"Poseidon" Nuclear-armed Underwater Drone

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So I wouldn't expect Russia to build large attack carriers in the future, it's as outdated a concept as battleships were in 1941, especially since Russia doesn't need to attack anyone across the ocean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.

With its high speed it can just jump out of water like a dolphin and explode on the beach.

Its size could also allow the use of an internal mortar to launch a dozen of small nuks while cruise like you said with a 8km range. Mining the coast with delay mines like you said is also an option.

But the most likely and safest use is to cruise it at high speed and deep down until it reaches it targets and and run on the target and explode.

Very important to point out that most naval detonations of nukes under water were generally several hundred metres under water... with a 10 megaton warhead even just bursting on or very near the surface would reduce the power of the warhead in terms of effect, but no more than a surface burst normally would because the ground or the sea surface reflects the blast upwards, whereas an airburst means the blast hits the ground and reflects back upwards... either way it goes up, but with an airburst it goes down first.

Surface bursts just increase the amount of vapourised material that is sucked up and forms the mushroom cloud... in the case of a ground burst that means hundreds of cubic metres of vapourised ground material, dirt and rubble and concrete and roads etc etc, but with a water surface burst the superheating of the water would absorb a lot of energy but create enormous volumes of super heated steam and vapourised mud which would be blasted out with the blast wave boiling things in its path and spreading boiling saltwater steam.

In places like New York you could sail the device up the river or detonate several devices at once in different places for max effect with interlocking blast waves leveling the place.

They could get very creative about it... I am sure they have data from sea surface and underwater blasts and can use supercomputers to model coastal cities and use weather models to determine the effects...

The purpose of those powerful warheads was not to destroy cities... cities are spread out over enormous areas, a spread of much smaller nukes in an equally spaced pattern would be more effective than even the most powerful warhead ever produced.

When you double the power of a nuke you don't double the area damaged... the area in the centre is generally vapourised anyway so a more powerful warhead would just vapourise it slightly more.

If the tsunami thing does not work... you can't really test it properly... then a small rocket motor to boost a 10MT warhead 500m into the air would effectively make it an airburst nuke that was pretty potent... but as I was saying the 10MT an the 20MT nukes fitted to their heavy ICBMs (SS9 and SS18) were intended to hit the Pentagon and Cheyanne mountain (SG-1 base in the TV series).

They were intended to defeat deeply buried targets with a direct penetrating ground hit, where the extra power would increase the size of the cavity of vapourised rock... creating a land tsunami... otherwise known as an earthquake to collapse any nearby tunnels and bunkers.

Using multiple smaller nukes would be better for destroying area targets, but a single very powerful nuke would also be devastating too...

This is not the only tool, they will also be launching thunderbird and their conventional nuke weapons will probably get through anyway.

Size available ?

That's his own microsoft paint drawing. This not the official design which is secret.

The space available can be big or can be small. The nuclear power plant and tge pipes must take plenty of room though.

100mt is also useless. The Tsar bomba was supposed to be 100kt but they calculated that atmosphere height is high enough to reach such power making them go for 50Mt.

Poseidon is a 200 MT yield monster. This isn't so much as a weapon of war but a terraforming tool. Nations can survive massive depopulation events but destroy the land and they won't be coming back, ever.

Dr. Strangelove called, he wants his US cold war propaganda supervillain schemes back

You are ignoring the fact that the Poseidon and the Thunderbird are doomsday devices... only to be used when WWIII has started and there is no going back, and their purpose is to ensure as many people in the targeted state are killed as possible.

They probably have large nukes set aside to hit fault lines and the super volcano in Yellowstone park...

In terms of devastation air burst multiple smaller warheads will destroy over a much larger area, but for hard targets like Cheyanne mountain facility (SG-1 base in the star gate series) or to damage underground facilities then you need a ground burst to create an artificial earthquake, but also in the process this vapourises enormous volumes of soil and material on the ground which then spreads radiation over a wide area.