missile

Nov. 19 (UPI) — The U.S. State Department has approved the possible sale of Patriot air defense launchers to Ukraine worth up to $105 million.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which is within the Department of Defense, delivered the certification to the U.S. Congress, the agency said in a news release Tuesday.

DSCA’s primary mission is to support U.S. foreign policy to train, educate, advise and equip foreign partners to respond to shared challenges, including in Europe.

The Patriot system will not will not alter the basic military balance in the region, or the impact on U.S. defense readiness, the agency said.

The Patriot contractors are RTX Corp. of Arlington, Va., and Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Md.

The United States first shipped Patriot systems to Ukraine in April 2023, more than a year after Russia invaded its neighbor under the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“We’ve been talking about closing the sky since day one of this war,” Zelenskyy wrote on X on Nov. 10. “We understand that it’s our vulnerability. And we realize that Putin had a huge number of missiles, while we had very few air‑defense systems and only a small remaining stock of Soviet‑era missiles.

“These systems were no shield at all. Nevertheless, we built the air‑defense we could, and we continue to develop it.”

The Patriots are a deterrent to missiles and drones against military targets and civilian locations.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Denys Shmyhal applauded the decision, posting on X: “We are grateful to our American partners for such an important decision. Peace can only be achieved through strength!”

Zelensky has been pushing for more Patriot system.

“We want to order 25 Patriot systems from the United States,” Zelenskyy wrote in July. “For us, that’s a clear budget, and we understand the financial scope; however, certain elements are missing from the agreement.

“European colleagues can help us here — they can lend us their systems now and then take back ours once they arrive from the manufacturers. These systems are produced over several years, and we would not want to wait.”

Ukraine had requested an upgrade of M901 launchers to M903 configuration; classified and unclassified prescribed load lists and authorized stockage lists for ground support equipment; necessary ancillaries, spare parts, support, training and accessories; and other related elements of logistics and program support.

M903 launchers can carry up to PAC-3 missiles and other types of Patriot missiles, according to Lockheed Martin. The PAC-3 MSE has improved capabilities, such as updated software and systems that allow it to home in on and destroy an enemy target.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require five additional U.S. government and 15 U.S. contractor representatives to the European Combatant Command for up to one month to support training and periodic meetings.

The actual dollar value depends on final requirements, budget authority and signed sales agreement.

“The Patriots won’t solve all, or perhaps even many of the problems associated with Russia’s strikes against Ukraine, however they will provide an additional layer of coverage and redundancy that can help protect Ukraine’s civilian population, civilian infrastructure, and military forces,” Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Amos Fox, now a fellow at Arizona State University’s Future Security Initiative, told the Kyiev Post.

Retired US Army Colonel Richard Williams, a former deputy director in NATO’s Defense Investment Division, also told the Kyiev Potg that European nations are “perhaps more suited to assist Ukraine with this threat.”

In July, the United States told Switzerland it would send Patriot systems intended for sale to the Swiss to Ukraine instead.

President Donald Trump made the announcement to reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland after attending the Club World Cup final at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium.

“They’re going to have some because they do need protection, but the European Union is paying for,” he said. “We’re not paying anything for it, but we will send it.”

Other nations have sent Patriots to Ukraine.

During a conference in Germany in July, NATO’s top commander said that he will send more Patriot systems to Ukraine.

Patriot production has been limited, with nations not wanting to send their systems and to maintain stockpiles.

The United States and other partner nations also need Patriot batteries elsewhere, including in the Middle East and Taiwan, which would use them against a possible Chinese invasion.

Boeing says its MQ-28 Ghost Bat drone is on track for its first live-fire weapons shot, which will be of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), next month. The company says the MQ-28’s development is otherwise now “hitting its stride,” amid talk of new customers, possibly including the U.S. Navy and Poland. Boeing’s Australian subsidiary first began development of the Ghost Bat for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), which has already conducted extensive flight testing with its fleet of eight prototypes.

Steve Parker, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space, and Security, provided a general update on the MQ-28 program at a media roundtable ahead of the 2025 Dubai Airshow in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), at which TWZ was in attendance. Boeing officials had said on various occasions earlier this year that the AMRAAM shot could come in late 2025 or early 2026.

At the Avalon Air Show in Australia in March, “I talked about doing a weapons shot off the MQ-28 later this year, or early in 2026. We are on track for next month,” Parker said during his opening remarks. “This weapon shot is something we’re really excited about.”

In addition to being a first for the MQ-28, the planned shot also looks set to be a first for any CCA-type drone, at least that we know about.

“It’s an air-to-air missile, and if you were to guess it was an AMRAAM, AIM-120, you would be correct,” he added later on during the roundtable when asked for more specifics.

The test itself will be carried out over the sprawling Woomera Range Complex (WRC) in southern Australia and reflect “a tactically relevant scenario,” according to Parker. The MQ-28 will attempt to down a real airborne target with the AIM-120.

Parker did not offer any specific details about how the engagement might be prosecuted, including how the drone would find and track the target. The MQ-28 is a highly modular design intended to allow for the ready integration of various munitions, sensors, and other payloads. The entire nose can be swapped out. It is worth noting here that at least two of the RAAF’s initial batch of MQ-28s have been spotted with an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor in the nose, which would be very relevant for this upcoming air-to-air weapons test.

Broadly speaking, IRST sensors offer a valuable means of spotting and tracking aerial threats, especially stealthy aircraft and missiles, which can be used as an alternative and/or companion to radars. IRSTs have the additional benefit of being immune to electronic warfare attacks and operating passively, meaning they don’t emit signals that could alert an opponent to the fact that they are being stalked.

“I’m not going to get ahead of the customer here, but we’re well positioned for this,” Parker continued in his response to the question about the AIM-120 shot at the roundtable. “We’ve been sort of testing out some of these capability demonstrations. You would know that the Wedgetail [Boeing’s E-7 airborne early warning and control aircraft] has already controlled two live MQ-28s with a digital, virtual MQ-28 in the pattern, as well, [and] with a target. We’ve already been doing this. So, we’ve already been doing a bunch of multi-ship activities.”

Boeing announced the MQ-28/E-7 team testing back in June. This was one of a number of Ghost Bat capability demonstrations that the company conducted in cooperation with the RAAF this year, as you can read more about here.

“This program is really hitting its stride,” Parker said.

