"Poseidon" Nuclear-armed Underwater Drone

PapaDragon wrote:This will not be used against fleets, this is third strike weapon. A city killer (subcontinent killer actually).

hmm I thought that if name is multifunctional system (look at Rubin's picture you quoted , Putin's presentation where it explicitly targeted CSG or whatever thsy all ac groupings. Nuclear high yield warhead is AFAIK also an option

Same as export to China what was actually debated in Russia

Hole wrote:This thing can travel for weeks or months. It is like the Burevestnik. You think the war is over and than... BUMM!

That's what you call extreme deterrence... even worse than dead hand

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:This will not be used against fleets, this is third strike weapon. A city killer (subcontinent killer actually).

hmm I thought that if name is multifunctional system (look at Rubin's picture you quoted , Putin's presentation where it explicitly targeted CSG or whatever thsy all ac groupings. Nuclear high yield warhead is AFAIK also an option
....

Of course it was shown targeting CSG, depicting it's real purpose (taking out cities) would not look good from PR standpoint.

Why would you need 100MT salted warhead for carrier group when 2MT standard one would do just fine?

It's just like every single nuclear weapon ever: on paper they only target military facilities but everyone knows what real targets are.

It's like putting horse's head in your enemy's bed...you can be pretty sure they got the message

So if they are developing a sub to carry it... that is interesting... I rather suspect its job will be to hide and escape enemy attention during WWIII and then launch its retaliation strike later... perhaps from the southern hemisphere

So it could be armed with some self defence torpedoes, but its primary armament will be these port killer torpedoes... I would expect it could also be equipped with cruise missile launchers and use those nuke powered unlimited range missiles... it would be the ideal platform.

NATO codename... "FUK U"....

Or perhaps "FUK U L8R" Hahahahaha...

I would imagine on its fitting out tour there will be a row of NATO ships and subs several miles long trying to track this vessel.... I would build in some noise makers and make them think it might be easy to track...

A tiny crew with enormous food stores for 2 year operational missions...

They could have virtual reality suites on board so you can do almost anything you want... fly around Olympus Mons, fly an Su-57, walk through the African jungle, play Far Cry 12... Who would want to leave the ultimate LAN party 24/7 paid for by the government...

PapaDragon wrote: Of course it was shown targeting CSG, depicting it's real purpose (taking out cities) would not look good from PR standpoint.

Why would you need 100MT salted warhead for carrier group when 2MT standard one would do just fine?

It's just like every single nuclear weapon ever: on paper they only target military facilities but everyone knows what real targets are.

Ture about PR but who told us that 100Mt is the only option? CSG is viable target. Cost is billions of USD and thousands of people with strategic value. Costs are almosgt 2 orders of magnitude less... I still dont buy only 100MT option + coastal stuff.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:....
Ture about PR but who told us that 100Mt is the only option? CSG is viable target. Cost is billions of USD and thousands of people with strategic value. Costs are almosgt 2 orders of magnitude less... I still dont buy only 100MT option + coastal stuff.

They already have naval nukes for taking out CSGs, they had them since 60s and in all sizes and launch systems.

They don't need massive nuclear torpedo for that when they already have supersonic missiles and loads of standard and supercavitating torpedoes with nukes all tested and in service.

Literally only purpose for this drone is to kill cities, have you seen size of that thing? It's twice the length of Bulava.

Specialized sub just for this? That's 100MT + Cobalt. Nothing else would make sense.

PapaDragon wrote: They already have naval nukes for taking out CSGs, they had them since 60s and in all sizes and launch systems.

not from 1-2 thousands km high seas though.

They don't need massive nuclear torpedo for that when they already have supersonic missiles and loads of standard and supercavitating torpedoes with nukes all tested and in service.

Skhval with range 15km vs 2000km is not really comparable. With Poseidon surprise is best . Poor detectable at distance and hard to kill when is under.

Literally only purpose for this drone is to kill cities, have you seen size of that thing? It's twice the length of Bulava.
Specialized sub just for this? That's 100MT + Cobalt. Nothing else would make sense.

Let's agree to disagree. To me CSGs are viable targets and 100mt is not only option.

The moment you nuke US aircraft carrier they nuke your city

There is no limited nuclear war, it's a myth for Cold War era cannon​ fodder

And they have Kinzhal with 2000km range, Mach 10 speed, nuke warhead and fraction of a cost that is launched from cheap interceptor

PapaDragon wrote:
The moment you nuke US aircraft carrier they nuke your city
There is no limited nuclear war, it's a myth for Cold War era cannon​ fodder

Did I say anything about limited war? This is precisely why you need to get them in Island and west, PErsian Gulf and down. South Atlantic. There still strong bases there with nuclear assets.

