(Khrushchev) claimed in the next war the US Navy’s number one job would be to stay afloat, implying it was worthless against nuclear weapons…

Adm. Rickover apparently agreed with Khrushchev when he told Congress (from memory) that the USN would last 2 weeks in a shooting war, “longer if they stayed in port”. I don’t see where “nuclear” is being implied at all. I’d say he was stating the obvious, that the USSR already had the stand-off, conventionally armed missiles to sink USN ships at ranges where their own weapons were useless. Putin is telling the West the same thing, and not only about the USN.

Yet without an all out nuclear war the US Navy has successfully projected power and dominance across the globe for 60 years. And we will continue to do so because if Russia does use these new weapons against our fleet it will lead to an all out nuclear exchange.

Not quite. Of course, navies will continue to be able to project power somewhere, but they will continue to be unable to do so decisively against countries with both standoff anti-shipping missiles and a credible nuclear deterrent. Throughout the cold war, the Russian and US navies stayed well clear of both each other and each other’s coastal defences. While the Chinese navy’s build-up hasn’t yet resulted in global maritime prowess, it will eventually rise to a point where the USN steers clear of it as well. Even now, only China’s forbearance allows the USN to sail on its “Freedom of Navigation” provocations within range of China’s anti-shipping missiles in the SCS. A while ago, the Chinese navy brought down and retrieved a USN drone 500M from a USN vessel 50NM off Subic Bay, PH. When the USN demanded it back, the Chinese told ’em to pound sand and sailed off with it. Who’s projecting power in that scenario?

The reality is that unless a Gen. Thomas S. Power level of madness comes to reign (again) in Washington, nobody’s gonna go nuclear over a couple of carriers. If they do, I’d wager that they’ll find Power’s insane statement that “If there’s 2 Americans left alive and 1 Russian, we win!” inverted and multiplied, possible by several orders of magnitude. Russia is vastly better prepared. Its nuclear inventory is more modern, and much of it is mobile. Its ABM & civil defences are much more developed, and it will have a lot more resources, including land area to fall back on than the US. Russia could conceivably recover from a limited nuclear exchange, the USA not so much. In an all-out exchange, of course, it’s likely the world’s survivors will envy the dead.

Nikita Khrushchev said much the same thing in the early 60’s. He claimed in the next war the US Navy’s number one job would be to stay afloat, implying it was worthless against nuclear weapons, failing to understand his point was meaningless since in that event Russia would cease to exist also. Yet without an all out nuclear war the US Navy has successfully projected power and dominance across the globe for 60 years. And we will continue to do so because if Russia does use these new weapons against our fleet it will lead to an all out nuclear exchange.

It’s really nothing more than a straight-line derivative of what you’ve been talking about since, well forever.

But you put it really well.

Somebody clever once said that: “Madness is not the loss of reason, it is the loss of everything but reason”. Replace the word “reason” with “metrics”, and you have institutionalized madness in a nutshell.

Therein lies the danger. If the instrument is not calibrated properly we get what we’ve gotten today.

It’s really nothing more than a straight-line derivative of what you’ve been talking about since, well forever. The USM, indeed the whole USG and its socio-political economy is a case of Metrics Gone Wild.

Somebody clever once said that: “Madness is not the loss of reason, it is the loss of everything but reason”. Replace the word “reason” with “metrics”, and you have institutionalized madness in a nutshell.

As for attribution, immediately below this comment window it says in bold type: “Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter.” So, if anyone’s permission is required, it’s Ron’s. For my part, I’m anonymous here so who/what would you be attributing it to?

Cheers, Happy New Year, and godspeed with your new book.

Nominal/notional metrics can be fatally attractive because they lend themselves to simply devised and implemented measurement systems. McNamara brought to the USM similar metrics to those he implemented at Ford. Unharnessed, they become an end unto themselves, lending an air of authority and gravitas to the mouthings of mediocrities, and an aura of success to failures.

Absolutely. I need to literally quote this (attributing to you, of course, if you allow) in my new book, since it is precisely about, putting it in general, about metrics. Great point you made.

America’s failures to maintain both…

… (its) military balance and (a) real economy…

… were born of the same mother.

Nominal/notional metrics can be fatally attractive because they lend themselves to simply devised and implemented measurement systems. McNamara brought to the USM similar metrics to those he implemented at Ford. Unharnessed, they become an end unto themselves, lending an air of authority and gravitas to the mouthings of mediocrities, and an aura of success to failures. Without the disciplined application of a well constructed program of reality checks, organizations follow their metrics’ trail of breadcrumbs to the grave.

So, you get surreal statements like that made by Army Sgt. Major John Wayne Troxell speaking about a small Marine battalion firing on Raqqa:

“They fired more rounds in five months in Raqqa, Syria, than any other Marine artillery battalion, or any Marine or Army battalion, since the Vietnam war,”… “In five months they fired 35,000 artillery rounds on ISIS targets, killing ISIS fighters by the dozens,”

Yup, an outstanding, record breaking effort that levelled a city and killed but “dozens” of fighters. Madness. A madness obvious to all but themselves. I’m surprised nobody said “We had to destroy the city in order to save it.” or at least “It was worth it.”

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/02/06/these-marines-in-syria-fired-more-artillery-than-any-battalion-since-vietnam/

My question is do you plan to keep up good work with more books.

I am writing the second one on military balance and real economy. Hopefully, next year it should see the light.

I bought your amazing book . My question is do you plan to keep up good work with more books.
? Thanks

Andrei, Strategic Culture had this post on Trump’s SPACE FORCE.

Technically speaking, isn’t it highly unlikely that the Avangard can get a signal from the earth within its plasma sheath? In other words, it has to guide itself and doesn’t receiver or can receive any earth based signal.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/08/12/creation-us-space-force-introduction-new-anti-russia-sanctions-interrelated.html

The sensor layer will serve the BMD components of all branches to make the creation of combatant command a better option in comparison with the Air Force-headed architecture, which has existed since 1982. On the other hand, reforming the structure is more of a cosmetic change, it does not alter the substance – the US is adamant in its desire to weaponize the space and make it not only a part of global BMD but also a part of defense against hypersonic missiles Russia and China are close to arm their military with.

The US is lagging behind in hypersonic arms race. It pins hopes on space-based layer to enhance its capability to counter the threat. And it’s not only sensors. US officials know well that putting mini satellite-based jammers into space is also the most effective way to prevent hypersonic weapons from being guided with the desired accuracy.

I don’t think the author knows what he’s talking about or the U.S. Military knows what it’s doing either.

Judging by the energy “package” for Peresvet it seems that this system is a combat laser–not just some optronic’s dazzler. Meaning that this thing is designed and manufactured for shooting targets, not just disable their optronic parts.

Thanks Andrei.

Best that it be kept secret.

As someone who personally cannot imagine, despite the flaws of Washington, selling secrets (which since I’m not part of military-industrial complex I have none) I am nevertheless dismayed by recent news by a betrayal by Russian scientists/engineers as per the below article.

https://southfront.org/russian-hypersonic-weapon-files-leaked-to-foreign-intelligence-investigation-launched-russian-media/

Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) has reportedly launched an all-out search for a mole who leaked top secret files on the cutting-edge hypersonic weapon systems to Western intelligence, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported on July 20 citing intelligence sources.

Earlier on July 20, FSB operatives searched the quarters the Central Research Institute of Machine Building (TSNIIMASH) and the United Rocket and Space Corporation (URSC). TSNIIMASH and the URSC are a part of Russian Space Agency Roscosmos, which was involved in the development of hypersonic weapons.

Can you way what the implications are for America-Russia relations or was this always expected? I suspect normal relations have become more difficult.

My question for you is whether the Star Trek Peresvet will be part of what The Saker wrote in his recent post here, i.e. ASAT.

This, I don;t know. Judging by the energy “package” for Peresvet it seems that this system is a combat laser–not just some optronic’s dazzler. Meaning that this thing is designed and manufactured for shooting targets, not just disable their optronic parts.

Hi, Andrei,

We haven’t talked on this forum in a while. I hope readers can find it and your new book is finding an intelligent readership.

This just posted on TASS. I am aware weapons systems integrate but it is clear that Russia is showing her “claws.” The Russophobia on display, not just from Democrats and Neocons but Trump’s own Intel people proves Putin’s statements that Russians are being treated like Jews under Hitler and the “elite” is intent on extermination.

TASS: http://tass.com/defense/1014139

When asked about capacities of the Peresvet laser complexes, which have already entered duty with Russia’s Aerospace Forces, the expert said that, in his opinion, the system is capable of “countering optronic systems, including those installed on satellites, planes and drones.” “Possibly, at shorter ranges, it is even capable of striking drones and cruise missiles,” Murakhovsky added.

Russian military expert Viktor Murakhovsky, the editor-in-chief of the Arsenal Otechestva magazine also said:

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1014139

Besides, a squadron (between 12 and 16 aircraft) of MiG-31 fighter jets armed with Kinzhal hypersonic missiles entered combat duty in the Caspian Sea region in April.

