Orbital bomber: what can the Burevestnik power plant offer?

11 363 39

"Petrel", this one another "Putin missile", which has caused a great stir in Russia and abroad, leaves a rather mixed impression. With a virtually unlimited range, its subsonic speed makes it an easy target for ground- and air-based air defense systems. Are there other options?

Yes, a Burevestnik or Kalibr can be shot down by a Patriot air defense system from the ground or by interceptors in the air. However, the same applies to subsonic American Tomahawks, which fly long-range at low altitudes, given the terrain. This means that the key to combating such aerial targets is detecting them early enough to intercept them. After that, their subsonic speed makes cruise missiles relatively easy targets.



But what if they were raised high, high above the ground, where they could remain for a long time, maneuvering?

From the Third Reich to the "hegemon"


For example, back in Nazi Germany, there existed a promising project for a high-altitude, partially orbital bomber-spacecraft called the Silbervogel, or "Silver Bird." This aircraft was considered by the Third Reich as a "weapon of vengeance" and was intended for ultra-long-range strikes against the United States and the USSR.

Its length was 28 meters, its wingspan was approximately 15 meters, its full takeoff weight was approximately 100 tons, and its combat load was up to 30 tons. This project was never realized because it was significantly ahead of its time, and the technical capabilities of the 40s simply would not have allowed for the construction of a working suborbital bomber.

However, the ideas of its developer, Austrian scientist Dr. Eugen Sänger, gave birth to an entire field of space exploration, where, during the Cold War, priority was given to the military component.

Thus, in 1986, President Ronald Reagan, who had declared our country an "evil empire," announced the development of the X-30 National Aero-Space Plane (NASP), a reusable spacecraft with horizontal takeoff and landing capabilities. It was not particularly hidden that it could be used as a basis for the creation of a suborbital hypersonic bomber.

This project was also never completed, but instead of a manned spaceplane, the Americans opted to develop unmanned vehicles designed to launch combat payloads into near-Earth space, namely the hypersonic X-43 and the promising hypersonic cruise missile X-51A Waverider.

From the USSR to the Russian Federation?


In the 70s, the Tupolev Design Bureau began work on a promising aerospace bomber project, dubbed the Tu-2000B. There was also a civilian version of the Tu-2000A space plane and even a hypersonic passenger jet, the Tu-2000MVKS.

Understandably, given the arms race with the United States, the orbital bomber was given top priority, especially after reports that the Americans had begun work on the X-30. The Soviet spaceplane was a true giant: its fuselage was approximately 100 meters long, its takeoff weight was 300 tons, and its wingspan was 40,7 meters. Its range was projected to reach 10 kilometers.

The aircraft was intended to be manned, with a two-person crew in a detachable cockpit that could land via parachute. The remaining two-thirds of the Tu-2000B's fuselage were filled with hydrogen fuel. The spaceplane's powerplant featured a unique layout, integrating several engine types: a liquid-hydrogen rocket engine (LHRE), a turbojet engine (TRJ), and a wide-range ramjet engine (WRJ).

Before 1992, when the project was shelved due to lack of funding, a nickel-alloy wing box, a fuselage section, cryogenic fuel tanks, and composite fuel lines were developed and manufactured for the Tu-2000B. Attempts to commercialize this promising project were unsuccessful, and it is now considered shelved.

Given the significantly worsening geopolitical situation around our country, the question arises: does it make sense to return to Soviet technologies, but taking into account new technological realities? Is it necessary to build an expensive manned spaceplane, with the enormous expense of ensuring the safety of its two-member crew, when it's possible to build an unmanned vehicle, controlled remotely and using artificial intelligence? This is the first point.

Secondly, Russia's development of a compact nuclear power plant, developed for the Burevestnik and Poseidon, makes it possible to equip the high-altitude bomber-spacecraft with it, which will allow it to significantly reduce its size, while simultaneously increasing its range and flight time.

