Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+39
Podlodka77
Krepost
Gibraltar
ALAMO
Kiko
Mindstorm
LMFS
Isos
d_taddei2
mnztr
Arrow
owais.usmani
Viktor
Tsavo Lion
flamming_python
kvs
PapaDragon
dino00
hoom
verkhoturye51
Hole
franco
Singular_Transform
victor1985
GunshipDemocracy
Werewolf
sepheronx
Big_Gazza
Backinblack
Rmf
GarryB
max steel
magnumcromagnon
zg18
JohninMK
artjomh
Morpheus Eberhardt
Stealthflanker
George1
43 posters

    Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Morpheus Eberhardt


    Posts : 1925
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:45 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote: lol1
    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 CTsIIknWUAATEbP


    magnumcromagnon,

    This is a more accurate depiction of Status-6. Smile
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  max steel Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:27 am

    I've some doubts & questions but you're busy laughing. Cool
    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Morpheus Eberhardt


    Posts : 1925
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt Sun Nov 15, 2015 8:18 am

    max steel wrote:I've some doubts & questions but you're busy laughing. Cool

    But most of your doubts and comments can't be addressed on an open forum, and similarly your questions can't really be answered on an open forum, especially due to the way you have unintentionally posed them.

    That may be the reason for the comedy.
    avatar
    Backinblack


    Posts : 37
    Points : 49
    Join date : 2015-10-16

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  Backinblack Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:52 am

    Status-6 Project: What Is Really Known

    http://mil.today/2015/Weapons6/
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4584
    Points : 4576
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  Big_Gazza Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:36 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote: lol1
    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 CTsIIknWUAATEbP

    US tacticians are reportedly upset due to Russian engineers removing the thermal exhausts ports leading to the reactor core....
    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Morpheus Eberhardt


    Posts : 1925
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:25 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:It seems that Skif and Status-6 are different. Status-6 is more in line with T-5 and T-15. It should be noted that Status-6 seems to have a diameter of 1.6 m (nominal?), and T-15 had a diameter of 1.55 m (again, nominal?).

    Here is an image apparently of T-5 (21'').


    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 3NY2hXa

    By the way, at a diameter of 1.55 m, T-15 had a length of 23.55 m and a mass of around 40 tonnes.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  magnumcromagnon Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:38 pm

    Pro-NATO think tank, 'The Brookings Institute' downplays the importance of Status-6, off course NATO cultists have a tendency to engage in double-think (a pandemic of multiple personality disorder perhaps), they love hyperventilating about so-called threats to America, while simultaneously downplaying their perceived enemies capabilities...I'd like to hear what GarryB, and others have in response towards the think tanks' article:

    http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/11/18-russias-perhaps-not-real-super-torpedo-pifer
    sepheronx
    sepheronx


    Posts : 8473
    Points : 8735
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 34
    Location : Canada

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  sepheronx Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:54 pm

    Just a note, and this falls in line for all thinktanks: they use open source data. So if there is nearly no sources of info but pure speculation like this sub, than guaranteed they will make it up as they go along.
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  max steel Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:03 pm



    Do you think it can really travel 10,000 km with up to 1000m depth that too with 105km/h speed because it will take 40 hours to reach and something travelling that fast will make noise which can be detected on their sonars etc. Lacking stealth and how exactly Russia will guide it to such a large distance? Using sats or intertial navigation for underwater icbm torpedo ?
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  magnumcromagnon Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:43 pm

    max steel wrote:

    Do you think it can really travel 10,000 km with up to 1000m depth that too with 105km/h speed because it will take 40 hours to reach and something travelling that fast will make noise which can be detected on their sonars etc. Lacking stealth and how exactly Russia will guide it to such a large distance? Using sats or intertial navigation for underwater icbm torpedo ?

    As far as guidance, this is speculation but likely it'll be guided by it's mother ship UUV, most likely 'Kanyon', and later guided by Oceanographic ships, Intelligence ships, etc. with coded satellite uplinks. As far as the sound created by it's wake, KRET apparently designed ECM systems (like Richarg-AV, Krashuka-2/4) to jam sonar as well, so I suspect similar systems on support ships, or on Status-6 itself, could be installed to help mask it's presence. Keep in mind this is pure speculation, and your guess is just as good as mine.
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  max steel Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:13 pm

    Ohk. I'm not guessing what I stated is already mentioned in the status-6 picture.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38695
    Points : 39191
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  GarryB Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:40 am

    .I'd like to hear what GarryB, and others have in response towards the think tanks' article:

    First of all if we just ignore the condescending crap... like their media is not free and wont give out state secrets... before they publish anything in Russia Putin has to sign it off personally... in total contrast to the US where the media is free and without restraint... Rolling Eyes lets look at the questions they ask...

