"Burevestnik" is able to restore the psychological effect of "Oreshnik"

55 684 198
"Burevestnik" is able to restore the psychological effect of "Oreshnik"

Following yesterday's statements by the Russian President in Dushanbe about the imminent appearance of a new weapons Experts in different countries around the world began to discuss what kind of weapons were being discussed.

Vladimir Putin, as is known, against the backdrop of a rather vague statement that in response to the possible supply of Tomahawks to Ukraine, “Russia needs to improve its Defense", announced the successful testing of a new weapon. He did not name the specific one.



In the US (and elsewhere), it was recalled that the Russian president had also mentioned the new weapon during his announcements of the Oreshnik IRBM. The Oreshnik had only been used once (at the Yuzhmash plant in Dnepropetrovsk), and even then, not in combat. However, even this single strike with a blank missile was enough to make NATO nervous and begin declaring the need for "negotiations." Then came the first calls from European "leaders" to the Kremlin in a long time.

But time passed. And now the psychological effect of the introduction and use of "Oreshnik" (this, of course, is debatable) has, if not completely worn off, then largely faded.

Accordingly, President Putin's words, uttered on a foreign platform, could well be perceived as an attempt to revive in the enemy's memory that very same "mental" effect of "Oreshnik," reinforcing it with information about a new, yet unnamed, weapon.

American experts are trying to guess what new Russian weapons they might be talking about. Many are inclined to believe that they might be talking about the imminent deployment of a cruise missile. missiles The Burevestnik global-range missile, capable of staying airborne indefinitely and attacking targets located at any distance from the launch point, is equipped with a compact nuclear propulsion system. However, it is precisely this propulsion system that conceals both the missile's main advantage (its global range) and its main drawback—in terms of the possibility of repeating the Oreshnik "psychological" strike and, most importantly, the assessments of those whose assessments have recently received primary attention. In other words, even an "empty" Burevestnik is not the same as an "empty" Oreshnik IRBM. At the very least, greater determination would be required.
198 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    11 October 2025 11: 33
    We'll have to wait many years for someone to gather their courage???
    1. +7
      11 October 2025 12: 20
      Quote: DDsurgut
      We'll have to wait many years for someone to gather their courage???

      And in general, these are Mosfilm cartoons, which some commentators have known since the construction of the Crimean Bridge. lol
      1. +5
        11 October 2025 12: 28
        But
        "Burevestnik" is able to restore the psychological effect of "Oreshnik"

        But! The psychological effect is just a psychological effect.
        If someone has strong nerves, what does this psychological effect mean to them?
        And some people just don’t care and don’t care about the psychological effect.
        1. SSR
          +2
          11 October 2025 20: 02
          Quote: VictorB
          But
          "Burevestnik" is able to restore the psychological effect of "Oreshnik"

          But! The psychological effect is just a psychological effect.
          If someone has strong nerves, what does this psychological effect mean to them?
          And some people just don’t care and don’t care about the psychological effect.


          Such nonsense.

          "Oreshnik" (this, of course, can be argued with) has, if not completely dried up, then been largely forgotten.

          For a military specialist, this is part of the job.
          Forgot? You're screwed.
          PS.
          A nuclear-powered Burevestnik as part of a regional war? Seriously?
          1. 0
            13 October 2025 10: 20
            Regional war? Seriously?
      2. 0
        11 October 2025 12: 29
        Last year, the Western press was already "fueling" the story about the Burevestnik missile system's positioning area somewhere in the country's northwest, as if everything there was ready for deployment. But experts in the military know better.
        1. +12
          11 October 2025 12: 50
          Putin spoke about the air-launched hypersonic Gremlin, also known as the GZUR, currently being tested. The Su-34 will likely be its carrier, given that it can carry two Kh-101 missiles, even according to rumors. Incidentally, there were earlier reports that the Su-34 was armed with long-range missiles, but the specifics were kept secret, and now it seems the secret is finally out in the open. However, it wouldn't be surprising if the Su-34 also used two FAB-3000 missiles in a single attack in the Air Defense Forces. Then everything fits. The Su-34's GZUR would then be capable of carrying four.

          It can carry up to 12,000 kg of weapons on 12 hardpoints, including a wide range of missiles, including anti-ship, air-to-air, air-to-surface, and anti-radar. Furthermore, the Su-34 can carry both guided and unguided bombs.

          The Su-34 has also been upgraded to launch long-range cruise missiles capable of carrying either conventional or nuclear warheads. Previously, in an article for EurAsian Times, Indian Air Force veteran Vijayinder Thakur noted: "In a conflict with NATO, the Su-34 could carry two Kh-101 missiles, reach launch sites undetected, and launch the missiles from an unexpected direction. The Su-34's ability to launch Kinzhal missiles adds another strategic dimension, making the frontline bomber a credible deterrent."


          https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/485594/

          And one of the significant advantages of the Su-34, since we are talking about it as a carrier, is the design of the nose, which is specially made for the installation of a more powerful radar.

          The widened nose allowed for the installation of a more powerful radar. The flat, wide nose created a spacious, comfortable, and functional cockpit, as well as the Su-34's distinctive style.
          GK "Rostec"


          https://www1.ru/news/2025/10/09/rostex-raskryl-sekret-utenka-su-34-sirokii-kliuv-nuzen-ne-prosto-tak.html
          1. 0
            13 October 2025 10: 23
            A more powerful radar would certainly not hurt, but the nose with such a fairing was created due to the pilots being positioned “close together”.
        2. +3
          11 October 2025 12: 56
          In addition.

          The Russian Su-34 frontline bomber, actively used during the special operation, has acquired the capability to fire long-range cruise missiles, according to an informed source. During the special operation, the modernized Russian Su-34NVO bomber struck a Ukrainian military facility with a long-range cruise missile, destroying it.


          https://topwar.ru/226122-rossijskij-frontovoj-bombardirovschik-su-34-poluchil-vozmozhnost-primenjat-krylatye-rakety-bolshoj-dalnosti.html
        3. 0
          12 October 2025 20: 31
          You're right. Currently, the level of knowledge, availability of reliable information, and logical reasoning among some experts here is so low that it's clear that VO is heavily cluttered with rumors, speculation, and other fantasies. This lowers VO's rating. Every so-called expert spouts off something that further creates the fog of war.
      3. +6
        11 October 2025 12: 33
        Alexander "Burevestnik" will circle the North Pole, one option. Moreover, the scientific personnel and crew were recently replaced, and the research vessel Akademik Treshnikov's cargo was delivered. And the second, more banal option: Poseidon will pass by Florida in "dolphin" mode. bully
        1. +1
          11 October 2025 12: 41
          The crew changed on LSP 42 and it moved from the Canadian sector of the Arctic to the Russian one.
        2. -6
          11 October 2025 21: 50
          "Poseidoe" is just as much crap as "Burevestnik", a waste of budget money on unpromising weapons.
          1. +4
            12 October 2025 03: 13
            Quote: l7yLLlKAPb
            "Poseidoe" is just as much crap as "Burevestnik", a waste of budget money on unpromising weapons.

            They're certainly not junk, but simply, so to speak, impractical and not particularly in demand. Because they're essentially weapons that will only be used in a "whole world will crumble" scenario. The Oreshnik is a junk weapon because, in its conventional, non-nuclear form, it's truly junk and can't destroy anything serious. And the Burevestnik is a missile that, after launch, has a nuclear power plant—it needs to be hit. Moreover, it would contaminate the area, which also risks starting WW3. Or, after a bit of sniping, fly back to somewhere like Novaya Zemlya to "land."
            1. 0
              1 February 2026 01: 24
              Deterrence weapons only work if there's a clear, automated doctrine in place. In the case of the Russian administration, any weapon can't compensate for the lack of testosterone in the testicles of the old men who turned the term "red line" into an unfunny joke.
          2. 0
            13 October 2025 10: 25
            In the word "cartoons". Yeah, we've seen them already. laughing
        3. +5
          12 October 2025 01: 30
          Quote: tralflot1832
          will circle over the North Pole


          Or it will fly over neutral waters around the world with a signal like the first satellite: Beep-beep-beep.
          Everyone in the world will be able to hear and think about their future and the future of their children. laughing laughing
          1. +1
            12 October 2025 03: 17
            Quote: Igool
            Or it will fly over neutral waters around the world with a signal like the first satellite: Beep-beep-beep.

            Quite the opposite – the Burevestnik should be flown over territorial waters. Its advantage is that it's impossible to shoot down. Not in the sense that it's technically impossible (it is), but that no one will try to shoot it down over their own territory. After all, the debris would fall on them along with the nuclear reactor debris, contaminating the area.
            1. 0
              12 October 2025 13: 53
              It's okay, the Americans have lost nuclear bombs, with their contents scattered over the area - and nothing happened) And over Spain, at that.
            2. -2
              13 October 2025 10: 26
              Why is it suddenly impossible to shoot down a subsonic cruise missile? It has a nuclear engine to avoid air defenses, not to stick its nose into places it shouldn't!
              1. 0
                13 October 2025 12: 39
                Quote: stankow
                Why is it suddenly impossible to shoot down a subsonic cruise missile?

                You are reading inattentively.
                1. 0
                  15 October 2025 09: 51
                  It's impossible to pollute the ocean with debris from a single missile. A scare tactic for the masses, with an intellect on par with Greta.
      4. +7
        11 October 2025 16: 20
        Quote: Montezuma
        And in general, these are Mosfilm cartoons, which some commentators have known since the construction of the Crimean Bridge.

        The bridge was once a cartoon, and it still is: I was driving across it at the beginning of September, and the navigator showed that I was going along the strait like a boat!
      5. +3
        12 October 2025 16: 57
        I don't know about cartoons, I've driven across the Crimean Bridge twice myself...
      6. 0
        16 October 2025 12: 31
        "We have such devices, but we won't tell you about them"!!!!!
    2. +1
      11 October 2025 16: 14

      We'll have to wait many years for someone to gather their courage???

      I'm afraid that "The missile is equipped with a small nuclear power plant" already puts an end to its use. Because anything with the word "nuclear" doesn't fly at the enemy, but lies under a tarp in a distant, dusty corner of a warehouse.
  2. +5
    11 October 2025 11: 38
    I'm confident that the Burevestnik will be completed and enter production. It has great potential as a deterrent.
    1. 0
      11 October 2025 11: 40
      What? A cruise missile is a fairly easy target.
      1. +10
        11 October 2025 11: 45
        How much air defense does it take to cover the sky from all sides? And who told you it would be a subsonic missile on approach? It could be stealthy, too.
        1. +8
          11 October 2025 11: 56
          We don't need air defense from all sides, we need DLRO aircraft and a lot of fighter planes, and the States have that.
          1. +8
            11 October 2025 12: 02
            Things only look smooth for the "experts" on paper.
          2. +2
            11 October 2025 12: 35
            We need AWACS aircraft and a lot of fighter planes, and the US has that.

            1. The DLRO aircraft is a fairly large and vulnerable target.
            2. The US does have a lot of fighter jets, but there are a lot of nuances. If they're naval fighters, then an aircraft carrier is a fairly large, vulnerable target. Theoretically, a US carrier strike group off our coast is a suicide bomber. A few hypersonic missiles fired at an aircraft carrier, and where will all its planes land? They'll run out of fuel, and...?
            3. We need to develop both coastal defense, specifically missile systems, and satellite constellations. Then we won't need AWACS aircraft.
          3. +6
            11 October 2025 12: 50
            Quote: dnestr74
            We don't need air defense from all sides, we need DLRO aircraft and a lot of fighter planes, and the States have that.