And they have Kinzhal with 2000km range, Mach 10 speed, nuke warhead and fraction of a cost that is launched from cheap interceptor

[/quote]
wont reach them there unlikely reaches UK alone - missile carrier might not get so close

Do you seriously think that they are stupid enough to start a nuclear war over one of thier carrier groups being sunk for misbehaving?

Its always better to lose one carrier group than you entire country.

Poseidon's biggest deterrente value is as city killer. This is the highest price that a country can pay.

Hole wrote:........
According to this Sutton guy the Sarov was the test boat for the Poseidon. Now they are refitting the Belgorod and building the Khabarovsk. There is also the possibility that Podmoskovye (Delta IV) could be used to carry one.

Khabarovsk is the platform for this weapon. Since they will need more than one you could say it is about to become lead ship of ''Khabarovsk-class''.

Belgorod and Podmoskovye already have their duty roster full, they will not be carrying Poseidon.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Do you seriously think that they are stupid enough to start a nuclear war over one of thier carrier groups being sunk for misbehaving?

Its always better to lose one carrier group than you entire country.

Hmm following carrier group its better to  build only ICBMs and nothing else? if anything starts nuclear war? BTW that is 10 CSGs,  one/two carrier group destroy what's left of your country after first Us strike?  i wonder why do you decide for Russian Navy. They called system multifunctional after all




BTW after wiki:

Megatsunami
The second most striking factor is the creation of artificial megacuns with a wave height of 300-500 meters with the arrival of waves on the mainland, provided the plain is up to 500 km. [37]

The most serious and complete analysis of the problem of the formation of waves from nuclear explosions is given in the official Pentagon study "Water Waves Generated by Underwater Explosions" . [38] Summarizing the different theories, the researchers gave a table of wave heights for nuclear explosions of different power and at different distances from the explosion point under ideal conditions for wave formation. Thus, for an underwater explosion of 100 MT power, the wave height at different distances from the epicenter will be:

d = 9.25 km, - 202 ... 457 m;
d = 18.5 km, - 101 ... 228 m;
d = 92.5 km, - 20 ... 46 m;
d = 185 km, - 10.1 ... 22 m;
d = 925 km, - 2,0 ... 4,6 m.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Статус-6

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Megatsunami
The second most striking factor is the creation of artificial megacuns with a wave height of 300-500 meters with the arrival of waves on the mainland, provided the plain is up to 500 km. [37]

If those numbers are accurate you don't need many to wipe out a complete country. Freakin' scary little torpedo...

Isos wrote:

Huge. And that is a much smaller one than the warhead supposed to be placed in the Poseidon. If you success amplifying the volume of water displaced by destabilizing a tectonic fault (like i.e. Cascadia) we talk about effects nothing short of biblical. We humans are really freaks of nature

LMFS wrote:

Huge. And that is a much smaller one than the warhead supposed to be placed in the Poseidon. If you success amplifying the volume of water displaced by destabilizing a tectonic fault (like i.e. Cascadia) we talk about effects nothing short of biblical. We humans are really freaks of nature

Operation Crossroads, explosion test bomb Baker on Bikini > 4000 times smaller (23kt). It was on 27 meters deep though. Not all ships were sunken but were so high radioactive they needed AFAIK more then one year to do something about it.

As for tsunami. Meh no 500m only 457 m (1500 ft ))
Calculations I put there were from US Pentagons scientific analysis, you can download form wiki link.  It was from 1996 by the-way...

Hole wrote:......
Podmoskovye is supposed to be able to carry one under her belly instead of a mini-Sub..........

Yes but I assume it is for initial testing purposes

You can't expect dedicated spy-sub with quite a big to-do list to stand in for strategic nuke carrier, especially one with 6 times the payload capacity

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Operation Crossroads, explosion test bomb Baker on Bikini > 4000 times smaller (23kt). It was on 27 meters deep though. Not all ships were sunken but were so high radioactive they needed AFAIK more then one year to do something about it.  

As for tsunami. Meh no 500m only 457 m (1500 ft ))
Calculations I put there were from US Pentagons scientific analysis, you can download form wiki link.  It was from 1996 by the-way...

That is a dwarf bomb in comparison! It definitely looked a swallow, small explosion. Deeper explosion would send less water in the air and displace much more volume...

Yeah, the source of the calculations seems quite ok, Russians should take care not to flatten their own coast when using that weapon on enemy shores

LMFS wrote:
That is a dwarf bomb in comparison! It definitely looked a swallow, small explosion. Deeper explosion would send less water in the air and displace much more volume...

Yeah, the source of the calculations seems quite ok, Russians should take care not to flatten their own coast when using that weapon on enemy shores

Interestingly that this link to Pentagon's calculations was only on Russian wiki version. US didn't want to open Pentagons public docs? I wonder why Meh untill it fist must go over Hawaii and Japan :-)