    That’s a long time; do Russian military planners really want a system that takes nearly two days to strike its objectives?

    This is a strategic weapon... not a tactical one... it might not be fired for days after WWIII starts and it might not take a direct route to hit US targets... its purpose is deterrence so the threat that days after the nuclear explosions kill enormous numbers of your people your ports and coastal areas can still be attacked again...

    Second, at a speed of 100 knots, the Status-6 would be much faster than conventional torpedoes. When it comes to underwater travel, more speed usually means more noise, increasing the risk of detection. This would not appear to be a particularly stealthy system. NATO navies might not have an ability to stop it, but they might well know where it was and where it was headed.

    So if they can't stop it are they going to move the target to a safe place before it gets there?


    In my opinion this weapon is a direct response to US ABM systems... stop our ICBMs and we will attack you from a different direction....

    Third, the Russians as a rule exercise caution about how they manage and control nuclear arms. Would Russian navy commanders be comfortable with an unmanned nuclear weapon roaming the ocean on its own for up to two days traveling to its target—or perhaps even longer if it traveled to near the target and simply lurked?

    If they launch the damn thing WWIII has already started... Russian naval commanders wont give a fuck what is launched at the US mainland... cruise missiles and ICBMs and SLBMs are not manned either but they carry nuclear warheads. I don't think they will care about the possiblity that ISIS might capture them... Rolling Eyes

    This is not to say that the Status-6 is not a real weapon design. The Russians, and the Soviets before them, have built some bizarre and nasty devices.

    I am sure that is supposed to be ironic considering the US pursued a nuclear propelled cruise missile that polluted the airspace it flew through with radioactive material that could fly for years and carried a dozen nuclear warheads at low altitude at mach 3.



    « Previous | Next »

    Steven Pifer | November 18, 2015 8:00am
    Russia’s perhaps-not-real super torpedo

    Russia
    Nuclear Weapons
    Weapons of Mass Destruction
    kremlin

    Russia's President Vladimir Putin (L) is seen through the glass of C-Explorer 5 submersible after a dive to see the remains of the naval frigate "Oleg", which sank in the 19th century, in the Gulf of Finland in the Baltic Sea July 15, 2013. REUTERS/Aleksey Nikolskyi/RIA Novosti/Kremlin

    On November 10, a Russian television broadcast of a meeting between President Vladimir Putin and some of his senior military officers revealed a “secret” plan for a long-range, nuclear-armed torpedo called Status-6. The broadcast on state-run Channel One showed a diagram of the torpedo, filmed over the shoulder of a Russian officer.

    According to BBC, the diagram described the purpose of the Status-6 as to “destroy important economic installations of the enemy in coastal areas and cause guaranteed devastating damage to the country's territory by creating wide areas of radioactive contamination, rendering them unusable for military, economic or other activity for a long time.”

    The Status-6 revelation raises some interesting questions.

    Status-6, Full name and size comparison (Russian)
    Status-6, full name and size comparison (Russian). Credit: Madnessgenius. Licensed under the Creative Commons. Attribution: Share Alike 4.0 International license.
    Not an accidental leak

    To begin with, this was no accidental leak. Televised events involving the Russian president are carefully scripted by the Kremlin. Even were a Russian cameraman daring enough to film the diagram surreptitiously, his producer would have made a phone call to check with higher authority before broadcasting a secret weapon to the world.

    The picture was aired because the Kremlin wanted it aired and wanted the world to believe that Russia has plans for a large nuclear torpedo. That fits with Moscow’s pattern of nuclear saber-rattling over the past two years. Along with a generally more belligerent stance toward the West, flights by Bear bombers near NATO air space, and submarine incursions in Swedish and Finnish waters, Putin and other Russian officials take every possible occasion to remind the world of something the world already knows well: Russia has an awful lot of nuclear weapons.
    Is it real?

    Is the Status-6 intended to be real? As Jeffrey Lewis has pointed out, it would appear to be a particularly nasty weapon that would generate massive amounts of radioactivity if detonated in shallow waters. It also would appear to have some drawbacks.