            It's true—the best air defense against cruise missiles and low-altitude targets in general is fighter aircraft controlled by AWACS aircraft. But in the event of a global war, low-altitude subsonic cruise missiles will attack the enemy after an exchange of nuclear strikes/strikes using ICBMs, IRBMs, and glide missiles. This is when airfields, aircraft basing sites, and air defense/missile defense radars have already been destroyed. In other words, cruise missiles (including those with "unlimited range" and nuclear propulsion) are weapons for the second, third, and subsequent waves of strikes. Stored in tunnels, bunkers, and secret locations, and having an unlimited range, they are a convenient means of continuing the war.
            They are also suitable for striking remote enemy bases in the oceans and elite hideouts in Antarctica, New Zealand, Australia, and South America. Such missiles are relatively compact and quite easy to use, unlike ICBMs, which require launch silos or massive transport launchers. They are easier to conceal, camouflage, and disperse, and they can more easily survive nuclear exchanges, allowing them to continue destroying surviving enemy targets after satellite and UAV reconnaissance.
            Quote: dnestr74
            DLRO aircraft and many fighter planes, and the States have this

            We're also getting more fighters. The Su-57's radar has a field of view of at least 240-270 degrees in azimuth; they're essentially their own AWACS and can act as one for a group of fighters under their control. However, for this purpose, a two-seat version is preferable.
            But we still don't have a normal/classic AWACS aircraft. In acceptable quantities.
            Perhaps the successes in developing the AESA radar system for the Su-57 will help develop a radar system for a more compact AWACS aircraft using the same/similar anti-aircraft missiles. I really hope so. Perhaps this is why the A-100 program was canceled and production of the A-50U, based on the new Il-76MD-90A, is being delayed. Platforms like the Tu-214 and even the Superjet would be sufficient for the new radar system.
            1. +1
              11 October 2025 14: 32
              Quote: bayard
              This is true - the best air defense against cruise missiles and low-altitude targets in general is fighter aircraft controlled by AWACS aircraft.

              All of this is understandable, but wouldn't it be simpler to use the money spent on it to put another Strategic Missile Forces division on duty? It seems to me that the Yars is a more powerful and effective weapon than the Burevestnik.
              1. DO
                +1
                11 October 2025 17: 55
                All this is clear, but wouldn’t it be easier to use the money spent on it to put another Strategic Missile Forces division on duty?

                The consequences of this approach have been seen recently in Iran.
                If we do not reinforce the air defense with AWACS aircraft and fighter-interceptors, plus reinforce the air defense target with balloons, the enemy has a good chance of suppressing this very same Strategic Missile Forces division with a sudden massive attack from the sea, from the zone closest to the Russian shores, as far as possible.
              2. +3
                11 October 2025 18: 20
                Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                a more powerful and effective weapon is Yars, not Burevestnik.

                More powerful, faster—yes. But the Yars is an ICBM for the first, and at most the second (if it's from a mobile complex that survives the first exchange) exchanges of strikes. SSBNs can participate in a third or fourth exchange if they can get out to sea and disappear under the ice. But the Burevestnik can survive the first exchanges and then participate in subsequent ones, finishing off any surviving enemy. Because such a launcher is easier to hide, easier to disperse, easier to preserve, and easier to reach the most distant targets.
                Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                All this is clear, but wouldn’t it be easier to use the money spent on it to put another Strategic Missile Forces division on duty?

                But in our current circumstances, a lot of the issue isn't about money, but about production capacity and industrial capabilities. Our facilities in Votkinsk are currently overwhelmed by orders for the Oreshnik/Rubezh missiles, which need to be produced and deployed not just quickly, but very quickly, as they are the best we have for the final pacification of Europe and NATO. Except for the Poseidon, but that's a different story. And no one has discontinued the Yars missiles—the new ones are being developed to replace the Topol-M missiles, and Bulava SLBMs are also being produced. So, all capacity there is at 100%+ capacity. Meanwhile, the Burevestnik is manufactured by a completely different contractor, and its production can be increased without affecting the production of other missile systems.
                Besides, we don't yet know what exactly the president had in mind. The new weapon could be anything. From the Su-75, which has already been rolled out and is apparently currently undergoing engine testing, taxiing, and test runs, to hypersonic air-launched missiles (Gremlin and Ostrota). It could be a new light IRBM, a sort of two-stage Iskander-2000.
                Moreover, there have been reports (not yet officially confirmed) that our missile bases in Chukotka, built in the adits beneath a basalt mountain for the Pioneer-2 and Pioneer-3 in the final Soviet years, are already deploying Oreshniki missiles, apparently in the Rubezh version with six warheads (150 to 600 kt each) with a range of 5500 km+. That's the right decision. Pioneers from there could keep the entire west coast of the US in their sights, plus Alaska and the bases on the Aleutian and Commander Islands. That's a real answer to Ukraine's Tomahawks. And we won't even have to ship missiles to Cuba again.

                But it looks like we'll lose Venezuela. China won't fit in - it's too weak for such feats. And we really don't have the time right now.
                But if Trump gets involved and gets stuck like in Vietnam, our hands will be completely untied, and the NATO dwarfs without the US will be a pack of mongrels against the Big Bad Russian Bear.
                And there will definitely be no time for used Tomahawks.
                And if the delivery takes place to Holland... we will have to bomb Holland, because this is a violation of international law prohibiting the export of missiles (any) with a range of 300 km or more.
                1. bar
                  0
                  13 October 2025 07: 50
                  Quote: bayard
                  But it looks like we'll lose Venezuela. China won't fit in—it's too weak for such feats.

                  China doesn't necessarily need to intervene with military force. It has begun to exert economic pressure on the United States by controlling rare earth metal supplies. And it's doing so quite decisively. The Chinese have invested too much in the Venezuelan economy and in control of the Panama Canal to simply lose it all.
                  1. 0
                    13 October 2025 12: 40
                    They can exert economic pressure, and quite effectively. However, they are unlikely to intervene in the event of military aggression.
                    Quote: bar
                    The Chinese have invested too much in the Venezuelan economy.

                    But normal oil production from bitumen formations has never been established. There's not just a lot of oil there—a whole lot, but much of it is super-heavy bitumen, and extracting it is difficult. China and Russia have failed.
                    And the rumor that Maduro dreams of selling out to Trump by giving up all the explored and unexplored oil, all the explored and unexplored gold, just for the preservation of life and power... is simply a THROW-IN on the eve of aggression to disorganize the victim of aggression.
                2. +1
                  13 October 2025 13: 11
                  Quote: bayard
                  Moreover, there have been reports (not yet officially confirmed) that at our missile bases in Chukotka, which were built in the adits beneath a basalt mountain for the Pioneer-2 and Pioneer-3 in the final Soviet years, Oreshniki missiles are already being deployed, apparently in the Rubezh version with six warheads (150 to 600 kt each) with a range of 5500 km+. That's the right decision. From there, the Pioneers could keep the entire west coast of the US under their sights, plus Alaska and the bases on the Aleutian and Commander Islands.


                  Oh, what nonsense and fantasy.
                  Absolutely all RBs in Chukotka were abandoned and plundered by 2005.
                  No restoration work was carried out there.
                  This is clearly visible, regardless of the level of secrecy.

                  You are the only one who comes up with this.
                  Why are you doing it?
                  Are you deceiving yourself and other people?
                  1. 0
                    13 October 2025 14: 08
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    Absolutely all RBs in Chukotka were abandoned and plundered by 2005.

                    The entire foundation there remains in very good condition, even the cable system is mostly intact—there was no one there to plunder. And even more so, nothing has happened to the highly protected tunnels and bunkers, which will stand for hundreds of years without any damage. I watched footage taken at these bases a few years ago, and everything is still in very good condition—just go back and install it. Repairs and modernization are needed, but these are mostly cosmetic measures; the time and cost involved are insignificant.

                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    Are you deceiving yourself and other people?

                    It seems like everyone in the world is deceiving you.
                    Until Russia had a heavy IRBM with such a range, these bases were of no use. Now such missiles exist, they are in service and in mass production. Their primary theaters of operations today are Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Western Asia. The second strategic direction is the Pacific region. For this second theater of operations, the missile base is ready; rumors of its restoration and preparation for deployment have leaked through open sources. And if the US transfers Tomahawk missiles to the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Netherlands or deploys them in Europe itself, the Oreshniki will definitely be deployed in Chukotka.
                    And this is our right and responsibility. This is our territory, we will place them wherever we want. We have not yet imported them to Cuba or Venezuela.
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    You are deceiving

                    No. I'm warning you.
                    And I foresee it.
            2. DO
              +5
              11 October 2025 15: 58
              Quote: bayard
              The Su-57's radar has a field of view of at least 240-270 degrees in azimuth; they are essentially their own AWACS and can act as one for a group of fighters under their control. However, for this purpose, a two-seat version is preferable.
              But we still don't have a normal/classic AWACS aircraft. In acceptable quantities.
              Perhaps the successes in developing the AESA radar system for the Su-57 will help develop a radar system for a more compact AWACS aircraft using the same/similar anti-aircraft missiles. I really hope so. Perhaps this is why the A-100 program was canceled and production of the A-50U, based on the new Il-76MD-90A, is being delayed. Platforms like the Tu-214 and even the Superjet would be sufficient for the new radar system.

              But developing a new manned AWACS aircraft based on a civilian airliner is a very lengthy process, spanning many years. By the time such an aircraft is created, the war will be over—without AWACS aircraft, likely with unnecessary losses.
              Therefore, YES, as of today, the "Su-57 (...) is its own AWACS (...). it is desirable to have /*their*/ two-seater version."
              But to quickly create a sufficient number of border and rear AWACS aircraft (in areas not currently in combat), it's realistic to use heavy UAVs, such as the Altius, for these purposes, and organize the production of a sufficient number of Su-57 "Belka" radars for installation on these UAVs. Additionally, repeaters and ground control posts (GCPs), including mobile ones, and/or airborne ones, based on any aircraft without radars but with adequate communications equipment, would be needed. It seems that with sufficient organizational effort and funding, this approach would be several times faster than developing AWACS aircraft based on airliners. A functioning radar, if hastily designed, could render the airliner's existing onboard equipment inoperable, plus there's the problem of protecting the crew from powerful microwave radiation. With a drone, the first problem is easier to solve, and the second problem doesn't exist at all; it would require significantly less testing.
              1. +3
                11 October 2025 19: 30
                The proposal is sound, but there are two big problems for a heavy UAV:
                - We simply DO NOT have such heavy UAVs and we don’t expect to have any soon (“Altius” was a gamble, a non-working project, and we don’t have another one)
                - for their stable operation, reliable communication channels are necessary, and satellite ones are still better.
                We'll have reliable satellite communications like Starlink within two years, so the communication channel issue is already being addressed. Now, about the heaviest UAV we don't have.
                But Russia, with its thieving contractors under the previous Ministry of Defense leadership, doesn't have one. But our strategic ally does have such a heavy (and high-altitude!) UAV. And to be perfectly modest, it's a copy of the American Global Hawk. I don't know what engine North Korea installed, but if it's our excellent D-30, then its altitude capability and sufficient power are also in order. And its power supply. And its payload capacity. And if its altitude capability is the same as the original's (the engine definitely allows it) 14,000-17,000 m, then the maximum range of the new Belka-M with its new anti-ship missiles of 500 km+ will be used to the fullest extent when detecting low-altitude targets with a small radar cross-section.

                Now about the basis for classic AWACS aircraft, which already exist in this capacity. And we're talking, of course, about the Tu-214R, with its four lateral-scan radar panels, which pivot toward the airframe axis, expanding the field of view, leaving only small blind spots in the front and rear. The Tu-214R was originally equipped (as far as I understand) with Israeli radars, but the US banned them in time, resulting in only two such aircraft today (if nothing has changed in the last two years). So, if our own AESAs replace the Israeli ones, then that's it – we have an aircraft as a basis for AWACS, ready to put into production.
                And the same can be done using the Superjet. Increase the onboard fuel capacity, share the specialized avionics with the Tu-214R, and you've got two AWACS aircraft. Add secure communications, including satellite, add ELINT and electronic warfare equipment for defense against incoming missiles, mount SD and MD missile defense missiles on pylons (or in internal weapons bays, which is easy) for self-defense, and – voila. At least, that's exactly what I would do. Perhaps this is roughly what's being done, given the A-100 program's demise and even the resumption of A-50U production seemingly stalled. Such a thing is unthinkable in a war. But if the issue is resolved precisely/approximately this way, then everything is quite understandable.
                Incidentally, it appears the disabled Vega, notorious for the failures of all the programs assigned to it, has acquired a competitor capable of solving such issues. This is likely the revived Phazotron. If this is indeed the case, then the problem of creating a new ASW/Integrated Maritime Reconnaissance aircraft could be resolved.
                1. DO
                  +1
                  11 October 2025 20: 48
                  Bayard, buying a Globalhawk analogue in the required quantity "from our strategic ally" would certainly be the right thing to do. However, the question is whether it will sell. For now, we even buy computer chips from China through intermediaries, just like we buy products from American Intel. It's possible that the chances here aren't much better than trying to buy original Globalhawks.

                  Quote: bayard
                  "Altius" was a gamble, a failed project.

