any insight "Burevestnik" cruise missile power-plant?

You are folk of many talents.

Does anyone have knowledge or insight(s) about the Russian "Burevestnik" ("storm petrel") 's engine / propulsion system - that they can comment without getting themselves into trouble ... ?

-----------------------------

We had a nuclear cruise missile engine in 1961, and a Mach 2.5 ramjet missile to use it.

Unlike Russia we don't have vast areas with little downwind population that we don't mind contaminating.

A Mach 4.3 ramjet missile of 1951:

This Mach 3.3 photorecon drone was a 1966 improvement:

I don't know enough of fluid dynamics to explain ramjets.

This is the radiator thrust for a P-51 Mustang, my Spitfire documentation is less technical.

"The thrust is then the difference in momenta which is 1550 less 339 or 1211 Newtons. Now 4.45 Newton is 1 pound force so the thrust in more traditional units is 270 lb."

At least they could get something back from the half of the fuel energy lost as exhaust and cooling heat.

In the English (Roman) system a Pound can be either a quantity by weight or a force so the poorly named Slug was added as the Mass unit to leave the Pound unambiguously a force; weight equals mass times local gravity, which rocketry makes a variable. In my high school and college physics and chemistry classes metric was standard but the English units were mentioned briefly.

I attended the launch of this early nuclear cruise missile sub and was drenched by the splash when it hit the water.

The missile:

The US achieves similar objectives by different approaches so you can't compare systems head to head. Similarly the Germans hyped the effects of their V-1 and V-2 missiles as if they were a match for the bomber offensive, while actually they all added up to only one day + night Allied bomb load.

Correction Error - "15 days" Correct - 15 hours

Correction Error - "15 days" Correct - 15 hours

--------------------

It reportedly flew 8700 miles in 15 hours, comparable in range and speed to a passenger airliner and not competitive with US bombers with stealthy standoff missiles and world-wide in-flight refueling, which Russia lacks foreign bases to support. Russians have a long history of trying to convince themselves they are as good as the West.

Iran's Russian-supplied air defense apparently never saw them coming. At an air show I looked around during a lull in the fighter display and saw a B-2 silently approaching at very low level from behind us. The only sound was a low whoosh as it passed close overhead, quieter than the WOW! from the surprised audience.

Trump's "two week" statement which the media ridiculed as weak waffling was instead a successful military deception. He has them continually revealing their ignorance, which infuriates their pride.

It reportedly flew 8700 miles in 15 hours, comparable in range and speed to a passenger airliner ...

----------------------------------

Or Taylor Swift:

It reportedly flew 8700 miles in 15 hours, comparable in range and speed to a passenger airliner ...

---------------------------------- Or Taylor Swift:

--------------------------------- She also acquired stealth that blocks tracking her plane. The Russian cruise missile seems threatening until compared to others' unheralded capabilities, then it's a struggle to keep up.

The "Burevestnik" could be launched from scaffold poles in Siberia, meander and loiter around - under a post-nuclear-war scorched sky - approaching its target from any direction, at any time, none predictable. Each one is a city gone - not a delectable thought when the US population is promised a "decapitation strike". Point 2 - this is addititive to the "Poseidon" "cruise-torpedo" where one "torpedo" and detonation would "take out" at least two coast cities on the East Coast of the USA.

My understanding is that the Russian Federation with the power of clairvoyance more than 10 years ago saw Pete Hegseth between the swirling clouds of their crystal ball, and developed devices of no military purpose apart from blowing the wax out of his ears ("if his brains were made of gunpowder it wouldn't blow the wax out of his ears").

Both these devices would be used after a "pre-emptive nuclear strike" (prerogative of being a "democracy" (sic.)) so satellite surveillance etc. is unlikely to be working well.

I am surprised they seem to be analysed as ineffectual.

My understanding is that the two systems - "Burevestnik" and "Poseidon"

- were developed by the Russian Federation on evaluating that the "Western" governments are not rational actors. That is their evaluation

- I won't comment...

You have knowledge to comment on these?

