Thread 64494066

Is China the next country to get this technology?

>>64494066 (OP)
Russia never transferred electronic or engine tech to China. Only exports and assistance at best.
No.

>>64494070
Edit: After the Sino split* (that limited the tech transfer to the MiG-21, not fully localized tho

>>64494066 (OP)
Actually using this would be equivalent to dropping a dirty bomb which would very probably provoke a nuclear response so there is absolutely no reason not to make it nuclear anyway, which is something the U.S. Government figured out in the 1950s and subsequently abandoned for the same reason.

None of this is particularly new and it isn't revolutionary. Any state capable of making a nuclear reactor can make a missile that has 'unlimited range'. But most nations that aren't image dominated retards worked out that the effort to do so is not worth it. You don't need an unlimited range missile.

>>64494066 (OP)
who knows, all i know is that Ukraine is getting those Gripens ;)

>>64494214
Hope they don't get destroyed in the airfield like the f-16. :(
>>64494074
That picture is old tech, burevestnik engine is a totally diferent machine.

>>64494262
don't worry russian guy, russia can't strike anything anymore, all they have is imaginary red lines that keep getting crossed all the time :)

>>64494290
Wut?

>>64494066 (OP)
Why would they need it? Their regular rockets land into random peasant villages just fine.

>>64494066 (OP)
China will get this, their tricknology is strong enough. Besides they're capable enough to make it on their own know. Thank god for xi, because if it was anyone else in power the west would be fucked due to euro cowardice and US stupidity

>>64494066 (OP)
>wunderwaffel
proofs?
>puccia claims
lol. lmao

>>64494762
>Thank god for daddy xi
OK chang

>>64494066 (OP)
Perun does a great video on this, basically it's retarded because it's a bad way to launch a nuke and a bad way to launch a conventional warhead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0t8UYZ9rrQ

>>64494290
lmao everytime you "cross a red line" the lights go out for a week in ukraine

>>64494774
No you retarded fuck, I'm thankful for Xi because he's ruining china. He's my favorite chinaman since that one guy who decapitated anyone who raised their prices after he printed nearly a trillion dollars. Have you read his new five year plan? Nigga is treating deflation as economic growth, calls consumer confidence an issue with party discipline and doesn't believe in the existence of a service sector because of marx.

>>64494823
>Nigga is treating deflation as economic growth
It is.

>have literally infinite fuel
>make it a more shitty (subsonic) Kh-102
I dont get it,
If they went all in on a nuke jet they could have made it go mach fuck at tree top level. That just might be useful if disregarding all the downsides for which US dropped the thing in the 1960s. They irradiated bumfuck Siberia for basically nothing.

China already has missiles that can strike anywhere in the US, there’s no point. An unlimited range cruise missile is pointless even with a nuclear warhead since China already has SLBMs and ICBMs that would be targeting the US mainland

>>64494942
It's closed loop, the reactor heats a coolant loop that heats the air though an exchanger. This drastically reduces thrust and increases weight while stopping it from shitting fallout out it's ass.
So for this thing to exist Russian command thinks that shitting fallout across the world is bad but putting a conventional warhead on this turning it into a dirty bomb is fine.

It's a very strange conclusion to come to, either you just make a long range jet engined cruise missile that isn't a dirty bomb or you make SLAM and it's a fallout shitting nuke dropping doomsday weapon.
Ending up between these extremes makes it bad enough to piss the world off but not devastating enough to win WW3.

I dont get the point of this missile, Iran shoot many missiles at Israel(lied about the numbers but still)and most got intercepter by thaad,
Russia doesnt have Money and specializzation Needed to maintain their own nukes, they have shitty stealth and woudnt be able tò launch more than you can count on your hand, since its Cruise its going to be under hypersonic, and there Is no way you couldnt Just make a missile on the fly that Just flies straight for the massive ammount of radiation It would output.
It Is in every way a down grade compared to ICBMs.
What even Is the point in this?

>>64495021
It just seems like a propaganda weapon (but I’m not sure how it’s supposed to be impressive)

>>64494942
>>64495002
It can and would carry thermonuclear warheads as a strategic weapon. The idea is that you build hundreds of these things and put launchers everywhere since they have near infinite range and have them fly at treetop level from all directions to make it impossible to preemptive strike or intercept them all.

Actually better from an apocalypse standpoint than the FOBS idea in that in theory these cruise missiles being slow means they could be ordered to self-destruct in the event of a mistaken attack.

>>64495065
Russia Is strugling tò make normale Cruise missiles the 500km range, its a miracle this things didnt turn into Chernobyl 2.0
They could maybe make 5 at most, and theyd be as vulnerabile as any othet Cruise missile except Mich essier tò detect due tò radiation, a standard ICBM in contrast would be much faster and harder tò intercept.
It Is much harder tò intercept s icbms Who got mach 20 rentry than the oreshnik or similar.
Its literaly a wunderwaffe

>>64494066 (OP)
What the fuck is the point of plonking turbojet shit around a tiny fucking nuclear reactor?

>>64494262
>burevestnik engine is a totally diferent machine
Yeah, it's russian, and hence wholly inferior.

