Register here

Author Topic: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system  (Read 30073 times)

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« on: November 11, 2015, 11:21:00 am »
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russias-nuke-torpedo-plan-bypass-6811216

Well what do we know? Haven't seen it on a proper PC but expect we can identify the subs quite quickly. ;)
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8508
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2015, 12:44:49 pm »
"accidentally leaking", sure
Putin's spokesman Peskov today confirmed the fact of dramatic secop failure - just in case if someone of target auditory was missing it
A dozen days ago it was 'supersonic strategic drone' info that was "accidentally leaking"
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2015, 02:25:28 pm »
so Status-6 = KANYON?

Sub IDs:




Quick notes on Covert Shores http://www.hisutton.com/New%20Russian%20naval%20weapon%20-%20Status-6.html
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 910
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2015, 03:18:34 pm »
The BBC has reported on it, with added "information" from Russian "military experts" ::).

Quote
A warhead of up to 100 megatons could produce a tsunami up to 500m (1,650ft) high, wiping out all living things 1,500km (930 miles) deep inside US territory - Konstantin Sivkov, Russian Geopolitical Academy

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34797252
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 08:15:41 pm by starviking »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8508
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2015, 03:48:29 pm »
Both coasts are secured by private property, businesses and kids of Russian political elite, living, studying and having fun there, I guess.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 910
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2015, 07:11:47 pm »
Both coasts are secured by private property, businesses and kids of Russian political elite, living, studying and having fun there, I guess.

No, they are secured by the laws of physics. The warheads cannot cause tsunami waves. This XKCD link provides a nice summary of the physics of large underwater nuclear explosions, and a link to a technical paper on the matter:

https://what-if.xkcd.com/15/

That's why I put "military experts" in quotes in reference to Konstantin Sivkov, as he does not appear to have expertise in the area of underwater explosions.

Another thing about the Status-6 system: if it is to use a Cobalt Warhead, then it would need to get very close to shore to be assured of depositing some Co-60 on land. It probably would need some method of launching the warhead above land to assure it gets the effects traditionally associated with Cobalt Bombs (decadal high radioactivity areas).

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2015, 07:39:41 pm »
It is true that nukes aren't going to create an actual tsunami scale wave. Any wave from a nuke, even a really big one is going to dissipate quickly. It is entirely conceivable that a multi-megaton explosion could produce a 1650 foot wave, but it wouldn't move inland to anything like the distance a similarly high tsunami would because a tsunami has the weight of the whole ocean behind it. 

Note though, that in a harbor or bay a really big nuke could set up a seiche wave that would  do inordinate damage, and, in any event  anything Castle Bravo sized or larger going off in a port would pretty much shut it down for the conceivable future, especially if it was a "dirty" 3 stage weapon like the high yield version of the old B-41. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B41.html

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2015, 11:08:56 pm »
Three precursors to this nuclear torpedo idea:
1. Soviet subs carried nuclear armed 533mm torpedoes during the Cold War for attacks on ports. Sooner then than me but still...
2. The British Cudgel project to arm x-craft with nuclear mines for attacks on strategic soviet ports. Main reason for abandonment was a shortage of nuclear material at the time.
3. Also during the Cold War USN SEALs trained to deliver backpack nukes to enemy or contested ports.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8508
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2015, 12:02:32 am »
There was another PowerPoint slide that leaked...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Mr London 24/7

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 354
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2015, 12:13:10 am »
 :o That's no moon!

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2015, 02:00:54 am »
Made my Friday, cheers!!!
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline RAP

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 484
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2015, 08:28:10 am »
Excellent Gregory!  LOL.  I hope we can steal the plans.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2767
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2015, 09:00:53 am »
Just send the Bothans, they'll take care of it.

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2015, 05:46:32 pm »
There was another PowerPoint slide that leaked...
Fantastic post, laughed out loud.

Continuing the fantasy theme, what about if they use the nuke to trigger a massive underwater landslide(?) in some suitable spot along the edge of the continental shelf?

Given the shielding affect of deep water it might not be immediately obvious that it wasn't a natural disaster.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7018
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2015, 06:02:24 pm »
You can't set off a nuke out in the wild and have it look like something else. Even a deep-water blast will have sonic features that can only be explained by way of a sudden detonation. A vast amount of energy arising from a very small volume with almost no ramp-up will be explainable only as an explosion.

If you want to use a nuke to make a big tsunami, setting the nuke off in the water probably isn't the best option. However, if you use the nuke as a *trigger,* then there are a couple places to look at. What you want to do is use the nuke to collapse a mountain; the energy of the collapsing wall of rock should far exceed the energy of the nuke, and it'll do a better job of actually shoving the water into a good wave.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2015, 07:35:34 pm »
That's what I was getting at, an underwater landslide would release multiples of the yield of even a fairly large nuke. if the explosion does trigger a collapse the subsequent cacophony of a mountain falling down may also disguise the initial thump. Come to think of it how do you distinguish between a nuclear detonation and a large section of underwater cliff giving way?

 I remember seeing a doco sometime back where they discussed how the western side of the Canaries was ready to fall off and should that happen how the resulting tsunami's would cause significant damage along the Eastern seaboard of the US.

Hopefully it all just stays a hypothetical.



Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8508
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2015, 08:43:57 pm »
A story of the "leak" by the eyes of usually well informed Kommersant newspaper Kremlin pool reporter Andrey Kolesnikov, told with his usual tongue-in-cheek
http://kommersant.ru/doc/2852183

The right question is who and why leaked 'Canyon' to the West a month ago and who was buying it.

"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7018
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2015, 09:09:28 pm »
Come to think of it how do you distinguish between a nuclear detonation and a large section of underwater cliff giving way?

