I don’t think the mechanism has ever been described, but I would assume some kind of secondary loop like the nuclear turbojet described above. The repercussions of testing a nuclear engine with an open primary coolant loop would probably be undesirable.
9M730 Burevestnik (SSC-X-9 Skyfall) cruise nuclear-powered missile
- Thread starter Brickmuppet
- Start date
Realistically? It runs by burning kerosene (or something similar) and air in combustors; the exhaust gases flow past turbines which drive compressors. It's "nuclear" in that the metal alloys, fuel and oxygen are made up of atoms that have nuclei.
The physics of a cruise-missile-scale nuclear turbojet are dubious. And this is the same country that can't seem to field a modern tank or a passable aircraft carrier. So I believe these claims about as much as Putins claims about not hving started the current war.
I think they legitimately are building a nuclear powered engine, based on the fact there have been radiation spikes in the region during failed tests.
Pluto was a full and entire nightmare. The damn thing had so many different ways of killing people...
- kill them with the shockwave
- kill them with the sound
- kill them dropping H-bombs
- kill them with the exhaust
- kill them crashing a white-hot reactor
Whoever imagined that weapon should have been hanged by his testicles. Cold War insanity as its worst.
Somehow my previous reply to this seems to have been... nuked. But the summary: there are other explanations than an actual nuclear engine. If you want the world to *think* you have a nuclear engine when you actually don't, an "accident" that you promptly deny but can't actually hide is a dandy way to get the idea across. As well as eliminate problematic staffers.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,132
- Reaction score
- 11,596
You don't know Orionblamblam do you?
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 12,001
Claimed performance, plus requiring a booster rocket to get up to flight speed suggests a Pluto-style engine. Sadly.
I don't assume it exists because physics argues against it. *Small* reactors with the power for subsonic cruise missiles tend to be far too heavy to fly.
Pluto is the most reasonable approach for "small," but "ramjet" pretty much means "supersonic."
The Pluto development effort was relatively vast. It would not go unnoticed by satellites today.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 12,001
Terrible pun, perfectly delivered.Yes, it is a possibility that the Skyfall is a distraction. Didn't we think that their hypersonics were a distraction until they flight tested one, though?
Thought this missile was claimed to be supersonic?
As to scale of development, the operational tests the US did at Jackass Flats required a large supply of compressed air. If the test location already has a large volume of compressed air storage, it wouldn't take much new construction to arrange for testing a Skyfall reactor.
Some back of the envelope math:
Power delivered by a jet engine is thrust X airspeed. So far as I'm aware, we don't know the airspeed, don't know the thrust. So... let's assume that our hypothetical nukular cruise missile is twice the thrust of a Tomahawk at the same speed... so 2X3.1 KN at 250 m/sec (900 km/hr). That's a power output of 1.55 megawatts.
Small reactors, like large ones, work by using radioactive decay to produce heat. Here's a small reactor project (for space):
en.wikipedia.org
This one produces 43 kilowatts thermal output at a weight of 226 kg for the core. Scaling up to 1.55 megawatts would result in a core weight of 8,146 kilograms. The Williams F107 turbofan weighs about 30 kilograms.
Obviously this is a half-assed analysis, and doubtless a reactor designed for a short duration with minimal shielding and no thought to durability could be made to weigh a lot less, and a space-power reactor is a crappy basis for a turbojet-reactor. But eight tons is a hell of a starting point. So for this "nuclear cruise missile" to actually be practical, they must be using some remarkable type of novel new reactor.
Power delivered by a jet engine is thrust X airspeed. So far as I'm aware, we don't know the airspeed, don't know the thrust. So... let's assume that our hypothetical nukular cruise missile is twice the thrust of a Tomahawk at the same speed... so 2X3.1 KN at 250 m/sec (900 km/hr). That's a power output of 1.55 megawatts.
Small reactors, like large ones, work by using radioactive decay to produce heat. Here's a small reactor project (for space):
Kilopower - Wikipedia
Obviously this is a half-assed analysis, and doubtless a reactor designed for a short duration with minimal shielding and no thought to durability could be made to weigh a lot less, and a space-power reactor is a crappy basis for a turbojet-reactor. But eight tons is a hell of a starting point. So for this "nuclear cruise missile" to actually be practical, they must be using some remarkable type of novel new reactor.
I wouldn’t assume claimed performance is evidence in this case. Any ground launched air breathing weapon is going to need a booster, IMO. I personally just can’t believe even the Russian government would run an open cycle air cooled reactor.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 12,001
Why not? The cutaway for STATUS-6 shows an unshielded reactor that's only using pure water because salt water would plug up the tubes...
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Erm... why exactly the need of booster rocket suggest anything besides that it's supposed to launched from ground? Zero-lenght launch, remember such term? It's more practical to put booster on the missile, than provide it with long launch rail - even if missile in quiestion is capable of taking off under its own power.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
...It's liquid metal cooled reactor.
- Joined
- 27 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,155
- Reaction score
- 2,381
As said here before;-
If what’s been displayed to the world is what this thing really is, it an’t supersonic. Also being boosted to flight it will only needs a constant cruise power output, way more than an RTG can provide but a small fraction of Pluto. If you were going to all that cost, why not crank up the power and make it supersonic?
Also it’s standard practice not to significantly shield the outbound facing aspect of sub nuclear reactors, the water outside works great , it’s only beneficial for heavy shielding fore and aft…. Best to not toast the crew and complex electronics..
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 12,001
? That was not clear the last cutaway I saw.
Probably aided and abetted by my not reading Russian.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
With all respect, but do you really assume that those "cutaway" are anything more than nice pretty pictures for general public?
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 12,001
When they're supposed to be briefing Russian generals and admirals I do.With all respect, but do you really assume that those "cutaway" are anything more than nice pretty pictures for general public?
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,760
- Reaction score
- 9,093
I take it you've seen these recent images...
Shipbucket drawings are very good (I may be biased here) - as a community we're quite proud that Heads of State get briefed using our artworks but it's not exactly what you would expect.
Actually it was ascertained the drawing was one by fellow SPF member Gollevainen but modified by some unknown Russian Navy person - who probably now qualifies as a SB artist too - though sadly they removed the original image credits and thus broke our copyright rules...
Anyhow its proof that top brass aren't always shown the super top secret plans, most of the time its amateur Powerpoint stuff.
Shipbucket drawings are very good (I may be biased here) - as a community we're quite proud that Heads of State get briefed using our artworks but it's not exactly what you would expect.
Actually it was ascertained the drawing was one by fellow SPF member Gollevainen but modified by some unknown Russian Navy person - who probably now qualifies as a SB artist too - though sadly they removed the original image credits and thus broke our copyright rules...
Anyhow its proof that top brass aren't always shown the super top secret plans, most of the time its amateur Powerpoint stuff.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 12,001
Generated more than a few of my own amateur powerpoints back in the day, though did take care to label everything correctly.
- Joined
- 27 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,155
- Reaction score
- 2,381
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
U.S. military to test missiles banned under faltering nuclear pact with Russia
- Started by seruriermarshal
- Replies: 17
-
