Did Russia Actually Build Project Pluto?

nextbigfuture.com - Pentagon confirms that Russia is testing a cruise missile powered by an unshielded nuclear reactor.

It is a post of a tweet saying Fox news has confirmation that the Pentagon is watching a nuke powered missile "in R&D" phase.

Wrong twice in one day! Ah well. It is still posturing.

a reply to: FredT

You know what.

This brings to mind the "mysterious" radioactive signatures that were detected over Europe last summer I think?
Something about those high altitude nuclear detector aircraft? I'm really not familiar with them but I remember reading something about them.


Just a thought that popped in my head.

a reply to: watchitburn

no that was iodine a tale tel leak of a reactor or medical leak

a reply to: watchitburn

I wouldn't rule it out, but the isotope indicated the radiation was from fuel reprocessing.

www.npr.org...

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I'd like another source...rather not via twitter.

a reply to: anzha


And nextbigfuture is actually a blog. Wang is pro military and technology so are his posts.

Yeah, I hear you about the twitterverse.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I'm familiar with nextbigfuture and its ok.

I'm just grumbling about a tweet being his sole source.

a reply to: anzha

B movie from 50's, an atomic powered missile. Sci-fi from then almost like The Simpsons Did It.

The Lost Missile (1958)

A strange missile from outer space circles the Earth at low altitudes, destroying everything in its path.

a reply to: Bramble Iceshimmer

Project Pluto dated from a year before. It might be someone heard something and then turned it into a movie.

Those clever commie spies in Hollywood!

originally posted by: TheStalkingHorse
a reply to: FredT

You do understand that the Soviet (Union) Union ceased to exist like three decades ago, right? It’s been known as the Russian Federation ever since, with the adjective “Russian”.

Do you really feel that Putins "Russia" is any different that the Soviets? Its the same crap in a new label.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: FredT

You know what.

This brings to mind the "mysterious" radioactive signatures that were detected over Europe last summer I think?
Something about those high altitude nuclear detector aircraft? I'm really not familiar with them but I remember reading something about them.


Just a thought that popped in my head.

Thats a great point, but based on what I have read about Pluto, the radiation was at lethal levels for a one mile wide swath wherever the missile would fly so it would have been a huge signature

a reply to: FredT
Then again - assuming it's something they have secretly been working on for awhile - I somehow doubt that some major advancements would not have been made in the 50-60 years since Pluto - especially with regards to shielding.

a reply to: Navieko

Shielding means weight though. More weight, means more power and less payload. There's no real need to shield an unmanned weapon either. All it's going to do is explode, so why bother shielding it?

a reply to: Zaphod58
I guess it's about finding the balance between having sufficient stealth and sufficient payload... would the current radiation detection technology only have something to say after the payload has been delivered - or theoretically - if it's spewing as much radiation as with Pluto, could that lead to early enough detection that actions could be taken prior to payload delivery?

a reply to: Navieko

The problem is even having something to hit it with. Even if they detected it, we still have pretty limited defenses, especially against a Mach 3+ cruise missile. Fire a salvo at them, and they'll punch through our defenses, especially if they're down low in the clutter.

a reply to: Navieko

As Zaphod mentioned. No shielding needed for a missile.

As far as stealth goes, it will be impossible to hide the heat signature of an airborne reactor so a SBIRS type system should be able to detect that sucker.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Navieko

The problem is even having something to hit it with. Even if they detected it, we still have pretty limited defenses, especially against a Mach 3+ cruise missile. Fire a salvo at them, and they'll punch through our defenses, especially if they're down low in the clutter.

Thats 100% true, but the present ICBM arsenal will completely overwhelm the existing ABM system even if you consider the SM-6 in that equation. Thats why this smells like vaporware than a real threat

a reply to: FredT

The problem is having an SM-6, or something in the right place. You aren't going to be popping off SM-3s or SM-6s in port. That limits you to airborne interceptors, which we have damn few of in position, and the ground based interceptors, which are designed to stop high altitude targets, not down in the weeds targets. We can detect them all day long, but that won't help in the long run, unless we're willing to put THAAD, and Patriots along the coasts.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm skeptical that THAAD or the Patriot can handle ICBM's.. Heck Im skeptical that the PAC-3 can even handle TBM's


You would need a Burke can off each area, and perhaps you would have that now if you look at the West Coast. San Diego and Brememrton? There is always one in port. Manned is a whole nother issue though

Is there a reason you could not fire off you SM-6's in port? Assuming the Aegis is up and radiating, you should be able to get missiles off. The exhaust is lethal for sure, but what would be the other constraints? I mean if Clancy could do it, its a real capacity?

a reply to: FredT

The nuclear powered weapons are cruise missiles, not ICBMs. They're designed for low level, high speed maneuvering, making them hard to kill.

The problem is tracking. You can't radiate in port without frying all kinds of neat things, such as electronics and people. Without some way of guiding the missile, you're shooting in the dark. SBX or other radars can help, but they're not going to be as good as having the ship's radar to do the work. And many times ships aren't sitting in port armed and ready to launch. They have to go off to another part of the harbor to load weapons before deploying, depending on the port procedures. I know in Pearl Harbor they went to West Loch before any deployment and loaded up.