                  Who would argue about the activities of the Uzga "bath and laundry complex?" But the plane did fly. And to Uzga, and, oddly enough, even in Uzga, though it landed in a barn.
                  If the project were placed in good hands and under strict control, it seems there would be a good chance that Altius would go into production not in years, but in months.
                  ===
                  Regarding the existence of two working prototypes of the Tu-214R, in my non-insider opinion, the media coverage is dubious. For example, the article https://dzen.ru/a/aC7sDKmU106l2AQK reads more like propaganda than news.
                  Regarding the timeframe for converting the Superjet into an AWACS aircraft, I have already stated my opinion as an old engineer above.
                  1. +2
                    12 October 2025 00: 05
                    Quote: DO
                    Buying a Globalhawk analogue in the required quantity from "our strategic ally" would certainly be the right thing to do. However, the question is whether they'll sell it.

                    That's the fundamentally wrong way to put it. First, why shouldn't Kim Jong-un sell us something if we sell him everything he needs? But here's a more interesting question: Kim Jong-un himself has excess spacecraft, and doesn't need them in large quantities, and a satellite constellation is needed for reliable, secure communications. That's why Kim Il-sung himself ordered COOPERATION. And with us, of course. Our engineers will help refine and improve the aircraft to full airworthiness as an airframe, and we'll help with the engine and generator drive, since the onboard power consumption will be quite high. And most importantly, we can take on the creation of the entire hardware complex for several modifications of such a UAV.
                    First and foremost in importance are the AWACS UAVs, with a Belka-M-based IRLC featuring two onboard AESA panels, a secure communications system via a global satellite constellation (being deployed now and will be deployed according to plans within two years), as well as aircraft and UAV relays with ground control points and fighter-interceptors. In short, we'll be responsible for the entire avionics suite and assist in finalizing this system. And we'll also undertake joint serial production in Russia (say, in Irkutsk or Komsomolsk-on-Amur).
                    The second version is a reconnaissance version - a powerful optical system, a photo and video camera from the arsenal of a low-orbit reconnaissance satellite and an electronic warfare system are added.
                    The third modification is the most complex, expensive, and sophisticated – the Integrated Maritime Reconnaissance UAV. The avionics are complemented by a powerful green lidar, capable of detecting submarines and submarines at depths of up to 300 meters in clear weather. A search radar with the appropriate frequency and polarization range for detecting submarines by water hump detection is also added. The radar must have a synthetic aperture for detecting and identifying surface targets, including for issuing target designations. And, of course, a sophisticated ELINT system. This modification is the most complex and loaded with onboard equipment and should be the third to be put into production. But in principle... if we take this modification as the primary one, the other two could simply be simplified versions of the Integrated Maritime Reconnaissance UAV.
                    This approach will ensure a fairly high production volume, as the Russian Armed Forces alone may need up to 150-200 of these aircraft in various modifications. Partners and allies could also share and supply these aircraft, ensuring even greater production volume.
                    There's no need to worry too much about "where to get the money for all this"—the money can be taken "from Stalin's nightstand," as Soviet financiers used to say. I think we'll have that nightstand again soon.
                    Quote: DO
                    Regarding the existence of two working prototypes of the Tu-214R, in my non-insider opinion, the information in the media is questionable.

                    What doubts can there be, given that the first Tu-214R underwent combat testing back in 2015 in Syria, while the second was completing its assembly. According to the Ministry of Defense's reports on the roster of the Russian Aerospace Forces, the Aerospace Forces had two Tu-214Rs. Moreover, after the closure of the Open Skies program and the freezing of the New START Treaty, a specialized inspection aircraft based on the Tu-214, created specifically for inspections over US and NATO territory, was transferred for conversion to a Tu-214R. In addition to side-looking synthetic aperture radars, an ELINT system, and a powerful optical system, the Tu-214R also carried a lidar for detecting underground enemy communications, command centers, and bases. And it detected them very well.
                    But some of the onboard equipment and the radar itself were Israeli, and at the request of the US, such cooperation was terminated.
                    Quote: DO
                    Regarding the timeframe for converting the Superjet into an AWACS aircraft, I have already stated my opinion as an old engineer above.

                    But in terms of coordinating the operation of avionics components, we can leverage the developments and experience of the Tu-214R. And even if such work is somewhat delayed, having a lighter/lighter AWACS and integrated reconnaissance aircraft would be quite useful. Because we will need many such aircraft, and solving all the issues with just large, heavy aircraft could be prohibitively expensive. They would also be redundant in many cases, for a number of theaters of operations, and given the operating/basing conditions.
                    It's not worth proposing the Il-114 for this purpose - the aircraft is really weak for such a function, and we have no plans to create a new An-30.
                    It's best not to even mention the Altius as a dead thing. Bringing such a clumsy piece of equipment to airworthiness is disrespectful, and it would be a disgrace compared to other countries' UAVs.
                    It is a great regret that in 2014, and indeed from 2022 onward, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Federation proved so incompetent, indecisive, and unprofessional that it failed to return Russia's indigenous lands (the former Ukrainian SSR) to Russia. For thus, we lost the capacity for military (and other) shipbuilding (the Main Power Plant in Mykolaiv), the magnificent aircraft engine plant in Zaporizhzhia, the Kharkiv Atomash plant, and the magnificent Antonov Design Bureau and Antonov Concern, the only ones in the post-Soviet space that continued to develop and build high-quality aircraft. For in the liberal-feudal Russian Federation, these competencies were almost completely lost.
                    Had the former Ukrainian SSR been returned to Russia back in 2014, Russia would today be one of the world's leading aircraft manufacturers across the entire spectrum of aircraft, have a powerful navy with new ships, and certainly would have no problem creating UAVs of any class. And the Sarmat ICBM would have long been in service in any desired quantities. The damage and losses from Strauss's defeatist policy are so enormous that it's impossible to even imagine. I've only tried to estimate the lost benefits from the programs that existed at the time... It's simply a catastrophe; it's hard to even imagine the power and grandeur of a united Russia. So, old witch Clinton was right that without Ukraine, Russia will always be flawed and will never be able to regain its superpower status. And now, to the delight of our enemies, we're fighting ourselves, and at the very least, in a mode aimed at the maximum possible extermination of the Russian gene pool. Only a third of the population remains in the second-hand world. Russia is once again dying out at the rate of the 90s—a million a year. Russia's indigenous population is being replaced by a foreign, alien, completely alien, aggressive, and hostile one. This is the policy of the United Russia party and their masters from the City of London.
                    And that's precisely why nothing useful comes out of this vertical. It's not the right vertical. It wasn't built by us and not for us. It doesn't work in our interests and even exists only for the sake of what we are amazed at, what we are indignant at, what destroys our people, civilization, statehood.
                    1. DO
                      +1
                      12 October 2025 01: 35
                      Quote: bayard
                      First of all, why shouldn’t Kim Jong-un sell to us, if we sell him everything he needs?

                      I actually meant the equivalent of Globalhawk in China, which is more than capable of quickly organizing mass production of any scale.
                      https://overclockers.ru/blog/ProKino/show/82330/udarnyj-dron-paryaschij-drakon-wz-7-sovershil-svoe-pervoe-vozdushnoe-patrulirovanie-vblizi-yaponii .
                      Regarding the North Korean Saetbyol-4, yes, it was on display at an exhibition in the summer of 2023 and participated in an air parade.
                      https://dzen.ru/a/Z-0DmhrI1VzJ-bpr?ysclid=mgmsy96vu8395987113 .
                      However, when and in what quantities the Saetbyol-4 will enter serial production remains unknown. Our Altius also flew, back in 2016.
                      In-house production of heavy UAVs—the Altius or Helios-RLD from JSC Kronstadt—could certainly be organized more quickly than through cooperation with another country.
                      Of course, such cooperation is very promising for the future.

                      Quote: bayard
                      /*To create an AWACS aircraft based on the Superjet*/, we could leverage the developments and experience of the Tu-214R. And even if such work is somewhat delayed, having a lighter/lighter AWACS and integrated reconnaissance aircraft would be quite nice.

                      Of course, we need to work for the future, too. However, here and now, the catastrophe of the near-total absence of AWACS aircraft must be urgently addressed. This is so that Russia can have a future at all.

                      Quote: bayard
                      It's best not to even mention the Altius as a dead thing. Bringing such a clumsy piece of equipment to airworthiness is disrespectful, and it would be a disgrace compared to other countries' UAVs.

                      I certainly didn't expect such an opinion - not from a Moscow general or official, but from you, a resident of the Donbass, which is actually at war.
                      Altius isn't dead, he's an unborn baby. And given our demographics, abortion is evil :)))
                      Regarding "shame compared to other countries," I recall the arrogant remarks our high-ranking officials made about drones before and at the start of the Second Military Operation. They said they were just a toy, Chinese and Turkish toys, no match for our aircraft and tanks. However, the real war turned out to be completely indifferent to the opinions of these peacocks, and today approximately 80% of personnel and equipment losses on both sides are caused by drones.
                      1. +2
                        12 October 2025 03: 10
                        Quote: DO
                        I actually meant the equivalent of Globalhawk in China, which is more than capable of quickly organizing mass production of any scale.

                        China won't agree to such cooperation for fear of losing the American market completely. But Un—easily. Besides, their device is a clone, according to the documentation, from China, so it will even be more convenient for China. And for the North Koreans, it is much more profitable. Together with us, we will be able to create a fully-fledged and highly effective strategic reconnaissance UAV. And this will be an honor for them and recognition of their scientific and technical achievements. It will be faster, higher quality, and it will be possible to organize serious serial production. After all, we are allies, not fellow travelers, as with China.
                        Quote: DO
                        However, when will the Saetbyol-4 begin mass production and in what quantities?

                        This will be our joint undertaking. They already have a flight prototype, and we can provide it with high-quality hardware and ensure mass production.
                        Quote: DO
                        Our Altius also flew, back in 2016.

                        It's scary to even remember how this piece of junk "flew." It was pure embezzlement, with no real desire to make a working machine. Sabotage and embezzlement of the budget.
                        Quote: DO
                        In-house production of heavy UAVs—the Altius or Helios-RLD from JSC Kronstadt—could certainly be organized more quickly than through cooperation with another country.

                        There's nothing flying about this "Kronstadt" unit, which should be renamed "Horns and Hooves." They don't even have a single flying prototype, just dummies to make it look like a startup and rake in the cash from relatives. In almost four years of war, they haven't produced a SINGLE reconnaissance or attack UAV. A complete ZERO.
                        I once spoke with a MiG design bureau employee who was explaining the whole thing and complaining that they had some work on a heavy propeller-driven UAV, including one with an AWACS, but they didn't even listen to them—the entire budget was going to the "Horns and Hooves" of Kronstadt. For some reason, Kronstadt didn't make the Geranium for us; the Iranians helped—they had ready-made ones. So, quickly, they got what they needed right away, and then it was just refinement and improvement.
                        If the crooks of the previous Ministry of Defense leadership had wanted to get real, high-quality UAVs for the Army, especially heavy-duty ones, they would have turned to proven aviation design bureaus. They at least have the experience, the personnel, and the production and testing facilities. But no—their own "Horns and Hooves" are closer and dearer—they have children to feed. And the main thing is that there are no results and new R&D with a good budget.
                        But the Sukhoi Design Bureau made the Okhotnik.
                        And the MiG design bureau would have done it.
                        And even in the Ilyushin Design Bureau they would have done at least something.
                        But the orders were received by all sorts of "Kronstadts", UZGA, and other unheard-of companies. All of them were sterile, ignorant losers, but with a VERY good appetite.
                        So I repeat - if we want to get a heavy UAV quickly and efficiently, especially for AWACS, we need to cooperate only with Yna's guys. And there will be results.
                        And what the above-mentioned mentally and morally disabled have created over all these years, even if corrected and brought back to a divine form by real specialists, will require many times more time.
                        Moreover, a proper AWACS UAV requires a truly BIG aircraft. It needs a powerful engine, excellent altitude capability (the higher it goes, the further it can see), and a very powerful onboard power source, as a radar of this power consumes a lot. This power can be obtained by diverting power from the main engine. But for this, it needs to be truly powerful. We don't have anything like that in our plans, or even in our blueprints—only ridiculous and extremely frivolous dummies. They don't have sufficient onboard power, and they don't have the payload capacity to lift all the hardware. But the Global Hawk clone does.
                        Quote: DO
                        Of course, such cooperation is very promising for the future.

