08: 54
      -4
      some, the main thing is the development of technologies and not the project itself
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 28 September 2020 11: 30
        +2
        There are only two meanings from THESE technologies specifically - the Ministry of Defense has nothing to do with one of them, really.

        1) In the long term, this gives a line of engines that can be part of a conventionally fuel-free shuttle suitable for repeated landing and takeoff from the planets of the solar system. And possibly from the surface of the Earth. Any gaseous body that can be liquefied on site and used in dense layers of the atmosphere and / or in conjunction with the operation of a direct-flow system is suitable as a fuel.
        Before that, it was incredibly long from the point of view of developing biological shielding for the shields for this reactor, wear-resistant materials for its construction, in fact, demand, and so on.

        2) Theoretically, a similar design (ramjet NRE) could be considered as engines for strategic bombers / super-large UAVs with such tasks. We would get a very steep economy of space and areas for fuel, which could be occupied by bomb load / electronic warfare systems and so on. The price to pay for this would be a larger heat trail behind the apparatus and, in fact, radioactivity.

        As a supplement to this scheme - such an engine integrated into a large aircraft would make the so-called "air launch" of the spacecraft more commercially attractive, since there would be greater savings in fuel and fuel weight.

        But all this was written with a pitchfork on the water without understanding the reliability of such a solution in the context of modern technological capabilities. And such will apparently not be sufficient.
        1. Nastia makarova
          Nastia makarova 28 September 2020 14: 24
          -4
          maybe this is a trick for the United States to concede something and we will stop development
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 28 September 2020 15: 36
            0
            And I assumed this, like even somewhere in the vastness of this publication.
            A kind of big "black box" with a turbojet engine and something fonny in the exhaust - so that the adversaries break their heads and spend money. But the implementation of the idea looks somewhat rude, because the very idea of ​​SUCH EXPENSIVE cruise missile, frankly, makes you involuntarily ask yourself skepticism.
            1. Nastia makarova
              Nastia makarova 28 September 2020 15: 39
              -4
              we can only guess, the rest is classified
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 21: 23
      -1
      "probably like an airplane" - It stands not like an airplane, but like a medium-sized city with all the giblets (of course, the price includes R&D) ..
    3. chingachguc
      chingachguc 2 October 2020 20: 28
      0
      How much do you think a Yars ballistic missile costs?
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 28 September 2020 05: 07
    +1
    Funny.
    The design of the reactor is being seriously discussed and what is the coolant from !!!?
    Seriously written about loitering in a peaceful, albeit "threatened" period !!!?
    People, what are you talking about ?!

    Is there somewhere at least once in the official press that there was at least a hint of an engine design?

    And what kind of loitering can be, and even more so, what kind of return with landing are you writing about?
    This is the same ROCKET - that is, a deliberately disposable ammunition with a flight in one direction.
    If it were assumed otherwise, then we would be talking about an aircraft, or a UAV.
    In a threatened period, its reactor will simply be loaded with fuel, the warhead will be docked and delivered to the launch site.

    They will naturally regard the launch of such missiles as the beginning of a war. The answer is to launch their missiles.
    AND EVERYTHING!
    No neutrals, no civilians. And there is no one and no one to complain about. The whole world is in dust.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 28 September 2020 09: 13
    +3
    There are two questions.
    One is the actual weapon, why not be.
    The second is what Putin said to eat when he was not there. Interviews with military personnel, designers, and a number of accidents simply confirm that it never happened and does not exist yet.

    That is, cartoons instead of weapons, and lies, lies, lies before the elections (misinformation of a conventional opponent, if politely)
    1. Knell wardenheart
      Knell wardenheart 28 September 2020 11: 32
      +3
      Some people are still expecting success from the "2020 strategy", so it's probably not the first time ..
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 28 September 2020 12: 41
        -1
        The 2020 strategy was covered with a copper basin in the same year in which it was adopted - 2008, when the global financial crisis blasted.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 28 September 2020 15: 35
    0
    powerful heaters
    maybe heat exchangers?
    its outflow creates thrust.

    Snot and softened brains flow out.
    And the reactive gases - REMOVING!
    ... philologists writing on topics they do not understand ...

    Well, do not write, even if you do not know elementary terminology - this is called profanity.
  • Alex1949
    Alex1949 28 September 2020 15: 47
    +1
    This is a rocket that pollutes the atmosphere with radioactive waste.
  • Federal1
    Federal1 28 September 2020 16: 56
    0
    after 2-3 drops during testing, this madness, meaningless from all points of view, will be closed on demand in the first place if it did not grow. society is exactly greenpeace and Europe, and the half-crazy designer will quietly be expelled into retirement or in a madhouse. it is impossible to think of more delirium in the presence of CD of the X family ...
  • Old26
    Old26 28 September 2020 21: 14
    +2
    Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
    Well, do not write, even if you do not know elementary terminology - this is called profanity.

