"Poseidon" Nuclear-armed Underwater Drone

How the Poseidon torpedo is guided?

Arrow wrote:How the Poseidon torpedo is guided?

it is autonomous drone, but I guess can be applied in guided mode.

Could use a towed antenna array to receive messages.

Source: in Russia, the underwater tests of the Poseidon unmanned vehicle began

The interlocutor of the agency clarified that the tests are being conducted so far as part of the development work.

MOSCOW, December 25th. / TASS /. Underwater tests capable of carrying nuclear warheads of the strategic unmanned vehicle "Poseidon", the development of which in the message to the Federal Assembly told President Vladimir Putin, began in Russia. This was reported on Tuesday by Tass source in the military-industrial complex.

"In the sea area, protected from the intelligence of a probable enemy, an underwater development of the Poseidon nuclear power plant is under way," the agency’s source said. and not full running trials.

The source said that one of the Navy nuclear submarines was used as the carrier of the drone. The interviewee added that the work on the device included in the state armament program for 2018-2027. "Poseidon" should be transferred to the Navy before the end of this program, "- he said.

More
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5949973

Hole wrote:Could use a towed antenna array to receive messages.

wth wave recent experiments "atmospheric interaction with microwaves" can improve sub connectivity

Source: Poseidon strategic submarine drone will get speed over 200 km / h

A source in the military-industrial complex noted that "the defeat of the drone with the means that the potential enemy has today" is impossible


MOSCOW, January 4. / TASS /. The Russian strategic unmanned underwater vehicle, Poseidon, which was announced in March by Russian President Vladimir Putin, will receive a maximum underwater speed of more than 200 km / h. A source in the military-industrial complex told TASS on Friday.

“The drone that left the submarine will go to the target at a depth of more than 1 km at a speed of 200 km / h and more (about 110 knots),” the agency’s source said. He clarified that, as in the case of the Squall rocket-torpedo, the Poseidon drone will move at maximum speed in the air cavity ".

As the source added, “on the way to the goal, Poseidon will continuously maneuver along the course and depth, which, taking into account the speed and maximum depth of the course of more than 1 km, makes the defeat of the drone existing with a potential enemy today impossible”.

The maximum underwater speed of modern nuclear submarines is about 60 km / h (30-35 knots), torpedoes - around 90 km / h (up to 50 knots). Domestic torpedo missile "Squall", equipped with a jet engine, can, according to various sources, go under water at a speed of 370 km / h (up to 200 knots), but at a distance of just over 10 km and at shallow depth.

TASS does not have official confirmation provided by the source of information

About the Poseidon drone
As another source in the military-industrial complex reported to TASS at the end of December, underwater tests of the Poseidon unmanned aerial vehicle are currently under way. He clarified that one of the Navy nuclear submarines was used as the carrier of the drone.

More
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5974747

The supercavitation produces very high noise. The torpedo will be easy to track and destroy

Arrow wrote:The supercavitation produces very high noise. The torpedo will be easy to track and destroy

Very Interested to know with what you destroy a torpedo with speed over 200 km/h at over 1 km depth? Childish wishfull thinking....maybe.

Arrow wrote:The supercavitation produces very high noise. The torpedo will be easy to track and destroy

You know what is even easier to track? How about four slow civilian airliners flying over the continental United States. I seem to recall a complete inability to intercept even one of those airlines on 911 even an hour after the initial attack.

Arrow wrote:The supercavitation produces very high noise. The torpedo will be easy to track and destroy

in 20 years or so when you "choose to weaponize" tech you've been leader for tens of years of course! same as with Avangard

dino00 wrote:

Arrow wrote:The supercavitation produces very high noise. The torpedo will be easy to track and destroy

Very Interested to know with what you destroy a torpedo with speed over 200 km/h at over 1 km depth? Childish wishfull thinking....maybe.

as some poit of time , yes. But not now neither in 10 years. BTW Poseidon is nice tool. It is like doomsday for any coastal city/base bu also nice tool to troll CSGs.


location...........distance form petropavlovsk-kamchatsky......................hours.. to reach
LA...................~6,600.km...............................................................T minus 33
Seattle.............~5,400.km...............................................................T minus 27
Diego Garcia.....~3,100km................................................................T minus 15,5



location...........distance from Murmansk......................hours.. to reach
London............~3,200km.........................................T minus 16

dino00 wrote:

“The drone that left the submarine will go to the target at a depth of more than 1 km at a speed of 200 km / h and more (about 110 knots),” the agency’s source said. He clarified that, as in the case of the Squall rocket-torpedo, the Poseidon drone will move at maximum speed in the air cavity ".

As another source in the military-industrial complex reported to TASS at the end of December, underwater tests of the Poseidon unmanned aerial vehicle are currently under way. He clarified that one of the Navy nuclear submarines was used as the carrier of the drone.