                        Precisely for the present. We still have to live to see the future.
                        Quote: DO
                        Of course, we need to work for the future, too. However, here and now, the catastrophe of the near-total absence of AWACS aircraft must be urgently addressed. This is so that Russia can have a future at all.

                        As a partial solution to the problem, we've long been using the loitering Su-35S as a surrogate AWACS. However, it's a single-seat aircraft. With the advent of the Su-30SM2 with the Irbis, they can be used for air patrol. But even better is the Su-57.
                        And urgently cooperate with the DPRK to create a high-altitude AWACS vehicle based on their unmanned high-altitude monster. Right now. And if we really try, we can have the first working prototype ready for testing by the end of our satellite constellation's deployment.
                        Quote: DO
                        I certainly didn't expect such an opinion - not from a Moscow general or official, but from you, a resident of the Donbass, which is actually at war.

                        Because we've been watching Kronstadt's antics with their dummies for about 10 years now. And not a single one has even taken off. The Soviet pioneers at the Young Technician's House would have done it better and faster.
                        Take a better look at our Geraniums – that's how it should be done. Take a working prototype, make your own improvements, and launch it into production. In liberal-feudal Russia, for 33+ years, they haven't produced anything worthwhile. And they've forgotten how to build civilian aircraft. But most importantly, they've committed sabotage and theft on a galactic scale. Look how much they're torturing a light, simple airplane to replace the An-2, and what these infidels are producing. They can't even reverse engineer it. They can't even replicate Soviet designs. Only in combat aviation have they retained their expertise. And even then, thanks to foreign orders. The vertical power structure didn't need the Army, Navy, or Air Force (of any kind).
                        Quote: DO
                        Around 80% of personnel and equipment losses on both sides today occur due to drones.

                        I have a friend who died near Kursk from a drone.
                        But these are different drones.
                      2. DO
                        +1
                        12 October 2025 08: 37
                        Summary: There are two main solutions, and one does not exclude the other.
                        1) Throw away the Altius work you disparage, which has already flown ("how that wretched thing 'flew' is scary even to remember" – I wonder what horrified you so much). The Helios dummy goes in the same place.
                        Work in cooperation on the North Korean Saetbyol-4.
                        However, the situations with the Setbyol and the Geraniums are completely different. The Shaheds/Geraniums were already in mass production when the cooperation began, so after screwdriver assembly, they were immediately put into combat use.
                        But nothing has been heard about Setböl's serial production. As you write, "the first working prototype for testing could be ready by the end of our satellite constellation's deployment," and you previously stated that this end point is two years. It will also take time to get from prototype to serial production.
                        If a direct conflict with NATO breaks out next year, how can we survive these more than two years?
                        Fighters will most likely have to cover Russia's most heated western borders as AWACS (more than 3 km, including the borders of Belarus with the West; and including Georgia and Azerbaijan, all 4 km).
                        Northern and Far Eastern borders: from the Kola Peninsula to the Bering Strait is over 4,5 kilometers, and the length of Russia's Far Eastern borders is roughly the same. A total of about 9 kilometers. Will the Aerospace Forces have that many AWACS fighters? Unlikely. And if something happens, the enemy, with its superior reconnaissance, will strike at its weakest point. Whether we'll have time to cover it is the question.
                        2) Engage specialists from a certain brand, such as the MiG Design Bureau, to quickly upgrade the Altius to an AWACS system, and then to production. The project is expected to take several months.
                        ===
                        Choosing one or both options requires extensive research, detailed study, and contacts with experts. Personally, I, a sinner, naturally can't do this from my couch. Therefore, I'll leave the options mentioned above without comment.
                      3. 0
                        12 October 2025 10: 57
                        Quote: DO
                        Throw away the Altius work you disparage, which has already flown ("how that wretched thing 'flew' is scary even to remember" – I wonder what horrified you so much). The Helios dummy goes there too.

                        These aircraft are absolutely unsuitable for this project (AEW&C). They lack the payload capacity, the basic airframe architecture (large nacelles and propellers that would obscure the field of view), and the availability of a sufficient onboard power source to power a powerful radar. If anyone wants to continue developing them, it's at their own expense until they have a flying demonstrator, but for other purposes.
                        It's too late to order an alternative from a reputable aviation design bureau; we don't have the time. Therefore, we should at least use a ready-made airframe or the entire UAV as a base, if possible. The Korean aircraft is more than suitable for us, and if we work on this right here and now, we can make it happen.
                        But this isn't the only solution; there are several. The key issue is the availability of an airborne radar with the required characteristics, software capable of transmitting air situational awareness to ground control points and fighter aircraft, and reliable, secure communications channels. The first, most obvious solution is to take a civilian airliner, install this radar and all the necessary hardware, and create an AWACS aircraft based on the Tu-214R. Initially, it would have limited functionality—just the AWACS.
                        Since the radar system based on the Belka-M is quite compact, as is the hardware for it, it can be placed on a smaller airframe - the same Superjet.
                        It's possible (and necessary) to return to the idea of ​​an AWACS helicopter, which would be extremely useful for augmenting the radar field during a threat period, based on conventional helipads rather than airfields. This would add flexibility and make sense both in border/frontline zones and for augmenting the radar field in interior areas at the expected target overflights (it takes off and activates upon declaring alert/Readiness No. 1) and for protecting/providing air defense for important military, government, and infrastructure facilities. The value of such AWACS helicopters is that they don't constantly remain in the air, but rather remain on standby on the ground, and upon command, they can take off from their pads and rapidly augment the radar field during WWI. And for the Navy, such AWACS helicopters will also be of great importance; they will be able to base the KUG on ships together with the ASW helicopters, carry out low-altitude monitoring and, in the event of an anti-ship missile threat, provide target designation/guidance for SAMs from the AGSN of ship-based SAM systems.
                        The topic of tethered AWACS balloons also remains relevant and needs to be addressed very closely, since only they can ensure long-term airborne alert with control of WWI over hundreds of kilometers during the day.
                        It's unacceptable to focus on just one topic, as each of the above is important, and each complements and supports the other. Situational awareness of the air situation, especially during WWI, is critical.
                        Quote: DO
                        Northern and Far Eastern borders: from the Kola Peninsula to the Bering Strait is over 4,5 kilometers, and the length of Russia's Far Eastern borders is roughly the same. A total of approximately 9 kilometers. Will the Aerospace Forces have that many AWACS fighters?

                        This is an area for the operation of AWACS aircraft, as well as the possible implementation of a heavy high-altitude AWACS UAV in cooperation with the DPRK.
                        Quote: DO
                        You write, "We can have the first working prototype for testing by the end of our satellite constellation's deployment," but you previously stated that this end point is two years. It will also take time to get from prototype to production.

                        You've misunderstood me somewhat. North Korea already has a flight prototype, and in the two years it takes to deploy a global communications satellite constellation, we can perfect the UAV itself, prepare its radar system and hardware, and also prepare capacity for its serial production in Russia. As a result, when the satellite constellation is fully deployed, we will have a high-altitude AWACS UAV with a long loitering endurance, and a strategic reconnaissance UAV and a strategic integrated maritime reconnaissance UAV are on the way. Serial production must be prepared immediately after the program's launch.
                        Quote: DO
                        2) Involve specialists from some brand, for example, the MiG Design Bureau, in quickly upgrading the Altius to an AWACS, and then to a series production.

                        This is a bad idea. The Altius airframe and architecture are irrational. If a UAV in this class is needed, a single-engine design with a rear propeller would be better. We have good turboshaft engines, the VK-800 and VK-1600, and they're on the way, so that would be the right approach. But only if the order goes to one of the renowned and established aircraft design bureaus. I'm counting on Belousov's rationality and responsibility here.
                      4. DO
                        0
                        12 October 2025 11: 31
                        bayard, I understand that in terms of the DLRO-UAV you are for the only option "to throw Altius in the trash and cooperate with Yn."
                        It seems we have exhausted the discussion, as our posts on this topic contain less and less novelty.
                        I respect your opinion, although I doubt that it is absolutely correct.
                2. DO
                  +2
                  11 October 2025 21: 13
                  Reliable communication channels are needed, and satellite ones are still better.
                  We will have reliable satellite communications like Starlink within two years, so the issue with communication channels is already being resolved.

                  I highly doubt the creation of a Russian Starlink "within two years." Let me remind you that this would require several thousand high-tech satellites.
                  However, the Central Military District has learned to create a network of aerial repeaters, allowing operators of attack and reconnaissance drones to operate deep behind enemy lines, even under electronic warfare. What's stopping them from using a similar system in their own rear?
                  And yes, when it comes to UAV-based AWACS, everyone somehow thinks of enemy electronic warfare. However, jamming the communications of a traditional AWACS aircraft would have the same effect.
                  1. +1
                    12 October 2025 00: 33
                    Quote: DO
                    This will require several thousand high-tech satellites.

                    Around two thousand. Our satellites will be in a slightly higher orbit than Musk's Starlinks, have greater reach, and will be much less affected by atmospheric drag. Consequently, they will have a much longer lifespan and operational lifespan in orbit. They have already been created, tested in test and combat modes, and are already communicating with our attack UAVs (remember the epic battles of our Geranium jets attacking targets while evading anti-aircraft fire?), our unmanned aerial vehicles (remember the sunken Sumerian ship in the river delta?), and so on. Currently, more than two dozen are in orbit; this is a test batch, but one already developed to its final production form. The rest have already been produced, are sitting in storage, and await their turn for deployment in orbit. This deployment will begin in December of this year and will last about two years. Heavy launch vehicles will launch them, several dozen at a time. So these aren't just plans—they're already in orbit, albeit in limited quantities for now. But almost the entire batch has already been produced, tested on test benches, and approved for orbital launch. It was a huge undertaking, and it seems it was precisely for its implementation that this young man received the position of head of Roscosmos.
                    Quote: DO
                    In the SVO zone they learned how to create a network of airborne repeaters

                    One of the people making these repeaters here is a friend of mine. He's over 70. He found a partner among the old hobbyists, arranged for the supply of components (he's still around), and organized the production of these repeaters. At first, they were attached to masts, trees, tall buildings, and so on. Then other options emerged. This ensured the best possible coverage.
                    Quote: DO
                    If you jam the communications of a classic AWACS and U aircraft, the result will be similar.

                    That's why the communication channel must be satellite-based, via a highly directional antenna. Ground-based jammers won't be able to get within its range. And soon we'll have such global communications. Our UAVs will be able to fly over any part of the planet with reliable, secure communications channels.
                    1. DO
                      +1
                      12 October 2025 02: 06
                      Quote: bayard
                      This deployment will begin in December of this year and will last for approximately 2 years.

                      Even if a Russian equivalent of Starlink becomes operational in two years, its creation may be too late. Because the escalation is visibly bringing a direct conflict between NATO and Russia closer to this winter, spring, or summer. And it's possible that the two sides will then begin openly and massively disabling each other's satellite constellations. It seems that this is precisely what we need to prepare for first and foremost.
                      And given our tradition of pushing back the deadlines for mega-projects, the promise of "in two years" is met with skepticism.
                      Therefore, here and now, the development of aerial repeater networks is relevant, including classic aircraft UAVs, balloons, stratospheric UAV-pseudo-satellites, in combination with terrestrial fiber-optic networks.

                      Quote: bayard
                      My friend, among others, is involved in the production of such repeaters here. He is already over 70.

                      Well done man! I wish him health and success!

                      Quote: bayard
                      The communication channel must be satellite, through a highly directional antenna.

                      In my youth, I worked for a long time as a communications engineer, and I understand the advantages of the Starlink network for the military. However, don't judge a book by its cover.
                      1. 0
                        12 October 2025 09: 31
                        Quote: DO
                        Even if the Russian equivalent of Starlink starts working in two years, its creation may be late.