The Navy has listening devices all over the world, the USGS has seismic detectors all over. They will all pick up the sound of the event... it it's a nuke, the rise from "silence" to peak will occur in at most milliseconds; a geological event will have a runup and precursors. Even a volcanic detonation will be preceded, even if only by a fraction of a second, with the sound of rock fracturing.

A nuke in, say, the cape Verde island of La Palma, could potentially cause a megatsunami that would wash over the east coast of the US. But a nuke that causes this would not go un-noticed in the subsequent disaster. Regardless of the noise that follows the blast, the initial trigger would be unmistakably a nuke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami#Canary_Islands

Quote
La Palma is currently the most volcanically active island in the Canary Islands Archipelago. It is likely that several eruptions would be required before failure would occur on Cumbre Vieja.[20][21] However, the western half of the volcano has an approximate volume of 500 cubic kilometres (120 cu mi) and an estimated mass of 1.5 trillion metric tons (1.7×1012 short tons). If it were to catastrophically slide into the ocean, it could generate a wave with an initial height of about 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) at the island, and a likely height of around 50 metres (164 ft) at the Caribbean and the Eastern North American seaboard when it runs ashore eight or more hours later. Tens of millions of lives could be lost in the cities and/or towns of St. John's, Boston, Halifax, New York, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Miami, Havana and the rest of the Eastern Coasts of the United States and Canada, as well many other cities on the Atlantic coast in Europe, South America and Africa.[20][21] The likelihood of this happening is a matter of vigorous debate.[23]
« Last Edit: November 13, 2015, 09:11:08 pm by Orionblamblam »
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Gridlock

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2015, 06:24:23 am »
That megatsunami from the Canaries is bollocks, they based their wave estimates on a coastline collapse in a bay (Alaska or Canada, IIRC) which is a bit different to dumping a mountain in the Atlantic. Big wave, yes. Tsunami no.

I found an estimate of 3.1 x 10^20 tons for the weight of the water in the Atlantic. That mountain is little more than a fleck of dirt.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2015, 06:32:14 am by Gridlock »

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2015, 09:06:06 am »
I don't think that hiding the cause of an attack even featured in the Russian thinking. This is just an alternative means of deterrent, compensating for improvements in missile defense. This can also be countered but ASW has been sorely neglected by NATO.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2015, 09:35:42 am »
Come to think of it how do you distinguish between a nuclear detonation and a large section of underwater cliff giving way?

The Navy has listening devices all over the world, the USGS has seismic detectors all over. They will all pick up the sound of the event... it it's a nuke, the rise from "silence" to peak will occur in at most milliseconds; a geological event will have a runup and precursors. Even a volcanic detonation will be preceded, even if only by a fraction of a second, with the sound of rock fracturing.



They can tell the difference between a sonic boom and an explosion.  Telling the difference between a land slide and nuclear detonation would be child's play. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2015, 06:12:34 pm »
A nuclear weapon will also leave an awful lot of residue behind that is easily detectable. Why the whole South African A Bomb in the Indian Ocean thing (Vela Incident) quickly fissiled: no nuclear residue in the atmosphere means no above ground nuclear explosion. Just as a nuclear explosion in the ocean will leave plenty of irradiated water.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2015, 01:49:12 am »
quickly fissiled:

I see what you did there.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2015, 03:05:30 pm »
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9682
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2015, 04:21:59 pm »
"More on Status-6/Kanyon"
by Jeffrey Lewis | November 13, 2015

Source:
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1200461/more-on-status-6kanyon/

Offline styx

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2015, 08:42:36 am »
i think that a 1,5 m diameter long range nuclear powered torpedo/uuv woul be an interesying standoff weapon against cvbg.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2015, 12:38:45 pm »
I do not think that is its stated purpose. To consider the practicalities of using it as tactical nuke vs CBG, it's up against basic math:

If 100kts is true, it is too fast to maneuver but too slow to completely out-pace a CBG at anything approaching 1,000nm. Even if those stats are true and taken as an average (not max), that's 10 hours to reach the target, by which time a CBG can cover 200-300nm.


 I have a bunch to post, working it into a mini-article.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2015, 12:48:21 pm by covert_shores »
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline moonbeamsts

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2015, 04:30:13 pm »
Greetings
 As a former sonar tech on subs , this idea is ludicrous for a weapon. A Alpha/golden fish sub at top speed could be heard/tracked way out there,OTH range plus some more. IE countermeasures for this idea exist.warhead from ICBM dropped in front of it while overkill would work to take it out More  brave aircrew lay down dekayed depth chares to take it out.


Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2015, 12:05:20 am »
By my thinking deterrents don't have to actually work, they just need to be threatening enough ;)

I think this types real defense will be depth - 1000m. It can be countered if we build specific weapons/measures but do existing systems operate effectively at thet depth? How deep would a nuclear depth charge have to be to take it out?

I think the 100kt top speed is either exaggerated or misread (100kph?)
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2015, 08:20:34 am »
By my thinking deterrents don't have to actually work, they just need to be threatening enough ;)

I think this types real defense will be depth - 1000m. It can be countered if we build specific weapons/measures but do existing systems operate effectively at thet depth? How deep would a nuclear depth charge have to be to take it out?

I think the 100kt top speed is either exaggerated or misread (100kph?)

If it were nuclear powered as well. . .  A one-shot nuclear reactor that took water in, superheated it, and then exhausted it through a turbine driving props. . . Of course there's the backpressure problem.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #30 on: November 19, 2015, 08:26:34 am »
I agree with covert_shores that the system's real defense is depth. If there is a torpedo moving at ~50 kts and 1000m, nothing in the US inventory can reliably hit that. Sure you could try to arrange a defense with an existing torpedo, but it would probably have to be dropped in a very narrow window.