“I think at least one squadron of those complexes should be deployed at any fleet, in other words – at all regions where we have fleets and flotillas. We need to deploy them in the regions of the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Northern Fleet. The Pacific region also should not be forgotten,” Murakhovsky said.

He said that such systems can become a “good instrument” against not only vessels equipped with high-precision weapons, but also for countering carrier attack groups.

“We know how expensive a carrier attack group can be. By employing this asymmetric method, which is unbelievably cheap in comparison with building a carrier attack group, we can neutralize this threat almost completely,” the expert said.

There’s more here:

The crews assigned to the Peresvets have taken upgrader courses at the Alexander Mozhaisky Military-Space Academy in St Petersburg.

“The cadres receive training in theory in specially equipped classrooms and get practical drills at combat equipment,” the report said.

The crews are also getting trained in teamwork as part of commissioning of the Peresvets for combat duty, said Gen Anatoly Nestechuk, the chief of staff of the Aerospace Force’s 15th Army.

Development and commissioning of new strategic systems aims to build up Russia’s defense capability and to prevent any aggression against it or its allies, the Defense Ministry said.

The Peresvets are the first Russian combat complexes based on new physical principles. President Vladimir Putin mentioned the Russian combat laser for the first time in his address to both houses of parliament on March 1.

http://tass.com/defense/1014121

***

My question for you is whether the Star Trek Peresvet will be part of what The Saker wrote in his recent post here, i.e. ASAT.

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-other-new-revolutionary-russian-weapons-systems-asats/

And whether the number of troops and weapons NATO is fielding are a concern, given Shoigu’s recent interview in the Italian Press.

Thanks, SmoothieX12

Andrei, on your blog you wrote:

2. NATO commits suicide and does attack Russia, as some people in D.C. and Brussels are convinced they can. Well, in this case no amount of supplies will help them. US simply has no military hardware for sustaining a large conventional combined arms war against such peer as Russia. Why so–is a separate issue here.

What did you think of “Hellfires” being sent over to Europe?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-12/hellfire-missile-equipped-strykers-sent-europe-counter-russia

In March, we reported how the 2nd Cavalry Regiment was actively testing a high-tech laser weapon in Europe, called the Mobile High Energy Laser (MEHEL) mounted on the M1126 Stryker armored personnel carrier for SHORAD purposes.

“Given that counterinsurgency tactics have taken center stage during the last 15 years of ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said the Warrior Maven, the Army now recognizes that increased close-in air Russian threats of cruise missiles and small unmanned aerial vehicles could be a major problem when the next conflict breaks out.

“We are looking for an end to end system that is able to detect and defeat the rotary wing fixed wing and UAS (drone) threat to the maneuvering BCT (Brigade Combat Team),” Col. Charles Worshim, Project Manager for Cruise Missile Defense Systems, told Warrior Maven in an interview.

The Stryker MSL includes a Boeing unmanned turret mounted at the rear of the vehicle; this is where a cargo area replaces the “original infantrymen compartment. The turret is armed with four Longbow Hellfires located on the right side and another pod with four launchers for Raytheon Stinger short-range air defense missile,” said Army Recognition.

I think just a way for defense contractors to make money and have no significant impact in any event.

Glad you post something interesting every day.

Andrei, my last question. Do you think that Russia’s decision not to provoke Israel by supplying S-300s to Syria is part of a strategy that will allow Syria instead of shooting down Israeli pilots and provoking a wider conflict, instead giving them the means to intercept the missiles launched by those same jet fighters?

This too, but primarily Russia acts here for what Clausewitz defined as “Reasons of State”. The very info of Russia delivering S-300 to Syria has created a feverish activity on Israel’s part and proved that it is effective as a threat (in fact, very effective) and forced Israel to make arrangements. At this stage Russia is content with her position as a mediator and it is a long road of military-diplomatic efforts to “calm down” both Israel and Iran. Will Russia succeed? We’ll see, I guess. A lot, and I mean a lot, is at play here–just consider hysteria in US re: Turkey buying S-400 and this is just one factor out of many which form a complex reality in Syria.

Looks like the US does not have a monopoly on shameless government lying

True; but perhaps Putin and his team (see above my most recent question to Andrei) are doing everything possible to avoid direct conflict with Israel, which would draw America in and the number of deaths on all sides would be terrible.

Is Russia choosing a bad peace over a worse war? I just don’t know. I asked Andrei because he’s the historian and has the expertise to know.

Andrei, my last question. Do you think that Russia’s decision not to provoke Israel by supplying S-300s to Syria is part of a strategy that will allow Syria instead of shooting down Israeli pilots and provoking a wider conflict, instead giving them the means to intercept the missiles launched by those same jet fighters?

Does that make sense?

I know The Saker is upset in his latest essay and often you are of the same mind:

There have been major developments this week, all of them bad, including Putin re-nominating Medvedev as his Prime Minister, and Bibi Netanyahu invited to Moscow to the Victory Day Parade in spite of him bombing Syria, a Russian ally, just on the eve of his visit. Once in Moscow, Netanyahu compared Iran to, what else, Nazi Germany. How original and profound indeed! Then he proceeded to order the bombing of Syria for a second time, while still in Moscow. But then, what can we expect from a self-worshiping narcissist who finds it appropriate to serve food to the Japanese Prime Minister in a specially made shoe? The man is clearly batshit crazy (which in no way makes him less evil or dangerous). But it is the Russian reaction which is so totally disgusting: nothing, absolutely nothing. Unlike others, I have clearly said that it is not the Russian responsibility to “protect” Syria (or Iran) from the Israelis. But there is no doubt in my mind that Netanyahu has just publicly thumbed his nose at Putin and that Putin took it. For all my respect for Putin, this time he allowed Netanyahu to treat him just like Trump treated Macron. Except that in the case of Putin, he was so treated in his own capital. That makes it even worse.

http://thesaker.is/the-skripals-will-most-likely-never-be-allowed-to-talk/

And I wonder if Israel used a bunker buster as a threat/warning–the shock that registered on the Richter scale…

https://caucus99percent.com/content/syrian-bomb-blast-26-richter-scale-thats-moab

Then again, perhaps your guess is as good a mine. Israel Shamir has described Putin as “timid” in an older essay; perhaps he doesn’t like confrontation. Israel the nation is crazy enough as per last week’s post by The Saker to use nuclear weapons on Iran. And why should Russia go to world war for Syria? There are wiser options than military-to-military confrontation, e.g. 4G war.

” Mr. Kozhin’s remarks, stressing that it would be wrong to connect those statements with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Moscow.”

Looks like the US does not have a monopoly on shameless government lying

Hey, Andrei, I don’t have your email.

[email protected]

Thanks, Andrei. It’s obviously a complicated situation.

I fund this on The Duran by Mercouris, who’s a guest (sometimes) on RT’s Crosstalk.

http://theduran.com/israeli-missile-strike-reversing-shift-military-balance/

In my opinion it is the growing potency of the Syrian air defence system, and its increasing success in shooting down Israeli aircraft, and US and Israeli missiles, which is almost certainly the true reason for the latest Israeli strike.

The revelation of the growing potency of the Syrian air defence system, and its recent successes against both the US and Israel, appears to be sending shockwaves throughout the US and Israeli defence establishments, which have become accustomed to taking their hitherto unchallenged air superiority in the Middle East for granted.

The result is a petulant decision to impose sanctions on those Russians the US thinks are responsible, and series of ever bigger Israeli strikes on Syria intended to reverse this and to restore at least the semblance of Israeli aerial primacy over Syria.

It seems that the latest strike – involving no fewer than 28 aircraft and launched against a far larger range of targets than the earlier US led strike – was principally intended to defeat the Syrian air defence system.

And no S-300s for Syria; I got an email today responding on our article screaming about Putin’s “betrayal” etc. but I think he is (and his government) a realist.

Russia is neither supplying S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Syria, nor negotiating a potential delivery to Damascus, Vladimir Kozhin, presidential aide for military technical cooperation, told Russian media, adding that the Syrian forces had “everything they needed.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declined to comment Mr. Kozhin’s remarks, stressing that it would be wrong to connect those statements with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Moscow.

“We never announced these deliveries as such. However, we said that after the strikes [by the US, France and the UK on Syria], Russia reserves the right to do whatever it deems necessary,” Peskov explained.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201805111064353749-russia-s300-supplies-syria/

Thanks again, hope you blog on your site too.

Yes, good article.

I would be very accurate with Israel’s statements since they do have same propensity as their Arab neighbors to exaggerate, use hyperbole and such. Malashenko is generally correct–Russia is already a mediator in the region and, obviously, Russia is not seeking any war with anybody there. What is also constantly missed from all that is the fact that Russia and Iran are NOT “allies” in general. Iran has a very specific agenda in the region and this agenda often contradicts what Russia pursues in the region. Russians also have a good memory and they remember very clearly how when sanctions on Iran were eased she ran to European Union immediately. Now that Trump exited Nuclear Deal there is a degree of schadenfreude on Russian part. Russia has no problems with Iran being taught a lesson and, I am sure, sees it as being to her advantage. Many forget the fact that earlier in Russia’s deployment in Syria (2015-early 2016) there was a lot (and I mean a lot) friction within even Syria’s military large parts of which were extremely Iran-oriented and sometimes even sabotaged Russian advisers. A lot is in play there including simple human (and national) ambitions, greatly amplified by the overall culture of the region. And yes, it is confirmed, Israel does inform Russian forces in Syria about her attacks.