The "Burevestnik" could be launched from scaffold poles in Siberia, meander and loiter around - under a post-nuclear-war scorched sky - approaching its target from any direction, at any time, none predictable. Each one is a city gone - not a delectable thought when the US population is promised a "decapitation strike". Point 2 - this is addititive to the "Poseidon" "cruise-torpedo" where one "torpedo" and detonation would "take out" at least two coast cities on the East Coast of the USA.

My understanding is that the Russian Federation with the power of clairvoyance more than 10 years ago saw Pete Hegseth between the swirling clouds of their crystal ball, and developed devices of no military purpose apart from blowing the wax out of his ears ("if his brains were made of gunpowder it wouldn't blow the wax out of his ears").

Both these devices would be used after a "pre-emptive nuclear strike" (prerogative of being a "democracy" (sic.)) so satellite surveillance etc. is unlikely to be working well.

I am surprised they seem to be analysed as ineffectual.

My understanding is that the two systems - "Burevestnik" and "Poseidon"

- were developed by the Russian Federation on evaluating that the "Western" governments are not rational actors. That is their evaluation

- I won't comment...

You have knowledge to comment on these?

--------------------------- These are like the V-2 missile which couldn't be stopped but also contributed little to winning the war.

Development of such weapons halted when ICBMs proved a better solution. We still don't publically know if defenses against ballistic missiles will succeed, perhaps the uncertainty prevents another arms race to build enough to overwhelm any defense.

I am not current on defense matters and couldn't comment if I was. Mitre dealt mainly with advancing communications technology, not weapons. What I know and describe is from published sources like Aviation Week and WW2 memoirs. We still face the same problems in similar ways.

Your presumption that spy satellites would have been degraded would also apply to navigational and communications relay satellites the missiles would need for accurate targeting. Announcing these threats publically serves to frighten civilians and alert the military to evaluate sensors and countermeasures.

Modern weapons ideally function in systems that multiply their effectiveness by combining various sensors into a God's Eye view of the battlefield which puts the warfighters in the best positions to attack while degrading the same from the enemy, for example AWACS and jamming. We know our systems will be degraded too and defend them plus train for fighting down to pistols, grenades and bayonets, as in Fallujah.

The effect is that cooperating teams are more significant than the individual weapons, like artillery and air power supporting infantry. A good example is the defeat of U-boats by combined long range aircraft, improved depth charge methods, hunter-killer carrier groups with air dropped sonar homing torpedos and HF/DF direction finding that could locate an enemy's 50 millisecond radio transmission bursts in the first millisecond. German radio direction finders couldn't locate that fast and they assumed theirs were superior to Britain's, which was true for accuracy but not speed.

The U-boot was a frightful weapon individually but not well suited to being a coordinated system because radio transmissions revealed their presence and later location, and the Luftwaffe wasn't interested in providing adequate support for them. The fleet waiting for D-Day accomplished almost nothing.

These smell like the Nazi superweapons that proved to be largely paper airplanes and desperate promises to keep the scientifically ignorant Nazis from drafting the engineers, or the Russian Armata invincible super tank.

I am surprised they seem to be analysed as ineffectual.

My understanding is that the two systems - "Burevestnik" and "Poseidon"

- were developed by the Russian Federation on evaluating that the "Western" governments are not rational actors. That is their evaluation

- I won't comment...

-------------------------------------------------

We are sometimes governed by neurotic leftists who do fit the description of irrational, making decisions at the wrong end of their spinal cords, Vietnam for example. The Soviets saw a reflection of themselves. Then a Reagan or Thatcher comes along and they wither.

Star Wars was the same game in return, a Hollywood spectacular as Reagan knew how to create it. Russians have admitted privately to me that their response really did destroy their economy. They could cook the books but not eat the results.

Both these devices would be used after a "pre-emptive nuclear strike" (prerogative of being a "democracy" (sic.)) so satellite surveillance etc. is unlikely to be working well.

I am surprised they seem to be analysed as ineffectual.

-------------------------------------

After a full nuclear exchange it's unlikely either side will retain the forces needed to invade the other or the ability to locate the other's remaining military, plus US survivors at least would likely have driven to undamaged areas in our plentiful off-road-capable pickups and SUVs, so vengeful strikes without knowledge of target status would be mostly ineffective.

