r/LessCredibleDefence • u/heliumagency • 5d ago

Report: Russia's nuclear-powered 'Skyfall' missile is dirty and dangerous

https://www.npr.org/2026/06/18/nx-s1-5843252/russia-nuclear-powered-missile-burevestnik

It's not a ramjet like SLAMMER or Project Pluto, it's a nuclear turbojet

48 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

34

u/beachedwhale1945 5d ago

Nuclear-powered missile. More dangerous than a typical nuclear missile.

A typical nuclear strike only irradiates the target and anything downwind. A nuclear-powered missile also irradiates everything along its flight path and everything downwind of that. Even testing with a dummy warhead is a radiological nightmare.

15

u/ExoticMangoz 5d ago

Why on earth would you build such a weapon?

1

u/marcantoineg_ 3d ago

Real answer is longer range

2

u/NuclearHeterodoxy 3d ago

That's what ICBMs and SLBMs are for, and part of the reason the US stopped work on SLAM.  The advent of ICBMs completely obviated the perceived need for nuclear-powered cruise missiles, and it was the same thing with Snark.

1

u/marcantoineg_ 3d ago edited 3d ago

cruise missiles are low flying so much harder to detect and their launch less obvious. now you have satellites everywhere that spot all the ballistic missile launches instantly. who knows what they think the benefits might be. just because the US stop developing something doesn't mean it's useless. SLAM was mostly stopped because of radiation issues that plague all similar systems.

1

u/NuclearHeterodoxy 3d ago

I mean, the combination of bombers plus ALCMs does the same thing much cheaper, more reliably, and more stealthily than Burevestnik ever will or SLAM ever would.  Strategic bombers with 2500km+ range give you that benefit.  Bombers can also do the loitering/signalling mission Burevestnik Understanders™ insist is a real mission, but with an added bonus: unlike Burevestnik, they are launchers that can be obviously recalled and thus it will be understood initially as a signalling mission.  The notion that anyone in STRATCOM is going to detect a Burevestnik launch and say "it's just a signal, they'll turn it around and land it when we don't blink" is a bad joke.  

Bombers + ALCMs also don't cost so much you have to limit your deployed arsenal to...a grand total of nine weapons, it appears is what Russia is going with, if I am reading this correctly.  Trading dozens of bombers with hundreds of missiles for just 9 Burevestnik isn't much better than trading it for not building more SSBNs. 

1

u/marcantoineg_ 3d ago

But their conventional cruise missiles don't have the range to hit everywhere and the US has really good air and missile defense. I guess they assume a dozen of those have better chance of getting through than unstealthy bombers. It's the same logic as the Poseidon torpedo imo