Andrei, my brother found this article and maybe this explains Russia and Syria best; but as always, I appreciate your insight (on your blog to get a wider audience).

http://www.atimes.com/article/with-a-wink-and-nod-to-russia-israel-says-it-struck-all-iranian-infrastructure-in-syria/

With a wink and nod to Russia, Israel says it struck all Iranian infrastructure in Syria.

Moscow shows all signs it is content to sit back and watch the show – up to a point

Hey, Andrei, I don’t have your email. Mine is posted on Lew Rockwell.com feel free to say hello. I wanted to share your comments with a wider audience. And get you publicity for your book. I would’ve sent you an email and let you know.

I see your comment on this video on your Smoothie site.

https://southfront.org/video-israeli-missile-destroys-syrias-pantsir-s1-air-defense-system/

A Classic example of idle, not in combat mode, system being hit by, obviously, Spike. Pantsir was not operational when hit, with crew doing something else (smoking?)

I’m no expert, but seeing the guy on the right running to it, even to a non-expert like me it was obvious the fools didn’t turn the Pantsir on. “Smoking” on the job; bad for your health in more ways than one.

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/05/ha-it-was-inerview-after-all.html

I hope you blog over here or your site what you think is going on in Syria. I heard about something posted on The Times of Israel saying Assad was taken aback and Iran fired but other posts state that no, Syria fired after being hit.

I don’t think Russia wants war with Israel-America so perhaps this article (source notwithstanding) is accurate. And no, I won’t write anything new for Lew with this response unless he want to direct to your site if you blog about it. Oh, source is Agence France Press

https://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-seeks-mediator-role-between-israel-and-iran/

Analyst Alexei Malashenko said Russia would do everything possible to maintain relations with both Israel and Iran without taking a stand, especially since Israel’s strikes “do not threaten” Moscow’s position in Syria.

“If Israel were to defy Russia’s dominant role, Russia would react and take a stand. This is unlikely to happen because Israel knows Russia defines the rules in Syria,” said Lukyanov.
‘Anti-Iranian sentiment’

But if escalation continues, Moscow will find it difficult to keep playing a mediator’s role.

“Even with the best intention, nobody can bring Iran and Israel to the same table,” said Malashenko.

He added that Russia is also closely watching Washington’s exit from the Iran nuclear deal, which the Kremlin has opposed. On Thursday Moscow said it would continue a “close collaboration” with Iran on the agreement.

Lukyanov said it may not have been coincidental that the Israeli strikes took place shortly after US President Donald Trump announced his country’s withdrawal from the deal.

“Iran’s enemies can only be inspired by this decision: there is a very strong anti-Iranian sentiment,” Lukyanov said. “Increased US pressure on Iran has certainly helped Israel fulfill its agenda.”

And thanks. Warm wishes. And no, I don’t agree, that:

“I am also very thankful to Yvonne for such a flattering introduction to my rather mostly unremarkable persona. ”

You are an officer, gentleman, scholar and remarkable in your depth of knowledge of history, military and technical matters, IMHO.

I’m American, and you’re right.

You might be right if it actually is bullshit. I wouldn’t want to gamble on that myself but you and others might feel lucky.

All of this scary bullshit is a great way to encourage more wasteful spending on the MIC

Reagan’s Star Wars bankrupted the USSR. Putin and Xi are applying what they learned.

The teeter-totter of dissemination of the masses… political BS that separates us from our humanity!?^%… The elite Machiavellian illuminati…the chosen ones and the hyper dense filaments of light… who are they…? the untouchables of the golden spoon in mouth group…royals of history that have raped pillaged and controlled humanity from every the seat of power…yes the unseen hand of political-economic warfare…they only want wars they can live through….( they sit around a round table)…yes planning using us as vessels to exterminate in mass… 🙂

Dear Y.L.,

I believe you are missing the whole point here. The US left the ABM treaty (one of the keystones of world peace) and started the missile defense initiative both of them unilaterally. This was obviously viewed by Moscow as a threatening act, since is already proven, a Soviet era ICBM can in fact be intercepted. Moscow offered so much the West: after giving up to 20% of its territorry, bringing back home all of its troops from abroad and closing almost all of its bases abroad, it even proposed the US for Russia to join NATO in order to end any potential future competition again, but the US did not recognize the gesture from a “gentle man” who literally recognized the US as the winner of the Cold War and was willing to work together even by US terms. Instead of accepting the offer, the US decided to put try to put Russia in check (as in chess), jeopardizing its defense abilities by putting interceptors on its border, encircling Russia with bases, and pointing a gun on it with the prompt global strike proposal. Now after 17 years we see the exact opposite scenario, now the US is on check. Russia can defend itself with S-500 and other redundant system including lasers, plasma weapons and defense against hypersonic missile. And can overcome any air defense existing now or to be bild on the next 30 years. You missed the point of the cruise missiles with infinite range: they fly low enough to overcome existing radars and are much cheaper than ICBMs (that are detectable). By the way, you will be able to check it on the World Cup, Russia’s economy is going well indeed: thanks to the West sanctions, products that were imported before are now produced in Russia, developing internal economy.

US government debt now about $21 TRILLION, (That’s $60,000 per person) and rising at about $1.5 trillion a year. So something’s gotta give. We are talking here about an economic collapse being bequeathed to our children. Military spending, at about $0.9 trillion a year must be on the list of cutbacks.

Wait for it……… the dollar will lead the way.

The biggest problem for every empire is arrogance, corruption and culture of stagnation. That has happened to Roman Empire, Soviet Union and more likely in USA. The “victory” (1991) bred that arrogance and since it things have getting worse and worse.

It looks like all empires are doomed – sooner or later. Nowadays we don’t have to wait for 500 years. Things goes at least 10 times faster. But here’s the point: when Empire had done, there is chance for better America for Americans. I doubt does any American really love their military industrial complex if prize is destruction of civil society.

The U.S. is ramping up defense spending — to build more ships for the navy that are sitting ducks for hypersonic anti-ship missiles.

fact is, Russia should not leave the US/UK/France (and wtf is France doing in there) agression unanswered. Sadly, as dangerous as it is, Russia must respond with actions that, if at all possible, are comparable to what was done in Syria by the three israel slaves.

Doing nothing is not an option.

If these weapons systems are not used, and everyone, including and especially the US, knows they will not be used, then that’s the most important ‘implication’ right there, isn’t it?

Yes, thank God for Russia. The world enjoyed their nearly a whole century’s worth of keeping everyone on edge and their KGB poisoning U.S. institutions. Unfortunately for them, the poisoning of those institutions is largely why the U.S. is currently so sick, and therefore incapable of reassessing its relationship with Russia in a more positive direction.

Hi all,
I quote the last sentence: “After all, Russia did try a kind word alone, it didn’t work and the United States has only itself to blame.”
I don’t agree fully : The US can blame the Zionists that exhausted the US after the GB, and many others before since antiquity. Read Douglas Reed, The Controversy of Zion to understand how GB and US diplomacies where enslaved to Zionist interests during the XXth century.
Free pdf download:
https://www.controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/reeedcontrov.pdf

Kind regards,
Walt

INF treaty.

Quote -” This failure to bargain does explain Gorbachev, Shevardnadze and their “team” being extremely unwelcoming of Soviet military professionals during April 1987 negotiations with Americans. In fact, the Soviet military was excluded from negotiations altogether—a first indicator of shady intentions on Gorbachev’s part. The compromise reached was so one-sided that even Gorbachev himself started to feel very uncomfortable. He expressed his concerns to…US Secretary of State George Shultz, instead of conferring with his own military.

In fact, Gorbachev’s behavior was absolutely bizarre and betrayed for any trained eye his desperate desire to be liked by the combined West regardless of costs for his own country.”

I usually do not watch that kind of videos.

Very well. I don’t think it says anything I’m not reading from The Saker.

I notice you just commented on your blog on Trump’s true nature.

And perhaps it’s pointless to try to predict the future.

But The Saker just posted on Unz today here: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/what-price-for-collapse-of-the-empire/

But there are also posts on ZeroHedge. President Carter issued a warning to Trump. And there’s this:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-13/taking-world-brink-annihilation

Today there is the imminent possibility of a major attack based on the allegations of a clearly biased source. What ever happened to international law and legal due process? Why is violence being threatened before there is a serious objective investigation of the chemical incident? If the accusations against Syria are true, why not have a serious investigation, especially now that the area has been liberated today (9 April) and safe access can be provided?