Interesting...  I interpret this as saying that Poseidon has a super-cavitating mode, presumably to attain high terminal attack speeds, but the "inadvertently released" Status-6 schematic showed no such feature.  Not sure how you would mate an active-sonar with a super-cavitation gas-generation system, though I suppose you could position the bubble jet outlets in a ring aft of the sonar to cancel the drag of the torpedo body and not the bow cap.  You'd need some fancy digital signal processing to filter out the high-freq noise of the gas generator & bubble envelope from the low freq sonar signals, but I expect its doable.

Edit: Given the Poseidon is not rocket powered like the Squall, the cavitation would be incomplete so the main impeller operation is not compromised, and would be intended to reduce drag to maximise speed for the final kill run. You'd need a dedicated gas generator (essentially a solid fuel rocket motor) and gas vents/jet nozzles for this purpose and it would have a limited number of firings depending on the number of gas generators. A multistage gas generator could be an advantage as it allows for the option of a speed boost during cruise/loiter, eg to evade an enemy.

This is all conjecture of course based on a single statement from an unverified source, but would be awesome if true - let the fuckers see her coming and not be able to do squat about it.  A high speed sprint under a NATOstani CBG while making a clear bee-line straight into the guts of a CVN would be a great way to generate stress-induced cardiac arrests in USN commanders

Also it states that the sub carrying the drone is nuclear powered.  The Sarov was used as the carrier in the R&D phases, but she is diesel-electric, so who is the nuke carrier?  Could this be the Proj.9852 Belgorod (converted 949A) that has apparently been converted for "special forces" as a submersible tender? There was a report that the Belgorod would be commissioned in 2018, so it could be plausible.

Alternatively there is the Proj.9851 Khabarovsk but there is virtually no info out there on this top secret project and it is slated for completion ~2020.

dino00 wrote:

Arrow wrote:The supercavitation produces very high noise. The torpedo will be easy to track and destroy

Very Interested to know with what you destroy a torpedo with speed over 200 km/h at over 1 km depth? Childish wishfull thinking....maybe.

IMHO the Poseidon is a great weapon to kill CARRIERS.  It often talked about as a "doomsday weapon" with a huge 100MT (cobalt clad?) thermonuke but i fancy it will have conventional versions for attacking surface fleets.  Consider the damage a regular 533mm torp can do when it detonates below the hull and uses the void collapse mechanism to amplify damage...  (see below, starting from 23 sec)



That was a 530mm Mark 48 with a 290kg warhead.  Now imagine the same against a carrier with a warhead between 4-8 times the size....

Big_Gazza wrote:..........
Also it states that the sub carrying the drone is nuclear powered.  The Sarov was used as the carrier in the R&D phases, but she is diesel-electric, so who is the nuke carrier?  Could this be the Proj.9852 Belgorod (converted 949A) that has apparently been converted for "special forces" as a submersible tender? ....
..........
Alternatively there is the Proj.9851 Khabarovsk but there is virtually no info out there on this top secret project and it is slated for completion ~2020.

Khabarovsk will be primary Poseidon carrier (6 tubes), other subs are just handling the tests

PapaDragon wrote:Khabarovsk will be primary Poseidon carrier (6 tubes), other subs are just handling the tests

Yup, that makes eminent sense, but I'm puzzled as to why the Belgorod would be fitted with multiple Poseidons? Its a strange fit-out for a vessel that clearly designed as a mini-sub tender and intended for both oceanographic and special ops interventions.

I'd expect a basic self-defense capability, but Doomsday Super-Torps or Carrier-killers?...

I would have expected the Sarov to remain the testbed until the Khabarovsk and her sisters come on line.

PapaDragon wrote:Khabarovsk will be primary Poseidon carrier (6 tubes), other subs are just handling the tests

Poseidon tubes ?!

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Khabarovsk will be primary Poseidon carrier (6 tubes), other subs are just handling the tests

Yup, that makes eminent sense, but I'm puzzled as to why the Belgorod would be fitted with multiple Poseidons? Its a strange fit-out for a vessel that clearly designed as a mini-sub tender and intended for both oceanographic and special ops interventions.

I'd expect a basic self-defense capability, but Doomsday Super-Torps or Carrier-killers?...

I would have expected the Sarov to remain the testbed until the Khabarovsk and her sisters come on line.

Belgorod is carrying what is required for testing but it's not fitted permanently. It will not be using Poseidons, I doubt it even has regular torpedoes.

Sarov is diesel submarine and it can't really handle testing of something like Poseidon beyond most basic phase so this is where Belgorod comes into play.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Khabarovsk will be primary Poseidon carrier (6 tubes), other subs are just handling the tests

Poseidon tubes ?! ....

Yup, should be 6 located in the front.