    First of all, the diagram indicated that the torpedo, which would be launched from a submarine mothership, will have a range of 10,000 kilometers (more than 6,000 miles). The long range would allow the torpedo to be fired from waters close to Russia, reducing the exposure of the Russian mothership to U.S. and NATO anti-submarine capabilities. At its alleged speed of 100 knots (about 115 miles per hour), if launched from north of Russia’s Kola Peninsula, the torpedo would take some 40 hours to reach targets on the U.S. East Coast. That’s a long time; do Russian military planners really want a system that takes nearly two days to strike its objectives?

    Second, at a speed of 100 knots, the Status-6 would be much faster than conventional torpedoes. When it comes to underwater travel, more speed usually means more noise, increasing the risk of detection. This would not appear to be a particularly stealthy system. NATO navies might not have an ability to stop it, but they might well know where it was and where it was headed.

    This would not appear to be a particularly stealthy system.

    Third, the Russians as a rule exercise caution about how they manage and control nuclear arms. Would Russian navy commanders be comfortable with an unmanned nuclear weapon roaming the ocean on its own for up to two days traveling to its target—or perhaps even longer if it traveled to near the target and simply lurked?

    This is not to say that the Status-6 is not a real weapon design. The Russians, and the Soviets before them, have built some bizarre and nasty devices. But it’s not obvious that the Status-6 would be the weapon of choice for many operations—that is, unless the Russian leadership was prepared to have its cities nuked in response.

    For all the oddities of the Status-6 torpedo, there would appear to be one bit of good news. Military strategists since the dawn of the nuclear ballistic missile age have obsessed over the possibility of surprise attack. Given its long travel time to target, possibly noisily announcing its course along the way, the Status-6 would not appear to make a good first-strike weapon.

    Which is all you need to know... these dumb fucks think this is a first strike weapon... like the Americans want in the B-2 and LRB programme... the Americans want weapons to start WWIII and the Russians want deterrence weapons to prevent it... but Russia is aggressive and the US promotes peace and stability. Rolling Eyes

    At about the time that it showed the Status-6 diagram, the broadcast aired Putin expressing concern about U.S. missile defenses and saying: “We’ll work on our missile defense systems, but primarily, as we’ve said repeatedly, I repeat, we’ll work on development of strike weapons capable of overcoming any anti-missile defense systems.”

    The Status-6, operating underwater, presumably would not be troubled by an American missile interceptor. But does the Russian military really believe it needs such a system to overcome U.S. missile defenses? It would hardly seem so. By 2018, the United States will have 44 missile interceptors with a velocity capable of engaging a strategic ballistic missile warhead. At that time, Russia will have some 1,500 deployed warheads on its intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

    Wow... they almost get it... but don't.

    This isn't about what the US has now... all of the plans for the ABM system have blocks of development and usually by the third or fourth block they talk about new ABM missiles able to shoot down multiple targets each. There is no binding treaty limiting the location or number of these ABM systems and the US has already talked about systems in Eastern Europe, in Asia (with Japan and South Korea) and with the UK... so how many systems are they going to build?

    What should Russia do? Just sit and wait and trust the US when it says it wont use them against Russia... even though they refuse to put that in writing...

    those damn aggressive Russians... they withdrew their military forces in eastern europe... just so NATO could move in to the vacuum... why don't they trust us?

    The Russian military understands this. The Russian public may not. The Status-6 revelation thus may have been aimed at domestic viewers, to assure them that, despite all of the anxiety that Moscow voices about U.S. missile defenses, the Russian military will still be able to strike back.

    Wrong!

    This torpedo is now the boogeyman and will be raised every time the US defence contractors want to make the US completely safe by spending another billion on those ABM sites around the place... but will it also kill underwater threats?

    This episode illustrates the very different attitudes of the American and Russian presidents toward nuclear arms. While noting that, as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States will maintain a reliable nuclear deterrent, Obama stresses the need to reduce nuclear risks and seeks to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons in U.S. security policy.

    It certainly does illustrate the difference... the Americans want to be able to use their nuclear weapons but have no interests in reducing the number of weapons... ask germany.

    the americans want have a nuclear deterrence and a nuclear missile shield to hide behind while they launch their first strike.

    The Russians just want the US to realise they can't win a nuclear war with Russia and escape unscathed no matter what level they get their ABM system to.