We can already fly undetected to the opposite side of the world and strike the pinpoint target of the Iranian underground facilities without triggering a war, which nuclear weapons likely cannot do. Those bombs and cruise missiles could easily have been nuclear, the hard part is finding and hitting the target. These Russian weapons add nothing that we can't do now by other means such as stealth bombers, sub launched conventional or nuclear armed Tomahawks or ballistic missiles. The difference is range; we surround them with launch sites, they have to reach out from their own territory. We have a well-tested ability to do that too, including bombers over the North Pole without intermediate tanker air bases.

BTW WW2 Japan was a parliamentary democracy with a largely symbolic hereditary ruler, like you, though their Diet became a rubber stamp validating the Army's independent actions. Tojo was voted out of office as the war turned sour.

It is difficult for me to follow-up comment. The interplay of military, economic, social, etc. issues/influences is hard to plot to any conclusions. The Soviet Union "upset the apple-cart" coming up with ICBM's. Negating almost all the advantages to the US of having lots of overseas bases. While leaving the US with all the expenses it brought upon itself. It is a "leap of faith" to take it that the same rationality in the now Russian Federation is not still there. The expenses to the USA are only mounting-up... Is this the major story here? Surely if the USA runs off "private investors" and a small group are becoming vastly wealthy loaning upon loaning dollars to the US government - that wealth is from printed money if the rest of the world disconnects (think "sanctions", "tariffs", trade-embargos, etc. all proactively driven by the USA) - and then your economy is running on fantasy, isn't it? In my own little world... I have the impression 13 out of 14 welds failing spec. on non-destructive examination and doubling-down on your current method, as a microcosm, does not suggest to be a society imbued with winning values.

The Soviet Union "upset the apple-cart" coming up with ICBM's. Negating almost all the advantages to the US of having lots of overseas bases.

----------------------------------------------- ICBMs were no surprise, we had raced the Soviets to round up German weapons scientists.

The function of our foreign bases and aircraft carriers was in practice to suppress minor crises between small coastal nations before they blew up into wars, and sometimes to support friendly regimes against Communist imperialism. Inland nations which are generally poorer and less threatening (Sudan, Rwanda, Ethiopia) were largely exempt until Afghanistan, as were the non-imperialist Communist regimes in Yugoslavia and Albania. We knew that WW1 and WW2 had started small, local and possibly controllable if handled better.

The inept bumbling when socialist labor lawyers controlled US policy does not reflect our original intent.

The forces in place were like police, Marines who travel fast and -light- to restore order on the ground and fighter planes to deter air attacks, they weren't nearly adequate for a major war and perhaps the carrier groups weren't either. I know first-hand because I was part of that in Germany. The best we could do was survive as hostages.

The pattern took form in the mid 1950's when Britain and France proved no longer able to stop the Egyptian takeover of the Suez, but US Marines responded to and settled the Lebanese Presidential crisis in hours, while the Soviets needed two weeks to move forces to Syria.

Of course when deterrence works malcontents and subversives can declare it wasn't needed. The Mitrokhin papers revealed how the KGB instigated and supported unilateral disarmament and nuclear power protesting etc which magically vanished around 1990 when their money ran out.

----------------------------

This recipe for weakening the US without provocative military action appears to closely match much of the left's activity here, such as convincing us to shift from dependable local fossil supplies to uncertain wind and solar energy that depends on Chinese solar panels and Lithium batteries.

Surely if the USA runs off "private investors" and a small group are becoming vastly wealthy loaning upon loaning dollars to the US government - that wealth is from printed money if the rest of the world disconnects (think "sanctions", "tariffs", trade-embargos, etc. all proactively driven by the USA) - and then your economy is running on fantasy, isn't it?

-------------------------------------- There are a great many private investors as well as the insurance companies in the market.

There is no printed money involved in my Treasury Bill and Municipal Bond investments, bought with stock dividends, and as with all governments the basis is the power to tax, enforced by their guns.

Like bank loans they effectively increase the money supply without printing currency. You own your account value while the borrowers (governments) make use of it. US banks no longer have to keep -any- funds in reserve to cover unexpected withdrawals. Plan accordingly.