    No, dear Dmitry! It is the majority who flaunts that they do not know the terminology. For example, they wrote to me that the ICBM is jumpy upper stage.
    Did you react to the term Flow out instead Expire! laughing

    Quote: fa2998
    Quote: Operator
    after its end let them hover in the air for several years in fear of the enemy.

    Airplanes rarely fall to the ground just because of fuel consumption. Mechanical, electronic malfunctions, lightning strikes or just got into a storm, fire, etc. Many offer that the CD would fly for months-UTOPIA!

    Any system has an MTBF. A nuclear-powered cruise missile with a special charge is not just a cylinder with an engine, which is a "pipe". There are certainly pumps, fans, some kind of wing mechanization, a control system. And all this will be loitering for weeks and months, no one knows where? This is not even a UTOPIA, but something more

    Quote: Galleon
    If you think a little about the device of this rocket, then the question arises: how long will the electronics of this rocket be able to work in the presence of a very powerful source of radiation? Isn't the talk about unlimited flight time just another cartoon, taking into account such a simple and indisputable fact as the impossibility of long-term operation of electronics at a high (and in this case, very high)) level of radiation? Further, the reader can think out the very influence of this factor in time on the operation of the guidance unit or flight router, the operation of target search channels, etc.
    Another question: "unlimited" range and flight time is a positive or negative characteristic for overcoming enemy air defense? Yes, they are not at all - these are absurd achievements in themselves, and the speed is subsonic.

    In all this, I have only one question. When they talk about unlimited range and flight time, about the ability of this missile to bypass air defense / missile defense zones, I have one question: HOW
    Okay, I can understand unlimited range and flight time as LONG. But why - even kill, I do not understand. And I don't understand how the navigation system will work in this case. Any ANN has an accumulation of errors. And if the rocket flies for a week or two, then such an error will lead to the fact that the rocket will generally hit no one knows where.
    Besides, what is this flight program, which is designed for a week or two. How and where is it recorded. How this information carrier will work in the vicinity of a radioactive engine. And dozens of such small questions that do not even concern the engine design ...

    Quote: Alexey Sommer
    Yes, it is cheaper to shoot down an ICBM with a missile defense missile. The trajectory of the ICBM is predictable. A Petrel can fly from Mexico, a week after the start of the war.

    It is easier to shoot down a subsonic missile, wherever it comes from, than an ICBM. Although after each side dumps the entire nuclear stock onto the other, it doesn't matter. But even in such a situation, a subsonic cruise missile is easier to shoot down than an ICBM arriving from nowhere. Even a large-caliber machine gun may well be enough
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 29 September 2020 05: 47
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Even a large-caliber machine gun may well be enough

    Yeah, and drop a nuclear bomb with a nuclear reactor in a trailer on your head.
    So-so defense.

    And if on the subject, then it is not clear where did it come from about flying for weeks, about loitering, about returning back to base (that's generally nonsense)?
    Unlimited range is the ability to fly from the launch point on our territory to the destination point anywhere on Earth, and not in a straight line, but along any complex trajectory. And nothing more!
    We, unlike the "partners", do not have positions 100 km from Washington, do not have a dozen submarines with a hundred Tomogavks in each, do not have a huge fleet of Arliburks. And those calibers that are, as if they will not reach America in any way.
    The battered remnants of strategic aviation are also not very capable of scaring opponents with something.
    So you have to come up with options on how to reach the "decision-making centers".
    Expensive, unreliable, even wild. But not from a good life.
    To put our OTRK in Cuba again does not shine for us.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 29 September 2020 09: 29
    -1
    That's interesting: the author (and not only him) did not come up with the idea of ​​the possibility of using a torpedo with nuclear warheads against the Poseidon? When does excess charge power make direct contact unnecessary? And the speed of the torpedo-interceptors becomes unimportant, it is enough to go to the calculated meeting point.
    And it will be easy to calculate Poseidon: by noise level, speed and depth.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 29 September 2020 09: 40
    0
    As for the mentioned missile: it is of little use and dangerous to use. Nobody can reflect the massive launch of the ICBM, then why complicate everything?
  • Old26
    Old26 29 September 2020 13: 44
    +2
    Quote: Jacket in stock
    Yeah, and drop a nuclear bomb with a nuclear reactor in a trailer on your head.
    So-so defense.

    A matter of principle, Constantine. One of the comrades wrote that it is easier to shoot down an ICBM than the same "Burevestnik", which is a subsonic cruise missile. I brought this to its logical conclusion (albeit insanity). You can also shoot down a cruise missile from a large-caliber machine gun (we will discard the fact that it will fall on your head with a nuclear reactor as insignificant laughing ) The main thing can be knocked down
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 21: 30
      +1
      It doesn't matter if you can knock her down or you can't knock her down. Its role is not to destroy New York (after all, it is possible to kill the children of our elite inadvertently), but to raise the spirit of the people who have become discouraged by the pension reform, and in this role it is possible not to do it at all - a cartoon is just that!
  • Old26
    Old26 30 September 2020 16: 39
    0
    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
    What's the use of writing about the third echelon if there are not enough warheads for the first echelon. The Americans on the Minutemans have half of their warheads empty.