>>64494815
>lmao everytime you "cross a red line" the lights go out for a week in Kursk, Belgorod and/or Crimea
FTFY. Well, when it isn't parts of Moscow Oblast, anyway.

>>64495065
That point is moot since a Russian ICBM typically carries like 10 warheads, and with multiple ICBMs carrying such payloads it’s impossible to shoot all the warheads down.

>>64494815
That’s all? Guess they’ll keep being crossed then.

To think this would better to use to travel the solar system, and it's wasted on shit like this...

>>64495277
That would be Orion, NERVA or a Fission-fragment rocket, the closest you get to this in space is a Bussard ramjet but they have a lot of issues.

>>64494074
Stop giving them our plans or they will figure it out for re a l!

Russians entire military strategy is pulled directly from Command and Conquer Red Alert.

>>64494066 (OP)
Not even China is stupid enough to strap a nuclear reactor to a missile.

>>64495393
The whole thing is if you are going to do it you make something like SLAM because you are going to piss the the world so much it better be a second strike capability and not a "cruise missile" as if it's totally normal to use.

>>64495153
It's extremely unlikely to shoot down any ICBMs at all, even GBI relies on missiles coming from specific angles kinematically and they would not be able to intercept ICBMs before impact as MIRVs on modern warheads separate basically instantly after the rocket booster burns out. This cruise missile is pointless and built solely to impress domestic audiences, as any nuclear engine missile will be taken as an act of war if it passes over another country's airspace regardless of what warhead is on it, and it's not any more difficult intercept than any other cruise missile so it isn't particularly good at evading defenses.

>>64494066 (OP)
Why would they? ICBMs are better and why we abandoned this tech in the 60s.

>>64494801
>bad way to launch a nuke
Holy cope

>>64494998
>An unlimited range cruise missile is pointless
Good luck intercepting a cruise missile coming from the sea. Imagine pretending USA, china and eu doesn't want to have it

>>64495493
>subsonic
>so low AAA, MANPADs and HMGs pose a threat
>one warhead per vehicle

Compare this with a traditional ICBM
>hypersonic
>so high only ABMs can touch it
>10+ warheads per vehicle

It offers no advantage.

>>64495500
US and China already have the ability to strike anywhere in the world. The EU doesn’t care to strike anywhere in the world — they already owned the whole world and then said “no thanks” and gave it back since it was filled with brown people. Now they’re content with defending what they have.

This is an admission by Russia that suborbital rockets are Lostech to them, and that they’re not confident that they can even maintain the ICBMs they stole from the Soviets.

>>64495514
>subsonic
>one warhead per vehicle
Do we actually know this?
>so low AAA, MANPADs and HMGs pose a threat
not strictly a disadvantage.

>>64495733
>Do we actually know this?
The official claim was 14,000km in 15 hours putting it at high subsonic which matches the wing design.
>not strictly a disadvantage
Being able to be intercepted by lots of things instead of only 1 thing is a disadvantage.

>>64495493
what if
you launch the nuke rocket into space
and then when it re-enters the atmosphere it splits into multiple small nukes that can be targeted independently?

wouldn't that be a better idea than whatever this nonsense is?

>>64494774
Why is that elephant so sad, what happened?

>>64494870
Deflation is the antithesis to economic growth.
Deflation is the clearest signifier of a recession.
Tell me, if money, not assets, but currency itself appreciates in value more safely and quickly than any investment, why would I ever spend any money on ANYTHING? I can just sit on my money and watch it get more valuable.
Deflation grinds economic activity to a halt. It's far more devastating than hyperinflation could ever hope to be.

Inflation is crucial to ensure liquidity.

>>64495962
>more safely and quickly than any investment
Who the fuck is saying that? You can get 5% with any bank, are you saying their deflation is greater than 5%?

>>64495021
>What even Is the point in this?
Its much smaller than ICBM, launcher can be concealed inside 40" shipping container. Its much easier to spread and conceal these launchers inside Russia and they would be better protected against counterforce strike.

But yeah if Russia needs such to rely on for second strike capability it spells bad news fro Russia.

>>64495962
>, but currency itself appreciates in value more safely and quickly than any investment, why would I ever spend any money on ANYTHING?
If you invest depreciating currency you will get even better return than if you let this money sit as cash.

>>>64495962
>but currency itself appreciates in value more safely and quickly than any investment, why would I ever spend any money on ANYTHING?
If you invest appreciating currency you will get even better return than if you let this money sit as cash.

>>64495962
Economica are fake gay and jewish.
My locale gas pump still hasnr changed lrices

>>64495514
Traditional ICBMs travel through the upper atmosphere where they can be more easily intercepted

>>64495514
The US unilaterally exited the ABM treaty in 2002 and has been developing defense systems against ICBM:s for a while now, including Trump's so-called "Golden Dome". The Russkies are hence developing these unconventional weapons, such as the Poseidon torpedo, which bypass those yet unrealized defenses (and the associated shift of the nuclear strategic balance) entirely.
It's paper against paper. Even if it doesn't work, its mere existence negates their perceived loss of influence caused by equally rough anti-ballistic projects in the US and the hypothetical invulnerability they might maybe, perhaps, hopefully, if-all-goes-well bring.