As noted, the RAAF has already acquired eight MQ-28s, all pre-production prototypes, also referred to as Block 1 Ghost Bats. The service has also awarded Boeing a contract to deliver at least three more examples in an improved Block 2 configuration. The Block 2 drones are seen as a pathway to an operational capability, though when that might actually materialize is unclear. Australian officials have also raised the prospect in the past of an expanded family of Ghost Bats, which might include versions that are substantially different from the baseline design. Boeing itself has hinted at the potential for the drones to get significant new capabilities down the road, including the ability to refuel in mid-air.

Regardless of how the MQ-28 itself evolves, Boeing clearly sees potential opportunities for sales beyond the RAAF, as well. The U.S. Air Force has utilized at least one Ghost Bat in the past to support test work related to its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drone program, which is structured around multiple iterative development cycles. Boeing did take part in the initial stages of the first phase of that program, or Increment 1, but was cut last year in a down-select. The company could compete in the next cycle, or Increment 2, with the MQ-28 or another design.

In September, the U.S. Navy announced it had hired Boeing, as well as Anduril, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, to develop conceptual designs for carrier-based CCA-type drones. Boeing has so far declined to share specifics about what it is working on under that contract, but the Navy has said that there is “strong interest” in the Ghost Bat in the past. Boeing has previously pitched a carrier-capable version of the design at least to the United Kingdom, as well.

For the first time, Ukraine has presented footage that purportedly shows its extended-range Long Neptune cruise missile in action. Part of a growing arsenal of long-range cruise missiles from domestic production, the Long Neptune was unveiled in March of this year, at which point Zelensky claimed it had already been tested in combat.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shared a video that he said showed the Long Neptune being launched against a target in Russia. He did not provide the date of the claimed launch or what was targeted.

“We’re producing more,” Zelensky said of the Long Neptune, in a comment posted alongside the video.

Previously, the Ukrainian president disclosed that his forces “successfully used Long Neptunes against designated targets on Russian territory — and this is our entirely just response to Russia’s ongoing terror. Ukrainian missiles are delivering increasingly significant and precise results virtually every month.”

Zelensky added: “I thank everyone working on our missile program and giving Ukraine this accuracy and long-range capability.”

The new video indicates that the Long Neptune is fired from a transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) of a different design from that used for at least the original versions of the missile. As well as the longer canisters required for the bigger missiles, there is a larger gap between the first and second axles and the third and fourth axles on the new TEL. Meanwhile, there is no longer a space between the cabin and the command module, as was previously the case.

The Long Neptune is an extended-range derivative of the previous land-attack version of the Neptune anti-ship missile, which is powered by a small turbofan jet engine. The land-attack version reportedly has a guidance package that combines a GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS) and an imaging infrared sensor in place of the anti-ship missile’s active radar seeker.

Ukraine famously used Neptune missiles to sink the Russian Navy’s Slava class cruiser Moskva in 2022 and reportedly began developing a new land-attack version in 2023. The anti-ship Neptune is a Ukrainian development of the Soviet-era Kh-35, known to NATO as the SS-N-25 Switchblade, variants of which remain in service in Russia and elsewhere globally.

The Long Neptune features an extended body with capacity for additional fuel, which Zelensky has said gives it a range in the region of 620 miles (1,000 kilometers).

This is significantly further than the original land-attack version of the Neptune, which a Ukrainian defense official previously told TWZ has a range of up to 225 miles (360 kilometers).

Meanwhile, the maximum stated range of the anti-ship version of Neptune is said to be around 190 miles (300 kilometers).

Unclear at this stage is what kind of warhead the Long Neptune carries, but the anti-ship Neptune missile carries an explosive charge weighing around 330 pounds (150 kilograms). The Long Neptune can be distinguished from the previous versions on account of its longer and wider main body, with tapering tail and nose sections. The main fins are also bigger and are not swept.

It’s worth noting that another version of the Neptune has also been developed, this one apparently featuring fuel tank ‘bulges’ for increased range. As you can read about here, this model appears to be something like an intermediate-range version, falling between the original land-attack Neptune and the Long Neptune.

There have been unconfirmed reports that the Long Neptune may have been used in overnight Ukrainian strikes focused on the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, in southern Russia. The port is a key hub facilitating the export of Russian oil. The city is also now home to much of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, providing it with something of a safe haven, after its warships were essentially forced out of waters closer to Crimea following a concerted Ukrainian campaign waged against them.

According to Supernova+, a Ukrainian Telegram channel, likely more than one Long Neptune was used to attack Novorossiysk, specifically targeting the Sheskharis oil terminal, which was set ablaze, according to unconfirmed videos circulating on social media.

U.K.-based maritime security firm Ambrey said it had seen evidence of large explosions, including one that occurred in a container yard at the port, leaving a crane and several containers damaged. The same source said that a non-sanctioned container ship alongside the terminal suffered some collateral damage due to falling drone debris. “Reportedly, three crew members were injured,” Ambrey added.

The Russian Ministry of Defense claimed that it shot down 216 Ukrainian drones during the attack, during which authorities in Novorossiysk declared a state of emergency. According to state news agency TASS, apartment buildings in the city were struck, and at least two people were injured.

French authorities have provided the first real look at the latest version of the Air-Sol Moyenne Portee (ASMP; or Medium-Range Air-to-Surface) ramjet-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile. Officials in France have also confirmed that the ASMPA-Renove (ASMPA-R) variant is now in service with the country’s Navy.

A French Navy Rafale M fighter, belonging to the service’s Force Aeronavale Nucleaire (FANU), or Naval Nuclear Aviation Force, conducted a test launch of an ASMPA-R without a live warhead earlier today as part of what was dubbed Operation Diomede. The test involved “a flight representative of a nuclear raid,” according to a machine translation of a social media post from Catherine Vautrin, France’s Minister of the Armed Forces.

A separate statement from the Ministry of the Armed Forces of France says the ASMPA-R officially joined the FANU’s arsenal on November 10. The ASMPA-R has already been operational since 2023 with the Forces Aeriennes Strategiques (FAS), or Strategic Air Forces, part of the French Air and Space Force. Both services use Rafale variants as the launch platform for these missiles. French authorities did release pictures of an Air Force Rafale carrying an ASMPA-R last year, around the first known test launch of the missile. However, the weapon was entirely blurred out. A grainy image from the actual test was also released, but it was so low quality that there were no discernible details.

It is worth noting here that a portion of the French Navy’s Rafale M fleet has already had a nuclear mission with older ASMP-Ameliore (ASMP-A; ameliore translating into English as “improved”) missiles. France’s sole aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, is the only surface ship in NATO currently known to be capable of hosting nuclear weapons, but the ship does not conduct routine patrols with ASMP-series missiles onboard.