                        They're already up and running; there are just over twenty of them in orbit right now; this is the final version. Before that, there were test versions, fine-tuning was underway, and now the first group of standard satellites has been commissioned, and they're already operational. The entire batch (or almost the entire batch) has already been manufactured, tested on test rigs, and is awaiting launch; the launch vehicles have also completed their test launches. As far as I understand, they'll be launched by the Angara-5. But it's possible they won't be the only ones. The main constellation launch begins in December, and the constellation will be expanded over the next two years. And as far as I understand, it was precisely for this program that such a young and attractive man was appointed head of Roscosmos. If you recall what Putin told him when he was appointed, and what he particularly emphasized, it was the successful completion of the crucial program to create a low-orbit satellite constellation for global secure communications, codenamed "Gonets." As the number of satellites in orbit increases, the coverage area and duration of the "communication window" will increase, until coverage becomes global. This program has been underway for all previous years, and previous heads of Roscosmos have occasionally mentioned it, albeit in passing. Now the final step remains: launching all these satellites into their designated orbits.
                        So, not "in two years," but "within two years." It's like with the production and deployment of the 5th-generation Su-57 multipurpose missile system (MFI) to the Russian Aerospace Forces. While 300 units are slated for delivery to the Aerospace Forces, delivery is ongoing, the troops currently have at least 60 units, and by the end of the year, there will be up to 74. This is a dynamic process, with delivery rates accelerating. It's the same with satellites. We don't have reusable launch vehicles like Musk's; we'll launch them with disposable, but heavier, ones. And we'll launch them into higher orbits, which will provide them with greater coverage and a significantly longer life cycle.
                        Musk, by the way, has already realized that he overdid it with such a low orbit for his Starlinks; they slow down quite significantly, and their ion engines use up their propellant too quickly to accelerate them, after which they deorbit and burn up. And the constellation constantly has to be replenished. He's already preparing a new series of larger and heavier satellites for a higher orbit, and this is quite an expensive procedure. We optimized the constellation deployment echelon from the start, as we've long known about the braking effect in low orbits.
                        Quote: DO
                        Well done man! I wish him health and success!

                        Yes, my grandfather fought in the war – right at the beginning of 2015, when he ended up in Donetsk. His father, a colonel in SMERSH, hunted down Bandera in the woods after the war near Lviv.
                3. 0
                  24 October 2025 16: 28
                  It seems that the disabled "Vega" is famous for the failures of all the programs assigned to it

                  Oh, wow, what revelations are there) But some six months ago, when I said the same thing, you hit yourself in the chest with your heel and said that everything is wrong, Mr. “fig Negro”, they simply can’t draw up production plans, and when they do, uhhh! laughing

                  Well, welcome to reality, Mr. Jingo-Patriot.
          4. +2
            11 October 2025 13: 25
            Quote: dnestr74
            We don't need air defense from all sides, we need DLRO aircraft and a lot of fighter planes, and the States have that.

            How many AWACS are needed to cover the entire perimeter of the US? After all, a Burevestnik can come from any direction.
            1. +3
              11 October 2025 13: 49
              Quote: Piramidon
              How many AWACS are needed to cover the entire perimeter of the United States?
              Trump has been talking about some "Golden Dome" for three months now. wink
              1. +2
                11 October 2025 14: 20
                Quote: Schneeberg
                Trump has been talking about some "Golden Dome" for three months now.

                Trump will say even worse things; he was yelling about Canada, but now he's silent. And then there's Greenland, peace, "balalaika, accordion, hurray," and so on, "say, Yemelya, it's your week."
          5. +1
            11 October 2025 13: 39
            The United States has plenty of star power and a huge military budget to siphon off. They have quite a few aircraft, but they spend more time maintaining them than they fly.
          6. 0
            12 October 2025 03: 21
            Quote: dnestr74
            We don't need air defense from all sides, we need DLRO aircraft and a lot of fighter planes, and the States have that.

            That's right. That's exactly how the Americans built their air defenses. And then it turned out that their technology, their developments, their tactics were more advanced than ours. So we hastily began building and building everything just like them—as always, catching up. This was true for practically everything.
        2. 0
          12 October 2025 00: 49
          Quote: Vladimir_Borisovich
          How much air defense does it take to cover the sky from all sides? And who told you it would be a subsonic missile on approach? It could be stealthy, too.

          How can it be stealthy given its size? The reactor's mass and the reactor's heat removal system preclude the rocket's body being made of carbon fiber...
          How can you be stealthy when you have a reactor engine that produces a lot of heat?
          How can one be less noticeable if there is radioactive exhaust from the reactor (it constantly needs to be cooled)?
        3. 0
          13 October 2025 13: 06
          Quote: Vladimir_Borisovich
          How much air defense does it take to cover the sky from all sides? And who told you it would be a subsonic missile on approach? It could be stealthy, too.


          Is it possible for a supersonic ejection of a body from an air-based nuclear boiler?
          As far as I understand, even in theory it is impossible in mobile implementation.
      2. +12
        11 October 2025 11: 54
        It's light, but it has a limited range, and this one doesn't.
        Accordingly, the enemy's air defense saturation should sharply increase to almost unrealistic levels, since such a missile can easily bypass any areas where it could be shot down.
        Overall, this is a headache for air defense. This missile can be attacked from any direction.
        1. fiv
          +1
          11 October 2025 12: 17
          As practice has shown, low-speed UAVs can also successfully penetrate air defenses if global satellite reconnaissance is available.
          1. +2
            11 October 2025 12: 23
            Unfortunately, we are not doing very well with it yet, God willing, they will restore it.
          2. DO
            +2
            11 October 2025 16: 10
            fiv, Burevestnik is a nuclear retaliation weapon in the final stages of a global nuclear war, following an exchange of massive strategic nuclear strikes. Satellite constellations will already be disabled by the EMP from orbital nuclear explosions.
            God grant that the politicians and military on both sides have enough zest for life and brains not to let the war reach such a stage.
            1. +3
              11 October 2025 17: 07
              Quote: DO
              The Urevestnik is a means of nuclear retaliation in the final stage of a global nuclear war, after an exchange of massive strategic nuclear strikes.

              1. How is he better than Yars, who will be eliminated simply after the nuclear exchange—the second "series"? 2. What does he decide after the nuclear exchange of his small BG? 3. Why would anyone even try to hit anyone after a massive nuclear exchange, and what will that accomplish? Not to mention, will there be anyone to hit?
              1. DO
                +1
                11 October 2025 17: 36
                Level 2 Advisor, let's hope we sinners never learn the answers to these questions. Because either the nuclear apocalypse won't happen, or if it does, we'll find ourselves at the epicenter of a nuclear explosion.
              2. +1
                11 October 2025 18: 35
                Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                Why would anyone attack anywhere after a massive nuclear attack?

                A finishing shot to the head. A lot will remain after the first exchange of blows.
                1. -1
                  13 October 2025 13: 15
                  Quote: Piramidon
                  Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                  Why would anyone attack anywhere after a massive nuclear attack?

                  A finishing shot to the head. A lot will remain after the first exchange of blows.


                  Not in my head.
                  At best, in the ass.
                  But in real life, it's a complete disaster...
            2. fiv
              +1
              11 October 2025 17: 17
              DO, hi We announce that we've launched Burevestnik. Everyone stares at the sky. Meanwhile, we slowly, with five tank armies, penetrate enemy territory and – voila! We're in the clear! Burevestnik is a terrible terror meant to confuse the Europeans. Meanwhile, the States are busy hunting Poseidon with all their fleets, and they couldn't care less about anything else. The main thing is to launch B and P together and report it!
        2. 0
          11 October 2025 12: 27
          Great news, we'll be entering from Mexico.
      3. +5
        11 October 2025 11: 58
        One missile - yes, but if it is a massive launch of dozens or even hundreds of missiles in combination with UAVs, then these are no longer targets, but a guaranteed breakthrough of air defense.
        1. 0
          11 October 2025 12: 08
          Hundreds of petrels? That's what the scrap collection will be used for.
        2. +1
          11 October 2025 18: 41
          Quote: sgrabik
          One missile - yes, but if it is a massive launch of dozens or even hundreds of missiles in combination with UAVs, then these are no longer targets, but a guaranteed breakthrough of air defense.

          Penetrating US air defenses with drones will be problematic for us; Mexico and Canada are not on our side. And the Yankees have bases scattered around Russia.
          1. 0
            11 October 2025 20: 32
            The US air defense system isn't very strong on its own territory, except in the north, in Alaska. They've never been threatened, so there's no point in creating a complete all-round air defense system; their own territory isn't very well protected.
      4. -1
        11 October 2025 12: 02
        Yeah, especially somewhere in the ocean, during a storm and at night. fellow
        1. +5
          11 October 2025 12: 23
          Storms and nights are problems for manned aircraft, but not for cruise missiles.
      5. 0
        11 October 2025 13: 56
        Quote: dnestr74
        A cruise missile is a fairly easy target.

        Except for the Tomahawks, which have been the subject of angry crying here for several days now.
        1. -2
          11 October 2025 21: 02
          For the AWACS + air defense fighter combination, Tomahawks are also not a very difficult target.
      6. -1
        11 October 2025 20: 29
        The Berevestnik has a nuclear engine, which presupposes supersonic speeds at a minimum; it's a ramjet. Such engines don't operate at subsonic speeds, as far as I understand how they work.
        A supersonic missile will not be an easy target a priori.
        Although its actual structure is unlikely to be known to anyone other than the designers.
  3. +2
    11 October 2025 11: 39
    ❝ Many are inclined to believe that we are talking about the imminent deployment of a global-range cruise missile "Petrel", capable of staying in the air for any length of time and attacking targets located at any distance from the launch point ❞ —

    — “Over the gray plain of the sea the wind gathers clouds.
    Between the clouds and the sea it flies proudly Petrel,
    "like black lightning" © ...
    1. +5
      11 October 2025 12: 02
      Quote: Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov
      — “Over the gray plain of the sea the wind gathers clouds.
      Between the clouds and the sea the Petrel proudly flutters,
      "like black lightning" © ...

      And between the clouds and the land?
      And under the grey plain of the sea?
      Eh, Lyaksey Maksimych didn't know.
      About "Nut" and "Poseidon"...
      1. +3
        11 October 2025 12: 38
        And between the clouds and the land?
        And under the grey plain of the sea?
        Eh, Lyaksey Maksimych didn't know.
        About "Nut" and "Poseidon"...
        laughing drinks
      2. fiv
        +1
        11 October 2025 13: 25
        There are other miracles in the world!
        Their names are Petrov and Boshirov.
        And while everyone is looking at the sky -
        The petrel is waiting anxiously,
        These two are quietly
        They take away all the secrets -
        And the thunder of victory resounds,
        Have fun, brave Ross!
    2. +4
      11 October 2025 12: 14
      Quote: Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov
      The Petrel flies proudly,
      "like black lightning" © ...

      The stupid penguin timidly hides his fat body in the cliffs...
      1. +1
        11 October 2025 12: 39
        The stupid penguin timidly hides his fat body in the cliffs...

        Let me clarify... The F-35 was named Penguin. And this nickname suits the plane. And the poems, of course! laughing
    3. +2
      11 October 2025 12: 37
      — “Over the gray plain of the sea the wind gathers clouds.
      Between the clouds and the sea the Petrel proudly flutters,
      "like black lightning" © ...
      I applaud!
      1. +2
        11 October 2025 12: 39
        ❝ I applaud! ❞ —
  4. -5
    11 October 2025 11: 40
    A nuclear reactor in Kyrgyzstan is possible, but extremely dangerous in the event of an accident.
    In the event of a launch accident, it could cause severe pollution and loss of life.
    In case of an accident during flight - the same thing at the crash site.
    1. +14
      11 October 2025 11: 51
      A nuclear reactor in the Kyrgyz Republic is possible, but extremely dangerous in the event of an accident. A launch accident could cause severe contamination and fatalities. A mid-flight accident could also cause the same at the impact site.

      Firstly, submarines are floating around somehow, and no one is talking about the danger.
      And secondly, we must understand that the use of such missiles would effectively mean the start of a nuclear war, and there is no question of centimeters, pollution, etc.
      1. +7
        11 October 2025 12: 08
        Quote: sergey4791
        Firstly, submarines are floating around somehow, and no one is talking about the danger.
        And secondly, we must understand that the use of such missiles would effectively mean the start of a nuclear war, and there is no question of centimeters, pollution, etc.

        Thirdly, if the test footage is to be believed, the launch is accomplished using conventional solid-propellant rocket motors. The nuclear-powered rocket motor is activated later. (The launch vehicle crew is just as eager to survive.)
        1. +2
          11 October 2025 13: 10
          Could you explain to the uninitiated—what's the purpose? A Burevestnik, which will fly for 24 hours to the impact point, a Poseidon, which will race for 24 hours through the depths to...? When will the Voevodas, Yarsas, and Bulavas be ready to fire? And the Minutemen and Tridents, for the finishing blow? Will there be a need for this? Or is it even necessary? Questions...
          1. +3
            11 October 2025 13: 21
            Quote: Zyablicev43
            Could you explain to the uninitiated—what's it for? "Burevestnik"—which will fly for 24 hours to the impact point; "Poseidon"—which will race through the depths for 24 hours to...?

