Considering that a small tsunami on its own will not do too much damage the cobalt begins to make quite a lot of sense.
Not really... how much cobalt do you think you can pack around the warhead... and how much less nuclear warhead you would have if you are wasting space and weight with Cobalt dead weight?
This is a weapon intended to annihilate enemy population centres, not just to damage coastal infrastructure.
Most major population centres in the US are coastal... and for that matter most western countries too.
Belgorod are not "like SSBN", actually it is a totally new type of submarine
They are like SSBNs in the sense that they will be used as a deterrent but will likely actually only be used once or not at all.
They are a response to US ABM systems bringing into question how reliable ballistic weapons will be in destroying the west, so it uses non ballistic weapons to destroy and kill.
Contrary to what has been written in this thread, the main purpose of this type of submarines is not the destruction of the East coast of the USA, but to end the dominance of the American aircraft carrier in the oceans.
Sorry I can't agree with that... US carrier groups are already taken care of with Kinzhal and MiG-31Ks around Russias borders and further afield Zircon and even Onyx are a real problem for them, to the point that single missiles can defeat targets so they don't even need to launch missiles in enormous volumes to assure a result like the west does with Harpoon and Tomahawk type weapons.
Poseidon is a doomsday weapon to prevent America think it can do a first strike and take out as many SSBN subs and ground based ICBM fields and truck mounted ICBMs in the hope they can shoot down any air launched cruise missiles with their ABM defences defeating any ballistic weapons launched at them to allow them to survive WWIII largely unscathed.
Thunderbird and Poseidon are there to **** them over even if their ABM systems even work.
Normal age old 650mm long range nuclear armed torpedoes could be used against US Naval power including ports if that was all they were for.
So I wouldn't expect Russia to build large attack carriers in the future, it's as outdated a concept as battleships were in 1941, especially since Russia doesn't need to attack anyone across the ocean
You are not getting it... Russia has ballistic missiles both land and sea launched, they have aircraft launched cruise missiles and now they can have surface launched cruise missiles too for Europe and Japan and Australia that were banned by the INF treaty... the purpose of thunderbird and poseidon is to restore the balance that is upset by the US spending trillions on ABM defence so they know even if they shoot down all ballistic weapons headed their way they are still going to get nuked... the poseidon can hit any port including many of their biggest cities BTW, and thunderbird, being very low flying and fast could attack any inland target without any warning.
The advantages of Poseidon and Thunderbird is that when they are operating the ABM system has probably already been hit and taken out but even if it hasn't it can do nothing to underwater and low flying threats.
Aircraft carriers are zero use for WWII even if you ignore Zircon and Poseidon and other types of weapons because even if a Russian carrier group survives and destroys everything that attacks it... what does it win?
It will never be an efficient way of attacking anyone in a nuclear conflict.
For a conflict like Syria then landing troops and providing air support would be valuable and protecting shipping in remote locations with air power would be valuable too... when Israelis were attacking an obviously American spy ship pretending they thought it was Egyptian they didn't stop attacking it till they heard radio calls from F-14s inbound and ready to help them...
A Russian or Russian friendly vessel under attack by British or American ships hears Su-57Ks inbound will back off too... or the attack would never happen in the first place knowing there are Russian surface ships nearby... but how do you operate world wide without air support?
Aircraft carriers for Russia defend their own shipping and their access to the global market... in a potential WWIII scenario they would likely move to the Arctic ocean to protect and extend Russian air power into that water way... and help hunt subs.
Their value is in peace time and small scale conflicts Russia is helping out with... we see in the Middle East and also Africa the rest of the world now see Russia as a chance for peace and solutions to war and economic growth and development... the west encouraged conflict to keep the masses down and poor and weak... they make more money on destruction and don't want rivals... they will turn on each other in a heart beat... look at industry moving from the EU to the US with full US encouragement and whines and moans from the EU about it... Russia does not fear the rest of the world developing and improving and growing... the US certainly does, as does the EU which is why the third world is still poor and weak and fighting.
I agree Poseidons most immediate practical use would be hunting CBG in transit to a deployment point
If Poseidons are being launched then it makes more sense to hit western population centres... Russia has Yasen to kill western carrier groups... even just a 650mm torpedo with a 10kt nuke warhead would do the job of taking out a US carrier group... no need for Poseidons.
When setting off nukes in water a 10MT is a complete waste of energy that will be absorbed by the water to create a hell of a lot of steam... a 10kt nuke would also destroy the ships and any subs operating nearby (within 10km), but much cheaper and easier... first of all because it will be the Yasens job to either protect a carrier group meaning the enemy carrier groups will be coming to it, or hunting carrier groups where it will be going to them.
Poseidon carriers on the other hand will be finding hidey places where no one even knows they are there... which would be the opposite of where the US and western carrier groups would be operating.