The drums of war are pounding. After over one year of incessant Russia bashing and disinformation, is the public ready to go to war with Russia over Syria? Neoconservative hawks and their Israeli and Saudi allies seem to want this. Their plans and predictions for Iraq, Libya and Yemen were delusional fantasies with the price paid in blood by the people of those countries and in treasure by Americans as well. Sadly, there has not been any accountability for the media and political establishment that promoted and launched these wars. Now they want to escalate the aggression by attacking Syria, causing vastly more blood to flow and risking confrontation with a country which can fight back.

And I just found out Prof. Stephen Cohen was on Tucker Carlson last night:

Here’s Haley:

It looks to me that only prediction of the future I can make that is accurate is that there will be war.

And even if the majority of Americans want to stop it, the demon possessed won’t listen to us. May the wrath of God and eternal torment be their future.

I recall, a post around two years or so, of a column related to the Russian rocket engine. I believe it was written by Lockheed-Martin {not sure if they were the author} that they had purchased 100 Russian rocket engines, stating that we were, at a minimum, at least decade behind the Russian system. Seems to me we just never admit that anyone, anywhere could be better than us. It is not only foolish, it is top limit dangerous.

What do you think?

I usually do not watch that kind of videos.

Andrei, SouthFront just posted this video. Saker reposted.

What do you think?

Syria Escalation Scenarios: US Military Options, Russian Responses

I explain it here:

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/04/are-we-there-yet.html

Including:

Basically, Trump not only humiliates himself and the country, whose geopolitical weight is dwindling on hourly basis, he destroyed any chance of meaningful discussion with Russia on any serious geopolitical issue. From here Russia will take it alone and I really doubt that Vladimir Putin will lower himself to traveling to Washington for an alleged summit. There is no reason for it anyway. Russia called Trump’s bluff and the picture is going to be increasingly ugly from now on. He still, probably, will launch some kind of salvo at some point of time to indicate relevance but, I think, Trump’s presidency is finished and once mid-term elections of 2018 are held, who knows where it will go from there.The rest is for political pseudo-scientists and talking heads to decide. He and his “team” really chose wrong people and country to fvck with. Just to demonstrate the cultural abyss in relation to real war. Yesterday’s broadcast on one of the major TV networks. No panic, just business.

Thank you!

What happened this morning? I’ll have to turn on the TV.

I explain it here:

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/04/are-we-there-yet.html

What happened this morning? I’ll have to turn on the TV.

Wait, do you mean Germany?

https://sputniknews.com/world/201804121063479088-germany-syria-strikes-merkel/

“Germany will not take part in possible military action — I want to make clear again that there are no decisions — but we see, and support this, that everything is being done to send a signal that this use of chemical weapons is not acceptable,” Chancellor Merkel said on Thursday.

Is that the news?

So, PCR’s comment has a technical merit. I do disagree, however, with his military-political conclusion about Russia “denying herself a decisive victory”. What happened this morning testifies to the contrary.

What happened this morning? I’ll have to turn on the TV.

I did cite your 800 Pound Gorilla on The Saker’s site yesterday answering other people’s questions.

Thanks so much for your expertise and kind reply.

Deployment of Kinzhal in Southern Military District (and I speculate–possible redeployment of Mig-31BMs which carry it to Crimea), the same as a possibility (how probable? I don’t know) of SSGNs to carry 3M22 Zircon effectively annuls any NATO naval asset in Med. That is why desperate plea from Macron not to retaliate against French naval assets, as one of the examples of awareness of the consequences. The US bluff effectively has been called and it has everything to do with my earlier piece about 800-pound gorilla which effectively described such a scenario but without (at that time unknown) factor of Kinzhal and Zircon.

http://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/

So, PCR’s comment has a technical merit. I do disagree, however, with his military-political conclusion about Russia “denying herself a decisive victory”. What happened this morning testifies to the contrary.

Andrei, I am not asking you to speculate given recent news, but I wonder if Paul Craig Roberts’ comments here have any technical merit:

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/10/last-days-hell-breaks-loose/

It is difficult not be be pessimistic when we learn that the Washington Insane Asylum has sent a Carrier Strike Group accompanied by seven missile ships to join the one missile ship already offshore the Russian base in Syria. Whether any of these sitting ducks survive or are permitted to launch a single missile or the carrier to launch a single fighter is entirely up to the Russians.

The Russians know that they can, at will within a few minutes, sink the entire US fleet, destroy every US airplane and ship in the Middle East and within range of the Middle East, completely destroy all of Israel’s military capability and wipe out the military of the two-bit punk state of Saudi Arabia. All the sitting ducks have been set up for Russia by the arrogant and stupid Americans. Just a few minutes of Russian attack and all ability to conduct war would be stripped from the Middle East. This would be a good thing.,

All Russia has to do to insure that the US has no choice but to accept instant defeat is to put Russian nuclear forces on red alert. Any resort by the idiots in Washington of a nuclear nature would mean the end of the United States and all of Western Europe along with the UK. It would mean the total end of the West for all time, an event the rest of the world would consider to be a good thing. Hopefully the US military, the last and constantly besieged source of honor in the US, understands this and would not comply with a suicidal order from an insane war cabinet.

In my opinion the Russians will not go so far and will deny themselves a decisive victory, because they do not comprehend the total evil that is concentrated in Washington and Israel. There are enough naive Atlanticist Integrationists left in the Russian government to argue that Russia must give Washington and Europe one more chance to come to their senses. One more chance is what Russia and the world cannot afford.

Now, are his thoughts about “sitting ducks” and “sink the entire US fleet” born out by facts? As to putting nuclear forces on red alert, that sounds like a Soviet tactic and Putin is (far too?) restrained.

Thanks if you’re reading these still. I appreciate your thoughts. We all do.

So, then really the best option for the NATO rebellion against having a magna carta for the rulers of the world, is probably to sneak a secret thermonuke into Moscow and detonate.. Financing ISIS is the reveal for NATO, you just can’t survive as a democratic social construct once everyone knows. The system would be reformed out at best. Would be psycho crazy but then you actually maybe could think that you could hold the world to ransom..

Ok…first off glad you appreciate my simplified explanation…

Second…thanks for raising a serious technical question…

I do appreciate that…and will use this opportunity to delve a little more deeply into the technicalities…and hopefully provide a satisfactory clarification…

Let me refer first to this part of your comment…

‘…In your analysis you seem to omit an essential aspect of conversion of heat energy to pressure and eventually to work output. I refer to the change of state of the matter used in the energy conversion cycle…’

Ok…so as I mentioned in the original comment…I had only touched briefly on the thermodynamics of heat engines…now we need to drill down a little more…

Now…what you are referring to here, specifically with regard to change of state…applies specifically to one type of heat engine cycle…

This is of course the Rankine Cycle…on which all steam plants work…

Now…we first note that the Rankine Cycle is a fundamentally different type of cycle than the ‘gas cycle’ on which jet engines run…

The Rankine is a vapor cycle…where change of state is an important factor…ie the change of water from its liquid state to a vapor…and the reversing of that in the subsequent part of the cycle where the steam vapor is condensed back to liquid water…

No such change of state occurs in any gas cycle…either the Brayton cycle… on which jet engines [gas turbines] run…nor with the Otto [spark ignition…ie petrol car engine]…nor the Diesel [compression ignition] cycles…

‘…When water changes its state, its specific volume increases by a factor of almost 1000 : 1. This expansion is what “creates” the bulk of the pressure in a steam turbine plant…

Similar thing, on a much larger scale, occurs in a jet engine…’

Here is where your analogy goes astray…

Nothing remotely similar happens in the jet engine [Brayton Cycle]…

Notice I have italicized the ‘specific volume’ part of your sentence…

Here is where people get tripped up about jet engines…the combustion chamber of the jet engine [aka ‘burner’] operates at constant pressure…

There is no increase in pressure…

[In fact there is a slight decrease in pressure due to entropy losses]…

This is because the jet engine is a constant flow device that is open at both ends…I had mentioned this in my original comment…like water flowing through a pipe…

It is not a constant volume cycle like the Otto most people are familiar with…ie the air is delivered into the cylinder…the valves close and we have a constant volume…the burning of the fuel therefore greatly increases the pressure in that closed space…

This is clearly what you are referring to here…

But there is no closed space in a jet engine…it is always open at both ends and the flow is constant…I had also mentioned this difference in my original comment…[no valves opening or closing]…

To fully understand this let us present some visuals…here is the basic schematic of a gas turbine engine…

Notice here the four stages of the cycle…compression from 1 to 2…combustion from 2 to 3…and expansion from 3 to 4…

Now let us look at the pressures and temperatures associated with each step in the cycle…

Here are the temperature-entropy and pressure-volume diagrams of a jet engine…

We note first in the T-s diagram that the combustion portion of the cycle…ie 2 to 3…is labeled ‘constant pressure’…

And we see this affirmed by looking at the P-v diagram at bottom…where pressure is shown in ordinate axis [vertical axis] rather than temperature…

So the assumption that the Brayton Cycle works like a Rankine cycle is unfortunately not correct…but this is an important distinction…

Let us now look at how a constant volume gas cycle works…ie the Otto cycle used in car engines…here is the pressure-volume diagram…

We see here that compression takes place from 1 to 2…and combustion takes place from 2 to 3…

And we see here that as heat is added by combustion…ie q in…the pressure rises significantly…

This is due of course to the cylinder being closed at this point…so the addition of heat causes the increase in the gas specific volume [inverse of density]…

Ie the gas becomes less dense…but since it has nowhere to go…the pressure inside that closed chamber must increase…

This is the fundamental difference between a ‘closed system’ such as a piston engine cylinder…and a ‘control volume’…such as a jet engine…

Also to clarify your thoughts on the Rankine Cycle…

‘…Water enters the boiler as a compressed liquid at state 2 and leaves as a superheated vapor at state 3.

