
Russian missile with 'unlimited range' crashed after only 22 miles - relaxy
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/russian-missile-with-unlimited-range-crashed-after-only-22-miles.html
======
ethbro
The US looked at this in the 50s and the 60s as Pluto & SLAM.

The consensus was that it was a dumb idea, especially after ICBMs were
deployed. Their only benefit vs alternatives -- incredibly long flight time
(on the order of months / circling the globe 4.5 times) -- doesn't allow you
to do anything you couldn't already do.

This was pre-stealth, but I can't imagine it's easy to stealth something with
a red-hot exhaust (remember, to have endurance, it's superheating air rather
than combusting limited fuel).

Hypersonic re-entry vehicles are far more useful, but also harder to develop.

Honestly, this seems a pretty blatant attempt to trot out Cold War era
technology for a ra-ra "look, we're still relevant" showing than new R&D.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Miss...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile)

~~~
danbruc
You can, at the very least, probably aim them a lot better or change the
target altogether, for example for misdirection. An ICBM mostly goes up and
falls down again on a ballistic trajectory, at least in a first approximation,
they can of course correct the trajectory to some extend. On the other hand
ICBMs are a lot faster which makes them harder targets for interceptors even
if the trajectory is reasonably predictable.

~~~
ethbro
Fair enough, but what's the use case for this?

I think the reason the project was shelved is that it did provide different
capabilities, but none of those capabilities were actually useful in a
military context.

That said, after a bit more review, there is one scenario where they would be
useful -- launched en masse as a first strike weapon.

While easy to detect at radar range, the smaller boost signature does make
_launch_ detection more difficult.

Assuming a launch from the west coast, and design speeds comparable to Pluto
(mach 4.2), you'd have about 9 min before they hit Midwest US silos.

Which is one of the other reasons we never developed them. Announcing loudly
that you're developing something that's primarily a first strike weapon tends
to make the other person jumpy...

~~~
imglorp
One Cold War era tactic comes to mind, probably void now with modern
interception.

A "failsafe point" is where you can stage bombers (or flying bombs in this
case) in neutral airspace near your enemy, and have them orbit there for long
periods. If things get more tense, you can stage more there without committing
to a strike. With tankers, they can park there for days before being swapped
out. Then if things turn sour, they're not as far from the target; they can
drop to terrain following and go downtown for business. See the awesome Henry
Fonda 1964 movie Failsafe for a period story about how talking to your bombers
can go wrong.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-
Safe_%28novel%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-Safe_%28novel%29)

------
jostmey
Last October a mysterious radioactive cloud spread over Europe [1,2]. The
source was traced to the Ural mountains between Russia and Kazakhstan.
Although the amount of radioactive fallout in Europe was minuscule and
harmless, there must have been a significant amount of radioactive material
released at the source.

A few months ago, Putin announced Russia developed a nuclear powered missile
with unlimited range [3] (really is was just 22 miles because "Russia"). The
missile was reportedly tested in late 2017. Did Russia spew radioactive jet
waste over their country during a field test of their nuclear powered missile?

News Sources:

1\. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/11/10/563286253...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/11/10/563286253/mysterious-radioactive-cloud-over-europe-hints-at-
accident-farther-east)

2\.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/21...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/21/that-
harmless-radioactive-cloud-over-europe-did-come-from-russia-after-all)

3\.
[https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/01/590014611/...](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/01/590014611/experts-
aghast-over-russian-claim-of-nuclear-powered-missile-with-unlimited-rang)

~~~
andreasley
A more likely explanation: "The French IRSN has put forth the hypothesis in
Jan-2018 that a possible reason for the release of Ru-106 radioactivity at
Mayak-PA might be an unsuccessful attempt to extract the short-lived reactor-
generated-isotope cerium-144 for the European/Italian nuetrino-detecton-
project Borexino. Mayak-PA had agreed to deliver cerium-144 in early 2018, but
canceled the contract in December 2017. Mayak PA was the only facility
contractually-willing to attempt the extraction of cerium-144 from "fresh"
spent nuclear fuel, 2–3 years old." [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_radioactivity_increas...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_radioactivity_increase_in_Europe_in_autumn_2017)

------
sandworm101
4 minutes is plenty enough time to validate the concept. And all these would
"crash". Cruise missiles generally dont plan on landing. I wouldnt write this
off so casually.

~~~
fotbr
On the other hand, the US used an early cruise missle to deliver mail as a
publicity stunt, and it did require landing[1].

IIRC the regulus system was developed as a reusable airframe to keep
development costs low.

[1][https://postalmuseum.si.edu/collections/object-
spotlight/reg...](https://postalmuseum.si.edu/collections/object-
spotlight/regulus-mail.html)

~~~
sandworm101
If it has the ability to land, id call that a drone.

------
Steel_Phoenix
Does anyone have an educated guess on what the exhaust from this thing would
consist of? Would it be spewing radiation, or mostly contained? Could it be
safely stopped or cleanly destroyed after launch? Could the propulsion double
as the payload?

------
troebr
"Sources said that the tests were ordered by senior Kremlin officials despite
objections from the program's engineers, who voiced concerns that the system
was still in its infancy.". Putin's press conference was on March 1st. The
Russian presidential election was on March 18th. I think it's pretty clear
that this was a marketing move.

------
buzzier
..according to sources who spoke to CNBC on the condition of anonymity.

