Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Share
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 2059
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Wed Nov 11, 2015 8:33 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    JohninMK wrote:
    artjomh wrote:

    Better resolution. Nice stats on that drone torpedo.

    100 knots speed up to 10000 km.... Twice as fast as a typical torpedo.
    So, fire one under the Artic ice cap and four days later it homes onto a target in say Norfolk, Virginia. Amazing in wartime, probably about the ultimate fire and forget weapon.

    I did some calculations, it can reach it's max range in 2.25 days....looks like the U.S. based Neocons bit off more than they can chew. By wrecking all US/Russia relations, the Neocons have forced the Russian's to develop whole new concepts and strategy of Hybrid/Asymmetrical Warfare, such as this cruise missile equivalent of a torpedo, or cruise torpedo perhaps.

    I think "Skif's" functionality consists of first being fired from a sub; subsequently, it usually rests on the seabed awaiting a launch command, and then raises to the surface with the ICBM stages of the weapon completing the ballistic journey to the target in about 30 minutes (for approximately the "max" range).

    The following images may be those of the "Skif" being loaded onto Sarov.







    Last edited by Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Nov 12, 2015 12:40 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  max steel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:20 pm

    Well US has its own  : Navy Plans To Deploy A Submarine Drone Squadron by 2020


    Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle, or LDUUV, a 10-foot, highly autonomous, and very, very yellow subdrone, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said .It’s not yet clear just what missions will be performed by the LDUUV, which resembles a giant robot canary fish crossed with a sausage. Some Navy watchers expect it to boost attack submarines’ intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, but officials with the Office of Naval Research pushed back against such speculation. “Right now, it’s just an empty platform with some innovative power production things that will help increase its endurance.The LDUUV currently has an undersea endurance of 30 days but the eventual goal is to stretch that to years.




    Maybe they have different objectives they are going for a drone whereas russia is going for sub but I also read that Russia has its own underwater unmanned drones for Yasen Class Sub.


    From ABC : Secret nuclear torpedo schematics accidentally leaked, Russia admits

    This so-called “leak” of “secret documents” is, of course, no leak at all. This is a completely deliberate action. To imagine that a Russian journalist could, just by mistake, film a secret document (helpfully held up for him by a general) and then just walk away, get it passed his editor and air it is laughable. Any footage taken in a meeting of the President with his senior generals would be checked many times over. No, this was a deliberate way to remind the USA that if they really are hell-bent on spending billions of dollars in a futile quest to create some kind of anti-missile system Russia could easily develop a cheap weapon system to still threaten the USA with total annihilation. Because, make no mistake, the kind of long range torpedo being suggested here would be rather cheap to build using only already existing technologies. I would even add that rather than setting such a weapon off the US coast the system could also be designed to fire off a secondary missile (ballistic or cruise) which could then fly to any inland target. Again, such technologies already exist in the Russian military and have even been deployed on a smaller scale.






    The long range torpedoes, on the other hand, have existed since the Soviet Union. The “Tsar Torpedo” or T-15, designed in the 80-s by the Rubin Institute, was 1.6 m (5 feet) in diameter and op. depth of 1,000 m (3,000 feet). The main goal of that monster was to create a tsunami, but without long-lasting effects of radiation on the targeted area.


    The new system “Status-6” would turn huge coastal areas into a Fukushima/Chernobyl-like exclusion zones for centuries to come.





    Last edited by max steel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    artjomh

    Posts : 150
    Points : 184
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  artjomh on Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:35 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The following images may be those of the "Skif" being loaded onto Sarov.

    I don't think that's Status-6.

    The Status-6 UUV has to be around 35-40 meters long, if the proportions on the slide are correct (just take the 1.6 meter diameter and extrapolate the length).

    That thing is much smaller.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 2059
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:38 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    JohninMK wrote:
    artjomh wrote:

    Better resolution. Nice stats on that drone torpedo.

    100 knots speed up to 10000 km.... Twice as fast as a typical torpedo.
    So, fire one under the Artic ice cap and four days later it homes onto a target in say Norfolk, Virginia. Amazing in wartime, probably about the ultimate fire and forget weapon.

    I did some calculations, it can reach it's max range in 2.25 days....looks like the U.S. based Neocons bit off more than they can chew. By wrecking all US/Russia relations, the Neocons have forced the Russian's to develop whole new concepts and strategy of Hybrid/Asymmetrical Warfare, such as this cruise missile equivalent of a torpedo, or cruise torpedo perhaps.

    I think "Skif's" functionality consists of first being fired from a sub; subsequently, it usually rests on the seabed awaiting a launch command, and then raises to the surface with the ICBM stages of the weapon completing the ballistic journey to the target in about 30 minutes (for approximately the "max" range).

    The following images may be those of the "Skif" being loaded onto Sarov.






    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'').


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16857
    Points : 17465
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:25 am

    Considering the range of the torpedo/cruise weapon... I would think it would be easy enough to launch them from ports and coastal areas... you could have a half dozen attached to a central core pylon that could be towed to open ocean by a tug and released... the bottom one drops off and the change in weight balance rotates the cluster with the now bottom weapon released and so on till there is just an empty pylon left to be towed back to shore... either for reloading or storage.

    Just like a real cruise missile you could programme it to take an unexpected route and have it appear from a very unexpected direction... perhaps every hour it could approach the surface and update its inertial navigation system...

    Excellent idea... because when you think your sneak attack has won the day your ports start exploding... I would expect these things could even be used to navigate up large rivers too...

    Of course there is not much value in having such weapons if the enemy don't know you have them so letting the other side know about them hopefully will make WWIII less likely.


    _________________
    “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
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  Rmf on Fri Nov 13, 2015 5:37 pm

    artjomh wrote:

    Better resolution. Nice stats on that drone torpedo.

    100 knots speed up to 10000 km.... Twice as fast as a typical torpedo.

    then this thing cannot be intercepted by anything in military today.
    how does it navigate by inertial/ geomagnetic then scaning ocean bottom closer to shore?
    50% of world population lives within 150km from sea. this is a radiation boosted weapon and water nuclear explosions can be very dirty.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    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

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    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

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 2059
    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

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    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

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 2059
    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

    Posts : 10747
    Points : 11226
    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

    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

    Posts : 862
    Points : 880
    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

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 2059
    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

    Posts : 1729
    Points : 1886
    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

    Posts : 10747
    Points : 11226
    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

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    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

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    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

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    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

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    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

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    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

    Posts : 16857
    Points : 17465
    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

    Posts : 16857
    Points : 17465
    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

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Special Purpose Nuclear Submarines

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:37 am