They are either issued at face value which is returned at maturity, plus pay interest, or are issued at a discount and paid back at face value, the difference is the profit. No currency need be printed, it's all book value at the brokerage or bank, but if they default we may be back to bartering our craft skills for farm produce anyway. Britons can't have guns & ammo so you might want to learn forge welding and stock up on borax and coal.

-------------------------------

Here this plays out transparently at the town level, since all interested residents can debate and vote at Town Meeting on the next year's budgets after the departments and volunteer budget and school committees have finalized their proposals. Usually the change amendments come from dissenting committee members though anyone can propose one, I've had a few accepted, one for nearly a million.

It's obvious that while direct democracy may be the fairest form of government it's not the most efficient. NH has scandal-plagued leftist Massachusetts next door to remind us to continue our way.

The big questionable issues are new construction or equipment and the need for it. They tend to be voted down until all the original fat has been justified or trimmed off.

For example why does a non-urban fire department need a half million dollar ladder truck that extends 100 feet? The answer is to reach chimney fires on house roofs from the street in winter when snow and ice and parked cars block other quick access. After watching them fight a neighbor's fire by throwing the metal sections onto the snow I set up my wood stove chimney to clean with ropes from the ground once a week.

Municipal Bonds allow towns to pay for large one-time expenditures like new buildings, and spread the cost to the taxpayers over a decade or more. For bond buyers the interest is tax-free which makes them fairly competitive. They are a good safe investment if you are rational and prudent but don't give the instant thrill of "investing" in lottery tickets or casinos.

I wrote a spreadsheet that figures my taxes and lets me explore the consequences of various choices. My accountant sister files them with H&R Block software and usually my numbers are within cents rounding error.

This was a blatant "false flag", wasn't it? If it were a used car, two wheels would fall off as you walked around it and the roof would fall-in, landing on the seat-backs, one of which pushed through the floor... Obama cited that as the the one example of what would cause him to go to war, and lo-and-behold that event occured shortly afterwards.

Another "realpolitik" - how many US presidents get their way out of the strangulation by the various "deep-state" actors wrapping around them with a lifeline cast by Russia?!

To an extent, isn't that what's happening now - US the nation looking after #1 and its interests, breaking the strangleholds of unauthorised power-groups - one being a circle of the military-industrial-Congressional complex and The State of Israel with everyone in that circle "skimming" at each rotation of the device?

We are having so many "false-flags" in "Project Ukraine", they are like snowflakes in a snow-storm. It's just a climatic event - you see the physical conditions bring it - "the weather-forecast". Hence no malice or personalisation in the snow-flake which just happened to go up your nostril. You don't blow your neighbour away with a 4-bore shotgun, holding them responsible by some malicious plan for that snowflake up the nose - the whole contention "doesn't pass the sniff-test".

I have only recently exceeded 60 years of age - I have been surprised by how many are attributed to British "Intelligence". The "Sarin attack" in Syria is thought to be one. That was against American interests wasn't it - get "Uncle Sam" mired in yet another war? The whole "Project Ukraine" has lost all potential for return-on-investment - yet the European powers endlessly try to trap America into a war only in the interests of the European leaders dreaming of their Empire days? It is an hourly farce seeing our "leaders" "posturing" with emotivities like out of the silent movies of a century ago, spouting incredibly ornate absurdities in every direction.

If you look at "open source" - the leader of the "headchoppers" now President of Syria, known variously as "al-Jolani" or "al-Sharah" - urmm he wasn't always a "Western" asset? Best that could be found at the then-and-now of the collapse of the indigenous Syria regime. There was the US assassination of the leader of the Iranian military force trying to suppress the "headchoppers". Right... "cui bono" (who benefits?) alone leads to the conclusion of a lot of "enemies" being actually covert(?!) "Western" assets.

"911" (September 11th 2001) was a "ghay" spat between a "Western asset" and its handlers (BTW another European was the only colleague or anyone I knew directly to lose an family member on that day), wasn't it?

Etc.

It kind of looks that way from here.

Obvious point - these countries are not that far from us here in Britain. "The Channel" is a quarter as wide as the smallest of the Great Lakes. We meet the people from there a lot. It's almost "just up the road".