In this form, as a nuclear weapons carrier, an unmanned spaceplane with a nuclear propulsion system could prove a very compelling strategic deterrent. And, crucially, the engine for it already exists.
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    28 October 2025 17: 51
    We had the MiG 25M ​​in space, why not? A space plane is much simpler than a rocket. The fuzz didn't fly into space before the shuttle, only satellites and Hollywood cartoons. Well, it's time to terrorize our enemies from space. We had the wonderful Lapotok space fighter, it's time. am
    1. +4
      29 October 2025 09: 42
      The MiG-29M never flew into space. It was a special mission to set a world record: they stripped the plane of everything they could, loaded it with minimal fuel, and then quickly jumped to 37 km, hovering at that altitude for a few seconds. Space begins at 100 km. Learn the ropes, my friend!
      1. +3
        29 October 2025 14: 35
        100 km is the conventional altitude boundary of the state. It's conventional because it hasn't been officially established. For Earth, space begins where the Earth's magnetic field ends. It can be considered that air disappears at an altitude of 1000 km.
        The aurora borealis occurs at altitudes of up to 400 km (in the upper layers of the thermosphere); it's an atmospheric phenomenon. Radio waves are reflected by ionized layers of the atmosphere, and the F2 layer ends 500 km from Earth. Physicists would say that space begins where the probability of molecular collisions is negligible, which is several thousand kilometers from Earth.
        The exosphere is the uppermost layer of the atmosphere, beginning at an altitude of approximately 500-1000 km and extending to 10,000 km. In this layer, gas molecules are so rarefied that they can move almost freely, and the layer itself gradually transitions into the vacuum of space. In the exosphere, particles such as hydrogen and helium atoms can escape from Earth and escape into space. Temperatures in the exosphere fluctuate sharply, but due to the rarefied nature of the gas, they are difficult to measure.
        Next we can consider Space.
  2. +6
    28 October 2025 18: 03
    The Burevestnik's engine operates by overheating atmospheric air; if there's insufficient or no air, thrust drops sharply to zero. Space is out of the question; bombers shouldn't hover for long, but high-altitude UAVs—reconnaissance, long-range, and other long-range UAVs—can fly. They could also be used as high-altitude communications relay bases, acting as pseudo-satellites like Starlink in targeted areas of the Northern Defense System (LBS).
    1. +4
      28 October 2025 18: 57
      I agree with you, because I share the same opinion! Unfortunately, this isn't the first ignorant "comrade" in the Military District who's tried to shoehorn the Burevestnik jet engine into spacecraft without thinking twice! I also agree with some of your suggestions for the "conventional" use of the Burevestnik! As for the other proposals, be careful... "measure seven times!" Because they reveal nuances for the user!
    2. 0
      28 October 2025 19: 19
      The Burevestnik's engine operates by overheating atmospheric air; if there's insufficient or no air, thrust drops sharply to zero. Space must be forgotten.

      I'm embarrassed to ask, but what does the underwater Poseidon use to power its similar nuclear power plant? feel
      1. +4
        28 October 2025 20: 07
        In Poseidon, a nuclear power plant generates electricity, which turns a propeller.
        1. 0
          7 November 2025 00: 32
          Yes, yes, and it accelerates to 200 km/h using propellers - they announced that Poseidon moves in a steam bubble and due to the jet thrust created by the release of steam/water (the working fluid is water).
      2. 0
        29 October 2025 21: 31
        What makes you think it's the same? They're completely different! You're ignorant, sir.
        It's good that you're at least embarrassed to ask.
      3. 0
        31 October 2025 05: 06
        Beidodir Water vapor, both as a working fluid and a core coolant, is used in submarines. Unlike air, which performs the same functions in Burevestnik, the reactor core coolant is used in submarines.
        This is if Poseidon uses a turbine (which is most likely). If it uses a thermoelectric converter, like the one in the Mars rover (which is less likely), then the propeller is driven by electricity generated by thermocouples in the core.
    3. 0
      30 October 2025 09: 53
      The Burevestnik's engine operates on overheated atmospheric air; if there is insufficient or no air, the thrust drops sharply to zero.

      It's embarrassing to even discuss this nonsense about a space bomber with a nuclear engine.
      1. 0
        31 October 2025 05: 37
        Quote from Pembo
        Yes, this nonsense about a space bomber with a nuclear engine.

        Not quite. One possible solution is to first fly on atmospheric air up to an altitude of 20 km. As we ascend, we begin feeding water from the tanks into the core—flying using water vapor. In principle, any liquid (or liquefied gas) would work instead of water, but water is the cheapest option. In short, a hybrid engine. A variety of designs are possible, provided a powerful energy source (like a nuclear reactor) is available.
        Another issue is that maneuvering in space is difficult, and without maneuvering, we become easy prey for air defense systems. Such a spacecraft would be easily visible on radar.
        1. 0
          31 October 2025 10: 59
          As we rise higher, we begin to feed water from the tanks into the active zone – we fly using water vapor.