    Of course the ABM system wont stop the Russian nuclear attack, but that is not the point... if some defence contractor after getting trillions of dollars building an ABM system can assure the US president that it will work it doesn't matter if it wont... by then it will be too late. And we all pay for the fact that Americans seem to like to elect dumb fucks as leaders. Mad

    Putin, on the other hand, has refused to engage in any nuclear arms reduction negotiations since the New START Treaty.

    Of course he did.... when NATO is an enormously powerful conventional force moving right to his door step he needed the nuclear deterrence to prevent an attempt at a first strike using precision guided weapons that might attempt to hit HQ and Comms and nuclear weapons platforms (ships, aircraft and silos and trucks) before they can launch.

    As shown in Syria however... Russia has developed that capability now too so by 2020 or so Russia should be in a position to give up more nuclear capability. Of course if she is surrounded by ABM fields defending the US from the nuclear threat from the Christmas Islands then they might not.

    [qutoe]That’s a striking and unsettling contrast.[/quote]

    Very true... but not in the way he intended.

    If Oblama really wants peace then scrap the ABM systems and save the US a trillion dollars and withdraw US forces from Europe... they aren't kids... they don't need the US to babysit them... but that is not part of the encirclement plan to keep pressure on Russia...
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38695
    Points : 39191
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  GarryB Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:49 am

    I would expect it would be rather like a cruise missile... they have mapped the ocean floor... which does not change fundamentally that much in deepwater areas.

    I doubt it would rely on other platforms for guidance... this is a revenge weapon fired a day after WWIII to make sure the enemy suffers.

    I would think even nuclear propulsion could be possible and that 10,000km is just code like all the bigger ICBMs have ranges of 10,000km when their actual range is rather more.

    equally moving at 45 knots NATO was unable to deal with Alphas sailing past their exercises... I don't think they would be able to deal with this any better especially at that depth.

    regarding noise... what sort of condition is the navies of NATO going to be in to deal with the problem?

    Just the same as the air defences of the US or Russia to deal with strategic bombers when they get to their launch positions about 6 hours after ICBMs and SLBMs have destroyed all the airfields and HQs and Comms centres and major SAM installations...

    they know the targets and the path the torpedo will take... any choke points or underwater arrays that might detect the weapon could easily have a SLBM assigned to obliterate it the day before the torpedo comes past...

    This is all about bypassing any ABM systems... even if only half get to their targets that is fine... the US just needs to know they are coming...
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  Werewolf Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:58 am

    The US is damn sure russia would not use strategic nukes even when they use tactical nukes against russia. That means russia needs an ultimate deterrance. Restart the Tzar programm make the yield to 150 MT build it as an ICBM and name it Washington or Clinton, they will get the message.
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  max steel Sun Nov 22, 2015 9:06 pm

    CIA: Leak of Nuclear-Armed Drone Sub Was Intentional
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  max steel Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:44 pm

    Got this thread from somewhere on status-6 PROGRAM : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26054.0.html

    Your Thoughts?
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5936
    Points : 5956
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:28 am

    max steel wrote:Got this thread from somewhere on status-6 PROGRAM : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26054.0.html

    Your Thoughts?

    Just cannot believe in what I´ve read! Like readsing dudes form parallel univewerse.

    "
    They can't possibly be worried about missile shields. If GBI achieved 100% success rate it wouldn't make a dent. For example, load up an Oscar with 24 nuclear armed land-attack P-700s, park it off Virgina, and what could stop those missiles from launching a decapitating strike. Certainly not GBI. On the other hand these Russian "torpedoes" would be the perfect terror weapon. If say, Russia decided to go into Poland, a NATO country, and the US decided to attack Russian units with conventional forces, Russia could send these torpedoes on their way to NY, DC, Seattle, Sand Diego, etc. They'd be loud enough we'd certainly detect them. But they'd be recallable. Unlike ICBMs Russia could say, "back off and we'll stop them". Imagine the pressure on a US administration to sit on it's hands and do nothing. 10 hours of bedlam.
    "

    I had an idea a while back and thought I'd share it. I think we're overthinking this. The weapon doesn't actually have to make sense.

    There are two obvious possibilities:

    The first is that the hierarchical non-democratic Russian government has even more opportunities for sycophants than the U.S. government, and as a result may make even worse decisions regarding military procurement.