Guesstimate:

PapaDragon wrote: Yup, should be 6 located in the front

so one Kahbarovsk to 2 CSGs? or if nuked then 2 CSGs their home bases?

The supercavitation produces very high noise. The torpedo will be easy to track and destroy

Yeah, they already said it does not follow a simple path and it operate at 1km depth.

Also bear in mind it might actually be made pretty hard to destroy... there is no crew so no air cavities... it is nuclear powered so it does not need fuel tanks or other soft easy to break bits... even if you hit it with something like a torpedo there is no guarantee you could even stop it... and it will probably be set to explode if it does get stopped so 100MT explosion inside a US port or 100km off the coast... it is still going to cause tsunamis along the entire coast...

And odds are they could have dozens of these things, there are no restrictions on the number of nuclear armed torpedos you are allowed and being nuclear powered they have unlimited range you could wait two years after WWIII is over and one could be released from anywhere on the bottom of the ocean or anywhere along the northern coast of Russia... most of the time they could move silently at 5 knots at 1km depth and only use top speed for the last portion of the attack.

Regarding supercavitation... the Russians have a rifle called ADS, which fires standard 5.45x39mm ammo, but it also has a special 5.45mm round in a standard 5.45x39mm case that has a huge long projectile that reaches right back to the primer for use underwater. It is unpowered and has no gas tanks on board, but it super cavitates in water too... so the supercavitation could simply be created by the shape of the tip of the torpedo as it is driven in the water the same way the tip of the 5.45mm bullet develops a cavity that the bullet travels through too.

No need for forward firing rocket engines or exotic crap like that....

Supercavitation? Maybe not. More at link

The incredibly large nuclear-powered torpedo presents a real challenge to NATO, but this latest information is almost certainly misleading for the following reasons:

a) Poseidon uses a pumpjet propulsor. This is clearly seen in the original leak (9th Nov 2015), in July 2018 video of a prototype and the various CGIs published by the Russian Ministry of Defense since March 2018. The pumpjet would not work in the cavity created by supercaviation. Instead a rocket motor (e.g. Nuclear thermal rocket) would be required.

b) Poseidon has relatively short control surfaces (‘fins’) mounted at the aft of the weapon. These do not appear to be long enough to pierce the cavity created by a super-cavitating vehicle. Therefore they would be of no use and an additional means of steering would be required.

c) Poseidon’s fins are not a logical shape for a super-cavitating weapon. Even if the tips pierced the cavity, most of their surface area is at the base, well within any cavity.

d) Poseidon’s nosecone is too blunt for a coprecipitating weapon and lacks the gas generators required.

e) There is no need for Poseidon to be supercavitating. Even at a more realistic 60 knots, at 1,000 meters depth NATO will anyway have difficulty enough countering it. Supercavitation adds an extra layer of complexity, cost and ambition.


http://www.hisutton.com/Poseidon_Torpedo_Supercavitation.html

Sutton wrote:
[i]The incredibly large nuclear-powered torpedo presents a real challenge to NATO, but this latest information is almost certainly misleading for the following reasons:

a) Poseidon uses a pumpjet propulsor. This is clearly seen in the original leak (9th Nov 2015), in July 2018 video of a prototype and the various CGIs published by the Russian Ministry of Defense since March 2018. The pumpjet would not work in the cavity created by supercaviation. Instead a rocket motor (e.g. Nuclear thermal rocket) would be required.

Why he assumed it is nuclear skvhal  and not a vehicle using superkavitation phenomenon in different manner?

b) Poseidon has relatively short control surfaces (‘fins’) mounted at the aft of the weapon. These do not appear to be long enough to pierce the cavity created by a super-cavitating vehicle. Therefore they would be of no use and an additional means of steering would be required.

+++

c) Poseidon’s fins are not a logical shape for a super-cavitating weapon. Even if the tips pierced the cavity, most of their surface area is at the base, well within any cavity.

I  dont know what's level of hisutton of engineering but he clearly has never looked at real skhval. Fins were foldable

d) Poseidon’s nosecone is too blunt for a coprecipitating weapon and lacks the gas generators required.

Cannot be a jettisonable one if needed?

e) There is no need for Poseidon to be supercavitating. Even at a more realistic 60 knots, at 1,000 meters depth /i]

Wow, but where's the source of this "realism"  I wonder why author is so shy and didn't mention?


Same as with Skripal and Saddam unknown source and notorious almost certainly. My verdict almost certainly propaganda.

IMHO the Poseidon is a great weapon to kill CARRIERS.

Minor correction... even with a mere 2MT warhead it would be a great killer of Carrier Groups...

Testing in the last century of underwater nuclear detonations involved weapons of 2KT to about 5KTs and the enormous water plumes were as impressive as they would have been deadly... (basically superheated salt water steam would kill everyone on board those ships fairly quickly).