We can now see that the “renovated” ASMPA-R is externally very similar to the preceding ASMP-A. Both missiles notably feature a pair of air intakes along the middle of their bodies, which is part of the ramjet propulsion systems. As seen below, the tail fin configurations do appear to be different between the A and R models. The A model has smaller fins at the rear and larger ones just in front, while the R somewhat reverses that arrangement. The reason for this is unclear.

The ASMPA-R does reportedly have a greater range than the ASMP-A – 372 miles (600 kilometers) versus 310 miles (500 kilometers) – but both missiles are said to reach a peak speed of Mach 3.

There had been reports that the ASMPA-R features a new nuclear warhead, but some sources also say it is the same TNA design found on the ASMP-A variant. The TNA is a so-called ‘dial-a-yield’ design with reported yield settings ranging from a minimum of 100 kilotons to a maximum of 300 kilotons. It is possible that the TNA warheads in the R models have also been modernized as part of the upgrade process.

Otherwise, the ASMPA-R is generally described as a life-extension upgrade package for ASMP-A missiles, which first began to enter service in 2009. The ASMP-As replaced the original ASMPs, which had started entering service in 1986. The baseline ASMP had a maximum range of 186 miles (300 kilometers) and an older TN 81 warhead with the same reported range of yield settings as the newer TNA.

ASMP-series missiles fired from French Air Force and Navy Rafales make up the aerial leg of France’s current nuclear dyad. The missile’s combination of supersonic speed and standoff range is intended to help ensure the missiles successfully reach their targets, while also helping to keep the launch platforms further away from threats.

The development of the ASMPA-R, which dates back to the mid-2010s, is part of a larger ongoing effort to modernize France’s nuclear deterrent arsenal. This effort also includes the new M51.3 nuclear-armed submarine-launched ballistic missile, which officially entered service last month. M51-series missiles arm the French Navy’s Triomphant class nuclear ballistic missile submarines, forming the sea leg of the country’s nuclear dyad.

France is also working on a new air-launched cruise missile, the Air-Sol Nucléaire de 4ème Génération (ASN4G; or 4th Generation Air-to-Surface Nuclear), which is expected to be scramjet-powered, longer-ranged, and capable of reaching hypersonic speeds, typically defined as anything about Mach 5. Today’s statement from the French Ministry of Armed Forces also confirms that the goal is still for the ASN4G to begin entering service in the 2035 timeframe.

There have also been a number of significant developments regarding French nuclear deterrent policy, in general, this year. Reports in February said the French officials were eyeing forward-deploying nuclear-capable Rafales to Germany, citing concerns about the commitment of the United States to the NATO alliance. Within NATO, there are three nuclear powers, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Some non-nuclear member states are also party to agreements wherein they could gain access to U.S. nuclear gravity bombs in the event of a major crisis.

In March, French President Emmanuel Macron also announced that his country would establish a new nuclear-capable air base, the country’s fourth overall, which will host French Air Force Rafales. In July, France signed an agreement to formally coordinate its deterrence forces with those of the United Kingdom, as well.

There has been a certain new openness about nuclear weapons and deterrence within NATO, as a whole, in the past few years, which has come amid concerns about spillover from the conflict in Ukraine and general Russian aggression.

Regardless, France’s own nuclear modernization efforts are continuing apace, with French Navy Rafale Ms having now joined their French Air Force counterparts as launch platforms for the ASMPA-R cruise missile.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Iran states it has more missiles now than it had during the 12 Day War with Israel. While the accuracy of that claim is questionable, experts who follow Tehran’s missile program say that the country has ramped up production in an effort to have its arsenal ready to overwhelm Israeli missile defenses, which were degraded during the war. All this comes amid growing concerns about a new conflict over Iran’s nuclear program.

“Our missile power today far surpasses that of the 12-Day War,” Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently proclaimed. “The enemy in the recent 12-day war failed to achieve all its objectives and was defeated.”

“Iran’s defense production has improved both in quantity and quality compared to before the 12-day Israeli-imposed war in June,” Brig. Gen. Aziz Nasirzadeh, the country’s defense minister, said on Monday.

Meanwhile, Iranian officials have told Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, that “missile factories are working 24 hours a day,” The New York Times reported. Vaez added that if there is another war, “they hope to fire 2,000 at once to overwhelm Israeli defenses, not 500 over 12 days” as they did in June. “Israel feels the job is unfinished and sees no reason not to resume the conflict, so Iran is doubling down preparedness for the next round.”

While “it’s not clear exactly how many missiles in a larger volley the Islamic Republic may choose to fire, there is no doubt that they may still try to find a way to overwhelm either interceptors or dependent sites with a greater number of projectiles fired at once,” Vaez added.

In addition to increasing the number of missiles it is producing, Iran is also applying lessons learned from the 12-Day War to improve their effectiveness, Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank, told TWZ.

“The Islamic Republic also learned how to fire less and get more bang for your buck based on the targets and based on the location and based on the firing sequence, or the launch formula, that the regime employed when it fired for some bases that were further east in Iran during the 12-Day War,” he explained. “There is no doubt the regime wants to improve the lethality of its missile force. It certainly has learned a lot between Operation True Promise One, True Promise Two and True Promise Three.”

During the conflict, Iran claimed it used what it calls the Fattah-1 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). Authorities in Iran explicitly touted those, the Haj Qassem and Kheibar Shekan, as offering high terminal maneuverability and/or high speeds specifically intended to reduce their vulnerability to missile defense interceptors. You can see videos claiming to show Fattah-1 missiles hitting Israel.

While it is unclear exactly what mix of new missiles Iran is building, increasing the production of higher-speed, more survivable ones would be a problem for Israel, given their increased ability to pierce missile defenses.

Improving the overall effectiveness of their ballistic missile barrages is clearly a top priority for Tehran, just as defending against future attacks is for Israel. As we previously noted, Iran launched 631 missiles during the 12-Day War, of which 500 reached Israel, according to assertions made by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Of those missiles that did land on Israeli soil, 243 hit open areas, requiring no air defense response. A total of 36 missiles hit populated areas, while 221 missiles were intercepted. That represented an 86% success rate, the Israeli analysis claimed. We cannot independently verify the details provided by Israel.

Still, having to fire so many interceptors placed a huge strain on Israel’s vaunted integrated air and missile defense system (IADS), according to several published reports, which the IDF denied. The U.S. expended many advanced interceptors during the onslaught, as well.