Probably the best defense would be a nuclear tipped torpedo. However, this requires a brand new defense acquisition for a defensive weapon. Thus, the system successfully puts the US on the defensive and requires money in response to a Russian development.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #31 on: November 19, 2015, 09:31:10 am »
I agree with covert_shores that the system's real defense is depth. If there is a torpedo moving at ~50 kts and 1000m, nothing in the US inventory can reliably hit that. Sure you could try to arrange a defense with an existing torpedo, but it would probably have to be dropped in a very narrow window.

Probably the best defense would be a nuclear tipped torpedo. However, this requires a brand new defense acquisition for a defensive weapon. Thus, the system successfully puts the US on the defensive and requires money in response to a Russian development.

And it would require building a new nuclear warhead (which the US can't do these days), and with the likely red tape to do such a thing anyway. . .well, if you think stealth is expensive, you ain't seen nothin'.  IIRC things like Mk48 ADCAP, Mk50, Spearfish, etc. were designed with Alphas in mind though so maybe they'd be up to the task. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline moonbeamsts

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #32 on: November 19, 2015, 07:23:57 pm »
One possible weapon is  Mk48 ADCAP mod for Alpha,this was built and tested extensively. Believe me,I help load enough of the damn things in my naval career. The USN may not have this mod currently but has the specs and can redo the torpedo if needed. I would not be surprised if a current  nuke could be inserted to replace standard warhead.,if really needed to counter this status 6 weapon.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #33 on: November 22, 2015, 06:42:43 am »
Agree re depth advantage

Below is a copy and paste from http://www.hisutton.com/Analysis%20-%20Russian%20Status-6%20aka%20KANYON%20nuclear%20deterrence%20and%20Pr%2009851%20submarine.html <larger image resolutions on that site.



The Status-6 (Статус-6), aka KANYON, has been described as an unmanned midget submarine, but it is better thought of as a massively-large nuclear powered and nuclear armed torpedo. It is ginormous: 1.6m (5.5ft) in diameter and about 24m (79ft) long. To put that into perspective, it is about 27 times the volume of a regular 533mm (21”) heavyweight torpedo.

The weapon is designed to strike coastal cities and strategic targets, e.g. New York, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and bases like Groton CT and San Diego. The warhead is reported as a 100 megatons nuclear device with a ‘dirty’ Cobalt shell in order to maximize the radioactive fallout. The payload is similar to the warheads used in ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missile) but only one is carried on the torpedo. It could therefore be compared to a city being hit by a single MIRV (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle) except that it explodes under the water. The effect is likely to be much more localized than an air-burst, but with greater local contamination spread by a radioactive ‘rain’. The explosion itself may be some way out of the target city due to geography and obstacle defenses but a shoreline city like New York would wiped out by a single hit. Performance variables:

Depth: The stated running depth of 1,000m is credible and places it below current countermeasures. The problem of building torpedoes and/or depth charges to hit it are not insurmountable but will take investment and renewed focus.

Speed: The claimed speed of 100 knots (185 kph) is incredibly fast for a torpedo. The leaked cutaway drawing shows that there is a nuclear reactor coupled with a steam turbine driving a propeller shaft so we know that it is not a rocket type weapon. At these speeds there would be vibration and stability problems for the designers to overcome. For the moment 100kt seems too fast but we will have to wait and see if the specifications become more realistic.

Range: The leaked document claims that the weapon can be launched from as far as 10,000 km (5,400 nm) away. Given its nuclear powerplant this seems credible. Even at an incredible 100kt, it would take 4 days to reach its target at maximum reach. Operationally we would expect ranges to be far shorter, but still undoubtedly an extremely long ranged weapon. It also seems likely that some of the distance would be accomplished under ice adding additional complexity both to navigation and to NATO countermeasures.

Specification
Length: 24m (79ft) (estimate)
Diameter: 1.6m (5.5ft)
Weight: TBC - heavy and negatively buoyant
Speed: Stated as 185 kph (100kt)
Endurance: 10,000 km (5200 nm) and ~100 hrs
Maximum Operating depth: 1,000m (3,000ft)
Crew: unmanned
Warhead: 100 megaton nuclear with Cobalt shell.
Powerplant: 1 x nuclear reactor driving a pumpjet.
Sensors: Long range internal guidance, possibly with external update/abort. Obstical avoidance sonar.



KHABAROVSK submarine
The main launching platform of KANYON is likely to be the new Project 09851 'KHABAROVSK' (пр.09851 "Калитка-СМП" "Хабаровск") submarine. This boat is similar to but smaller than the Project 955 'BOREI' (пр.955 "Борей" - BOREI) SSBN with was as designed by the famous Rubin design bureau. Certain design features allow us to estimate the dimensions of the boat (see specs below). Working off a similar hull diameter to the BOERI we can estimate the submarine's length as 120m versus 160m for the BOREI. This makes sense as the KHABAROVSK does not require the missile section behind the sail. And it is even possible that it shares many components and even hull sections with the SSBN. The stated displacement of 10,000 tons makes it massive, but is much lighter than the 13,000 ton BOREI.

The leaked graphic strongly hints toward the KHABAROVSK having two side-by-side hulls in the bow. This is a highly unusual arrangement but is actually not dissimilar to the Project 20120 SAROV submarine used to test the Status-6. The basic reason behind this arrangement is that the torpedoes have to fire forward, and are carried externally to the occupied pressure hulls. Therefore a stack of six massive torpedo tubes occupied the space where the forward pressure hull would ordinarily be, thus shifting occupied space into smaller hulls either side.




« Last Edit: November 22, 2015, 06:46:11 am by covert_shores »
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2015, 08:41:00 am »
What/where/whence is the evidence for the cobalt shell?

Thanks,

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2015, 09:27:23 am »
Also, I don't see 100kts as impossible. The conventionally powered Spearfish torpedo kit 80kts using conventional power almost 25 years ago... Status-6 would have a greater mass to surface area ratio which might help too.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2030
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2015, 09:54:53 am »
Crazy.