    The second is that the Russians are using the 'Madman theory' of psychological warfare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory). The goal isn't to message to the public, it is to give the impression to world governments and analysts that the Russian regime is unpredictable and irrational in its decisions.
    Logged

    and such experts Laughing Laughing Laughing say Russians do not know what they are doing just terror weapons? What a Face What a Face What a Face



    nice graphics though
    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 VdltXh7

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 RwLkkvi
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  max steel Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:55 am

    The Status-6 ocean-going multipurpose system is a separate representative of future Russian submarine force.A self-propelled submersible operating within 10,000-km radius and diving down to 1,000 meters would be a striking force of the system as it is designed to destroy an opponent’s coastal infrastructure. It is supposed to be mounted on nuclear submarines Belgorod (Project 09852) and Khabarovsk (Project 09851). The first one, formerly a cruise missile carrier, is being rebuilt into a special-purpose submarine, and the second one is being built from scratch. Both subs are at the Sevmash shipyard.
    avatar
    victor1985


    Posts : 632
    Points : 659
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  victor1985 Fri Apr 01, 2016 8:26 am

    question: as far as i know the fastest military objects are those on railguns......can russia make a railgun mounted on a sub .......with a nuclear warhead on it? ....i suppose is useless to make a defence sistem when a projectile travel at 7 mach.......
    also maibe would be a way of launch railguns underwater.....i think at a chamber with no water ...and the walls be destroyed at railgun launch..... supposing russia could make such a wall that resist to pressure but is destroyed at launch ....or maibe a 0,1 second rectractile wall.... problem being here sincronisation with the projectile launch
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  max steel Fri Apr 01, 2016 8:39 am

    victor1985 wrote:question: as far as i know the fastest military objects are those on railguns......can russia make a railgun mounted on a sub .......with a nuclear warhead on it? ....i suppose is useless to make a defence sistem when a projectile travel at 7 mach.......
    also maibe would be a way of launch railguns underwater.....i think at a chamber with no water ...and the walls be destroyed at railgun launch..... supposing russia could make such a wall that resist to pressure but is destroyed at launch ....or maibe a 0,1 second rectractile wall.... problem being here sincronisation with the projectile launch


    Railguns(firing fast projectiles) are still a concept. No one has employed it yet.
    avatar
    victor1985


    Posts : 632
    Points : 659
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  victor1985 Fri Apr 01, 2016 8:42 am

    well yes ...but we know for sure that they are travel at 7 mach speed? if yes then all the work must be done in order to obtain them .......
    but what are the main issues of this weapon?
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  max steel Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:47 pm

    max steel wrote:The Status-6 ocean-going multipurpose system is a separate representative of future Russian submarine force.A self-propelled submersible operating within 10,000-km radius and diving down to 1,000 meters would be a striking force of the system as it is designed to destroy an opponent’s coastal infrastructure. It is supposed to be mounted on nuclear submarines Belgorod (Project 09852) and Khabarovsk (Project 09851). The first one, formerly a cruise missile carrier, is being rebuilt into a special-purpose submarine, and the second one is being built from scratch. Both subs are at the Sevmash shipyard.


    A Status-6 recent update


    After making a splash in November, the Status-6 underwater drone has almost completely disappeared from the news. Probably for a good reason - the story looked like a deliberate fake from the beginning. And by all indications it was. Moreover, it appears that the appearance of that Status-6 slide on TV was an elaborate ploy that had something to do with an obscure internal power struggle in the Russian ministry of defense. Details are elusive and not particularly important, but the word is that the episode did result in some very high-level MoD officials being interrogated at Lefortovo regarding the alleged breach of security. Nothing came out of it, however.

    That does not necessarily mean, however, that there is nothing behind the story. In February, a Russian newspaper published an article that mentioned Status-6 and included a photo that shows something that looks very much as a container that can house the drone on the slide:

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Img17349

    The caption says that it's a mockup of a "Skif self-propelled underwater vehicle." The article also has some interesting information about the project (although, as always, some scepticism is advised). It says that tests of the vehicle began the fall of 2008 and it is expected to be ready for deployment in 2019-2023. We still have time to figure it out.

    Another photo, which shows the container from a much closer distance:

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Lzeb759

    There is nothing inside yet - it's a mockup of the real thing. But the photo appears to have been taken in 2009, so the program may have made some advances since then.