“U.S. and Israeli defenses were stretched thin and vast numbers of interceptors were needed to defend against Iran’s ragged retaliation,” the Foreign Policy Research Institute concluded.

Beyond interceptions, Israel managed to destroy a significant number of Iran’s launchers during its aerial interdiction campaign over Iran, as well as temporarily blocking or destroying missile storage sites, and disrupting command and control of Iranian missile forces during the war, greatly reducing Tehran’s ability to get off shots. It is unknown how many missiles were destroyed on the ground during the war and how many were left untouched.

“Iran also has learned about its vulnerabilities, and it is seeking to build back better, as safely as possible,” Taleblu suggested. “But the rate and the speed at which it rebuilds, probably in the short term, may outpace the rate and the speed at which Israel is rearming to defend itself.”

We detailed the overall battle of attrition between Iranian standoff weapons and Israeli (and U.S.) air defenses during the war. What is happening after the conflict is part of a broader issue with missile defense — the enemy can, and usually does, seek to outproduce the defensive capacity of the missile shield, and usually can at a lower comparative cost.

You can read more about Israel’s IADS in our deep dive here.

Iranian officials say concerns about their missiles, as well as their nuclear energy program, are being used as a pretext for possible future attacks.

“What does this issue have to do with the West that it feels entitled to comment on the range of Iran’s missiles?” Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani rhetorically asked on Monday. “No country has the right to interfere in the independent defensive capabilities of another nation.”

As it works to rebuild its missile arsenal, Iran is getting help from China.

“European intelligence sources say several shipments of sodium perchlorate, the main precursor in the production of the solid propellant that powers Iran’s mid-range conventional missiles, have arrived from China to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas,” CNN reported late last month. 

The shipments, containing some 2,000 tons of sodium perchlorate, began arriving on Sept. 29, the cable network explained. They were bought by Iran from Chinese suppliers in the wake of the war.

“The purchases are believed to be part of a determined effort to rebuild the Islamic Republic’s depleted missile stocks,” the news outlet added. “Several of the cargo ships and Chinese entities involved are under sanctions from the United States.”

“China is appearing to play a key role here by providing precursor chemicals that do go into solid propellant, rocket fuel, and oxidizer,” Taleblu observed.

Beyond assisting Iran’s offensive missile capabilities, China is reportedly considering a deal to give Tehran advanced HQ-9 air defense systems to help make up for those destroyed by Israel during the 12-Day War. While Iran’s long-range weapons arsenal are often the focus, rebuilding the country’s air defenses is also clearly a top priority after Israel quickly obtained air supremacy over the country.

The issue of new Iranian missile production comes against the backdrop of concerns that Tehran has developed a new facility to continue what U.S. officials claim is its nuclear weapons ambitions. The U.S. says it destroyed a great deal of Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons during June’s Operation Midnight Hammer, in which U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bombers dropped 14 30,000-pound GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster bombs on Iran’s Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities. A U.S. nuclear-powered, guided missile (SSGN) submarine in the Central Command Area of Responsibility launched more than two dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets at Isfahan, officials added.

However, as The New York Times noted, Iran “appears to be continuing to work on a new enrichment site known as Pickaxe Mountain. It has refused to give international inspectors access to that site or any other suspected nuclear sites other than those already declared.”

The result “is a dangerous stalemate — with no negotiations, no certainty over Iran’s stockpile, no independent oversight,” the newspaper explained. “And many in the Gulf believe that makes another Israeli attack on Iran almost inevitable, given Israeli officials’ long-held view that Iran’s nuclear program is an existential threat.”

The pace of Iran’s missile development could be a large factor for the timing of any future conflict with Israel, Taleblu told us.

“There is a race to build back better. For Israel, it’s interceptors. For the Islamic Republic of Iran, it’s medium-range ballistic missiles,” Taleblu posited. “The fuzzy math between the two may determine the time when the next round between Israel and Iran takes place.”

Contact the author: [email protected]

The short-range weapon is believed to have flown 700km (435 miles) and landed in the East Sea, otherwise known as the Sea of Japan.

North Korea has fired at least one ballistic missile towards its eastern waters, the South Korean military has said, just days after United States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visited South Korea for annual security talks.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed the development on Friday, saying the short-range missile flew 700km (435 miles) towards the East Sea, otherwise known as the Sea of Japan.

The Japanese government also said North Korea had launched a missile, adding that it is likely to have fallen in waters outside of Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

Pyongyang’s latest launch comes four days after South Korea said its neighbour had fired 10 rounds of artillery into its western waters, and about a week after US President Donald Trump gave Seoul permission to build a nuclear-powered submarine.

Experts say the move, which will see South Korea join a small club of countries using such vessels, will greatly enhance its naval and defence capabilities.

South Korea wants to receive enriched uranium from the US to use as fuel for the nuclear-powered submarine, which it plans to build at home, a South Korean presidential official said on Friday.

Since they both took office earlier this year, Trump and his South Korean counterpart Lee Jae Myung have sought to restart dialogue with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

However, Kim has shunned any talks with Washington and Seoul since previous discussions with the US collapsed in 2019.

North Korea’s leader said in September that he was open to talks provided that the US drop its demand for Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons. He has repeatedly said his country is an “irreversible” nuclear state.

Last month, Kim attended a major military parade in Pyongyang, along with high-level officials from allied countries, including Russia and China. It showcased some of his nation’s most powerful weapons, including a new intercontinental ballistic missile.

North Korean and Russian military officials met in Pyongyang this week to discuss strengthening cooperation, North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said on Friday.

Pak Yong Il, vice director of the Korean People’s Army’s General Political Bureau, met a Russian delegation led by Vice Defence Minister Viktor Goremykin on Wednesday.

KCNA said the allies discussed expanding ties as part of the “deepened bilateral relations” agreed between Kim and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Earlier this week, South Korea’s spy agency said it had detected possible recruitment and training activities in North Korea, noting this could signal a potential further deployment of troops to Russia.

So far, Seoul estimates that Pyongyang has sent 15,000 soldiers to Russia to aid it in its war against Ukraine, and large numbers have died on the battlefield there.

On Tuesday, the South Korean National Intelligence Service also said it believes that Kim has dispatched about 5,000 military construction troops to its ally since September to help with infrastructure restoration projects.

A key aspect of the Trump administration’s Golden Dome missile defense initiative is ensuring America’s ability to launch retaliatory nuclear strikes, the nominee to become the next head of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has stressed. This comes amid particular concerns within the halls of the U.S. government about the new deterrence challenges posed by China’s ongoing push to expand the scope and scale of its nuclear capabilities dramatically.