If the weapon is cruising at 100 knots it will be detectable from hundreds of miles away and deaf to any threats. And at 1000 m you need to cough to destroy it.

And how do you detonate it? It just goes bang via inertial navigation, four days after launch? How do you know it's where it's supposed to be?

Seems to me that a low-trajectory missile from a quiet sub would have as good a chance of getting through as this loony device.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2015, 02:39:53 pm »
I've been very skeptical about the 100kt too, but that is clearly what it says (actually it says 185 kph which is same thing). No one said 100kt cruising speed though, I would guess much less. And 10,000km may be the maximum range, but operational scenarios are likely to be shorter. Still clearly a long range weapon of course. All countries fib about the stats regarding their weapons on Powerpoints like that, they are lying to Putin and themselves as much as us I'd bet.

Overall we may say that this weapon is crazy, but that's not a reason to conclude that they are not building it. The project does seem to be real and probably simply about missile shields. Maybe they are hoping to cancel it in exchange for halting missile shield development and deployment?
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7733
  • The path not taken.
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2015, 02:56:33 pm »
A thought has just occurred to me, in the best tradition of blue sky thinking. Is it possible that the bulk of likely Russian misdirection/deception lies in the apparent launch platforms for the weapon rather than in the weapon itself? In other words could it be actually be primarily intended for seabed launch from static installations and/or mobile launchers such as unmanned crawlers?
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2015, 03:10:59 pm »
The project does seem to be real and probably simply about missile shields. Maybe they are hoping to cancel it in exchange for halting missile shield development and deployment?

They can't possibly be worried about missile shields.  If GBI achieved 100% success rate it wouldn't make a dent.  For example, load up an Oscar with 24 nuclear armed land-attack P-700s, park it off Virgina, and what could stop those missiles from launching a decapitating strike.  Certainly not GBI.  On the other hand these Russian "torpedoes" would be the perfect terror weapon.  If say, Russia decided to go into Poland, a NATO country, and the US decided to attack Russian units with conventional forces, Russia could send these torpedoes on their way to NY, DC, Seattle, Sand Diego, etc.  They'd be loud enough we'd certainly detect them.  But they'd be recallable.  Unlike ICBMs Russia could say, "back off and we'll stop them".  Imagine the pressure on a US administration to sit on it's hands and do nothing.  10 hours of bedlam.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2015, 05:34:12 pm »
The project does seem to be real and probably simply about missile shields. Maybe they are hoping to cancel it in exchange for halting missile shield development and deployment?

They can't possibly be worried about missile shields.  If GBI achieved 100% success rate it wouldn't make a dent.  For example, load up an Oscar with 24 nuclear armed land-attack P-700s, park it off Virgina, and what could stop those missiles from launching a decapitating strike.  Certainly not GBI.  On the other hand these Russian "torpedoes" would be the perfect terror weapon.  If say, Russia decided to go into Poland, a NATO country, and the US decided to attack Russian units with conventional forces, Russia could send these torpedoes on their way to NY, DC, Seattle, Sand Diego, etc.  They'd be loud enough we'd certainly detect them.  But they'd be recallable.  Unlike ICBMs Russia could say, "back off and we'll stop them".  Imagine the pressure on a US administration to sit on it's hands and do nothing.  10 hours of bedlam.

Eww.
Well, that would certainly fit into their supposed plans to break NATO politically.
The "we'll stop them." part is the most crucial aspect of that scenario and potentially the weakest link in the chain.


Another possibility might be that the thing has multiple speed settings with varying degrees of quiet and the great range is intended in part to quietly, during peacetime, sneak up rivers which are inherently challenging environments for ASW. This thing is big for a torpedo, but comparatively small for a sub. St. Louis would be unlikely to be reachable but take out and irradiate New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Mobile and you shut a huge chunk of the trade from the central US down. As noted above, the junction of the Anacostia and Potomac is an obvious target, though that would be a challenging shot to say the least and would have to get past Norfolk (which is a target itself).

I don't think it necessarily even needs to be "salted" with cobalt or anything to count as dirty. The dirty (full yield) version of Tsar Bomba has been estimated at 52% fission fraction which, for a 100 MT is quite dirty indeed.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2032
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #41 on: November 22, 2015, 08:17:31 pm »
But they'd be recallable. 

How? ELF is very low bandwidth, one way, prone to errors and spoofing. Other methods would not work at the supposed operating conditions.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #42 on: November 22, 2015, 09:19:18 pm »
But they'd be recallable. 

How? ELF is very low bandwidth, one way, prone to errors and spoofing. Other methods would not work at the supposed operating conditions.

Maybe briefly comes to the surface periodically to listen for signals. Presumably Russia would know the where and when and could signal it via satellite.  I mean surface for a minute or two and then it heads back down.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7733
  • The path not taken.
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2015, 03:09:06 am »
Air dropped sonar beacons emitting an encoded recall signal is another possibility.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #44 on: November 23, 2015, 04:19:35 am »
Another possibility might be that the thing has multiple speed settings with varying degrees of quiet and the great range is intended in part to quietly, during peacetime, sneak up rivers which are inherently challenging environments for ASW. This thing is big for a torpedo, but comparatively small for a sub. St. Louis would be unlikely to be reachable but take out and irradiate New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Mobile and you shut a huge chunk of the trade from the central US down. As noted above, the junction of the Anacostia and Potomac is an obvious target, though that would be a challenging shot to say the least and would have to get past Norfolk (which is a target itself).
Not sure the reactor could be cooled if it slowed down too much. It has been suggested to me by someone much more knowledgeable that the condenser has direct seawater access, like slots or something; note how the wall of the casing is thinner in the condenser section. And it's got a steam turbine which I doubt is effectively insulated from the casing (due to complexity, compactness etc) so I doubt that it's very quite.

