New hypersonic Russian weapons

[UtwigMU]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlsPmuC32LU&t=861s

Putin's announcement in Russian but you can scroll to watch videos of weapons.
New intercontinental ballistic missile Sarmat,

https://youtu.be/BlsPmuC32LU?t=130

new compact nuclear propulsion cruise missile with 10x range of Tomahawk or Russian H101 (successfully tested end of last year),

https://youtu.be/BlsPmuC32LU?t=335

new underwater nuclear powered (compact nuclear powerplant 100x smaller than submarine), nuclear capable drones faster than submarines, torpedoes and most surface ships, that can move "very very deep" with intercontinental range,

https://youtu.be/BlsPmuC32LU?t=520

Kinzhal, new hypersonic (10 mach) nuclear capable cruise missiles 2000km range launched from planes,

https://youtu.be/BlsPmuC32LU?t=785

Putin said "There is one more thing".
20mach capable intercontinental missiles with cruise final stage, so fast it causes plasma, surface temp 1600-2000°C

https://youtu.be/BlsPmuC32LU?t=1133

"We cannot show true form but we have them and they work well."

laser weapons.

https://youtu.be/BlsPmuC32LU?t=1290

According to Putin the new weapons have been tested successfully and are entering service.

My take:
Why has Putin chosen to tell this now.

The people sitting in the hall are mostly members of United Russia party and Putin political establishment and they have tied their careers with Putin so he doesn't need to impress them with new weapons for them to like him. They already like him.

The average Russian public is like people everywhere. They care whether they'll be able to have a decent job, put kids through school and afford to live once they're retired.

The new weapons have circled in internet enthusiast channels and a lot of them have been public knowledge. The USA political establishment and intelligence already know what Russians are working on now.

So that leaves us with the World public - perhaps a warning don't support politicians who mess with Russia with Syria and Korea crisis in full swing. If someone attacks us, we will fight back with all the consequences.

[Dr Mordrid]

"There is one more thing...20mach capable intercontinental missiles with cruise final stage, so fast it causes plasma"

All ICBM's reach mach 17-20, and all reentry vehicles create a plasma envelope. Steerable reentry vehicles? Been done.

"hypersonic (10 mach) nuclear capable cruise missiles 2000km range launched from planes"

Air-launched IRBM, aka ALBM, probably based on their 9K720 Iskander. Yawn..

[Greebe]

All video's have been removed by user

[UtwigMU]

All video's have been removed by user

And I spent like half an hour adding all timeline links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6slFfemBnN8

Here is another whole video of Putin's adfress. Scroll to about past 1h and scrub for the videos.

[UtwigMU]

Watched a video by a Russian. The 20 Mach cruise missile is a ramjet with nuclear reactor within heating the air and no fuel. The added heat from reactor to the flowing air is enough to create expansion and thrust, attaining 20 Mach. He hypothesized that materials became good enough so that reactor can operate in 1600°C without needing to be cooled. The US experimented with this in 1960's but they had to let air flow through reactor in order to cool it leaving radioactive byproducts in exhaust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeSdNJVS658

The nuclear torpedo is hypothesized to work on supercavitation. Speed >200km/h (120mph)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitating_torpedo

[MultimediaMan]

A lot of conceptualized weapns designs which will take a very long time to come to fruition. Particularly the concept of "Miniaturized Nuclear Propulsion" is kind of telling... you can make very small reactors which are very powerful... however, the reactors won't last very long and won't have a very long shelf life (which drives up cost astronomically). Fast Breeders can create a lot of nuclear material very quickly, but for the power densities they are shooting for, you are talking extremely high burn-up rates, and very volatile isotopes needed for such high output reactors (which are prone to decay contamination over time, chief among them being Promethium and Protactinium which cause the fuel to become substantially less efficient in a reactor; one of the reasons we retired the Tactical Nuclear Tomahawk TLAM-N sub-launched cruise missiles in 1991 was the "clean" Plutonium Pits they used to ~reduce~ radiation exposure to the crew had to regularly be sent in for Pit replacement and re-manufacture which drove the cost up beyond what it took to maintain a strategic SLBMs like the Trident D5). So, I'm calling BS on these nuclear-powered weapons systems being viable past laboratory demonstrators; physics is physics. Tactical Nuclear weapons (and by extension, miniature nuclear reactors) are vastly more expensive to maintain because of their fuel density requirements. As UtwigMU pointed out, the basic research was completed in the 1950's and 1960's... the Soviet Union experimented with "Nuclear Batteries" (Strontium and Thorium RTGs), and the US and Britain with Plutonium-powered RTGs, and even an Air-Cooled Airborne Reactor (which was cancelled after initial testing). There has been renewed interest by NASA in RTGs which power Stirling Engines instead of the solid-state Seebeck Effect generator of the past (2x+ higher power outputs are possible with Stirling Engines vs. Seebeck Generators at the cost of complexity).