The boiler is basically a large heat exchanger where the heat originating from combustion gases, nuclear reactors, or other sources is transferred to the water essentially at constant pressure.

The boiler, together with the section where the steam is superheated (the superheater), is often called the steam generator…’

So we see that in actuality…the Rankine cycle does not actually work on the constant volume basis either…

Ie the change of state does not appreciably increase the pressure…

The above illustrations and quotes from Cengel…Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach…

Thanks for your good question…and I hope other technically inclined participants will likewise inquire as to anything that may not be clear from any of my discussion…

I’d like to thank you for this informative article, like many others already have.
However, I’d like to raise some additional questions.

In your analysis you seem to omit an essential aspect of conversion of heat energy to pressure and eventually to work output. I refer to the change of state of the matter used in the energy conversion cycle.

Let’s take the steam turbine as an example. The operating pressure of a steam power generating turbine is around 50 – 60 [bar] (715 – 850 psi). This pressure is than converted to kinetic energy (at the steam turbine nozzle) which turns the generator wheel (useful work output) so eventually we get electricity.

When water changes its state, its specific volume increases by a factor of almost 1000 : 1. This expansion is what “creates” the bulk of the pressure in a steam turbine plant. Additional heat is then used to increase the vapor temperature to super-heated levels of 300 -350 oC and increase the steam pressure to 50-60 [bar]. Super-heating of water vapor is also needed to eliminate any traces of water liquid droplets in the vapor stream which can be catastrophic to turbine vanes.

Similar thing, on a much larger scale, occurs in a jet engine. The pressure energy is obtained by transforming the chemical energy in the fuel through combustion. The combustion creates gases with higher specific volumes to the liquid fuel, with specific volume ratios going as high as 20000 : 1 .

In your description of the nuclear fuel powered missile, I note that a change of state is missing. Cold air enters the heat exchanger, heated air leaves it and enters the “combustion chamber” of the missile with no change of state.

The air expansion ratios obtained are modest – up to 10 : 1 (obtained by heating the air from -20 deg C to 1500 deg C). This does not seem nearly sufficient to provide the required thrust to a missile.

(I have not been able to find online data for air specific volume changes at temperatures in excess of 1500 – 1600 deg. C.)

So, just heating the air, absent the change of state, does not create high expansion rates to provide propulsion to a missile.

PS. Unless air is heated to plasma state temperatures above 5000-7000 deg. C, but I will stop here since I do not have any experience in this area.

With due respect.

I preferred tech writers who weren’t engineers. They took less for granted.

No apology necessary Thor…

There is nothing wrong with making a mistake…the smartest people I know make them all the time…it’s inevitable…

I have made numerous mistakes here also…although I try to catch them upon reviewing what I put up…it’s the nature of this rapid-fire internet format…

I’m planning to discuss aircraft turning performance in an upcoming post about the Su57s…which recently saw some flight time in Syria..,

Regards,

FB…

I hope this message reaches you.

I just want to apologize for being wrong.

I had in my head for some reason that for the missile to intercept the aircraft that its horizontal speed must match or exceed that of the aircraft.

That is true eventually, but not initially.

There is a big difference between a technical writer…and a journalist…

That depends on the individual writer, but both professions require mastery of standard English, and many if not most tech writers have a journalism background. Note the requirements for that NASA job listing — no engineering degree required, but journalism degree is required:

Minimum Requirements:
• Bachelor’s Degree in Space, Planetary Science, or Science Journalism
• 3+ years experience in reporting science with non-scientists
• Ability to work independently as well as within interdisciplinary teams
• Exemplary organizational skills and careful attention to detail
• Time management skills to balance multiple projects at once
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills…
• Experience using the Microsoft Office suite
• Must be US citizen or Permanent Resident

Desired:
• Master’s degree in Space, Planetary Science, or Science Journalism
• Experience in science or technical writing for the public
• Experience in copy, editing, proofreading, and knowledge of AP Style
• Experience with graphic design and design software
• Experience in developing videos or other broadcast-quality content

I noticed you didn’t backtrack on your incorrect claim about no photographers at NASA, but you did try your hand at a little creative but deceptive editing, where you left out the important part:

‘…Engineers, scientists, and other professionals may also be involved in technical writing…’

Here is that full description of technical writing from Wikipedia, with my bold:

Engineers, scientists, and other professionals may also be involved in technical writing (developmental editing, proofreading, etc), but are more likely to employ professional technical writers to develop, edit and format material, and advise the best means of information delivery to their audiences.

You wrote:

You clearly have no experience in a technical profession…I know many engineers and scientists who are excellent writers…

Some are; many are not. If all engineers and scientists could write well, there would be no need for technical writers. Of course, a counterclaim might be that the engineer’s time is best spent on engineering, and hire a writer to do the writing, and in my long experience, that’s the way it usually works.

You’re wrong again about my professional experience, as well, as it includes many years producing various technical publications for engineering and manufacturing concerns, including but not limited to tech writing, tech illustration, and photography.

Bottom line: What matters is the message, and not the messenger.

There is a big difference between a technical writer…and a journalist…

‘…Engineers, scientists, and other professionals may also be involved in technical writing…’

I can attest that this is the case in that many of the best technical writers I know have a formal background in the hard sciences…

You clearly have no experience in a technical profession…I know many engineers and scientists who are excellent writers…

Publishing a technical paper in a peer-reviewed journal requires good writing skills…

The technical writer who does not have a formal hard science background is still going to work closely with technical people to get up to speed…

So I find the gist of your comment incredibly presumptuous and quite ignorant…and you are conflating two vastly different professions…

My point in that comment that you responded to was that laymen do a very poor job of discussing technical matters…simply because they do not have the educational or practical background…

This is a problem of epic proportions in the pop-sci press…like ‘The Drive’…National Interest…Business Insider etc…

These are not technical writers by any stretch of the imagination…

You listed a number of technical writer job openings at Nasa…those require quite specific qualifications…none of the people writing for the above type of publications would come close to qualifying for a technical writer position…

I also mentioned the problem that these types of ‘fanboy’ publications are driven by massive PR spending by big corporations in the defense and aerospace sector…the PR industry is all about media manipulation…

Journalists often move into PR and vice versa…

The same is not true for technical writing…especially in the engineering field where solid technical credentials are often a must…journalists simply do not have those…

Now how many ‘journalists and photographers’ are employed at Nasa…Lockheed ‘Skunk Works’…etc…

Exactly zero…

Wrong. Engineers are notoriously poor writers, and that fact accounts for the widespread employment of tech writers to produce documentation and publications in a wide variety of engineering, manufacturing, and scientific companies.

NASA employs no small number of both photographers and tech writers.

While NASA astronauts have ready-made opportunities to take photographs of unique value, NASA’s on-the-ground professional photographers also have contributed to a record of images that never cease to inspire awe and wonder. Some of their favorite pictures are featured in this section.

https://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/photographers.html

Meanwhile, one job search engine returns 27 current openings at NASA for technical writers:

ES171 Senior Science Writer
Work with us to help NASA teach people about their Planet.
The successful candidate will provide science writing and outreach support to the NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center Solar System Exploration Division.
Summary of job duties:

• Research and write feature stories, press releases, advisories and tip sheets [t]o highlight the work done by scientists in the Solar System Exploration Division (SSED) at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Develop products that meet a high standard for storytelling, reporting and accuracy.
…

https://www.indeed.com/q-Nasa-Technical-Writer-jobs.html

Just as the proof of the pudding is in the eating,¹
So too the proof of the writing is in the reading.² ³

¹ William Camden
² Sparkon
³ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/magazine/19wwln-safire-t.html

Any gas will do. Probably Hydrogen is the most efficient.
The gas has to be compressed to very high pressure. Decrease of temperature happen by Gas increasing the volume.

Really, with Kinzhal, all’s you need is to get 10 missile carrier ships, line them with em, and spread em accross any part of open ocean, 2000km apart. And you block whole continents.

Y.L., Are you writing from one of the NSA troll farms or from home?
Just curiosity.

Putin’s speech really caught the USA on the back foot.
I would have thought that with all our alphabet soup agencies, our prescient and telepathic information gatherers, our huge budgets, we could have (a) had all this information at hand, with complete blueprints of every device and (b) simply pre-empted Putin’s speech by printing it in WaPo the day before, along with said plans.
That we didn’t do this probably means that we are as useless and vainglorious in the spy business as we are in the military business.
America – stick a fork in, it’s done.