Navy Vice Adm. Richard Correll, who is currently deputy head of STRATCOM, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week about his nomination to lead the command. Ahead of that hearing, he also submitted unclassified written answers to questions from members of the committee.

One of the questions posed to Correll asked how, if confirmed, he would expect to work with the central manager for the Golden Dome initiative, a post currently held by Space Force Gen. Mike Guetlein.

“Per Executive Order 14186, the Golden Dome for America (GDA) Direct Reporting Program Manager (DRPM) is responsible to ‘deliver a next-generation missile defense shield to defend its citizens and critical infrastructure against any foreign aerial attack on the U.S. homeland and guarantees a second-strike capability.’ If confirmed, I look forward to working with the GDA DRPM to ensure missile defense is effective against the developing and increasingly complex missile threats, to guarantee second-strike capability, and to strengthen strategic deterrence,” Correll wrote in response.

In deterrence parlance, a second-strike capability refers to a country’s credible ability to respond in kind to hostile nuclear attacks. This is considered essential to dissuading opponents from thinking they might be able to secure victory through even a massive opening salvo.

Helping to ensure America’s second-strike nuclear deterrent capability, as well as aiding in the defense specifically against enemy “countervalue” attacks, has been central to the plan for Golden Dome, which was originally called Iron Dome, since it was first announced in January. Countervalue nuclear strikes are ones expressly aimed at population centers, as opposed to counterforce strikes directed at military targets.

“Since the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and initiated development of limited homeland missile defense, official United States homeland missile defense policy has remained only to stay ahead of rogue-nation threats and accidental or unauthorized missile launches,” President Donald Trump wrote in his executive order on the new missile defense initiative in January. “Over the past 40 years, rather than lessening, the threat from next-generation strategic weapons has become more intense and complex with the development by peer and near-peer adversaries of next-generation delivery systems and their own homeland integrated air and missile defense capabilities.”

How exactly Golden Dome factors into the second strike equation is not entirely clear. The U.S. nuclear triad currently consists of nuclear-capable B-2 and B-52 bombers, silo-based Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), and Ohio class nuclear submarines loaded with Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles. At present, the Ohio class submarines provide the core of America’s second-strike capability, but are not directly threatened by the kinds of weapons that Golden Dome is meant to shield against while they are out on their regular deterrent patrols.

At the same time, there might be scenarios in which U.S. officials are concerned that the Ohios may no longer be entirely sufficient. A massive first strike that renders the air and ground legs of the triad moot, and also targets ballistic missile submarines still in port, would certainly put immense pressure on deployed submarines to carry out adequate retaliatory strikes with the warheads available to them. If multiple countries are involved, those demands would only be magnified. Threats to the submarines at sea, including ones we may not know about, as well as enemy missile defenses, something China has also been particularly active in developing, would also have to be factored in. Concerns about the potential destruction or compromise of nuclear command and control nodes, including through physical attacks or non-kinetic ones like cyber intrusions, would affect the overall calculus, too. Altogether, ensuring greater survivability of the other legs of the triad, where Golden Dome would be more relevant, might now be viewed as necessary.

Regardless, as noted, concerns about China’s ongoing nuclear build-up and the policy shifts that come along with it have been particularly significant factors in U.S. discussions about missile defense and deterrence in recent years. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) just offered the first public look at elements of all three legs of its still very new strategic nuclear triad at a massive military parade in Beijing in September. In recent years, U.S. officials have been outspoken about massive assessed increases in Chinese nuclear warheads and delivery systems. This includes the construction of vast arrays of nuclear silos for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), as well as the development and fielding of more and more advanced road-mobile ICBMs. China is now fielding air-launched nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and is growing the size and capabilities of its fleet of nuclear ballistic missile submarines, as well. Experts have also highlighted how China’s growing nuclear capabilities could point to plans for countervalue targeting.

“China’s ambitious expansion, modernization, and diversification of its nuclear forces has heightened the need for a fully modernized, flexible, full-spectrum strategic deterrence force. China remains focused on developing capabilities to dissuade, deter, or defeat third-party intervention in the Indo-Pacific region,” Correll wrote in response to a separate question ahead of his confirmation hearing last week. “We should continue to revise our plans and operations including integrating nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities in all domains across the spectrum of conflict. This will convey to China that the United States will not be deterred from defending our interests or those of our allies and partners, and should deterrence fail, having a combat ready force to achieve the President’s objectives.”

Correll’s written responses also highlighted concerns about Russia’s nuclear modernization efforts and growing nuclear threats presented by North Korea. He also touched on the current U.S. government position that there has been a worrisome increase in coordination between China, Russia, and North Korea, which presents additional challenges that extend beyond nuclear weapons.

“The Russian Federation continues to modernize and diversify its arsenal, further complicating deterrence. Regional actors, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) present additional threats,” he wrote. “More than nuclear, China and Russia maintain strategic non-nuclear capabilities that can cause catastrophic destruction. The major challenge facing USSTRATCOM is not just addressing each of these threat actors individually but addressing them comprehensively should their alignment result in coordinated aggression.”

It is important to stress that significant questions have been raised about the Golden Dome plans, including the feasibility of key elements, such as space-based anti-missile interceptors, and the immense costs expected to be involved. When any new operational Golden Dome capabilities might begin to enter service very much remains to be seen. Guetlein, the officer now in charge of the initiative, has described it as being “on the magnitude of the Manhattan Project,” which produced the very first nuclear weapons. 

There is also the question of whether work on Golden Dome might exacerbate the exact nuclear deterrence imbalances it is supposed to help address. In his written responses to the questions ahead of his confirmation hearing, Correll acknowledged the impact that U.S. missile defense developments over the past two decades have already had on China’s nuclear arsenal and deterrence policies.

“China believes these new capabilities offset existing U.S. and allies missile defense systems,” he wrote. This, in turn, “may affect their nuclear strike calculus, especially if state survival is at risk.”

Russian officials also regularly highlight countering U.S. missile defenses as a key driver behind their country’s efforts to expand and evolve its nuclear arsenal. Just last week, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin claimed that new tests of the Burevestnik cruise missile and the Poseidon torpedo, both of which are nuclear-powered and intended to be nuclear-armed, had been successfully carried out. The development of both of those weapons has been influenced by a desire to obviate missile defenses.