Another factor against doing anything sneaking in peacetime is that it'd leave a radioactive wake wherever it goes - shielding would be minimal at best.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #45 on: November 26, 2015, 03:34:08 am »
Web article updated after a lot of feedback http://www.hisutton.com/
Better illustrations etc
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #46 on: November 26, 2015, 02:29:18 pm »
Is there any evidence that status-6 would be launched from a torpedo tube? Wouldn't it make just as much sense for Khabarovsk to carry them outside the pressure hull on a hardpoint/rack?

If I recall correctly there was some research in the Soviet Union towards designing submarines with 'bomb bays' capable of carrying atypical sizes of weapons (e.g. 400mm torpedoes or outsized weapons).

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #47 on: November 26, 2015, 07:05:44 pm »
Well the good news is the Russians have learnt from Dr Strangelove and decided to tell the world about this doomsday weapon before building it. Because that's what it is: a doomsday weapon that could destroy civilisation in the northern hemisphere (at least).

Because setting of say 20 of these torpedoes across North America while very nasty to the specific target areas would also send over 200 cubic km of water vapour into the stratosphere. Now nuclear winter is an unscientific myth. Ash from burning cities is not so bad because it quickly falls back to earth and the causing fires burn out in a few days. But in the stratosphere water vapour turns into tiny ice crystals which will stay there for years reflecting heat from the planet.

Now despite what hippies think the greatest threat to life on earth is not global warming but global cooling. We are 60 degrees closer to having our water locked up in ice than we are to losing it as steam. No liquid water means no life.

The last time large quantities of water vapour were injected into the stratosphere was almost 1,500 years ago when Mt Sunda blew up creating the Sunda Strait and separating Java and Sumatra. The effect of this explosion on the entire world was to inject 200 cubic km of water vapour into the stratosphere. This caused a 1-2 year long winter and drought around the world which saw a collapse of every state, release of plague, mass death and general unhappiness. It put the dark into the dark ages.

The only good news is that unlike Mt Sunda the North American targets of Status 6 are not near the equator and well into the northern hemisphere. So the year or two without sun and rain caused by this weapon will be limited to the equator band and northwards.

Of course if the Russians were to use more than 20 of these weapons against the USA there would be more ice and therefore less heat and effects would be much worse.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2015, 07:10:30 pm by Abraham Gubler »
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #48 on: November 26, 2015, 07:09:42 pm »
Is there any evidence that status-6 would be launched from a torpedo tube? Wouldn't it make just as much sense for Khabarovsk to carry them outside the pressure hull on a hardpoint/rack?

If I recall correctly there was some research in the Soviet Union towards designing submarines with 'bomb bays' capable of carrying atypical sizes of weapons (e.g. 400mm torpedoes or outsized weapons).

I was wondering this as well.  Do they really need to build a whole new class of subs to carry them?  Strapping them to the keel of existing missile boats and categorizing them as "specials" would be a cheaper and easier way of deploying them.  Given the lack of shielding on the reactors, some sort of strap on pod which could carry them semi-recessed to reduce flow noise and which included some shielding and buoyancy compensation would seem reasonable.



 

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #49 on: November 26, 2015, 07:28:54 pm »
Of course if the Russians were to use more than 20 of these weapons against the USA there would be more ice and therefore less heat and effects would be much worse.

If the Russians set off 20 of these things anywhere, the amount of ice that reaches the stratosphere will probably be the least of our problems.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #50 on: November 26, 2015, 08:05:41 pm »
If the Russians set off 20 of these things anywhere, the amount of ice that reaches the stratosphere will probably be the least of our problems.

Except for those people at the targets it will be the most of our problems. It may sound innocuous but stratospheric ice crystals are far more lethal than the heat, shock wave and radiation effects of 20 x 100 megaton bombs detonating offshore major coastal cities. Tis science not poetry that decides how you die.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7018
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #51 on: November 26, 2015, 08:41:43 pm »
Tis science not poetry that decides how you die.

Oh, I don't know... I've seen more people die at rap concerts than scientific conferences.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #52 on: November 26, 2015, 09:39:02 pm »

Now despite what hippies think the greatest threat to life on earth is not global warming but global cooling. We are 60 degrees closer to having our water locked up in ice than we are to losing it as steam. No liquid water means no life.

Yes 1000X yes such an obvious statement yet global cooling doesn't allow trans-national governments and NGOs to control our lives so global warming must be the threat.

 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #53 on: November 26, 2015, 10:45:22 pm »
Tis science not poetry that decides how you die.

Oh, I don't know... I've seen more people die at rap concerts than scientific conferences.

Don't know that I'd consider rap music "poetry".   ;D
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #54 on: November 27, 2015, 04:30:06 am »
Re external carriage. These weapons are to be carried in 'torpedo tubes' within the flooded outer hull of the 09851 and 09852 (modified Oscar). On the 09851 they appear more or less where normal tubes would be, but they almost certainly don't penetrate the hull like with a torpedo room. They will likely spend their entire service life inside the tubes of course so environmental protection (in the military sense of protecting weapons from the environment, not the hippy sense of protecting the environment from the weapons) is a big deal. They are large and probably negatively buoyant at operating depth (my speculation) so cannot easily be incorporated into most subs.

Also in line with the strategic mission, the mother sub has to be dedicated to the strategic role. It's like an SSBN but with a different weapon.

Why 09852 has both the Losharik is get sub and the Kanyon confuses me though.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 560
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #55 on: November 27, 2015, 04:51:51 am »
Now almost everybody thinks and asks if this weapon is real, or how effective could it be, my question is different:
What are or were the other "Status" attack systems? Status-1 through Status-5?