            To make the enemy squeeze...
            Let's launch early
            In three or four days
            Looking at the situation
      2. -3
        11 October 2025 12: 43
        Firstly, submarines are floating around somehow, and no one is talking about the danger.

        To be fair, the danger is simply being hushed up. Aren't there enough submarine accidents? On the other hand, the ocean isn't too polluted with the waste of our civilization, so a submarine accident or two can easily withstand it.
        And yes. A submarine is a ship. They don't float. They walk.
    2. 0
      12 October 2025 04: 15
      voyaka uh
      (Alexey)
      -5
      Yesterday, 11: 40
      A nuclear reactor in Kyrgyzstan is possible, but extremely dangerous in the event of an accident. ...
      Oops! A Jewish engineer)) on safety in the Nuclear Zone! laughing tongue Where haven't you applied your ignorance!!! On ALL TOPICS AND SUBJECTS! laughing And your results speak for themselves. Keep up the good work! laughing
      P.S., don't come close yourself... otherwise, anything could happen!
  5. -3
    11 October 2025 11: 44
    What "Burevestnik"? I remember something with a similar name, supposedly! I say "supposedly" because the intrigue still lingers—an experimental device crashed, and the wreckage of this device is now lying on the seabed in Nenoksa Bay in the Arkhangelsk region, having previously killed its designers (or the engineers responsible for testing)? Or what "Burevestnik"? request
    1. +5
      11 October 2025 12: 20
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      an experimental device crashed and the debris of this device is now lying on the bottom of Nenoksa Bay in the Arkhangelsk region, having previously killed its designers (or the engineers responsible for testing)?

      Just not a Volga, but three rubles. And not in the lottery, but in Dominoes. And not winning, but losing.
    2. 0
      11 October 2025 12: 35
      And there are troops in Chicago. Read less of your lying press!))
      1. +2
        11 October 2025 12: 45
        And there are troops in Chicago.

        ...It's midnight in Petropavlovka-Kamchatsky...© (Radio Mayak. Time Signals. 20th Century. USSR.)
    3. 0
      11 October 2025 12: 53
      WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Where the explosion occurred in Nenoksa, the Norwegians discovered something "cyclopean in size" and not just one. The Barents Observer *** had a freely available photo from space. We are not standing still.
    4. -1
      11 October 2025 13: 03
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      I remember something with a similar title, supposedly! I write "supposedly" because the intrigue still remains.

      There was no such name associated with that case.
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      The experimental device crashed, and the debris is now lying on the seabed in Nenoksa Bay in the Arkhangelsk region.

      It was a different device and a different product. As far as is known from leaks (both repeated and fairly well-informed), the accident occurred with a product codenamed "Skif," and the radiation exposure occurred from the isotope power supply for this seabed-based product.
      And the Burevestnik flies from time to time, launched from the nuclear test site on Novaya Zemlya.
      But it is not known whether this is what VVP had in mind.
      It is possible that we are talking about a new light-class IRBM.
      Possibly about a new air-launched hypersonic missile (Gremlin or Ostrota).
      Or perhaps about the upcoming demonstration of the Su-75, which is about to make its first flight, and is now apparently practicing taxiing and running.
      1. 0
        12 October 2025 13: 34
        Here:
        https://forum.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/index.php?PHPSESSID=akqjo05ejdfjpeh323oag52k3m&topic=16823.860

        The "Space News" forum has covered everything, jumping from "Burevestnik" to "Skif." That's why I wrote that "the intrigue remains."
        1. 0
          12 October 2025 13: 38
          And here the State Department writes directly:
          https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/7027051

          For some reason, I trust the "State Department" more than the "truthful" Russian media...
          1. 0
            12 October 2025 14: 15
            What did the State Department say that was so surprising? Or are you more interested in its concerns?
            What interests me in this speech is:
            - the tests took place in secrecy.
            - the radiation source did not pose a threat to the environment or local residents.
            - it was not a "destroyed nuclear engine", but an isotopic power supply for the launch container and the missile itself during duty.
            - it was not “Petrel” at all.
            Their pronunciation is "Skufa," meaning "Skif." It is a sea-launched ballistic missile. It is not included in the list of those subject to restrictions under the New START Treaty.
            There will be no new START.
            Putin's proposal to extend the New START quantitative limits for a year is meaningless. Right now, our industry is churning out Oreshnik stage bodies at a rapid pace, ensuring there are more than enough nuts for the European Cinderella. And in a year, we could exceed the New START quantitative limits. At least by the number of IRBMs in France and Britain (128 units). And by the number of Tomahawks sold by the US to the Netherlands.
            I have much more confidence in Kaa the Boa Constrictor in this matter.
  6. KCA
    +4
    11 October 2025 11: 45
    The footage of the Oreshnik missile attack on Yuzhmash doesn't seem to suggest the missiles were "non-combat capable," but rather resembled volumetric explosions. The fact that the explosions themselves aren't visible isn't surprising. Non-nuclear hypersonic warheads don't detonate at an altitude of 400 meters, but rather penetrate many meters. Conventional bombs dropped from MiG-25s in the Middle East penetrated the ground to an average depth of 12 meters. I can't even imagine how deep hypersonic warheads penetrate.
    1. -1
      11 October 2025 12: 37
      One hypersonic rock from space caused such a mess in Chelyabinsk.
    2. 0
      11 October 2025 13: 09
      Quote: KCA
      Judging from the footage of the Oreshnik missile attack on Yuzhmash, it doesn't look like the missiles were "non-combat capable."

      Thirty-six standard inert dummies simulating nuclear warheads on six (!) dispersal platforms. All they did there was the force of a kinetic impact. One of them, with its kinetic force alone, created a crater in grade 800 (minimum) concrete, and the force of the fragments scattered across the workshop demolished it like a FAB-3000. A photo was provided. And yes, the concrete mass in that area wasn't penetrated; it was too thick and too strong, even for such a dummie.
  7. 0
    11 October 2025 11: 46
    However, even such a use in the form of a strike with a blank was enough to make NATO “twitch” and begin to declare the need for “negotiations.”

    Regarding "twitched" - that's a bit of a stretch.
    If you couldn't scare your "partners" with "Oreshnik", now you've decided to scare them with "Burevestnik"?
    When will we understand that the words "partners" won't scare us?
    1. 0
      11 October 2025 11: 56
      No one is afraid of any of our "superweapons" anymore; we have convinced everyone that we will not use them.
    2. -1
      11 October 2025 12: 39
      Oh, the old manual came into use... predictably.)))
    3. +2
      11 October 2025 13: 11
      Quote: Vladimir M
      When will we understand that the words "partners" won't scare us?

      It's hard to scare an obsessed maniac.
      He has no sense of self-preservation.
  8. +7
    11 October 2025 11: 46
    "If you take out a knife, hit someone. If you don't intend to hit someone, don't take it out."
    No one cares what kind of weapon you have - old, new, innovative or alien, if you are not ready to use it.
    1. -1
      11 October 2025 14: 02
      Quote: Dinich
      No one cares what kind of weapon you have... unless you're ready to use it.

      How do we know whether the owner of a weapon is ready or not ready to use it?
      1. -1
        11 October 2025 14: 15
        And that's what provocations are for. If the provocation succeeds and there's no response, it means it's not ready. So, it's time to escalate further.
        1. -1
          11 October 2025 15: 28
          Quote: Dinich
          If the provocation has passed and there is no response, then it is not ready.

          But what if there's no reaction to the provocation, precisely because it's so obvious it's a provocation? It's actually quite common for the provocateur to get into trouble after mistakenly believing they're in no danger.
          1. +1
            11 October 2025 15: 54
            But what if there is no reaction to the provocation, precisely because it is obvious that it is a provocation?

            It doesn't matter. If he doesn't respond, it means he can't—that's the provocateur's logic. Testing for a reaction. The provocateur stops only after he gets a response.
            Besides, you don't necessarily have to provoke it yourself; it's enough to get others to do it. And if there's a response, the punishment will fall on the perpetrator, not the owner.
            And our responses to provocations (when these actions occur) confirm this.
            1. -2
              11 October 2025 20: 48
              Quote: Dinich
              If he doesn't answer, it means he can't - that's the provocateur's logic.

              Well, OK. And what do you see as the meaning of these provocations?
              1. 0
                11 October 2025 21: 09
                There are two options:
                1. Russia does not respond to provocations, and then the provocateurs convince forces unfriendly to Russia that Russia is weak and not worth fearing, and therefore they should speak out against it more boldly, rather than seek friendship with it.
                2. Russia is being forced to respond harshly to provocations (for example, with tactical nuclear weapons), which would make it appear even more of an aggressor and perhaps alienate those who are friendly to it, such as China. It would also be condemned at the UN, and ideally, expelled from the UN altogether.
                1. 0
                  11 October 2025 21: 46
                  Quote: Dinich
                  There are two options

                  1. There's still no indication that this option will work. Especially considering that the information for such decisions is unlikely to come from analyzing provocations.
                  2. It turns out that Russia is doing the right thing by not reacting to provocations.
                  1. 0
                    11 October 2025 21: 50
                    Well, the West is arming itself. If the first option didn't work at all, they wouldn't be preparing for war with Russia, but would rather seek peace with it.
                    1. 0
                      11 October 2025 21: 52
                      Quote: Dinich
                      the West is arming itself

                      And when did the West not arm itself?

                      Quote: Dinich
                      would not have prepared for war with Russia, but would have preferred to seek peace with it

                      Do you really think that this depends on Russia?
                      1. -1
                        11 October 2025 21: 55
                        And when did the West not arm itself?

                        Western rhetoric has changed. Now they're openly preparing for war with Russia. And they're shifting the economy to a war footing (whether they're successful or not is a separate discussion, but the trend is clear). Just 10 years ago, such a thing would have been unthinkable.
                        Do you really think that this depends on Russia?

                        Yes, I believe that it depends on Russia’s actions, among other things.
                      2. 0
                        11 October 2025 22: 37
                        Quote: Dinich
                        Now they are openly preparing for war with Russia.

                        Before that, Russia as a state didn't exist, so NATO countries were preparing for war with the USSR. This was also quite open—just look at the development of nuclear weapons and the doctrines for their use.
                      3. +1
                        11 October 2025 22: 05
                        Quote from: nik-mazur
                        And when did the West not arm itself?

                        The question is certainly a good one, but such a level of open and particularly aggressive Russophobia has not been seen there for 80 years.
                      4. 0
                        11 October 2025 22: 41
                        Quote: guest
                        There hasn't been such a level of open and particularly aggressive Russophobia there for 80 years

                        Seriously? McCarthyism in the 1950s, the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s, the "Evil Empire" in the 1970s. Technically, this isn't Russophobia, but anti-Sovietism, but the West has never really distinguished between Russians and communists, considering the two concepts synonymous.
                      5. 0
                        11 October 2025 22: 52
                        Attitudes and rhetoric changed slightly in the second half of the 1980s, following Perestroika, and in the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, the West decided Russia was finished and remained in a state of euphoria until August 8, 2008. After that, a gradual return to a more natural state began. The Crimean Spring accelerated this process, and the outbreak of war in Ukraine plunged the West first into panic, and then into a state of frantic hyperactivity. This is what we're seeing now.
                      6. 0
                        11 October 2025 22: 54
                        Quote from: nik-mazur
                        "Evil Empire" in the seventies.

                        Did you happen to get the decade wrong? Reagan was in the 80s, after all.
                      7. 0
                        11 October 2025 23: 17
                        Quote: guest
                        Reagan was in the 80s after all.

                        Well, yes. I don't think it's that important. Even though there was a period of Détente in the seventies—brief and essentially ineffective.
  9. -3
    11 October 2025 11: 48
    Hitting even an empty Burevestnik is not the same as hitting an empty Oreshnik IRBM. At the very least, it would require more decisiveness.