In terms of global nuclear deterrence policies, there is now the additional wrinkle of the possibility of the United States resuming critical-level weapons testing. Trump announced a still largely unclear shift in U.S. policy in this regard last week. The U.S. Department of Energy has pushed back on the potential for new tests involving the detonation of actual nuclear devices, but Trump has also talked about a need to match work being done by Russia and China. You can read more about the prospect of new full-up U.S. nuclear weapon testing here.

The United States has more Nuclear Weapons than any other country. This was accomplished, including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons, during my First Term in office. Because of the tremendous destructive power, I HATED to do it, but had no choice! Russia is…

— Commentary: Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) October 30, 2025

American authorities have accused Russia in the past of violating its obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) with very low-yield tests and criticized China for a lack of transparency around its testing activities. Russian authorities say they are now looking into what it would take to resume open critical-level nuclear testing in response to Trump’s comments.

North Korea is the only country to have openly conducted critical-level nuclear tests in the 21st century, and there are fears now it could be gearing up for another one. It should be noted that the United States and other nuclear powers regularly conduct nuclear weapon testing that does not involve critical-level detonations.

For now, as underscored by Correll’s responses to the questions posed ahead of his recent confirmation hearing, concerns about the assuredness of America’s nuclear second-strike capability remain a key factor in the push ahead with Golden Dome.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Kyiv, Ukraine – The collective West is scared of Moscow’s new, nuclear-powered cruise missile because it can reach anywhere on Earth, bypassing the most sophisticated air and missile defence systems, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has claimed.

“They’re afraid of what we’ll show to them next,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told the RIA Novosti news agency on Sunday.

Days earlier, she said Moscow was “forced” to develop and test the cruise missile, which is named the Burevestnik, meaning storm petrel – a type of seabird, in response to NATO’s hostility towards Russia.

“The development can be characterised as forced and takes place to maintain strategic balance,” she was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying. Russia “has to respond to NATO’s increasingly destabilising actions in the field of missile defence”.

With much pomp, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday handed state awards to Burevestnik’s developers.

Also awarded were the designers of Poseidon, an underwater nuclear-powered torpedo which Putin has also claimed has been successfully tested.

Russia says Poseidon can carry nuclear weapons that cause radioactive tsunamis, wiping out huge coastal areas. The “super torpedo” can move at the speed of 200km/h (120mph) and zigzag its way to avoid interception, it says.

“In terms of flight range, the Burevestnik … has surpassed all known missile systems in the world,” Putin said in his speech at the Kremlin. “Same as any other nuclear power, Russia is developing its nuclear potential, its strategic potential … What we are talking about now is the work announced a long time ago.”

But military and nuclear experts are sceptical about the efficiency and lethality of the new weapons.

It is not unusual for Russia to flaunt its arsenal as its onslaught in Ukraine continues. Analysts say rather than scaring its critics, Moscow’s announcements are merely a scare tactic to dissuade Western powers from supporting Kyiv.

“There’s nothing revolutionary about,” the Burevestnik, said Pavel Podvig, director of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project at the the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.

“It can fly long and far, and there’s some novelty about it, but there’s nothing to back [Putin’s claim] that it can absolutely change everything,” Podvig told Al Jazeera. “One can’t say that it is invincible and can triumph over everything.”

The Burevestnik’s test is part of Moscow’s media stratagem of intimidating the West when the real situation on the front lines in Ukraine is desperate, according to a former Russian diplomat.

The missile is “not a technical breakthrough but a product of propaganda and desperation”, Boris Bondarev, who quit his Russian Foreign Ministry job to protest against the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, wrote in an opinion piece published by the Moscow Times.

“It symbolises not strength but weakness – the Kremlin’s lack of any tools of political influence other than threats.”

Few details about ‘unique’ missile

The problem is that officials have so far unveiled very little about the Burevestnik, which NATO has dubbed the SSC-X-9 Skyfall – a missile that has a nuclear reactor allegedly capable of keeping it in the air indefinitely.

On October 26, when fatigues-clad Putin announced Burevestnik’s successful test, he was accompanied by his top general Valery Gerasimov.

“This is a unique item; no one else in the world has it,” said Putin, in televised remarks.

Gerasimov said the Burevestnik had flown 14,000km (8,700 miles) in 15 hours during a recent test. It can manoeuvre and loiter midair, and unleash its nuclear load with “guaranteed precision” and at “any distance”.

“There’s a lot of work ahead” before the missile is mass-produced, Putin concluded, adding the test’s “key objectives have been achieved”.

A Ukrainian military expert ridiculed the Kremlin’s claims.

“Much of the news report is fake, the (Burevestnik) missile is subsonic, it can be detected and destroyed by missile defence systems,” Lieutenant General Ihor Romanenko, former deputy head of Ukraine’s general staff of armed forces who specialised in air and missile defence, told Al Jazeera.

As for the Poseidon nuclear drone, it is too destructive – and can be used only as a second-strike, retaliatory weapon after the start of a nuclear war, experts warned. As with the Burevestnik, the lack of detailed information about Poseidon casts doubt upon the Kremlin’s claims.

Trump decries ‘inappropriate’ tests

The announcements followed Washington’s scrapping of United States President Donald Trump’s summit with Putin in Budapest, Hungary.

Trump has called the Burevestnik’s test “inappropriate” and ordered the Pentagon to resume the testing of nuclear weapons and missiles.

But ahead of next year’s midterm elections, he may seek to show how he forced the Kremlin to stop hostilities in Ukraine.

“Trump will have to play with pressure on Russia,” Romanenko said. “Hopefully, the circumstances will force Trump to act.”

What Putin has not mentioned is that only two of the Burevestnik’s dozen tests, starting in 2019, have been successful.

Its 2019 launch near the White Sea in northwestern Russia killed at least five nuclear experts after a radioactive explosion, Western experts said at the time. Russia’s state nuclear agency acknowledged the deaths, but officials and media reports do not provide video footage, detailed photos or other specifics of the Burevestnik and its testing route – making Putin’s latest claims hard to corroborate or disprove.

Western experts were able to identify the Burevestnik’s probable deployment site in September. Known as Vologda-20 or Chebsara, it is believed to be 475km (295 miles) north of Moscow and has nine launch pads under construction, the Reuters news agency reported last year.

The missile’s capabilities have divided military analysts.

“In operation, the Burevestnik would carry a nuclear warhead (or warheads), circle the globe at low altitude, avoid missile defences, and dodge terrain; and drop the warhead(s) at a difficult-to-predict location (or locations),” the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a US nonprofit security group said in a 2019 report after the missile’s first somewhat successful test.

A year later, the US Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center said, if brought into service, Burevestnik would give Moscow a “unique weapon with intercontinental-range capability”.

