Electioneering, posturing, “you are doing this so are we - but first”, etc; yes, but still to be taken seriously.

With improving missile defences then highly manoeuvrable ICBM warheads, stealth, decoys, and jamming would be useful updates; and perhaps not that expensive.
Similarly an alternative nuclear strike capability based on a submarine / air launched long range hypersonic cruise missile could offer a worldwide strike capability, and pose new problems for detection and interception. This system would also provide an alternative second strike capability or give a ‘tactical’ nuclear option which might be required to combat emergent threats.
In addition, a common non-nuclear air/sea hypersonic missile would offer significant flexibility choosing how to deal with a wide range of targets; land, sea, and air (yes air to air), and as a political tool

I understood that one of the problems that hypersonic missiles suffered from was communications (because of interference from the superheated boundary layer around the missile.) This would mean no inflight adjustments for a manoeuvring target nor for evasion, the target position would have to be programmed before launch, and no recall/self destruct option.

Surely it matters not how invincible his weapons are. He has to be sure that absolutely none of his potential enemies' weapons can get through. None.

LB,

I personally think that Chernobyl put that myth to bed, the fact a "contained" leak spread throughout Europe so rapidly and so widely shows that if it had gone seriously Pete Tong Europe would have been decimated with the fallout, even if he manages to take out the US without a solitary return strike, the rest of the world, Russia included would be pretty much dead from there on. It's ok having bunkers to retreat too, but eventually they will have to return above ground.



Interesting read

Is Vladimir Putin bluffing or should we be worried about his new 'miracle weapons'? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

So why the hysterics and protests about the US/NATO missile defence system if it is useless anyway?…………

The primary purpose of the US/NATO missile defense system is to intercept a small number of incoming from a rogue state (Iran and North Korea come to mind). It was never planned to intercept hundreds (or more) of warheads from a major Russian strike.

Edited to add that I'm speaking of the current missile defense - not the Star Wars program proposed by Regan back in the 1980's

I know exactly what it’s for - but the Russian excuse/claims were that it was intended to defend against them. Put in would seem to have demolished their own argument.

beardy.

You are right about the plasma issue. But it is well-known for decades since the problem to communicate with descending spacecraft crew had arisen. Many successful research and experiments were undertaken recently in US, Russia, China and even Germany. No idea if anybody implemented any solution in a real thing, but all this seems doable.

Also no idea why there are some hysterics about long-range missiles mentioned by Putin (though I think he should not have talked about this publicly).

Nuke-powered cruise missile is a "grand-dad stuff". I recall I read about it being a kid in mil. academy. Here are a couple of links:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supers...titude_Missile


https://www.newscientist.com/article...drawing-board/


And "highly" manoeuvrable ICBM warhead is not an advanced thing to do for the industry that was launching "shuttle like" spacecraft some 30+ years ago.


As for "Armageddon", radiation will not be the major killer, but global "N-winter". Even NZ would not give a shelter.

Apparently they're running a naming competition with the public for some of the new kit - but they've warned that trying a "Boaty McBoatface" campaign will NOT be appreciated and we all know what that means..........

Probably some variant on "Strike", "Mighty", "Storm", "property of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin" etc etc

Well personally I just want to know if that Samat whatever it is can actually do the fractional orbital bombardment thing.
Now that's a real threat.
Sneaking up from the south like that - most unsporting... Particularly when chaps have oriented more or less their entire defensive posture to Ivan coming over the pole.
The rest of the announcement - load of wishful thinking bollocks Vladimir.

But no change as far as technology is concerned, just a scalability issue. Put THAAD and GBI facilities along the country perimeter if you are sure they work as announced.


Hmm, it looks like the "dagger" missile (carried by MiG) is already in some operational AF units.

With greatest of genuine respect - мой друг I don't believe it.
With all due acknowledgement to Comrade Korolev et al and your nations expertise in missiles/rocketry - a cruise missile with a miniature reactor and unlimited range - this is the Dagger - no?
Like Comrade Kim's missile that will threaten the US - show me a test - and then you've convinced me.
I won't be frightened of the North Koreans until they air burst a nuke, re-entered from orbit.
Similarly, until I see said cruise missile travel around the world and keep going - it's just propaganda.

Thanks.


No. "Dagger" (this name is used in the English-speaking media, in Russian it's called "Kinzhal") is this one:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...rsonic-missile


As for the N-driven "unlimited range" cruise missile, I wrote earlier that prototyping was done in US and RU back in 50's and 60's. Thus, technology wise it is not a challenge (at least for US, RU and probably China). Believing it or not, it's up to you. Sorry, but nobody would show you test results, if any. US would not share the results either.

So the potential is there to overshoot it and send it back. :E

I thought that problem had been solved; the Space Shuttle maintained continuous communication during re-entry, via a satellite (TDRSS) "behind" the re-entry path, which is how NASA maintained data/comms during the first part of the Columbia disaster.

Mind you, as re-entry vehicles go the Shuttle was rather large; it might be a greater challenge for smaller vehicles.

On Aviation Analysis Wing website:-

Russian Kinzhal hypersonic missile is based on Iskander-M

Snip:-

The question remains: is the missile invisible, or just hard to track?

Putin just taking several leaves out of li'l Kim's book in the east, but more democratically.

Kim Jong-Un never promised anyone jam tomorrow.

One thing is clear: Raytheon and LockMart will remain good stocks to buy :-)