    You are not quite right, Sergei! If there are not enough warheads for the 1st echelon, then only for strategic aviation. The Americans EMNIP have 46 "atomic" B-52Ns and only 536 AGM-86B cruise missiles. And the maximum B-52 can take 20 such missiles. There are enough blocks for "minutemans". Only now they are not standing with their standard blocks from the Mk-12A MIRV, but with blocks from the Mk-21 MIRV from the MX missile. But the return potential remains, although now "Minutemans" and monoblock
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 1 October 2020 05: 32
      0
      Return potential is a return potential. We are talking about today. I read that Minuteman 3 can also carry two Mk-21 units. But only one carries. I can assume that it is precisely connected with the ceilings under the START-3 treaty. Although m. just saving money.
  • Old26
    Old26 1 October 2020 11: 22
    0
    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
    Return potential is a return potential. We are talking about today. I read that Minuteman 3 can also carry two Mk-21 units. But only one carries. I can assume that it is precisely connected with the ceilings under the START-3 treaty. Although m. just saving money.

    Judging by the weight characteristics, Minitemen can carry 3 Mk-21 units. But the point is that EMNIP has fired 525 such W-87 / Mk-21 warheads for 50 MX missiles. Now the USA has 400 "Minutemen-3" deployed, another 50 silos are classified as "not deployed", but they can be loaded with "Minutemans" in a short time. That is, in fact, the United States has now deployed 400 out of 525 blocks from the MX, 50 - an emergency reserve and 75 - for the necessary replacement in case of something. It makes no sense to deploy several "Minutemans" with two blocks ...
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 2 October 2020 22: 37
      0
      What I wrote about - "Minutemen" are half empty. I don't think it was a particular problem for the US industry in the 21s to resume production of the Mk-2. But the Americans relied on the Tridents, ground-based ICBMs for them as a backup nuclear deterrent, and adjusted the START-3, START and START-3 treaties in such a way as to save their finances as much as possible by removing the MX from service and not making new warheads for "Minutemans-XNUMX".
  • chingachguc
    chingachguc 2 October 2020 20: 18
    0
    such nuclear engines can also be installed on space rockets. This will increase the mass of the cargo to be launched into orbit tenfold. If this happens, a new space age will begin.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 2 October 2020 22: 22
      0
      You can't put such engines on space rockets. The Burevestnik is powered by a nuclear ramjet engine. It cannot be used on launch vehicles or spacecraft. In general, using nuclear engines on rockets is a bad idea, because rockets fall from time to time and call out.
  • Old26
    Old26 2 October 2020 23: 43
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
    What I wrote about - "Minutemen" are half empty. I don't think it was a particular problem for the US industry in the 21s to resume production of the Mk-2. But the Americans relied on the Tridents, ground-based ICBMs for them as a backup nuclear deterrent, and adjusted the START-3, START and START-3 treaties in such a way as to save their finances as much as possible by removing the MX from service and not making new warheads for "Minutemans-XNUMX".

    They stand half empty according to the START treaty. The whole question rests on "ceilings". By the way, according to one of the treaties, EMNIP START-2 Russia had the right to have 105 SS-19 missiles (UR-100N and UR-100N UTTH) in the Strategic Missile Forces (UR-1N and UR-105N UTTKh), "unloaded" to 105 warhead (and these 630 were to carry XNUMX blocks instead of XNUMX)

    I'm afraid that just in the 87s, the Americans had problems with the release of the new W-21 / Mk-300. They were so convinced that the collapse of the USSR would put an end to Russia, too, that they missed the time needed to modernize their nuclear weapons complex. Some enterprises were closed, some were mothballed. In fact, it turns out that the US NAC is currently at the level of funding that they are capable of performing only two tasks. Modernize existing warheads and carry out work on disassembling (dismantling) blocks. About 60 a year. They will be able to produce new plutonium elements from the weapons-grade plutonium they have (about 2030 tons) no earlier than about 2035 (and most likely 80) and at the first stage in the amount of 1 pieces per year. Therefore, the programs for creating new BGs of the IW-2 / IW-3 / IW-XNUMX type have faded into the background.

    The United States has always had a stake on SLBMs, at least most of the warheads were located on SLBMs. ICBMs were secondary to them.
    I don’t think they could have "tailored" the contracts to suit themselves. Yet a treaty is a compromise. Although it was precisely for the sake of economy that they unilaterally removed the MX from armament, although under the agreements this did not take place anywhere