    Speaking of timing, Rose Gottemoeller was asked at the hearings back in December 2015 if the United States was aware of the Status-6 when it was negotiating the New START treaty. She said "unequivocally no." Which is interesting - on the 2009 photo the mockup seems pretty beat-up, so it had been hauled around for some time. Someone must have seen something.
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18257
    Points : 18754
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  George1 Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:42 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:

    The Belgorod will be completed in 2018.
    Rumors that it is 11m longer than the others.

    http://www.i-mash.ru/news/nov_predpr/90432-sevmash-peredast-apl-belgorod-vmf-rossii-na.html

    http://izvestia.ru/news/688769

    Yes..Some news on it:

    Belgorod "will become the longest nuclear submarine in the world


    The newspaper Izvestia published an article by Dmitry Litovkin on April 21, 2017, The Navy will receive the largest nuclear submarine in the world. The updated "Belgorod" will surpass even the legendary underwater cruiser Typhoon, in which it is reported that the research nuclear submarine project 09852 Belgorod will become the largest submarine in the Russian Navy. According to its size and displacement, it will overtake the heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser Project 941 of the Typhoon type entered in the Guinness Book of Records.

    Project 09852 is designed to carry out research missions. It will be the carrier of uninhabited deep-sea vehicles and bathyscaphes, as well as special scientific equipment. It will be engaged in studying the bottom of the Russian Arctic shelf, searching for greater depth of minerals, and also laying underwater communications.

    The submarine is created on the basis of the unfinished strike missile carrier 949A of the project of type "Antey". These boats were built in the USSR as a response to the deployment of American aircraft carrier compounds in the World Ocean. Twenty launchers of supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles "Granit" were on board.

    As Izvestia was told in the Navy command, the work on upgrading the submarine will be completed in 2018. At the moment, Belgorod is located on the stocks of the Severodvinsk machine-building enterprise. It redesigned the central part. Instead of a rocket compartment, a new one, almost 30 m in, is slammed in. Special equipment will be placed in it, lock chambers for the transition of seamen to deep-sea vehicles, and also the divers exit will be installed. As a result, the size of the Antey increased from the original 154 to 184 meters. That is eleven meters more than the largest nuclear submarine Typhoon.

    Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences Vadim Kozyulin told Izvestia that the submarine "Belgorod" will become not only the largest, but also the most unique submarine of the Russian fleet.

    - According to some information, Belgorod will become a carrier of the AS-31 autonomous deepwater station "Losharik", the expert said. - It will transport and install on the seabed autonomous nuclear submarine modules designed to charge uninhabited submarines. The submarine will ensure the deployment of a global underwater monitoring system, which the military is building on the bottom of the Arctic seas.

    Before the appearance of Belgorod, the 941-class Typhoon submarine was one of the most unique weapons systems in the world. Its full displacement is almost 50 thousand tons. Length 173 m, width 23 m. Inside the light (external) superstructure there are five solid shells. They contain combat posts, crew cabins, a sauna, a swimming pool, a sports hall and the most unusual - a smoking room, which is not on any other submarine in the world.

    The bmpd comment. Even if the information given by Izvestia is correct, then Belgorod will become the only largest longest nuclear submarine, and by displacement (surface and underwater) will still yield to the ships of Project 941.

    Recall that the ceremony of laying the atomic research submarine of project 09852 (serial number 91664) was held on December 20th, 2012 in the shed of OAO Severnoye Mashinostroitelnoye Oblast (SME) Production Association in Severodvinsk. Project 09852 was developed by TsKB MT Rubin (St. Petersburg) within the framework of the R&D "Remounting" based on the design of the 949A nuclear missile submarine. In fact, a new project 09852 of the nuclear missile submarine K-329 Belgorod (plant number 664) of the modified project 949A was actually re-laid. "Belgorod" was started construction in 1990 and was formally laid down on July 24, 1992, becoming the first ship of the modified project 949A. Finally, the construction of Belgorod was stopped in 2006 with a total technical readiness of about 76%. Now "Belgorod" is being completed on the project 09852 as a large nuclear submarine-carrier of inhabited and uninhabited submarines. The customer is the Main Directorate of Deepwater Research (GGI) of the Russian Ministry of Defense (some details).

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2563588.html
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1014
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  Singular_Transform Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:34 pm

    There is the reason why Russia doesn't bother to make sea patrol airplanes. : )


    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38695
    Points : 39191
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  GarryB Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:43 am

    It has a fleet of recently upgraded Il-38s in service that should be fine for the next decade or so.

    Or are you one of those kids that see the P-8 and want a Russian equivalent to crow about on the internet?

    Sponsored content


    Poseidon carrier Submarines - Page 2 Empty Re: Poseidon carrier Submarines

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:07 am