Having a warhead of 2MT would be devastating... a 100MT warhead would be like a Meteor impact...

It often talked about as a "doomsday weapon" with a huge 100MT (cobalt clad?) thermonuke but i fancy it will have conventional versions for attacking surface fleets. Consider the damage a regular 533mm torp can do when it detonates below the hull and uses the void collapse mechanism to amplify damage... (see below, starting from 23 sec)

It is a dooms day weapon... I don't think they would bother with conventional versions... talk of the nuclear armed models being used against ports and coastlines and carrier groups... suggests either either...

Yup, that makes eminent sense, but I'm puzzled as to why the Belgorod would be fitted with multiple Poseidons? Its a strange fit-out for a vessel that clearly designed as a mini-sub tender and intended for both oceanographic and special ops interventions.

Perhaps there is a UUV version or perhaps the weapon was based on the design of an existing UUV programme?

Maybe a mining version that goes out and drops conventional mines in places Russian subs dare not risk going and then coming back to the mother vessel... or maybe a recon model to map the sea floor in places it cannot normally go...

Or perhaps even a mini SSN with its own conventional torpedo load on a simple rotary launcher like a revolving rack of 8-12 conventional torpedoes like the TT-4 air launched mini torpedo... a 324mm mini torpedo that is less than 400kgs in weight that can be delivered right up close to enemy subs by the Poseidon mini SSN, or perhaps even the 350mm APR-3ME air launched mini torpedo at just under 500kgs weight... it is also designed to be delivered from close range )though in their case normally by helo or aircraft respectively)....

a) Poseidon uses a pumpjet propulsor. This is clearly seen in the original leak (9th Nov 2015), in July 2018 video of a prototype and the various CGIs published by the Russian Ministry of Defense since March 2018. The pumpjet would not work in the cavity created by supercaviation. Instead a rocket motor (e.g. Nuclear thermal rocket) would be required.

The Poseidon is enormous and might not be completely enveloped in the air cavity... especially at 1km depth where creating an air cavity would be much harder than in much shallower water near the surface.

It might use a partial cavity to reduce drag.

b) Poseidon has relatively short control surfaces (‘fins’) mounted at the aft of the weapon. These do not appear to be long enough to pierce the cavity created by a super-cavitating vehicle. Therefore they would be of no use and an additional means of steering would be required.

The cavity might only envelop the front two thirds of the weapon...

d) Poseidon’s nosecone is too blunt for a coprecipitating weapon and lacks the gas generators required.

Gas generators are not needed... they are used on the rocket powered Shkval because it is rocket powered so there is an excess of gas anyway.

It might have an extendible hydrospike to create the air cavity that the front 2/3rds moves through in low drag allowing higher water speeds to be achieved.

e) There is no need for Poseidon to be supercavitating. Even at a more realistic 60 knots, at 1,000 meters depth NATO will anyway have difficulty enough countering it. Supercavitation adds an extra layer of complexity, cost and ambition.

It offers lower drag and potential for higher speed achieved for a given power generation capacity.

Keep in mind there needs to be no gas generation, the projectile from an ADS rifle does not need a gas generator for supercavitation travel... so there is not a trail of bubbles from gas being generated to travel through.

Source: The Navy plans to put up to 32 Poseidon vehicles on combat duty.

It is noted that one of the regular carriers of UUV will be a special-purpose submarine "Khabarovsk"


"It is assumed that the Poseidon carrier will have two submarines each. They will be part of the Northern and Pacific fleets. Each will carry a maximum of eight UUV, that is, the total number of Poseidons on alert can reach 32 units," the agency’s source said.

He noted that one of the regular carriers of the UUV would be the Khabarovsk special purpose submarine being built at Sevmash. Also, special submarines and "nuclear submarine cruisers of the 949A project after appropriate revision," which are part of the Navy, can be used as carriers of the Poseidon, the source added.

TASS does not have official confirmation provided by the source of information.

On the unmanned underwater vehicle created in Russia with a nuclear power plant for the first time told Russian President Vladimir Putin in his message to the Federal Assembly in March 2018. The president then said that these UUV could be equipped with both conventional and nuclear weapons and would be able to destroy enemy infrastructure, aircraft carrier groups, and so on. It was noted that these devices will get almost unlimited cruising range.


https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5991356

32 is much bigger than i thought, some could BE convencional, i changed in the article drones for UUV.

Meaning that two GUGI boats will have to be transfered to PF? And consequently also Losharik/Paltus midget submarines.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Meaning that two GUGI boats will have to be transfered to PF? And consequently also Losharik/Paltus midget submarines.

why? there are many SSN/SSGNs still to be converted if wont be specially built for this purpose. 949s seem to be a good candidate. HowLosharik can carry 8 so big vehicles?



Conventional warhead? why waste such torpedo only for one CVN?