One for Pacific , one for Northern, and one for BSF along with an accompanying helicopter carrier, 3 gorshkov destroyers, and some 20380 for added ASW capabilities that can work with Ka29 from the priboy/lavina carrier
Any new CVNs they build will be to defend the landing force the helicopter carriers operate with, so to start with the two helicopter carriers will go to either the Northern or Pacific fleet and odds are they will be slightly different... one carrying Russian naval infantry and their armour and helicopters and landing ships and the other helicopter carrier will be helicopters and drones and possibly a hospital ship too... eventually they will make another two helicopter carriers that will be based at the other main port northern or pacific so there is a CVN and two helicopter carriers at each base.
If they do bother with mini carriers, which I very much doubt because they are still not cheap and don't offer any where near the performance of a real carrier, it will be for export.
To hunt CBG it would need a lot of equipement.
Equipment that will be otherwise useless for its primary role.
I also suspect that eventually the US will want an arms agreement to limit where they can go and how many etc etc as they are strategic weapons... eventually they might be negotiated away with ABM defences, but I suspect the Russian ABM system might actually be rather more effective than anything the west can manage so getting rid of them might not be that urgent... let them spend more before cutting.
Carriers aren't targets during an all out nuclear war. No one cares if they survive. They will have nowhere to go after eating all their food and will die after 1 month.
Carriers are instruments of control during peace time to control and direct trade.... who can trade and who can't etc etc.
Without air power you are vulnerable to someone who has and also less informed about the battle space around you.
This thing is deasigned for a second attack to get ride of all the US coasts. Destroy coastal cities and ports making the life impossible after the nuk exchange even if their population survives. It makes me feel it is carrying a very dirty and radioactive warhead for that purpose
It is a direct response to US ABM systems they think will help them not just survive, but win WWIII... letting them know they will get Poseidon and also Thunderbird attacks potentially for days and months afterwards will take the shine off that belief... and in that sense a version with hundreds of 152mm artillery shell sized nukes of 2kts that can be carried along by the drone in large numbers... say 100 of them that can be dropped out of the bottom as it cruises along with a time delay fuse to deal with any sub or torpedo approaching from behind, or just destroy stuff and heat up the ocean to a few thousand degrees C and kill lots of fish and wildlife... the greenies will go apeshit and sue for peace if they ever found out what they did... you could even programme the poseidon to navigate up substantial rivers in Europe and the US and drop nuclear mines that will detonate a week later after it has gone up and come back down and left...
Tsunami are useless against Miami or New York buildings. It barely destroys a city for few weeks at best. That's a dumb speculation. This is a second attack nuckear weappn design to blow up off any big city. Blast and radioactivity are what destroys the targets.
To be fair when has Maimi or New York ever actually been hit by a real Tsunami... at best perhaps storm surge maybe... which is obviously rather more gentle than an actual Tsunami of superheated salt water... and mud.
Poseidon IMO is for carrier work, even without nuclear warhead
Its purpose was to defeat ABM systems by bypassing them... anti carrier roles would be a long way down the list for any use of them.
Bulava and Layner are enough for coastal work, Sarmat and Yars can work for inner US and have leftover for hitting twice or three times over
Ballistic weapons the US thinks they will be able to shoot down with their amazing high tech ABM networks they wont know don't work.
I think it's just maskirovka to hide the true purpose of the carrier killer torpedo
Any current torpedo with a nuclear warhead could do as good a job if not better... Poseidon is too big and heavy to be a standard weapon on standard submarines... the opposite of what you want for something to take out carrier groups... a nuclear armed torpedo could do the job and be loaded into any of their subs... they could even design a super low noise torpedo that runs at 10 knots but with new lithium Ion batteries could run for days or weeks an nuclear warheads can be tiny... 20-30kgs...
The concept is as follows, detonate it at some depth below an aircraft carrier, which will be lifted up and split in half given its weight, and probably totally dismembered the hull.
A conventional 650mm torpedo can already do that... the 300-400kg warhead creates a giant underwater air bubble which rises and lifts the ship or sub above it... the lifting force being applied in one place on the hull compromises the hull integrity which is not strong enough to support the weight of the whole ship and breaks the back of the vessel, which then sinks.
Don't need a nuke to do that.
BTW that video is useful, but what you don't see in that picture is that that isn't smoke from the explosion... that is steam... steam that is thousands of degrees C... the water absorbs the heat of the detonation so a really big detonation would super heat the steam to enormous temperatures... those tests were with warheads of less than 10 kts... all of those little ships enveloped by the steam would be unable to function because every crewman inside them would be boiled alive.
I don't know whether it would create a real tsunami, but detonating a nuke in a harbour would generate millions of tons of boiling water and mud that would be devastating locally...
We don't know what warhead they intend to use or if they will carry more than one warhead... I suspect their plan is that they can avoid counting the weapon as a strategic weapon by calling it a drone... the same way the US claims a HALE or MALE with nuclear bombs is not a cruise missile and therefore would not be subject to any START treaties... Thunderbird and Posiedon can be the same and are intended to render ABM systems useless... in fact they would be very good first targets for such weapons to help more conventional systems to get through which means AEGIS class cruisers would be a higher priority target... but again Zircon and Kinzhal would be more effective in that role anyway.