Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Share
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3000
    Points : 3034
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  max steel on Fri Nov 13, 2015 7:35 pm

    That's why you call it a massive dirty bomb.

    @all your thoughts on my post above?
    US is planning to deploy a squadron of UUD by 2020 but is it a drone or a stealth unmanned sub? The Russians are working on unmanned submarine. Yasen class sub has its own drones,from what i read. Are these american yellow UUD same as Yasen drones or similar to Russian Unmanned sub ?

    text is barely legible, but it appears that the drone would be able to travel at the depth of up to 1000 m at a fairly high speed (something like 105 km/h?). The range appears to be listed as 10000 km, which is a bit hard to believe, but this is what the slide says. The diameter ("caliber") of the drone appears to be more than 1 meter (probably 1.6 m), the general's hand hides the length of the device.

    Further down the list, there is a drawing of the system's components - command and control, support ships (non-nuclear submarine "Sarov" and some surface ship - Zvezdochka rescue ship), and something else that I cannot see.

    Finally, the timeline at the bottom of the slide says that pilot system will be built by 2019, so the state tests can be conducted in 2019-2020.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4521
    Points : 4712
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:38 am

    lol1
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

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

    magnumcromagnon wrote: lol1


    magnumcromagnon,

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

    Posts : 3000
    Points : 3034
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

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

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

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on 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
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9928
    Points : 10418
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  George1 on Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:10 am

    Converted Delta IV BS-64 "Moscow" (ex K-64, Podmoskovye) nuclear submarine was put in sea.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1579861.html





    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Backinblack
    Private
    Private

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

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  Backinblack on Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:52 am

    Status-6 Project: What Is Really Known

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

    Posts : 566
    Points : 590
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:36 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote: lol1

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

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on 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'').



    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.
    avatar
    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1606
    Points : 1769
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  TheArmenian on Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:17 pm

    George1 wrote:Converted Delta IV BS-64 "Moscow" (ex K-64, Podmoskovye) nuclear submarine was put in sea.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1579861.html




    Looks like the hump has been toned down drastically or has gone completely.
    What will be the role of the submarine? What will it carry?
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9928
    Points : 10418
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  George1 on Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:57 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:
    George1 wrote:Converted Delta IV BS-64 "Moscow" (ex K-64, Podmoskovye) nuclear submarine was put in sea.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1579861.html




    Looks like the hump has been toned down drastically or has gone completely.
    What will be the role of the submarine? What will it carry?

    i think it will be used to launch small unmanned underwater vehicles for intelligence gathering purposes


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4521
    Points : 4712
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  magnumcromagnon on 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
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7301
    Points : 7611
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  sepheronx on 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.
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3000
    Points : 3034
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  max steel on 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 ?
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4521
    Points : 4712
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  magnumcromagnon on 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.
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3000
    Points : 3034
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

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

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

    Posts : 15961
    Points : 16662
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  GarryB on 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...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15961
    Points : 16662
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  GarryB on 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...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5394
    Points : 5643
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  Werewolf on 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.
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3000
    Points : 3034
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

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

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

    Posts : 3000
    Points : 3034
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  max steel on 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?
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1519
    Points : 1561
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on 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


    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3000
    Points : 3034
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  max steel on 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.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 851
    Points : 900
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  victor1985 on 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
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3000
    Points : 3034
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  max steel on 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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:58 pm