Very thorough.

Thanks, interesting and informative.

Ok…so we are finally going to get around to the nuclear propulsion subject…

Our purpose…again…is to consider technical aspects of known capabilities in order to ascertain whether such a ‘nuclear-powered’ cruise missile is indeed feasible…

Now you will notice the italicized part…in reality…the ‘nuclear’ cruise missile would be powered by a perfectly conventional jet engine…as with all subsonic cruise missiles…such as the US Tomahawk and the Russian Kalibr…

The ‘nuclear’ part in reality would be the fuel source…so we are talking more precisely about a nuclear-fueled cruise missile…not nuclear-powered…

This may come as a surprise to some people who imagine that nuclear may involve some explosions or at least lots of radiation release…this is very far from the physical reality of how nuclear energy works…

In order to understand this concept fully…it is necessary to understand first how a conventional cruise missile works…as well as how nuclear energy works…let’s start with the cruise missile…

Below is the Russian 3M54 Kalibr…

We note first that this vehicle has wings which support it in flight…like any aircraft…its tail fins provide aerodynamic control of the flight path about all three axes…again…as with an aircraft…

The missile flies at a subsonic speed of about 500 mph…[800 km/hr] again about the cruising speed of a passenger jet…

And finally the cruise missile is powered by a turbojet or turbofan engine that burns kerosene jet fuel and is functionally identical to the kind of engine we see on a passenger jet…

Let us examine the US T-hawk…which is powered by a Williams F107 turbofan engine…

Let us now consider the basic working principles of a jet engine of the type as seen here…

Here we see a schematic of a turbojet engine…which illustrates the basic operating principle of this type of engine…

We notice that air flows continuously into the inlet at the front…and is then compressed by the compressor to a higher air pressure…and then flows into the burner where fuel is added…

The hot gas exiting the burner flows into the turbine section…which we note is connected to the compressor by means of a common shaft…which means the power to spin the compressor comes from the turbine…

After exiting the turbine section…the gas is ejected out the aft end of the engine through a nozzle [ie a passage of converging cross-section area…just like a garden hose nozzle]…

The nozzle accelerates the gas flow to a high speed…by converting the gas pressure energy into kinetic [ie speed] energy…

The result is that the efflux of hot gas from the nozzle…creates a thrust force in the opposite direction…on the principle of action-reaction from Newton’s Third Law of Motion…[this is why jet and rocket engines are often called ‘reaction’ engines…]

We note that the engine is a constant-flow device…ie the flow throughout the engine…from front to back is constant…just like the flow of water through a pipe…[unlike a car piston engine where the air comes in through valves that open and close…]

We also note that there is basically a single moving assembly…the compressor=shaft-turbine…which motion is purely rotational…

This simplicity of design allows for light weight while making large amounts of power [ie thrust]…

A cutaway view of a turbojet engine shows the details…in this case the GE J85 engine…

We see here the compressor section in front which consists of several wheels [aka ‘stages’] with aerodynamic blading…designed to compress the air as it flows throoug those blade rows…

We see two turbine wheels [stages] at the aft end…which are driven by the hot gases flowing from the burner section immediately forward of the turbine section…

We also see that the compressor section and turbine section are rigidly connected together by means of an axle shaft…

Finally…we see at the aft end the converging area nozzle that accelerates the gas in the aft direction…thus creating thrust in the forward direction…

To understand why this all works…we need to just touch on some basic principles of thermodynamics…a branch of physics that deals with energy…and how energy works in heat engines…

We note that there are two types of energy involved in any heat engine…whether jet like this one…or a piston engine…or even an air conditioning/refrigeration unit [also a heat engine]…

Those three types of energy are pressure energy…heat energy…and work energy…the first two combine to create the desired end product work energy…which is the thrust…or shaft power…in the case of other types of engines…

[With a jet engine an additional turbine wheel or wheels can be added that will drive a shaft that can turn a propeller, fan, or electrical generator…rather than expelling gases as thrust…]

We note that…according to the physical laws of thermodynamics only pressure energy can be converted to work energy in a heat engine…which is why every kind of heat engine needs compression…

The heat energy that is added in the burner means that a given amount of pressure energy can make more work…

This is the key to why this type of device works…if you did not add the fuel to make heat energy…then there would not be enough power even to drive the compressor…nor to make any work with the energy that is left over…

At this point it is important to stop and point out an important fact…a nuclear ‘powered’ cruise missile would use exactly the same kind of engine as we have discussed here…

The only difference is that the heat energy added inside the burner…[see the schematic above with the arrow showing heat energy added]…comes not from burning kerosene…but from a nuclear fission type reactor of a type similar used in electric power plants submarines, aircraft carriers etc…

Obviously this kind of powerplant would have to quite small and light…

Let’s first put some numbers to the temperatures inside that cruise missile turbojet [or turbofan] engine…[running on kerosene]…

The maximum engine temperature will be inside the burner where fuel is mixed with the flowing air and burned…this will reach about 1,000 C…

This temperature is limited by the metallurgy of the turbine wheel…and on this type of small and simple engine the maximum temp will be less than that seen inside the burner of a large and sophisticated engine seen in passenger jets and combat aircraft…where the turbine inlet temperature [TIT] may reach to 1,500 C or even higher…

We note also that the temperature of the air exiting the compressor will be about 300 C…this is due to the fact that compressing air increases its temperature…

So the burner needs to increase the temperature of that airflow by 700 C…

It does not matter where that temperature increase comes from…in the case of this jet engine that comes from burning fuel…but it could just as easily come from the heat produced by a small nuclear reactor…

Now let us examine exactly how a nuclear reactor works…and how that heat could be used in a jet engine…

Here is a useful schematic of a nuclear reactor…

We see here that there are two distinct and separate loops to this system…

One is the yellow/red loop whereby a coolant circulates through the reactor vessel and picks up heat from the nuclear fission taking place there…

We see that this coolant circulates in a closed loop…and the circulation is provided by means of a pump seen turning at the bottom of the loop…

We also see the blue loop which is plainly an open loop…here we see that the steam generator gets heat energy from that closed coolant loop that passes right through the steam generator…thereby transferring its heat to the steam generator…

Here is the crucial point…the two loops are not in direct contact with each other…they never mix…the reactor coolant is obviously highly radioactive and is shielded completely…

As the shielded coolant passes through its own shielded passage inside the steam generator…no radioactivity is transferred…

Only heat is transferred between the two separate loops…which never mix…

We see by looking at the rest of the blue loop that it gets its water from a nearby large water source like a river or lake…and then returns that water right back to the same river or lake after completing its cycle…

Obviously…there can be no radioactivity dumped overboard…

We see that the heat energy from the reactor that is passed to the steam generator then spins a turbine that, in turn, spins an electric generator…

The coolant used in that closed loop in the reactor can be many different things…ie pressurized water…some kind of gas…or even liquid metal [ie mercury, lead, tin etc…]…

So we see the basic concept coming together for transferring heat from a small nuclear reactor to the burner of a jet engine…two separate loops where the radioactive coolant loop is closed and shielded…

…and the airflow through the engine burner which is simply heated just like the steam generator in that schematic…[if we think of the steam generator as the burner in the above jet engine schematic we have the exact configuration…]

Here is what this schematic would look like…

We see here that air exiting the compressor is diverted to a heat exchanger which transfers the heat from the nuclear reactor to the engine airflow…

The hot airflow exits the heat exchanger and returns to the engine to drive the turbine section and to continue to the nozzle to make thrust…

We note that just like the nuclear power plant…the two separate flow loops do not come into direct contact with each other and no radioactivity is transferred…

The only difference is that we are heating air instead of water…

Now we have heard from certain ‘quarters’ that this very idea is ‘Putin wishcasting’…and that this type of nuclear propulsion would…

‘…result in irradiating everything in the flight path…’

Clearly this is not the case…

We heard from the same ‘quarters’ that…

‘…The US looked at such things and saw they were too dangerous to even test…’

It is true that nuclear-fueled aircraft propulsion has been experimented with in the past…[as has nuclear thermal rocket propulsion…which works on the same principle…]

…but we also note that the Wright Brothers first flight was about 150 ft…and technical progress did not stop there…

Let’s review some of the past programs…

Both the USSR and the USA experimented with nuclear fuel propulsion…a brief overview…

Here we see the HTRE-3 design…

We see two conventional jet engines at bottom [GE J87]…with a rather large nuclear reactor at top…with pipes feeding air to and from the engines to the nuclear reactor…

‘…The J87 was a large turbojet…engine of conventional layout, save for the combustion chambers being replaced by a nuclear reactor where half of the total air-flow through the turbojet sections was used for direct-cycle cooling of the reactor…’

This is an open-loop cycle where the air from the two engines is used to directly cool the reactor…and hence heat the airflow for the jet engines…here is a schematic of that type of configuration…

We see here that the air in direct contact with the nuclear fuel will in fact absorb radiation…hence the problem of emitting a radioactive trail…

Here is a description of that direct air cycle…

‘…Direct cycle nuclear engines would resemble a conventional jet engine, except that there would be no combustion chambers.

