I will begin my article with the following statement: the newest rocket with a reactor on board "Burevestnik" is, of course, a wonderful product, only practically unsuitable for war.
Of course, such a statement will cause a great heat of passion, since "Petrel" simply evokes bouts of delight among the jingoistic patriotic public. But, nevertheless, this has its own arguments.
A strange bet on the stupidity of the enemy
The main advantage of the Burevestnik is seen in the fact that the missile, having a very long flight range and the ability to maneuver, will be able to bypass radar detection lines and intercept lines, and then hit an important target.
What is the important goal? They will immediately say - the command center. Okay, just what kind of command center? The Americans and their allies have quite a few of them. Major centers, such as the NORAD command post in Colorado Springs, are housed in well-protected bunkers for a powerful nuclear strike, and it is doubtful that the Petrel, even nuclear-armed, can hit them. Regional and functional commands, as well as commands of fleets and aviation, are located, as a rule, on bases already covered by various air defense / missile defense systems. Moreover, this was done a long time ago, since the X-55 appeared.
The capabilities of the Americans' air defense / missile defense systems are quite enough to detect and intercept the Burevestnik on its way directly to the target. Even taking into account the missile's stealth (if it is made on the basis of the Kh-101, the EPR of which, according to published data, is 0.01 sq.m), the missile detection range by AWACS aircraft is still 100-120 km, the F-22 can detect it at a distance of 65 to 80 km, and the Israeli Iron Dome missile defense system can detect from a distance of 70 to 90 km. By the way, the Americans are already purchasing the Israeli system and are going to deploy at least two batteries by 2020, apparently just to protect the most important facilities from cruise missiles.
Once the Burevestnik is spotted on its way to the target, it will be relatively easy to shoot it down, since, according to existing estimates, the rocket has a subsonic flight speed. If an interceptor plane is in the air, then under favorable conditions it will be able to knock down the Burevestnik with a burst from the side cannon as a training target. It is also impossible to exclude the possibility of accidental detection of a missile in flight by some URO frigate, an airplane, or an air defense missile system on duty at the right place.
It is an extreme degree of arrogance to believe that an adversary like the United States will not cover up its command centers, and indeed any other critical facilities, with air defense / missile defense systems designed to intercept air targets in the immediate vicinity of the facility. The stake on the fact that the enemy will be impenetrably dull, in my opinion, is extremely unreliable in principle, and to develop a complex and expensive model of weapons for such tactics "for dumb" is difficult to call anything other than recklessness. Still, the tactical use of a new type of weapons must take into account the smart enemy and all his possible countermeasures.
Will there be enough missiles for all targets?
The next item on the program: the number of goals. There are 11 commands in the US Armed Forces alone. Together with the commands of their allies (you can't just strike at the American headquarters and leave the headquarters of their NATO allies or other agreements intact), the number of priority targets freely reaches two dozen. If you collect all the targets, the defeat of which is critical in order to deprive the United States and its allies of the opportunity to conduct hostilities anywhere, I think that a list of 150-200 targets is freely typed.
And one can hardly expect to be able to destroy a large command center with a single non-nuclear cruise missile.
And here a question arises, to which there is no answer yet: how many "Petrel" will be? The number plays an important role. Even if we assume that the Petrel will be able to do everything that is now attributed to it, that it will be able to somehow bypass or break through the enemy's missile defense systems, it should be noted that the further effect is determined by the number of missiles. 3-5 of the best, "unparalleled in the world" missiles, victory in the war will not be achieved. If we have in mind a certain Russian version of the well-known concept of a "quick global strike", then in order to overthrow an opponent with some guarantee, one must have about 200-300 "Petrel" in the ranks.
Will Russia be able to do so much? Interest Ask. Here you need to understand what it is all about. In my opinion, the Petrel propulsion system is a combination of a turbojet engine and a compact nuclear reactor, the heat released from which is used to heat the working fluid instead of burning fuel in conventional turbojet engines. The reactor must be very compact and fit into the dimensions of the Kh-101, and at the same time be quite well mastered. There is such a development, or, more precisely, there was: the Topaz nuclear power plant, designed for satellites. It is quite possible to adapt it to new tasks by creating a heat sink from the core to the heating chamber of the working fluid in a turbojet engine, as well as creating a sealed protective shell of the core.
But such a compact nuclear reactor is a complicated and expensive thing due to the abundance of special materials used in it. With all the might of its military-industrial complex, the USSR was able to make only two Topaz for the Kosmos-1818 and Kosmos-1876 satellites. I do not think that the current Russian capabilities in the production of such compact reactors are significantly higher than in Soviet times. Therefore, most likely, the construction of a large series of "Petrel" is an unattainable goal. They'll do two or three things for the sake of intimidation, and that's all.
And in general, making such a complex and expensive product for the sake of one launch is more than a dubious idea.
When to start the reactor?
There is one more question that directly relates to the combat readiness of such a missile: when to launch the reactor? Now it is not considered at all, especially by those who consider the Petrel to be another Wunderwaffe, but it depends on this question whether the Petrel will be a weapon ready for battle at any moment, or whether it will be a device that will need to be shamanized to launch. highly qualified specialists.
There are three options. First: the physical launch of the reactor is carried out after the launch of the rocket, already in the air. Second: the physical start-up of the reactor is carried out on the ground, under the supervision of specialists, and then a start is made with the reactor already operating. Third: the physical launch of the reactor is carried out when the rocket is in position, then the reactor power is reduced to a minimum level in order to then bring it to full power (before launch or in flight).
The first option is the most profitable, but also the most difficult, since the rocket undergoes serious overloads at launch, and, moreover, it is difficult to control the state of the reactor. A technical failure in the control system or in the communication system may well lead to the fact that the reactor overheats and collapses. It is difficult to say how technically feasible this is.
The second option is more reliable than the first, since the reactor is under control at the time of start-up and entering the operating mode. However, the launch of the reactor, probably even with the loading of fuel elements, which were previously extracted from a special storage facility, will require some rather significant time, which increases the time required to prepare the rocket for launch.
The third option is more reliable and better than the first two, since the rocket is ready for launch to the maximum extent. However, there are two negative points. First, a rocket with a reactor operating at minimum power will need to be cooled, which will require additional equipment of the launcher with a refrigeration unit. Secondly, nuclear fuel gradually burns out, which limits the period during which the missile can be on alert. By the way, the maximum achieved campaign period for the Topaz is 11 months.
There are still a number of questions that are difficult to answer. However, a choice is already quite visible between the complex and lengthy preparation of the rocket for launch and a very limited period of her being on alert. Whatever we choose, it severely limits the combat value of such a missile.
So "Petrel" is not suitable for war. If it was a missile suitable for mass production, then one could still count on some effect when fired at a couple of hundred missiles. 2-3 missiles are suitable only for intimidation in words and for PR. It is better to choose this product for another purpose, which is more consistent with its characteristics.