          Sorry, in engineering, people don't dream, they calculate. Familiarize yourself with Tsiolkovsky's formula; it directly concerns you.
          1. -1
            2 November 2025 08: 03
            PemboI've been familiar with Tsiolkovsky's formula for 40 years. What specifically bothers you? You write:

            This nonsense about a space bomber with a nuclear engine even it's embarrassing to discuss.

            Don't be ashamed, just provide arguments. Otherwise, your statements are somehow unfounded.

            it directly concerns you
            1. +1
              2 November 2025 13: 07
              Your space plane doesn't fall to the ground not because it's propelled by air, but because it flies through airless space at cosmic speeds, like a satellite being accelerated by a rocket. But the temperature of steam from a nuclear reactor is at least three times lower than that of a chemical jet engine. This means the impulse proportional to the square of the velocity will be nine times less, and the working fluid—water—needs nine times more. Imagine a space plane with a fuel tank nine times larger than a space rocket that launches a satellite into orbit.
              1. 0
                2 November 2025 18: 55
                Quote from Pembo
                Your space plane doesn't fall to the ground not because it's supported by air, but because it flies through airless space at cosmic speeds...

                This is how your "plane" flies. laughing
                My aircraft isn't a winged satellite flying in orbit, but rather a device propelled by the air, rising into space only briefly, no higher than 100 km, to overcome air defenses in hostile territory. It's a suborbital vehicle, and a speed of Mach 10 at the apogee of its "space jump" is sufficient.

                But the temperature of steam from a nuclear reactor is at least three times less than that of a chemical jet engine.

                Why such a limitation? The temperature could be as low as 2K; above that, thermal decomposition of water would occur, and the engine could explode, but that's a different matter. feel The main thing is that the turbine can handle it. For now, we're limiting ourselves to 2K. (We could make the engine a "dual-circuit" design, with the inner (air) circuit containing the compressor and turbine, and the outer circuit without. The outer circuit's compressor is annular, with an annular nozzle. When entering a partially airless environment, we close the inner circuit's air intake. But that's complicated.)
                Considering the uselessness of the First Spacecraft set and the short-term operation of the engine on water, all your worries about the low UI and the volume of the tanks are down the drain. wink
                1. 0
                  2 November 2025 19: 21
                  P.S. Water can be replaced with liquid nitrogen, liquid argon, or something else for sure, but everything is more expensive.
                2. 0
                  2 November 2025 19: 23
                  Send your suggestions to the Young Technician magazine.
                  1. 0
                    2 November 2025 19: 29
                    Quote from Pembo
                    Send your suggestions to the Young Technician magazine

                    Did they hire you as a scientific editor there? Congratulations!
  3. +1
    28 October 2025 18: 12
    Quote: Dmitry Volkov
    We had a MiG 25M ​​flying into space, why not? A space plane is much simpler than a rocket. The fuzz didn't even fly into space before the shuttle, only satellites and Hollywood cartoons.Well, it's time to terrorize the enemies from space. We had a wonderful space fighter, the Lapotok. It's time already. am

    fool "Aviator-cosmoplanet", what was that??? lol
    1. +1
      28 October 2025 20: 38
      This was another adherent of the tinfoil hat witnesses' sect.
  4. +1
    28 October 2025 18: 21
    The topic is even older than many of the forum's participants. The nuclear-powered Tu-95 was tested a full 70 years ago. The findings and recommendations are even publicly available.
    1. +1
      28 October 2025 20: 06
      Technology and capabilities have changed significantly since then, so the conclusions of those years are no longer relevant.
    2. 0
      31 October 2025 05: 52
      AC130 Gunship There was no nuclear engine there. A compact nuclear reactor was loaded on board, but the experiments ended there; the idea was deemed too dangerous. And rightly so.
  5. +1
    28 October 2025 20: 04
    37,650 m is the altitude record set by test pilot Alexander Fedotov on a MiG-25 aircraft on August 31, 1977.
    Everything has been worked out for a long time.
    The petrel cannot fly without air.
    We need to create platforms in space, bases for missiles overlooking NATO countries. Everything is moving in that direction.
    1. +3
      28 October 2025 23: 10
      "Need" doesn't mean "can." Only rich countries can create something like that, and there are only two of them... yes, just two: the US and China.
  6. -1
    28 October 2025 20: 04
    There's no need to build anything; just install a Burevestnik engine on a Tu-160 or a PAK DA. Just imagine, a strategic aircraft that can patrol the skies around America for weeks on end, ready to launch long-range missiles at any moment.
    1. +3
      29 October 2025 09: 46
      Is this supposed to be patrolling for weeks? Will it be crewed by robots?
      1. 0
        7 November 2025 00: 37
        That's right, unmanned aircraft - drones, controlled via satellite and AI.
  7. +4
    28 October 2025 20: 44
    Quote from Alorg
    Technology and capabilities have changed significantly since then, so the conclusions of those years are no longer relevant.

