1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Putin boasts of new Russian nuclear weapons

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Andrey, Mar 1, 2018.

  1. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Both WAPO and ABC News among others have posted about Putin's claim of a functional nuclear-powered Cruise Missile.

    How theoretically does it propel itself? Nuclear reactors in general including those in ships and boats simply heat water to steam and that process turns turbines that turn blades.

    On the other hand, rockets or jets or prop planes move by generating thrust via rockets, jet engines or props on engines all powered by fuel.

    How does the Russian missile propel itself?


    Putin boasts of new Russian nuclear weapons
  2. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Left Coast Fiscal Conservative

    Keep in mind our three naval assets that have been involved in collisions in the last year, and our state of what I call unreadiness with planes on the ground being robbed of parts to keep the rest flying, reduced training missions, short staffing and other problems with the US military. I suspect the US is less prepared for war at the present than compared to WW II and every conflict since. If we don't start whipping our military into shape we won't be able to respond to serious challenges unless our homeland, and there it's do or die.
  3. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Left Coast Fiscal Conservative

    You can bet steam isn't involved and it can't be something like Nerva which also requires fuel even if it's hydrogen or water. My guess would be a nuclear plant providing either heat (or less likely electricity which would be just an efficiency killing intermediate stage) to drive a turbine in the same way as turbojet engines operate except without the front stage in which fuel is burned. Think of it as a tube filled with a shaft of compressor blades driven by a nuclear motor. My guess would be a closed cycle system using nuclear heat to spin the motor section of the engine, which in turn drives air through the compressors and out the back to provide thrust.

    Whatever it is, it can't expend anything other than depleting the nuclear source, which presumably would have a lot longer life than the mission length. Probably much longer.
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Twitter cleaned out all of the Russian trolls so here we are. :)

    Just kidding, Andrey Vorobey. :)
  5. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    In our exploration of hypersonic air vehicles we actually considered nuclear power. Hypersonic typically requires a launch to get up to speed with ramjet technology taking over to get to the high speeds. The usual ramjet has the supersonic air directed to a duct where fuel is injected and the hot supersonic air ignites it. The nuclear version would have the nuclear reactor providing the heat instead of fuel so you have supersonic air being further heating by the reactor. At the time we examined it we determined it could be built about the size of a current F-16 fighter. But you could not have much shielding so the reactor would be dangerous on the ground. Additionally you would have an exhaust that emitted hot isotopes over the launch area as well as over friendly nations on the route as well as the targeted nation.
  6. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Shiny, your post raises the issue of would the "exhaust" of the claimed nuclear-powered cruise missile leave a radioactive trail? How long would that trail be detectable?

    An entertaining example: A cloaked Klingon Warbird is firing upon Federation Star Ship Enterprise. Since the warbird is cloaked the Enterprise can't shoot back and is getting hit often.

    Someone on the Enterprise figures that even though the warbird is cloaked it has to emit an exhaust in some form of plasma or gas so lets program one of the Enterprise's photon torpedos to home in on the exhaust source. (Sort of like a heat-seeking AIM missile used today.)

    The result in HD:

    Last edited: Mar 3, 2018
  7. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I am sure it could be tracked. It has been hypothesized that some readings in Europe of nuclear isotopes could have been from testing of such a device.

    So we track it after launch but at Mach 5-10 speed that is small consolation to the target. What is the launcher? If an aircraft or sub it could escape. But would you put a relatively unshielded reactor on either? Of course, this is all speculation.

    But keep in mind the timing of the announcement. Putin used his Russian version of the state of the union address at a time when he is once again running for office. A new cold war helps keep him in office. A new cold war could also be used by American politicians to keep or gain office.
  8. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Left Coast Fiscal Conservative

    I think that's the whole point of the announcement. My stock market was just collateral damage. The market can price it in and the bears will go back into hibernation. The market was probably more steel and aluminum anyway. It's kind of rude that Trump strafed Wall Street instead of gradually introducing the tariffs in a way that wouldn't shock the market. Boo!

    Keeping in mind that shielding and leaving behind a radioactive trail are two entirely different things. With little shielding you can emit a hell of a lot of gamma radiation and yet leave no radioactive trail. We don't know if this is a closed loop system in which case it may leave little or nothing behind. On the other hand if it's spewing radioactive pollutants like a Nerva then it will obviously be launched from a mobile platform.

    I'm told that nuclear explosions can be traced to point of origin by isotopic composition of the bomb residue. What happens when we trace the bomb back to US? Jeez, Hillary, thanks for selling Putin the weapon raw materials used to kill us with. I hope you made enough money to live in Hell.
  9. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old school Conservative

    The fallout of nuclear blasts (or the material itself, pre-blast) can be analyzed for the impurities in it. This can trace the origin of the processed materials, i.e. what facility the Uranium was processed into Plutonium. I do not know if they can determine the mineral's origin.
  10. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Left Coast Fiscal Conservative

    Sorry to crap on your post Mark, but to sum up your post: "I know nothing."

    Please offer a citation for the part of your post that you claimed you know. I'll tell ya right now all I know is what I heard. Don't got no citation. We need an expert. I've heard that when a nuclear bomb is detonated that it can be traced back to the country of origin. That's it.

    Anyway if we got suddenly nuked by a cruise missile going umpty-thousand mph I'm pretty sure we know where to send the reply. Particularly if the CM has nukey exhaust. ;)
  11. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old school Conservative

    I do know, and I said so. Nuclear bomb debris holds clues to who planted it.

    I guess I wasn't clear enough in the second part. Uranium mined in Utah and processed into Plutonium will have a different 'signature' of impurities than Uranium mined in Utah and processed at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, TN (I've been to Y-12, BTW). I don't think (and it's really not that important) if you can tell that the material originally came from Utah.

    Don't worry about an ICBM or hypersonic cruise missile delivering a nuclear payload, there will likely be hundreds of them on the way at the same time. You need to worry about the one delivered by truck.

Share This Page