Well, have a good day. Rich S

Interesting explanation of "bonds".

I heard the "right to bear arms" thing - it makes a palace coup useless. The usurper coming out of the palace would find no-one listening and if they tried to press anything they'd look down the barrel of a gun and no-one would as much as take the effort to say the two words, the second which would have been "off".

I perceive you are right in the sense that things have gone wrong here "in the opposite direction" to how the USA might be criticised. I knew a taxi driver - after a "nutcase" got into his cab and had to be forcibly ejected, he had to say "Nothing happened." when the Police came around to his home some time later. The solicitor (lawyer) told him "this is a clear case of self-defence - you'll only get two or three years" (in prison).

Etc., etc., etc.

Yes we have erred here in Britain.

I fondly remember a Russian lady I met in Germany - it was such a relief when the neighbour across the street said "Ahh, the lady who plays the piano" - not "The lady who oils her machine-gun".

It looks like "Project Ukraine" is going to be a "bust" - and if we have societal breakdown in the inevitable poverty and economic breakdowns which seem likely to follow, we will be in a lot of trouble.

I like your "leisure activities" in the US. Go down the range with two hold-alls full of hardware, and have a relaxed afternoon of blatting away. I understand that firing off a few "magnum" rounds helps clear the mind. Go to the counter and buy a box of 357 Magnums, being polite to the host and contributing as much value of rounds as you fire. I used to practice with 22LR until I got more capable, then send some magnum rounds down the range.

I practiced handgun at nearly 100m in the desert - you can see by the sand-splash on a far berm where the shots are landing - and was able correct someone American that yes you could land six out of eight shots on target at 30m if you kept in-practice with your firearms in various scenarios. (stating the obvious that's about visualising the elevation you need for subsonic rounds at those ranges - which at 100m is quite a lot of degrees - visibly pointed high above the horizon)

In this case I see clearly what you mean.

Regards,

Another "realpolitik" - how many US presidents get their way out of the strangulation by the various "deep-state" actors wrapping around them with a lifeline cast by Russia?!

To an extent, isn't that what's happening now - US the nation looking after #1 and its interests, breaking the strangleholds of unauthorised power-groups - one being a circle of the military-industrial-Congressional complex and The State of Israel with everyone in that circle "skimming" at each rotation of the device?

---------------------------

The US intelligence community has largely concentrated on "national technical means" of intelligence gathering, meaning spy satellites and electronic eavesdropping, to determine the maximum capabilities of potential foes and left the "humint" spying to gauge intent to Europe and others more experienced in and less ethically hindered by covert methods. That may be why "Curveball" could deceive us on Iraqi chemical weapons, though we did find many thousand 155mm chemical artillery shells, 122mm rockets and mortar rounds. This morning the ABC news repeated the denial that we found any.

Our geographic isolation makes us somewhat less vulnerable than you to fifth column attacks though we see the possibilities from foreign students and workers. We are considerably less vulnerable to them covertly arming themselves and becoming partizan saboteurs and raiders like the Maquis because large numbers of us are armed, organized through sporting clubs or churches, highly mobile, militarily experienced and patriotic. That can be very effective as in Israel.

So far Trump has dabbled in but has stayed short of Bismarck's brand of Realpolitik that included limitable warfare. Trump rants like a union striker for advantage but understands that a good deal satisfies both parties. Naturally the left tries to incite outrage when he emulates them. Stephanopolis said on camera "He's not supposed to fight back!".

I practiced handgun at nearly 100m in the desert - you can see by the sand-splash on a far berm where the shots are landing - and was able correct someone American that yes you could land six out of eight shots on target at 30m if you kept in-practice with your firearms in various scenarios. (stating the obvious that's about visualising the elevation you need for subsonic rounds at those ranges - which at 100m is quite a lot of degrees - visibly pointed high above the horizon)

------------------------------

I've won no-money bets that I could put holes in a soda can at 100 yards with a pistol. The sound and jump is proof if you can't see it. At 75 yards I could pick which end to hit. And I'm not nearly the best shot in the club.

These are sights for long range black powder target shooting at similar to pistol velocities, though with much heavier bullets. Mine is marked for up to 2.5 inches elevation for the medium ranges.