    Technology hasn't changed much. The Tu-95 is still the most widely used strategic bomber and will remain so for at least another 15-20 years.
    As for the plane flying for an unknown amount of time and in an unknown location, firstly, the crew needs to rest (this can be resolved), and secondly, there is always the risk of an accident, and a flying Chernobyl is not appealing to people with a normal psyche.
    This is a dead-end idea no matter how you look at it.
    1. +1
      29 October 2025 00: 43
      An airplane can, by definition, land at its base, but how will a missile land if the parties can reach an agreement? And just look at how many nuclear submarines have already sunk, and how many nuclear-powered spacecraft have fallen to Earth.
  8. +4
    28 October 2025 20: 55
    In short, if you take away the historical memories of "galoshes," the water, and comments of varying degrees of adequacy, then only one thing remains: "We'll throw our hats at them."

    Here we have: Burevestniks, Solntspeki, Persvets, Terminators, Armatas, Zircons and Daggers, Gerani and Angara, Airuses and Jets, Agriculture and Black Swans, Lavrov, Medvedev, Rogozin, and much, much more NON-IM....

    Against a country that by 14 had sold out its army and become depopulated, against Zelensky, who stole everything and everyone, against the senile Biden and Trump... (according to the most-most media)

    And the 4th year is approaching, and all those who managed to join voluntarily are not freed from the insidious invaders...
  9. +2
    28 October 2025 22: 52
    ...and let him fire boulders at the enemy, let them think it's a meteor shower.
  10. +1
    29 October 2025 16: 38
    A cruise missile with a nuclear-powered missile system is complete idiocy.
  11. +1
    29 October 2025 20: 31
    What's between the electron and the nucleus?? That's right - air. What will Burevestnik fly on in space?? On it. Damn.
    1. +1
      3 November 2025 19: 11
      Well done, worthy of continuing Baron Munchausen's work...
  12. -1
    30 October 2025 06: 25
    The maximum range of Patriot missiles depends on the missile type: the MM-104 missile is about 80 kilometers, while the ERINT interceptor missile is up to 45 kilometers. The strike altitude is up to 20 kilometers. If this data is accurate, then a detonator could be installed that would trigger a detonation in the event of imminent destruction. However, I wouldn't be a Patriot operator. There will be a storm, and a second one will follow, and no one has cancelled the EMP. Will the Patriot still be able to think straight after that, or will it be scrap metal? And given that it was stated that the Burevestnik will be the second wave, we won't care anymore. The main thing is to be over Europe or America. am
  13. +1
    30 October 2025 19: 49
    The Burevestnik, or more precisely its engine, is designed for atmospheric flight near the Earth's surface. It won't fly in the upper layers, where the atmosphere is very thin, which is somewhere above 35-40 km. Russia is currently leading the development of ion engines. They don't produce much thrust (yet), but they can operate continuously and for a long time, producing it. This technology is already being used extensively in our satellites for maneuvering and acceleration, although for now, due to the low thrust, it's very slow. But who knows what the future holds, or maybe it already exists.
  14. 0
    31 October 2025 18: 22
    Quote: Peace_Party
    AC130 Gunship There was no nuclear engine there. A compact nuclear reactor was loaded on board, but the experiments ended there; the idea was deemed too dangerous. And rightly so.

    The idea certainly hasn't become any less dangerous today. Can you imagine ICBMs with nuclear warheads being deployed in silos somewhere (say) near Orenburg or Kostroma, but underground in officers' bunkers with separate keys who open the packets of codes on command and verify their accuracy (or whatever they do now)—they're simply not there? And the missile itself decides when to launch and where to fly? And what if a contact or sensor shorts out on a launched missile, causing it to turn around? Or could salt water (God forbid) get into the torpedo's "brains"?