‘Burevestnik is a mystification’

Others doubt the missile’s functionality.

“Burevestnik is a mystification for the whole seven-and-a-half years since it was first announced,” Pavel Luzin, a visiting scholar at Tufts University in Massachusetts, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s impossible to create a reactor that is compact and powerful enough to ensure a cruise missile’s movement,” Luzin said. “This is a basic physics textbook.”

Moscow claims that Burevestnik utilises nuclear propulsion instead of turbojet or turbofan engines used in cruise or ballistic missiles.

But Luzin said the smallest nuclear reactors used to power satellites weighed 1 metric tonne, supplying several kilowatts of energy – roughly equal to what a regular household consumes – while emitting some 150kw of thermal energy.

The experimental nuclear reactors developed in the 1950s and the 60s for aircraft weighed many tonnes and were the size of a railway carriage, he said.

An average engine for a cruise missile weighs up to 80kg, generates 4kw for onboard electric and electronic devices, and about 1 megawatt of energy for propelling the missile, he said.

Other analysts think that Burevestnik’s nuclear engine can function, but do not consider the weapon groundbreaking.

Russia has said that it conducted a long-awaited test of its mysterious Burevestnik (also known to NATO as SSC-X-9 Skyfall) cruise missile last week, claiming that it flew for 8,700 miles. The missile, which is nuclear-powered, is said to have remained in the air for around 15 hours. For the time being, we don’t know if those statements are factually accurate, and details about how the missile actually works remain very scarce. However, the claimed test has led to boasts about the missile’s performance from Russian President Vladimir Putin, while his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump, called upon Putin to end the war in Ukraine “instead of testing missiles.”

Russia’s Chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, told Putin yesterday that a successful test of the Burevestnik was carried out on October 21. Gerasimov said that the 15-hour flight “is not the [maximum] limit” for the missile. Regardless, if true, this would appear to be the first long-endurance test of the missile.

In response to Gerasimov’s remarks, Putin commented: “I remember vividly when we announced that we were developing such a weapon, even highly qualified specialists told me that, yes, it was a good and worthy goal, but unrealizable in the near future. This was the opinion of specialists, I repeat, highly qualified. And now the decisive tests have been completed.”

The Russian president was referring to the revelation of the Burevestnik’s existence back in 2018. It was one of six ‘super weapons’ that also included hypersonic weapons and a nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed torpedo.

People are asking what’s the purpose of Burevestnik and why develop a system that is very much useless as a weapon. The answer has always been right there, in the 1 March 2018 address. Russian president has always wanted to say these words. The rest doesn’t matter really. pic.twitter.com/0Q7JUGBqo3

— Pavel Podvig (@russianforces) October 26, 2025

Of all these weapons, the Burevestnik has long been among the most intriguing.

As TWZ described when it was first announced, the basic concept of a nuclear-powered cruise missile is by no means new.

After all, in the 1960s, the U.S. Air Force explored a similar idea with its Supersonic Low Altitude Missile, or SLAM. This weapon employed a nuclear-powered ramjet along with conventional rocket boosters to kickstart the system. Once at the appropriate speed, the engine would blow air over the reactor, which could have enough fuel to operate for weeks or months on end, and then force it out of an exhaust nozzle to produce thrust.

A missile of this kind has extreme endurance, not limited by conventional fuel onboard as all other air-breathing missiles are, can be wildly unpredictable and tough to defend against.

While we don’t know what kind of nuclear propulsion the Burevestnik uses, provided this kind of technology can be made reliable, the implications are significant.

Of the latest test, Gerasimov said: “The technical characteristics of the Burevestnik generally allow it to be used with guaranteed accuracy against highly protected targets at any distance.” He added that: “vertical and horizontal maneuvers were completed,” something that would allow the missile to “bypass anti-missile and air defense systems.”

As we have surmised before, an operational Burevestnik would likely cruise at high subsonic speed on a circuitous route at extremely low altitude, helping it to avoid surface-based early warning systems and missile defense interceptors.

Using a two-way datalink, it should be possible to adapt the Burevestnik’s course in flight to further confuse an opponent or actively counter any attempts to intercept the missile.

The American SLAM concept involved a payload of multiple nuclear warheads that could be dropped on different targets along the way, but again, the warhead of the Russian missile remains mysterious. Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, claimed that the latest test involved a warhead. If true, it would almost certainly involve a mock warhead, without the nuclear material, which would serve to test fuzing and detonation, for example.

Congratulations to all Russia’s friends on the successful test of the unlimited-range Burevestnik (Storm petrel) cruise missile with a nuclear engine and warhead ⚡️😃

— Dmitry Medvedev (@MedvedevRussiaE) October 26, 2025

Nevertheless, a technically perfected Burevestnik remains a somewhat questionable goal given previous problems with the program. At the same time, there remains the very real issue of safety and environmental hazards. We will dive deeper into both these factors later.

Returning to last week’s test, Gerasimov didn’t say where it took place, but it’s widely assumed to have been in Novaya Zemlya, an archipelago in northern Russia, situated in the Arctic Ocean, and used for many previous weapons tests.

Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) orders issued for October 21 showed a large area around Novaya Zemlya closed off, corresponding to a Russian missile test or live-fire exercise.

Over on the other site, David was covering the lead up to the apparently successful Burevestnik test. Sadly, its almost all ship tracking because this late in the year, you don’t get many satellite images that far north. pic.twitter.com/k04x9u6whp

— Dr. Jeffrey Lewis (@ArmsControlWonk) October 26, 2025

Meanwhile, several Russian vessels that are known to be used in missile tests were noted in positions along the coast of the Arctic archipelago, both on the Barents Sea and Kara Sea sides. Probable support aircraft belonging to Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation, and the Russian Aerospace Forces were also seen at Rogachevo airfield on Novaya Zemlya.

There have also been flights by a U.S. Air Force WC-135 Constant Phoenix “nuke sniffer” aircraft in the region, which some observers suggested could have been related to a Burevestnik. After a flight by this aircraft around the Barents Sea on August 5, the Air Force told TWZ that this was “to conduct routine background collection … to ensure signatory nations are adhering to established United Nations treaties.” The Air Force spokesperson added that the deployment of the WC-135 to the United Kingdom was planned and scheduled months in advance.

Background collection is something that could be conducted in anticipation of a Burevestnik test in the future. This data will be used to compare that from a collection mission following a test. At the same time, the wider region hosts other Russian nuclear assets, which would also be of interest for such flights, which are fairly regular in occurrence.