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #56 on: November 27, 2015, 06:37:28 am »
Now almost everybody thinks and asks if this weapon is real, or how effective could it be, my question is different:
What are or were the other "Status" attack systems? Status-1 through Status-5?
Like the best 'worst' movie ever made 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' we'll never know.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #57 on: November 27, 2015, 07:07:55 pm »
Now almost everybody thinks and asks if this weapon is real, or how effective could it be, my question is different:
What are or were the other "Status" attack systems? Status-1 through Status-5?

They may indicate intensity levels of attack? If so Status 6 is clearly being in the doomsday level of options: ie lets destroy all life on earth. As opposed to a far more benign Status 1 (slap with wet lettuce?) and then working up the scale.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9682
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #58 on: November 27, 2015, 08:11:45 pm »
I thought those days were behind us.  :'(


Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1816
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #60 on: November 29, 2015, 12:22:55 am »
100 Megatons?   My understanding is that no one, not even the Soviet Union has ever managed to create a 100 megaton warhead.  the Tsar Bomb, reputed to be intended to be 100 Mt. panned out at about 60 IIRC.  While more modern technology might make such a warhead possible, it would be a single unitary warhead, not the equivalent to a "city being struck with a single MIRV".   MIRVs are invariably much smaller in payload.   Usually in the Kiloton range.   ::)

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #61 on: November 29, 2015, 12:33:45 am »
100 Megatons?   My understanding is that no one, not even the Soviet Union has ever managed to create a 100 megaton warhead.  the Tsar Bomb, reputed to be intended to be 100 Mt. panned out at about 60 IIRC.  While more modern technology might make such a warhead possible, it would be a single unitary warhead, not the equivalent to a "city being struck with a single MIRV".   MIRVs are invariably much smaller in payload.   Usually in the Kiloton range.   ::)

The Russians claimed a design for a 100 Mt bomb I believe, the Tsar-Bomba was a cut down version of that design with a yield of 50 Mt.

Russian SS-18 were fitted with (iirc) 10 Mt or 25 Mt single warheads but they're retired now.  I think most Russian warheads (MIRVed ones anyway) are around the 100-150 Kt range.  TOPOLs (SS-25) are ~800 Kt.  According to wiki...

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 977
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #62 on: November 29, 2015, 02:36:56 am »
I wonder how Kanyon would be classified in legal terms under New START?
09851 is effectively an SSBN but with a torpedo, not a missile system. Is this therefore an attempt to circumvent the limitations of New START?

Then again, it seems a very complicated and dangerous weapon system. It's not able to be stored for long periods given the lack of reactor shielding and its navigation system most be complicated and probably much less precise than SLBM over long distances. Not that that matters so much because it can only be used against large coastal targets.
It has no real military value, it cannot contribute to counter-attacks or preventive attacks against enemy nuclear forces since those are land and air based and any SSBN is highly unlikely to be around when it goes off.
It takes (up to) five days (r longer if your going slow and stealthy) to reach its target, so do you launch it several days before you think war is likely to break out and recall it or have it orbit somewhere until you are sure of the exact date of the attack? If so the thing is noisy and leaks radiation and can be detected, so any element of surprise is lost. Even if you can't stop it you have more than ample time to threaten a retaliation with your own missiles that will take minutes to arrive. If (likely) you launch it from the Arctic 'bastions' then you've invited every NATO SSN into the area, precisely where most of your SSBNs are.
It has crude blackmail potential (if it can be recalled and recovered) but it has high dangers of backfiring.
Since its so slow (to arrive over long distances) and can only cause coastal damage, if the unthinkable happened and a nuclear war was underway, its of very little use in a second strike.

09852 with Losharik and Kanyon does seem odd, unless its another testbed submarine for the system, or if the Status-6 is actually a cover for a USV vehicle of different purpose.

The other point I would make is, given the aging nature of the Russian nuclear submarine fleet and its limited yard and monetary capacity to replace its Akulas, Oscars and Deltas with like-for-like numbers, is not building 09851 or 09852 in series production a serious waste of resources, even if they do have some secondary SSN use once their main mission is complete?

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #63 on: November 29, 2015, 09:29:51 am »
100 Megatons?   My understanding is that no one, not even the Soviet Union has ever managed to create a 100 megaton warhead.  the Tsar Bomb, reputed to be intended to be 100 Mt. panned out at about 60 IIRC.

Because they replaced the uranium tamper with a lead one to keep the yield down.   With a uranium tamper it most likely would have exceeded 100 Mt.  The US B41 bomb did something similar.  The low yield version was around 10 Mt with the high yield version being 25 Mt.  And that was just a 10,000lb bomb.  Given the nature of nuclear bombs a 40,000lb 100Mt weapon would be no problem at all.


While more modern technology might make such a warhead possible, it would be a single unitary warhead, not the equivalent to a "city being struck with a single MIRV".   MIRVs are invariably much smaller in payload.   Usually in the Kiloton range.   ::)

SS-18 Mod 2 had warheads over 1 Mt.  The SS-9 Scarp Mod 4 (R-36P) had 3 RVs of 2.3 Mt each.  There's nothing magical about it, or physically impossible.  It's just a matter of what size you want them, and what size your launch vehicle is.   ::)  One could certainly build a Saturn V sized ICBM with 100 Mt MIRVs.  They could have done this in the 60s.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 09:33:22 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 560
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #64 on: November 29, 2015, 10:44:54 am »
Something like the ICBM version of Energia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #65 on: November 29, 2015, 11:44:48 am »
Something like the ICBM version of Energia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia

Yep.  IIRC Proton was originally planned as an ICBM.  It certainly could have hauled a single 100 Mt weapon.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1816
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #66 on: November 30, 2015, 02:55:37 am »
I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it.  What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt.  I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.   

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #67 on: November 30, 2015, 04:38:11 am »
I wonder how Kanyon would be classified in legal terms under New START?
09851 is effectively an SSBN but with a torpedo, not a missile system. Is this therefore an attempt to circumvent the limitations of New START?