    It's not just about determination.
    If they believe that the Burevestnik has a POISON, even if it is small-sized, then most likely upon impact with the ground (target) it will be destroyed, causing radioactive contamination of the area, OUR area, even in the future.
    Wasn't Chernobyl enough for us? When it's all-out do-or-die battle, they won't think about such a "trifle," and it wouldn't be necessary, considering the special warhead. lol
    But using it for "intimidation" purposes is foolish. Especially since the Oreshnik missile has 36 warheads, not just one; one launch could raze 36 buildings to the ground. Or significantly reduce the Patriots' anti-missile stockpile.
    So yes, the launches of Burevestnik and Oreshnik are not at all equivalent. request
    1. +1
      11 October 2025 12: 12
      You are confusing the Chernobyl reactor, which contains several tons of fuel, with a rocket reactor, which contains a maximum of a kilogram, or even less.
      1. +2
        11 October 2025 13: 16
        Information for reference regarding "maximum kilogram..."
        On January 24, 1978, the Soviet nuclear-powered satellite Cosmos-954 crashed in Canada's Northwest Territories. The impact resulted in radioactive contamination of a large area, although the greatest contamination was localized to the debris impact sites, and there were no casualties.
        Satellite: "Cosmos-954", reconnaissance satellite of the naval space system for reconnaissance and target designation of the "US-A" series.
        Crash site: Northwest Territories, Canada.
        Effects:
        Radioactive contamination over an area of ​​approximately 124,000 square kilometers.
        At the site of the fall of some large debris, radioactivity reached 200 roentgens/hour.
    2. KCA
      0
      11 October 2025 12: 26
      Don't confuse warm with soft. A nuclear power plant with tons, or rather hundreds of tons, if not thousands, of fuel and waste, and a small rocket—how much fissile material is there? Are you afraid of all nuclear power plants, research reactors, and other reactors? And don't nuclear submarines scare you? And don't the spent reactors unloaded from them scare you? And why would the missile launch and failure be on our territory? And if it's over enemy territory, then Burevestnik will definitely fly there, not like a drone with a TM-62 sling.
      1. 0
        11 October 2025 12: 32
        Did I write anywhere about the area of ​​radioactive contamination? belay
        I just noted that it would happen.
        But why should we defile our land?
        So you can swallow your minuses. hi
        1. -5
          11 October 2025 12: 54
          I wrote this, comparing Yadu to Chernobyl, revealing my complete incompetence on the subject and my penchant for idiotic demagoguery. There's no point in discussing things you understand absolutely nothing about.
          1. +1
            11 October 2025 13: 14
            Quote: alovrov
            I wrote this, comparing Yadu to Chernobyl, revealing my complete incompetence on the subject and my penchant for idiotic demagoguery. There's no point in discussing things you understand absolutely nothing about.

            Radiation contamination of areas both there and in Africa has the same effect on biological organisms.
            There is no need to pretend to be smart. hi
            1. -3
              11 October 2025 18: 24
              To write on this topic, you need to at least understand the difference between 1 kg and 250 tons. And yes, different types of radiation have very different effects on biological organisms.
  10. +3
    11 October 2025 12: 00
    If you need to renew the Hazel's effect, you can simply hit it again. For example, you can use split blocks to completely destroy a couple of large thermal power plants.
    1. 0
      11 October 2025 12: 43
      "Demolish with separable blocks..." is where this myth originated. A warhead, incidentally, relatively small in mass and size, can only completely obliterate something if it's nuclear-powered (in fact, that's what the "Oreshnik" is designed for). In the test version, it's just a metal block that can only make a deep hole. You can't cram much explosive into it. And the cost-to-damage ratio is meaningless. 1000 Geraniums for the same price would cause a hundred times more damage.
      1. +1
        11 October 2025 17: 59
        You see, I'm a thermal power engineer who worked at a thermal power plant for several years. If the targeting is carried out according to my instructions, the efficiency of the metal blanks will be beyond praise. Since I'm not the only such engineer in the country, it's just a matter of management's willingness to give it a good whack.
        1. -1
          11 October 2025 21: 40
          I think I understand your thinking, but unfortunately, the guidance system doesn't provide the necessary precision to hit the target with a "dummy." I'd estimate the warhead's circular error to be around 100 meters. For a nuclear warhead of around 10 kilotons, that's more than enough, but for a "dummy," it's a bit too low.
          1. 0
            12 October 2025 19: 10
            You might understand me if you were a power engineer. Just not an electrician, but a power engineer. So no.) To guarantee a killer result, you just need to group the blanks, say, three at a time. But even one is enough to disable at least one turbo unit, so much so that restoring it to working order will take three years or more.
            1. 0
              13 October 2025 13: 35
              Quote: Mikhail3
              You might understand me if you were a power engineer. Just not an electrician, but a power engineer. So no.) To guarantee a killer result, you just need to group the blanks, say, three at a time. But even one is enough to disable at least one turbo unit, so much so that restoring it to working order will take three years or more.


              That's the point, in a war there are the same specialists on both sides.
              Our people are starting to take out their machine rooms.
              Let's be prepared for the fact that their energy specialists will give recommendations on how and where exactly the Flamingos, Fierce, and other Long Neptunes should hit when they strike our machine rooms.
              Since both our and their power systems are still based on Soviet-era designs, we've had plenty of photos of the turbine halls—and they'll also pinpoint where the maximum damage will occur.
              But it's much colder here.
              And we don’t have hundreds of thousands of generators.
              And it wouldn't be too difficult to cripple the power grid of any of our major cities in mid-November. There are so many cities, no one could protect against a massive air strike.
              We will get a humanitarian catastrophe.

              War works both ways.
              There are specialists on both sides.
              1. 0
                14 October 2025 08: 56
                So you're still hoping the Ukrainians will "abstain" while we "abstain." I have news for you...
                1. 0
                  14 October 2025 10: 09
                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  So you're still hoping the Ukrainians will "abstain" while we "abstain." I have news for you...

                  I don't hope so.
                  I see that no one is abstaining.
                  I know that they will actually do a Blackout for some of our cities.
                  And this is widely announced on their resources.
                  They have a very big temptation.

                  This is what I wrote in a comment to another article.

                  He doesn’t understand that the war is going in a completely different direction.

                  The escalation began in the form of the formation of a “humanitarian catastrophe.”
                  Of course, there is talk about cutting off electricity supply to military facilities.
                  But in reality, the destruction of the heat, fuel and electricity supply systems of large cities is underway.

                  The goal is to create conditions for a humanitarian catastrophe that could lead to "unacceptable losses" among the civilian population from cold and hunger. And that this could impact ceasefire negotiations. And it has, for many years now.
                  In the modern world, repeating the "Siege of Leningrad"—from the defending side, as it did during the Great Patriotic War—is no longer possible. From the occupier's side, yes; from the defending side, no. The world has changed.

                  Anyone who thinks that the destruction of turbine halls of hydroelectric power plants, thermal power plants/combined heat and power plants, transformer substations for 700, 300, and 110 kV, and large gas distribution points is for "other people" and will not affect the civilian population in any way is deeply mistaken.
                  It's part of the war.
                  It is not done with white gloves.

                  But ...
                  The war goes both ways.
                  Now our forces are destroying Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
                  A much warmer region, compared, for example, to the Central Belt of the Russian Federation, or the Volga-Vyatka region, or Moscow, Bashkiria, Tatarstan.
                  Where the centralization of energy supply is greatest.
                  And where in late autumn and winter it can easily be minus 25 for a week.

                  Since the fall of 2022, Ukrainians have been receiving a colossal number of mobile and portable diesel power plants and generators. Hundreds of thousands of units have been delivered to them from all over the world as aid. They have already systematically tested their use to provide electricity to their homes, even in devastated cities.
                  They don't want to be left without power or heat this winter. And they already have experience.

                  And what about us?
                  The weather in Central Russia is 15-20 degrees colder in winter.
                  The energy system is centralized, both in electricity and in heating.
                  And most importantly, we are not ready for a full-fledged Blackout, even within a single city with a population of half a million or a million.
                  Like Saratov, Kazan, Ufa, Tambov, Syktyvkar and dozens of others.
                  We don't have hundreds or thousands of generators of varying capacity to power every home, every entrance. We simply don't. Again, no one has prepared.
                  And if we are going to destroy enemy infrastructure, then what is stopping them from destroying our infrastructure, especially if they have resources and a trump card in the form of "cold weather".
                  1. +1
                    14 October 2025 11: 35
                    How do you manage to fit all of this together? Your entire long post boils down to "they're holding back because we're holding back." And that's not true. They don't attack our TES simply because they're incapable of doing so.
                    Their limit is to strike refineries, and not all of them, but those they can reach. Yes, they received a hundred million mobile generators (no, they didn't). The lifespan of those generators they received is negligible. They're not designed for continuous operation. There are some, of course, but they require... gas. )) It seems like you're protecting your investments in the Ukrainian energy sector. Well, well...
                    1. 0
                      14 October 2025 16: 48
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      How do you manage to fit all this together in your head?) Your entire long post again boils down to the fact that “they abstain because we abstain.”


                      A completely different message altogether.
                      The war has ceased to be military in the sense of "destruction of enemy troops."
                      War enters into a system of total infliction of unacceptable damage by conventional weapons in the form of creating a humanitarian catastrophe on the opposing side.
                      And this became predictable when in the spring they started talking about strategic dead ends.

                      No one on either side currently has the resources to suppress enemy resistance, at least over the next two years.
                      Neither do we have anything against the Ukrainians, nor do the Ukrainians and the world have anything against us either.
                      The annual grinding of 500-600 thousand people on each side and with a reserve of mobilization resources for at least 10 years of such a war.

                      And what I described is inevitable.
                      And the people best placed to "plan targets" are those responsible for ensuring the survival of the masses. Energy workers. They are the ones currently compiling the target list.
                      Escalation of the conflict with the aim of creating a humanitarian catastrophe, the impact of which on the opposing side will lead to a real contractual situation to end the war.
                      And the fact that THIS IS ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE IN BOTH SIDES is a fact and reality.
                      By freezing five million people in Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Dnipro, we will create a major humanitarian catastrophe there.
                      They, having frozen Voronezh, Belgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Saratov, Kazan, will create a severe humanitarian catastrophe for us.

                      And you're talking some nonsense about "your investments"...

                      Get ready to see our frozen cities...
                      And their frozen cities.
                      Because the military cannot solve the problems now, and the countries’ leadership is not yet ready to make peace.
                      1. 0
                        15 October 2025 08: 29
                        You don't write anything constructive. None at all. It's all just "they're holding back because we're holding back." And without any evidence, accompanied by copious talk of "war having changed." Yes, it has. But it still requires achieving victory, which can't be achieved without seizing the strategic initiative. Your posts are very strange. Simply very strange.
    2. -2
      11 October 2025 12: 45
      And still, the same commentators will say that these are cartoons.))) And no one was impressed and no one is afraid...))) and there is no pedestrian))) as VVP said: "It's boring, girls)),,
      1. 0
        11 October 2025 18: 01
        You're confusing the internet with reality. It's quite common these days, but quite dangerous for people with this mental deviation. You see, reality is a little more than upvotes, downvotes, likes, and dislikes. Try to wake up. If you still can.
  11. -3
    11 October 2025 12: 03
    They scared me terribly fellow
    No, it won't work a second time. At least, not yet. But is it usable? And is it suitable for use in the SVO zone? sad
    1. +1
      11 October 2025 13: 18
      Quote: populist
      It's not applicable yet. But is it applicable? And is it suitable for use in the SVO zone?

      No, it won't do.
      But one evil island state north of Western Europe is suitable. And Europe knows better, and they will be able to feel the consequences if the island doesn't sink.
  12. +3
    11 October 2025 12: 03
    What's all this analysis and debate about? What difference does it make to you what the "chess player" was talking about? He talked a lot about hazelnuts and even demonstrated some of them. Where are all the Armatas, PAK-DAs, PAK-NETs, ​​and other super-dupers? Did this help us in any way in the SVO, especially for the border areas? These are just "chess" tricks.
    1. -4
      11 October 2025 12: 24
      Quote: Valyusha
      Where are all the Armatas, PAK-DAs, PAK-NETs and other super-dupers?