The air… from the compressor section would be sent to a plenum that directs the air into the nuclear reactor core.

An exchange takes place where the reactor is cooled, but it…heats up the same air and sends it … into a turbine, which sends it out the exhaust.

The end result is that instead of using jet fuel, an aircraft could rely on the heat from nuclear reactions for power…’

The US had a plan to create an indirect cycle as well…which was assigned to Pratt and Whitney…

This would work on the exact principle illustrated in the schematic of the closed loop shown above…

‘…Indirect cycling involves thermal exchange outside of the core with compressor air being sent to a heat exchanger.

The nuclear reactor core would heat up pressurized water or liquid metal and send it to the heat exchanger…

That hot liquid would be cooled by the air; the air would be heated by the liquid and sent to the turbine. The turbine would send the air out the exhaust, providing thrust.

The Indirect Air Cycle program was assigned to Pratt & Whitney, at a facility near Middletown, Connecticut.

This concept would have produced far less radioactive pollution…’

So we see that the two approaches are fundamentally different…it is indeed possible to design an indirect cycle…ie closed dual loop…where the two streams are kept physically separated and heat is transferred without transferring radioactivity…

There is of course a need to shield the reactor as well…but with an unmanned aircraft such as a subsonic cruise missile…pilot irradiation [a major concern of those manned aircraft] is not an issue…

Here are some of the major engineering challenges…

The main one is to make the reactor small and light enough to fit on a cruise missile that is only about 20 inches in diameter…the fuel load carried by a cruise missile is about one pound for each mile of range…for a range of 1,000 miles that means 1,000 lb of fuel…

The Kalibr is said to have a range of 2,500 km…which is ~1,500 miles…that means that a reactor maximum weight of 1,500 lb would be possible…

The other major challenge is in heat exchanger technology…this is not trivial…it is in fact a major challenge to transfer heat with high effectiveness…

However…we note here that Russia is the undisputed world leader in nuclear power technology…Rosatom holds one third of the world nuclear industry…

Russia was a leader in small reactors for satellites…like the Topaz nuclear reactor…

So we see that a purely technical evaluation of the nuclear cruise missile announced by Putin on March 1 is indeed a very real possibility…there is no insurmountable engineering challenge…certainly there are a number of very large challenges…but it is doable…

This seems to be the view of some observers…

‘…A RAND Corporation researcher specializing in Russia said “My guess is they’re not bluffing, that they’ve flight-tested this thing. But that’s incredible.”..’

You misunderstood my remark about nuclear propulsion…it is very possible…and I have been meaning to get to posting a thorough technical explanation of what is involved…stay tuned…

[Too many stupid cartoons—This isn’t 4chan. Including cartoon images will greatly increase the likelihood that your comment will get trashed.]

In your reply to ‘PeterAus’ you said…

‘…I think you meant throes rather than thrones…’

I’m not sure about that one…

Remember Erebus deciphering Petey’s puzzling references…?

He figured out that it was about ‘game of thrones…’

In your reply to ‘PeterAus’ you said…

‘…I am surprised that you seem not to understand the real purpose of nukes as a former officer as you insinuated…’

Hey…what do you mean by that…don’t you know our Petey commanded a ‘battalion’ of potatohead soldiers…[and I believe he is still in the ‘reserves’…so to speak]

Now looking back at Trump’s idea to engage Russia — it is clear ghat he was right all along.

Of course he was. What’s also now clear is that he had (and still has) a lot of crap to jettison before he can get the political running room needed to engage meaningfully.

Just when I was starting to have delusions about a possible career as a stand-up comedian, everybody decided to piss on my parade. You are all good people, you just don’t have any sense of humor (those of you who didn’t get the joke).

I suggest re-reading the announcement, and grasp implications. So far, very few analysts have tackled the technological gap. Scientific gap. And battlefield implications. Just the sub drone at such depths and speed insures that no missile carrying submarine can outrun it, ir endanger it. All subs encircling Russia are put on notice. All aircraft carrier groups, cruisers and destroyers, put on notice. All coastal facilities, ports, docks, shipyards, command and control centers on notice. And no known vulnerability of the drone. Kinzhal is putying on notice all land based missile defence, cun offence installation. Cruise missiles with unlimited range and supersonic capabilities made possible by miniturizing submarine nuclear reactor 100 times, and the new alloys that allow for the meteor like winged missiles fall in a near plasma state, while still being under remote control.
The advance in hypersonic capabilities is in itself groundbreaking. These are all changes in warfare as we know it.

And it is also not wise to assume that it will take years for all these technologies to be available — as announced, all existing lauchers, sylos etc have been retrofitted to handle new weapons. It will be wise to assume that the ling range cruise missiles are already skimming ocean surfaces.

First, some heads should roll, and intelligence taken back from the privatized, profitmaking corporate airheads. It looks like we have been flying blind.

Only weeks ago, Biden made a speech at Munich Security conference, where he ridiculed Russia and its economy, as if Western sanctions have done the damage. Such silly messages may have worked knce, when Rusdia’s population did not travel, and know anything about outside world. Now, any Russian knows about the epidemic of homelessness in UK, or a catastrophy of EU membership that is Greece. And the fact, US rating agencies have just jncreased Russia’s rating. How stupid these biasts look like now — as Russia’s grain exports are supplying nearly half of the workd’s import demand. And non-GMO to boot.

But we are not done with nation building yet. In Syria, planning to sit around and nation build Kurdistan. Planning to sit around in Iraq — just in case. Planning to stay gorever in Afghanistan and Lybia, in Somalia and Niger, and over 800 bases around globe. Just supplies cost millions per solldier a year. Nd sll the forward deployment resulting in wear and tear in both equipment and people. This 19th century empire building is meeting 22nd century warfare. Knowing that we have swamp bittom feeders in bureacracy — not just military — we are facing some dangerous times. We have Nikki Haley in UN screeching for some military action, as a drunk gambler not being fully cognizant of the enormity if his loss.

Now looking back at Trump’s idea to engage Russia — it is clear ghat he was right all along.

I don’t read that kind of analyses. Wars are not fought as one weapon system vs another, it is way more complex than that, plus no US fighter since Vietnam faced real serious AD and EW system. Nor did it face competent pilots. Today these are networks which fight, not just separate weapon systems. F-22 is a good aircraft but that’s about it.

You’re right; you’re the expert. So much of what I read on the WWW is presented as being from authority. But half the time the commentators have no idea what they’re talking about.

I guess it just makes for fun click-bait videos on YouTube. Thanks for the clarification.

I think they truly think they’re exceptional and invincible.

Some of them do. Not all. Many real American military and intelligence professionals don’t think this way. There are rules of PR which must be obeyed. Plus, as Saker described in his excellent article–there are several stages of grief.

BTW, this is a good piece on the F-22 vs. the Su-35.

I don’t read that kind of analyses. Wars are not fought as one weapon system vs another, it is way more complex than that, plus no US fighter since Vietnam faced real serious AD and EW system. Nor did it face competent pilots. Today these are networks which fight, not just separate weapon systems. F-22 is a good aircraft but that’s about it.

What do you expect Mattis to say, I surrender? Of course not. It is damage control.

Of course not. But as I noted with Iran, which perhaps either you or The Saker can cover in a future piece for Unz, the situation is very dangerous. I think they truly think they’re exceptional and invincible.

BTW, this is a good piece on the F-22 vs. the Su-35.

http://theduran.com/american-fighters-f-22-raptor-air-niche-too-thin/

The reports are disputed, but there are at least two incidents accounted for in which the Russian planes were successful in driving the F-22’s out of the areas they were in. Stealth capabilities are terrific for military action at a distance, but things are different when the pilots can actually see each other:

Huge respect for Ray on so many counts. His voice of sanity will surely be one of the key factors for our species’ continued survival past our present existential quandary. I beg to differ, however, on his take on “Star Wars.” I too was privy to some of the back-room discussions leading to Reagan’s March 23, 1983 announcement of the Strategic Defense Initiative. In its original form the idea was to leverage some of the directed-energy and particle beam research that was yielding promising results in the inertial fusion program, championed by world-class physicists such as Drs. Edward Teller and Winston Bostick from the plasma physics community. There was a Machiavellian side to co-opting defense priorities to secure much-needed funding for an advanced science civilian program, to serve as a “science driver” for new approach to economic development, but this approach (later sabotaged by AF Maj. Gen. Danny “Crackers” Graham into the anodine bowdlerization mocked by the media and perpetual war advocates as “Star Wars”) would have met both needs on a constructive basis for US-USSR cooperation not only on common defense issues but in partnership for Third World development, which was one of the primary concerns of SDI’s intellectual authors. The topic deserves more than the short shrift Ray gives it here, but I can share an also short comment I have contributed to a couple of other alternative media sites, below:

On US Hysteria Over Putin’s Unveiling of New Russian Weapons

For all the fun that the neocons and MSM made of Reagan’s “Star Wars” program, the Strategic Defense Initiative contained in it all the elements to make the US nuke-proof, while ramping up the STEM base of our productive economy via fundamental breakthroughs in physics, or “new physical principles,” as the Russians call them. They are, after all, inventors of the Tokamak, still the most promising engineering approach to achieving steady-state nuclear fusion. The original SDI, as proposed by Drs. Edward Teller and Winston Bostick et al. and adopted by the Reagan administration in 1983, was based on very promising directed-energy research from the inertial fusion program, since then woefully underfunded.