Then again, it seems a very complicated and dangerous weapon system. It's not able to be stored for long periods given the lack of reactor shielding and its navigation system most be complicated and probably much less precise than SLBM over long distances. Not that that matters so much because it can only be used against large coastal targets.
It has no real military value, it cannot contribute to counter-attacks or preventive attacks against enemy nuclear forces since those are land and air based and any SSBN is highly unlikely to be around when it goes off.
It takes (up to) five days (r longer if your going slow and stealthy) to reach its target, so do you launch it several days before you think war is likely to break out and recall it or have it orbit somewhere until you are sure of the exact date of the attack? If so the thing is noisy and leaks radiation and can be detected, so any element of surprise is lost. Even if you can't stop it you have more than ample time to threaten a retaliation with your own missiles that will take minutes to arrive. If (likely) you launch it from the Arctic 'bastions' then you've invited every NATO SSN into the area, precisely where most of your SSBNs are.
It has crude blackmail potential (if it can be recalled and recovered) but it has high dangers of backfiring.
Since its so slow (to arrive over long distances) and can only cause coastal damage, if the unthinkable happened and a nuclear war was underway, its of very little use in a second strike.

09852 with Losharik and Kanyon does seem odd, unless its another testbed submarine for the system, or if the Status-6 is actually a cover for a USV vehicle of different purpose.

The other point I would make is, given the aging nature of the Russian nuclear submarine fleet and its limited yard and monetary capacity to replace its Akulas, Oscars and Deltas with like-for-like numbers, is not building 09851 or 09852 in series production a serious waste of resources, even if they do have some secondary SSN use once their main mission is complete?

Interesting lines of thought. One question tough: why do you not think it makes a good second strike weapon. I thought that was exactly what it is.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #68 on: November 30, 2015, 08:22:13 am »
I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it.  What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt.  I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.

Did you read the article?  This isn't just a 21"/533cm torpedo. 

Specification
Length: 24m (79ft) (estimate)
Diameter: 1.6m (5.5ft)

Even if all you did was use the same packaging density of a B41, which entered service in 1961, it would take up less than 30' of the 79' long device.  It would most likely take up significantly less than that.  Like maybe half that.  (Because a lot of the B41s volume is taken up by parachutes among other things.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #69 on: November 30, 2015, 03:06:13 pm »
I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it.  What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt.  I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.

Did you read the article?  This isn't just a 21"/533cm torpedo. 

Specification
Length: 24m (79ft) (estimate)
Diameter: 1.6m (5.5ft)

Even if all you did was use the same packaging density of a B41, which entered service in 1961, it would take up less than 30' of the 79' long device.  It would most likely take up significantly less than that.  Like maybe half that.  (Because a lot of the B41s volume is taken up by parachutes among other things.)

I think the point is that a 100Mt warhead seems like massive overkill. They certainly have designs for ~25Mt weapons which would be (you'd think) far easier and cheaper to field and are better understood in terms of their shelf lives etc. Does the hassle and expense of using a 100Mt weapon offer any substantive advantage over a smaller 10 or 25Mt one in terms of end effects? The devastation caused by even a relatively small one of these things would quite sufficient you'd think.

Does the extra expense and hassle of designing, building and integrating a new 100Mt weapon plus the cost of designing, building, testing, crewing, supporting and maintaining a new submarine class as well really make sense? To me the only way that sort of investment makes sense is if they believe the US is about to effectively neutralize their existing strategic forces and they're desperate to find a new counter.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #70 on: November 30, 2015, 03:22:43 pm »
I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it.  What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt.  I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.

Did you read the article?  This isn't just a 21"/533cm torpedo. 

Specification
Length: 24m (79ft) (estimate)
Diameter: 1.6m (5.5ft)

Even if all you did was use the same packaging density of a B41, which entered service in 1961, it would take up less than 30' of the 79' long device.  It would most likely take up significantly less than that.  Like maybe half that.  (Because a lot of the B41s volume is taken up by parachutes among other things.)

I think the point is that a 100Mt warhead seems like massive overkill. They certainly have designs for ~25Mt weapons which would be (you'd think) far easier and cheaper to field and are better understood in terms of their shelf lives etc. Does the hassle and expense of using a 100Mt weapon offer any substantive advantage over a smaller 10 or 25Mt one in terms of end effects? The devastation caused by even a relatively small one of these things would quite sufficient you'd think.

Does the extra expense and hassle of designing, building and integrating a new 100Mt weapon plus the cost of designing, building, testing, crewing, supporting and maintaining a new submarine class as well really make sense? To me the only way that sort of investment makes sense is if they believe the US is about to effectively neutralize their existing strategic forces and they're desperate to find a new counter.

I just hope the West remembers how to build high yield nuclear depth charges .  As to New START, the treaty (unlike the original) doesn't even consider SLCMs to be strategic delivery systems...

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #71 on: November 30, 2015, 03:24:48 pm »
Something like the ICBM version of Energia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia

Yep.  IIRC Proton was originally planned as an ICBM.  It certainly could have hauled a single 100 Mt weapon.

Yes. That's the reason that Proton is fueled by such toxic (but storable)propellants, which are a bit of a hassle for such a large commercial rocket. It was designed as a storable ICBM.

Interestingly, shortly after the RDS-220 "Tsar Bomba" test (which was slightly over the expected 50 MT) russian documents started  referring to the Proton payload as 150 Megatons. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/multimeg.html#S2

Note that he dimensions of Status6/Kanyon are pretty close to the T-15 torpedo designed to cary the full yield version of the 'Tsar Bomba" device. This doesn't mean that this weapon has to cary such a large warhead, but if one wants to maximize radioactive contamination adding a third stage does that as well as making the explosion more powerful. A twofer. Note too that the RDS-200 was in fact designed and tested...in 1963, so it's not a great technological challenge or risk.