      Where's your famous Oplot tank and other promised super-dupers? Did they help you much against our SVO? If not for NATO support, the end would have happened long ago.
      1. +1
        11 October 2025 17: 26
        Read the text letter by letter, maybe you'll see something and understand it. I don't believe it, though.
  13. +2
    11 October 2025 12: 27
    The Oreshnik IRBM... NATO became nervous and began declaring the need for "negotiations"

    Until Russia strikes a blow that will send the entire NATO into a bear-like state, complete with persistent diarrhea and indigestion, NATO will not rest; it will continue to provoke Russia, prepare for war, and fight in Ukraine...
    Hence the slogan: Give a demonstration so that NATO will completely screw up!!!
    1. +2
      11 October 2025 19: 06
      But what if NATO doesn’t screw up, but stages a counter-demonstration?
      1. 0
        12 October 2025 08: 05
        [quote]What if NATO doesn't screw up, but stages a counter-demonstration?[quote]
        Russia must act in such a way that NATO screws up, then there will be no demonstration.
        After all, a bear doesn't make any kind of demonstration if a bear disease suddenly occurs...
        1. 0
          2 November 2025 07: 51
          Quote: "Russia must act in such a way that NATO screws itself up, then there will be no demonstration."
          ...Ah, well, I didn't think of that! Well, no problem then. :)
  14. -2
    11 October 2025 12: 43
    You can have any weapon, the question is whether you have the resolve to use it. The weapons we currently have are enough to drive Ukraine back to the Stone Age. If we did this, we would make it clear that this is our cow and we will never give it up to anyone, and all the resources you (the West) send there will go up in smoke and you will get nothing in return. Perhaps Western support would be different, but Ukraine is an example to follow if you're fussing.
  15. +2
    11 October 2025 12: 44
    But time passed. And now the psychological effect of the introduction and use of "Oreshnik" (this, of course, is debatable) has, if not completely worn off, then largely faded.


    A fire burns when wood is constantly added to it.
  16. 0
    11 October 2025 12: 58
    But time passed. And now the psychological effect of the introduction and use of "Oreshnik" (this, of course, is debatable) has, if not completely worn off, then largely faded.

    And all because we need to "remind" people more often, not with words, but with actions. Among V. Pikul's many works, there's the novel "Word and Deed"—some people would find it useful as a reference book in their work.
  17. +4
    11 October 2025 13: 00
    Only successful application can produce a real psychological effect.
  18. -3
    11 October 2025 13: 10
    ...in response to the possible delivery of Tomahawks to Ukraine...

    Perhaps America doesn't have any spare Tomahawk missiles to supply Ukraine. The Tomahawks' delivery and launch systems are US and British naval submarines and surface vessels. Given this, how does Ukraine plan to launch Tomahawk missiles at Russia?
    1. -2
      11 October 2025 14: 09
      Well, the Americans still have ground-based axe launchers at their bases. Unlike ours, they didn't use them for cutting up anything. And recently, the US Marine Corps demonstrated a Tomahawk cruise missile launcher (a new development).
      1. -1
        11 October 2025 19: 57
        Well, the Americans still have ground-based launchers for axes at their bases.


        These? "...Tel ground-based launch container systems were used to launch BGM-109G missiles, but due to the conclusion of the 1987 Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, they were removed from service and destroyed by 1991..." (Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia).
      2. -2
        11 October 2025 19: 58
        And recently, the US Marine Corps demonstrated the Tomahawk cruise missile launcher (a new development)


        Typhon launcher? A single unit in the US? Are the deliveries to Ukraine planned with US personnel?
        1. +2
          11 October 2025 21: 21
          Typhon launcher? The only one in the US?

          The Typhon launcher is a universal launcher designed for the use of various types of missiles.
          For ground-based launch of Tomahawks, a simple and compact LRFL launcher is used; it has been in serial production for a long time.
          https://topwar.ru/222504-korpus-morskoj-pehoty-ssha-razvernul-pervuju-nazemnuju-batareju-lmsl-dlja-zapuska-raket-tomahawk.html
        2. 0
          13 October 2025 13: 44
          Quote: monitor
          And recently, the US Marine Corps demonstrated the Tomahawk cruise missile launcher (a new development)


          Typhon launcher? A single unit in the US? Are the deliveries to Ukraine planned with US personnel?


          LMSL
    2. +1
      11 October 2025 21: 12
      There are ground-based ones, which are relatively simple and inexpensive. They are mass-produced and have been supplied to the American military for a long time.
    3. 0
      13 October 2025 13: 44
      Quote: monitor
      ...in response to the possible delivery of Tomahawks to Ukraine...

      Perhaps America doesn't have any spare Tomahawk missiles to supply Ukraine. The Tomahawks' delivery and launch systems are US and British naval submarines and surface vessels. Given this, how does Ukraine plan to launch Tomahawk missiles at Russia?

      We study reality.
      News from 2 years ago (July 26, 2025): "The US deployed the first ground-based LMSL battery to launch Tomahawk missiles."
      The US Marine Corps deployed its first Tomahawk cruise missile launch system, which was designated LMSL ("Long Range Missile Battery").

      As noted in the USNI News publication, one LMSL complex includes 16 LRFL launchers carrying one Mk-41 TLU cell. Each launcher is mounted on a separate mobile ground chassis.
      https://topwar.ru/222504-korpus-morskoj-pehoty-ssha-razvernul-pervuju-nazemnuju-batareju-lmsl-dlja-zapuska-raket-tomahawk.html
  19. +1
    11 October 2025 13: 11
    As has long been known, the best air defense is friendly tanks on enemy airfields. We await news on what VVP meant.
  20. -1
    11 October 2025 13: 26
    Experts believe that the new weapon will be supplied from the manufacturer already with a standard Faberge kit. . . winked
  21. +1
    11 October 2025 13: 42
    "Burevestnik", capable of staying in the air for as long as desired
    How can this be?
    1. 0
      11 October 2025 16: 20
      Well, not forever, of course, but long enough. I mean, just LONG.
  22. +1
    11 October 2025 13: 46
    What's the point? The Burevestnik makes sense as a nuclear weapons carrier, but conventional missiles can hit Ukraine just fine.
    1. 0
      11 October 2025 16: 19
      And isn't the "littering" of areas with radioactive debris an argument for non-brothers?
      1. +1
        11 October 2025 17: 01
        Well, only if it's to the Rada or through a bank account. But in general, it's too much for them; a petrel is probably worth twenty Iskander coins, or even more.
  23. -2
    11 October 2025 13: 59
    The psychological effect no longer works.
  24. -6
    11 October 2025 14: 48
    How long could mattresses keep a Chinese balloon from flying? They just can't fly with their cut-out bags. But what if our thing can easily fly 25-30 km? No time limit on the flight. And? It can change its trajectory anywhere, flying at supersonic speed. A formidable weapon.
  25. +1
    11 October 2025 15: 44
    What the heck is a nuclear-powered cruise missile for? Just dangle around to make the enemy dizzy? It'll only differ from regular ones, which are shot down with a bang, in that it'll cover the area with debris. It's better, in my opinion, to burn it with neutrons if the hazel grove is still there, though the USSR had plenty of that stuff. So, why did they abandon chemical weapons then? The effect is quite comparable.
  26. +1
    11 October 2025 15: 48
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Putin spoke about the air-launched hypersonic Gremlin, also known as the GZUR, currently being tested. The Su-34 will likely be its carrier, given that it can carry two Kh-101 missiles, even according to rumors. Incidentally, there were earlier reports that the Su-34 was armed with long-range missiles, but the specifics were kept secret, and now it seems the secret is finally out in the open. However, it wouldn't be surprising if the Su-34 also used two FAB-3000 missiles in a single attack in the Air Defense Forces. Then everything fits. The Su-34's GZUR would then be capable of carrying four.

    It can carry up to 12,000 kg of weapons on 12 hardpoints, including a wide range of missiles, including anti-ship, air-to-air, air-to-surface, and anti-radar. Furthermore, the Su-34 can carry both guided and unguided bombs.

    The Su-34 has also been upgraded to launch long-range cruise missiles capable of carrying either conventional or nuclear warheads. Previously, in an article for EurAsian Times, Indian Air Force veteran Vijayinder Thakur noted: "In a conflict with NATO, the Su-34 could carry two Kh-101 missiles, reach launch sites undetected, and launch the missiles from an unexpected direction. The Su-34's ability to launch Kinzhal missiles adds another strategic dimension, making the frontline bomber a credible deterrent."


    https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/485594/

    And one of the significant advantages of the Su-34, since we are talking about it as a carrier, is the design of the nose, which is specially made for the installation of a more powerful radar.

    The widened nose allowed for the installation of a more powerful radar. The flat, wide nose created a spacious, comfortable, and functional cockpit, as well as the Su-34's distinctive style.
    GK "Rostec"


    https://www1.ru/news/2025/10/09/rostex-raskryl-sekret-utenka-su-34-sirokii-kliuv-nuzen-ne-prosto-tak.html

    With 12 tons of weapons, this machine (maybe) is capable of taking off from the runway in a fraction of the time, enough to write it down in the record books.
    Nobody flies on LBS with maximum load
  27. +1
    11 October 2025 15: 51
    Quote: Kostos1973
    How long could mattresses keep a Chinese balloon from flying? They just can't fly with their cut-out bags. But what if our thing can easily fly 25-30 km? No time limit on the flight. And? It can change its trajectory anywhere, flying at supersonic speed. A formidable weapon.

    At what altitude was the U2 shot down? More than 60 years have passed since then. Air defense systems are constantly being improved. Especially since a typical cruise missile flies at subsonic speed.
  28. +3
    11 October 2025 16: 00
    What determination can you show if our strategists dare not strike at even the most vulnerable bridges, chasing after every crate of shells and ammunition? That's why NATO isn't afraid of us.
  29. -1
    11 October 2025 16: 17
    So what? They could have hit some abandoned airfield or factory...
  30. 0
    11 October 2025 16: 22
    Quote from Mazunga
    Have you abandoned chemical weapons?

    The Ukrainians didn't refuse. There are plenty of facts! And the British, too.
  31. 0
    11 October 2025 18: 23
    The news flashed today about "especially powerful lightning" in the mountains of the Krasnodar region... ten times stronger than usual...🤩
  32. 0
    11 October 2025 18: 34
    "Fuel oil crabs..."😂
  33. +1
    11 October 2025 19: 02
    The Yankees developed their "Burevestnik" in the late 50s. They made an engine, but the project was shelved due to its uselessness... I'd like to know about the psychological impact of the "Oreshnik"? What was it?
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. +3
    11 October 2025 20: 17
    Let me repeat once again: if in a fight one fighter has a knife in his hand and is using it, and the other has a pistol in his holster, but only threatens to use it, the one who uses his weapon, rather than threatens to use it, is more likely to win...
  36. +1
    11 October 2025 21: 27
    Why are there no satellite images of the aftermath of Oreshnik's arrival?
  37. 0
    11 October 2025 21: 45
    The Burevestnik is simply a cruise missile—a dirty bomb. This type of weapon is of no military use, and its propaganda value is limited to influencing the general public, especially the foolish masses. But diverting resources to developing a weapon that is certain to fail is sabotage, at the very least.
  38. 0
    12 October 2025 07: 43
    How will they demonstrate it? If it's a Burevestnik with a ramjet, it will pollute the atmosphere with radioactive particles. Or they decided to ignore it, minimizing the pollution. Or they decided to test it on enemies, ignoring the consequences. It's unclear yet.
  39. +1
    12 October 2025 11: 57
    I think the time will come when we'll have a go. Everything is heading toward a major war; the accumulated contradictions simply can't be resolved. So, we'll definitely have a go, but not now...
    1. 0
      13 October 2025 13: 47
      Quote: jonht
      I think the time will come when we'll have a go. Everything is heading toward a major war; the accumulated contradictions simply can't be resolved. So, we'll definitely have a go, but not now...

      Remember the classics?
      - Let's go, godfather, to the club of construction brigades to beat?
      - What if they are us?
      - And what about us?
  40. -1
    12 October 2025 12: 19
    The Storm Petrel and the Hazelnut should have a physical effect on the enemy, then the psychological effect won't be perceived as empty horror stories from the Kremlin...
  41. 0
    12 October 2025 16: 59
    I don't understand what's so special about it? It flies for a long time, but it'll still reach its target and be shot down.
  42. 0
    13 October 2025 08: 24
    We need to resurrect the famous Faberge.
  43. The comment was deleted.
  44. 0
    13 November 2025 05: 27
    Quote: Vertuhai 2003
    I repeat once again, if in a fight one fighter has a knife in his hand and he uses it, and the other has a pistol in his holster,

    What if it's this gun? Maybe there's a cucumber in there?