Finally, the test site at Pankovo, north of Rogachevo, on Yuzhny Island in the Novaya Zemlya archipelago, has seen considerable activity starting this summer. Pankovo hosts what is understood to be the main launch site for the Burevestnik, with two rail-type launchers under a retractable covering.

Update on the Burevestnik launch site. Launchers and covers for the first Burevestnik company are being installed. The presence of lightning rods suggest that assets will be on the pad for long periods of time. pic.twitter.com/UvhryhIJVd

— Decker Eveleth (@dex_eve) April 5, 2025

On 21 October 2025 Russia conducted “the key test” of the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile (also referred to as SSC-X-9 Skyfall). The test is reported to be successful. The missile travelled 14,000 km in a 15-hour flight (Image: Pan’kovo test site). Links follow 1/ pic.twitter.com/OVuCCjPiDO

— Pavel Podvig (@russianforces) October 26, 2025

Provided that last week’s test was conducted from Pankovo, making use of the area signaled by the NOTAM, then the missile must have flown in a racetrack or zigzag pattern around the Arctic archipelago. Less likely would be a longer route flown across the north of Russia.

Whatever the case, Norway, the closest NATO country to the test area, said it hadn’t detected any spikes in radiation at any of its monitoring posts.

“We have not measured anything abnormal at our measuring stations in Norway,” a spokesperson for the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (DSA) told the Barents Observer. However, there is still time for such a reading to be made.

“If there has been a radioactive release in connection with Russia’s testing of the cruise missile, it will take a long time to travel to Norway, and it will take time before it can be registered at our measuring stations,” the DSA spokesperson added.

Previous tests of the Burevestnik have not been without incident.

When he announced the missile in 2018, Putin suggested that tests of the propulsion system had occurred the previous year, but there was no indication of whether this had been in flight or on the ground and under what conditions.

Soon after Putin’s 2018 announcement, the Norwegian-based environmental group Bellona suggested that a radiation spike in the Arctic that same winter was caused by the missile’s open-air-cooled reactor core.

Later in 2018, a U.S. intelligence report described the loss at sea of a Russian nuclear-powered missile during a 2017 test. The report added that Russia was expected to embark on a search and recovery mission to try to lift the missile’s wreckage from the seabed.

The Russian Ministry of Defense released the video below in 2018, saying that it showed an earlier Burevestnik test launch, as well as examples of the missiles themselves.

More dramatically, in 2019, an explosion occurred aboard a barge in the White Sea, outside Nenoksa, killing five Rosatom scientists. It also led to a radiation spike in the Russian city of Severodvinsk, as you can read more about here. The explosion has been blamed on a reactor from a Burevestnik recovered from the sea, likely the one that was lost in 2017.

While the details of these accidents remain murky, they point to a significant problem in using nuclear propulsion for a missile or any other vehicle flying in the atmosphere.

It should be recalled that, in the case of SLAM, the nuclear ramjet had no shielding to contain dangerous radiation, a requirement driven by the need for the powerplant to be small enough to fit inside the missile. The SLAM’s exhaust plume also contained unspent fissile material that would have contaminated any area, enemy-controlled or not, that it passed over on its way to the target.

While the Burevestnik has already been likened to a ‘tiny flying Chernobyl’ by some observers, it’s important to remember that we still don’t know how it functions.

Nevertheless, provided it does indeed use nuclear propulsion, as claimed, there exists the risk of accidents.

“The testing [of the Burevestnik] carries a risk of accidents and local radioactive emissions,” Norway’s Intelligence Service (NIS) stated in a threat assessment report published last year.

This is especially the case during an unarmed test, when the missile necessarily has to come down to the surface, impacting either land or water. Here, especially, there remain a lot of questions about how the missile is tested.

It’s possible that the missile came down in waters around Novaya Zemlya, in either the Barents Sea or the Kara Sea. According to the Barents Observer and other sources, there are several ships in this area, on both sides of the Matochkin Strait, which might be involved in a recovery operation.

These ships include Rosatom’s special-purpose vessel Rossita, on the eastern coast of the Kola Peninsula. This vessel was noted making port calls in Novaya Zemlya after previous presumed Burevestnik tests. The Rossita is equipped to transport spent nuclear fuel and other hazardous radioactive material.

Perhaps, if Norway subsequently detects a radioactive spike in this area, we might learn more about where the missile ended its flight.

In the meantime, Putin took the opportunity to push claims about the missile’s game-changing nature.

“We need to determine the possible uses and begin preparing the infrastructure for deploying this weapon in our armed forces,” Putin said yesterday. This is especially relevant considering that the New START treaty with the United States, which puts a limit on strategic nuclear warheads and launchers, expires next year. Gerasimov’s announcement of the long-distance test also came one day before Russia began its annual Grom strategic nuclear maneuvers.

When asked for his reaction to the claims of the Burevestnik test, President Donald Trump stated that the U.S. Navy has a nuclear submarine “right off their shores,” meaning that there is no immediate requirement for a missile with the kind of range that the Russian cruise missile should possess.

At the same time, Trump noted that Russia is “not playing games with us. We’re not playing games with them either.” As for Putin’s comments on the missile test, Trump said: “I don’t think it’s an appropriate thing for Putin to be saying,” reminding the Russian leader that the priority was to bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

Trump responded to Putin’s threats and the recent Burevestnik missile test by reminding that the US has a nuclear submarine “right off their coast.”

He said there’s no need to fire missiles 8,000 miles when such assets are already in place, and called on Putin to end a war that… pic.twitter.com/kRIlFdMzQZ

— NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@NOELreports) October 27, 2025

Still, the prospect of the Burevestnik entering service is a concerning one for adversaries of Russia. The missile can be launched preemptively and approach its target from any vector long after launch. For example, it could be launched from the Arctic, stay aloft for many hours, and then attack the United States from the south. Once launched, its flight path is entirely unpredictable, and it could exploit holes in defenses and weaker spots in early warning capabilities. It provides another reason why space-based tracking layers, including those that can spot low-flying aircraft, are currently very much on trend.

It is also worth noting that the latest Burevestnik test comes at a time when the U.S. Golden Dome initiative is taking shape, and the Russian missile reinforces the case for such a system. At the same time, it also underlines the reason why Russia wants weapons like this, so that it can better bypass existing strategic air defense systems.

The latest developments leave no doubt that the Burevestnik is a prestige program for Russia, even if many questions still surround it, and the nature of the latest test.

Contact the author: [email protected]