Along comes Maj. Gen. Danny Graham and dumbs down the idea to crackpot pipe dreams like “Brilliant Pebbles” and “High Frontier,” which amount to little more than throwing rocks at incoming ICBMs. Those rocks would have to be hypersonic and maneuverable if we are to believe Putin’s description of new Russian systems, which I am inclined to because of Russia’s long-standing commitment, even in Soviet times, to fundamental science, not consumer electronics or war-profiteering boondoggles like the F-35. American blindness to the near-limitless potential of devices based on “new physical principles” can be seen in the fact that Wikipedia, for example, describes Graham as the “architect” of the SDI, when in fact he co-opted the advanced-science approach for the benefit of international finance, which must prevent a new fusion era from challenging their speculative oil economy. Much of the funding for anti-nuclear, global warming and other “environmental” causes obeys similar reasons.

So it seems to me that the cat Putin is letting out of the bag (aside from boosting his upcoming electoral chances with an increasingly nationalistic Russian population) signals that Russia has succeeded in catching up to the advanced science platform for defense and economic development that the US once sponsored and held out as an opportunity for cooperation with the USSR to end the Cold War and put MAD—mutually assured destruction—behind us once and for all, and has since backed down and reversed even further once the Soviet Union fell apart. Instead of partnering with an emerging non-communist potential economic mega-bloc, Western financial speculators saw those events as an opportunity to loot the former Soviet economy to the bone, aided and abetted by the corrupt “oligarchs” (not really that, in the broader historical sense) of the CPSU.

That’s over now, and we’ve come full circle with the opportunity to apply “new physical principles” to making nuclear war obsolete—as we could have 35 years ago. In a way Putin’s national address does announce a new arms race, but in the context of the first two thirds of that address also means an entirely new framework for economic development on an unprecedented scale, which was the deeper meaning of Reagan’s SDI anyway—aborted, of course, by the Bush/CIA cold coup within that administration. I, for one, don’t mind the idea of a new “arms race,” especially since the US has been unilaterally pursuing just that for years in Eastern Europe and asymmetrically as well with its ongoing destabilization of the Middle East, which is ultimately against Russia anyway, as in Mackinder’s geopolitical mandate to contain the “Eurasian Heartland” and Brzezinski’s “Arc of Crisis” all along the underbelly of the USSR, for which Osama bin Laden was imported from Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.

More than a slap in the face the news from Russia should be seen as a bucket of cold water to wake up Western (especially US) brainwashed masses and perhaps even leadership to the reality of a long-overdue overhaul of our strategic posture. Nuclear-propelled angels of death will be looming perpetually aloft to remind us.

And Unz readers, this just posted on RT: The “Empire” doubles down, believes Putin is bluffing, tech doesn’t exist.

What do you expect Mattis to say, I surrender? Of course not. It is damage control.

Sputnik had this today, which I’ve no doubt the Pentagon and CIA will consider false:

https://sputniknews.com/military/201803121062436333-kinzhal-missile-capabilities/

Russia’s deputy defense minister has offered new details on the new hypersonic missile announced by President Putin in a recent speech to lawmakers.

The Kinzhal hypersonic air-launched missile system, capable of rendering useless all existing and prospective anti-missile systems, is also able to destroy large, moving sea-based targets such as aircraft carriers, destroyers and cruisers, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed.

“This is a class of precision weapons which has a multifunctional warhead capable of striking at both stationary and moving targets,” Borisov said, speaking to Krasnaya Zvezda, the defense ministry’s official newspaper.

Confirming that the Kinzhal (‘Dagger’) system is based on the MiG-31 supersonic interceptor aircraft, the general explained that that plane “takes off into the air, accelerates to a certain speed at a high altitude, and then the missile begins its own autonomous movement.”

According to Borisov, the system’s capability to reach speeds of about Mach 10 “allows [the missile] to approach its target quickly, in contrast to cruise missiles, which fly at an average cruising speed of about 850-900 km/h.”

And Unz readers, this just posted on RT: The “Empire” doubles down, believes Putin is bluffing, tech doesn’t exist.

See: https://www.rt.com/usa/421009-mattis-pompeo-russian-weapons/

“The Pentagon and the CIA see “no change” in Russia’s strategic military capability following new strategic weapons systems presentation, saying they believe that President Putin “says lots of things that are without foundation.”

The five new Russian systems unveiled by Vladimir Putin “are still years away” from threatening the US, Defense Secretary James Mattis noted Sunday, stressing that Russian military capabilities are unable to change the military balance in the world.

Sadly, that makes war with Iran with the assumption Russia won’t offer indirect help more likely, I think.

http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/america-lawrence-wilkerson/

We’re looking at them taking on, and this is a point that all military people understand, a country that couldn’t beat Iraq in eight years of brutal bloody war– an Iraq that we beat in 19 days.
So this is the colossal threat that they’re up against.

And men such as [National Security Adviser] HR McMaster are helping them. The much-heralded author of Dereliction of Duty—great title– and a man who knows about as much about Iran as I do about the 8th planet in the 95th solar system in the 50th galaxy past our own.

Here’s a hope I have. Let’s hope that the chessmaster-in-chief, old Vladimir Putin who ruins elections from Paris to Peoria is smart enough once again not to let this happen.

I fear he will not be, and we might have the stirrings of 1914, as utterly stupid as we now know now those stirrings to have been.

People to whom I mentioned such possibilities, people who are critically analytical and normally fairly sound in their thinking respond, Don’t you regard that dreary prognosis as a little bit overdrawn?

I look at this from the perspective of the political parameters. What is it that we are confronting today in this country? And this took me down an entirely different path as I tried to figure out just how this team of McMaster Tillerson Kelly et al and Trump at the top of it will face this sort of decision-making process. The only place I could find that remotely resembled where we are today in our past was the period 1850 to 1860. And so about six months ago I started reading as voraciously as I could on that period… It is stunning the similarities between that period and now, particularly in the political situation, where one side of the country wouldn’t talk to the other side of the country and vice versa. And I was struck today by some of the comments that were made that resemble the comments made by my region– my state fired on Fort Sumter, after all– back in those days.

If that is the political situation in which this government will do its national security decision-making, then we are in deeper trouble than even the prospects of a region wide and perhaps even bigger war in the Middle East.

“…Many people have commented on these futuristic weapons and have given very logical and lucid reasons why these weapons cannot and will not function in the Earth’s dense atmosphere…”

I don’t think this is true. I read, somewhere can’t remember where, that by expelling hydrogen gas from the front of a hyper-sonic missile it would keep the nose cone cool. Think about air curtains in theme parks keeping people cool with raging fires right next to them. Another example is film cooling in jet engines.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-06-24/entertainment/ca-900_1_theme-park

I suppose the hydrogen could be generated on board. Maybe you could split water in the air. Maybe plasma curtain generated in front of the missile. Lots of ways to do this.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/plasma-as-a-heat-shield.261559/

This discussion insinuates, that vvp is leaning out of the window and has given full disclosure. If show of force for offensive capabilities and deterrent took western IC by suprise, what makes them assume, the RF isnt hiding much more terrifying missile defense tech brought in the way in the 2000s by the same guidelines of asymmetrical approach.

Of course, diplomacy doesnt tell, officially Russia seems afraid of MAD.

Romania was rather a classical ‘coup d’etat’ from inside the power structures. The perpetrators resumed control swiftly and practically never relinquished it ever since.

I can agree with this: “for US to stop the pretense and direct it’s respurces to domestic improvement. That accomplished, you wouldn’t need to be a bully. ”

But this “the facts of Russian technological superiority” I would need some evidence.

Could you be more specific on the differences? Give us example of technological differences you can see in St. P. and Moscow versus NYC and DC.

If you won’t I will assume that you wrote it under the influence of technologically superior Russian ethanol and fell into not uncommon and not only among Russians boasting mode.

Yes . Am agree with you.

A nation is more than a collection of buildings.

During the 7 year attack on Syria, the Syrian government functioned, supplying services to its citizens even in “head-chopper” occupied territories, maintaining its diplomatic and international obligations, and the Syrian people, in aggregate, remained loyal to and supportive of their nation and their government.
Unless their attackers manage a reversal in their fortunes, Syria will come out of this as a legally constituted, socio-politically stable and functioning entity, the same or a reformed version of what it was when it was attacked.
That is what is meant by “not destroyed”.

I don’t know if the above adequately meets your requirements for erudition, but I hope your capacity for comprehension overcomes whatever shortcomings there may be.