Finally, the blast effects of big nukes experience diminishing returns above a certain point, but the local earthquake effects of a ground burst might not and the fallout is likely to be far greater than the 25 T bomb. For a weapon designed to destroy a harbor, overkill isn't a concern untill you risk punching through to the mantle...which requires a whole different scale of damage than this.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7018
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #72 on: November 30, 2015, 03:40:11 pm »
if one wants to maximize radioactive contamination adding a third stage does that as well as making the explosion more powerful.

If one wanted to maximize radioactive fallout, one might also mount the nuclear warhead just in front of a nuclear reactor. Won't do diddly to the explosive yield, but the vaporized reactor won't do the surroundings any good.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #73 on: November 30, 2015, 04:15:53 pm »
I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it.  What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt.  I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.

Did you read the article?  This isn't just a 21"/533cm torpedo. 

Specification
Length: 24m (79ft) (estimate)
Diameter: 1.6m (5.5ft)

Even if all you did was use the same packaging density of a B41, which entered service in 1961, it would take up less than 30' of the 79' long device.  It would most likely take up significantly less than that.  Like maybe half that.  (Because a lot of the B41s volume is taken up by parachutes among other things.)

I think the point is that a 100Mt warhead seems like massive overkill.

Except that wasn't the discussion.  The feasibility of a 100 Mt weapon was.  Whether it's the best, most efficient, etc. etc. etc.  is irrelevant here. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #74 on: November 30, 2015, 06:31:09 pm »
I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it.  What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt.  I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.

Did you read the article?  This isn't just a 21"/533cm torpedo. 

Specification
Length: 24m (79ft) (estimate)
Diameter: 1.6m (5.5ft)

Even if all you did was use the same packaging density of a B41, which entered service in 1961, it would take up less than 30' of the 79' long device.  It would most likely take up significantly less than that.  Like maybe half that.  (Because a lot of the B41s volume is taken up by parachutes among other things.)

I think the point is that a 100Mt warhead seems like massive overkill.

Except that wasn't the discussion.  The feasibility of a 100 Mt weapon was.  Whether it's the best, most efficient, etc. etc. etc.  is irrelevant here.

I'm asking whether a 100Mt weapon is feasible from a cost/effects point of view.  Do you need a 100Mt weapon to devastate a port and surrounds with radioactive rain out when a 10 or 20Mt weapon would probably be just as effective?

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #75 on: November 30, 2015, 07:23:29 pm »
I'm asking whether a 100Mt weapon is feasible from a cost/effects point of view.  Do you need a 100Mt weapon to devastate a port and surrounds with radioactive rain out when a 10 or 20Mt weapon would probably be just as effective?

Depends what your aim is.  If it's just a terror weapon then "100 Mt, biggest bomb evah" sounds scarier to Joe Blow on the street than "we calculated the most cost effective way to destroy a port. . .."
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #76 on: November 30, 2015, 08:18:14 pm »
If it goes 100 kts and has a blast effective to 5 kilometres... then it would be pretty hard to defend a carrier against it (a 10 km radius is harder to defend than a 500 metre one). It makes the bulls-eye bigger...

Fire off six and only one needs to get through. Replacement for the Oscar-II?

P.S. Possibly the long endurance would allow them to search for the Carrier Battle Group - so precision in targeting might not be as necessary as is the case with cruise missiles such as the P-700 Granit. I'm not so sure about this last point though - how would the sensor range on the cruise missile compare in sweep to the small sonar on a torpedo like this one?

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 910
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #77 on: November 30, 2015, 10:47:42 pm »
If it goes 100 kts and has a blast effective to 5 kilometres... then it would be pretty hard to defend a carrier against it (a 10 km radius is harder to defend than a 500 metre one). It makes the bulls-eye bigger...

Fire off six and only one needs to get through. Replacement for the Oscar-II?

P.S. Possibly the long endurance would allow them to search for the Carrier Battle Group - so precision in targeting might not be as necessary as is the case with cruise missiles such as the P-700 Granit. I'm not so sure about this last point though - how would the sensor range on the cruise missile compare in sweep to the small sonar on a torpedo like this one?

At that speed any onboard sonar would be deaf, and the torpedo could be picked up from a long distance. Get a track, and move the CBG. Have some ships drop modified nuke depth charges set to go off when a crazy sonar signal is received, and "Status-6" could become "Status-0"

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #78 on: November 30, 2015, 10:50:08 pm »
I just hope the West remembers how to build high yield nuclear depth charges .  As to New START, the treaty (unlike the original) doesn't even consider SLCMs to be strategic delivery systems...

Does the West have anything like the Russian VA-111 Shkval supercavitating torpedo?  It will do 200 knots for 10-15 kms so if you could get ahead or close to a "Kanyon" running at 100 knots...

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 910
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #79 on: November 30, 2015, 11:13:29 pm »
I just hope the West remembers how to build high yield nuclear depth charges .  As to New START, the treaty (unlike the original) doesn't even consider SLCMs to be strategic delivery systems...

Does the West have anything like the Russian VA-111 Shkval supercavitating torpedo?  It will do 200 knots for 10-15 kms so if you could get ahead or close to a "Kanyon" running at 100 knots...

Bring back the S-3 Viking...

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #80 on: November 30, 2015, 11:25:11 pm »


P.S. Possibly the long endurance would allow them to search for the Carrier Battle Group - so precision in targeting might not be as necessary as is the case with cruise missiles such as the P-700 Granit. I'm not so sure about this last point though - how would the sensor range on the cruise missile compare in sweep to the small sonar on a torpedo like this one?

Assuming it operates alone. Reliable, low data-rate (e.g. a track of the carrier group) opto-acoustic transmission down to the depths where Status-6 is said to operate was demonstrated (at least) a decade ago. 
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 11:33:44 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #81 on: November 30, 2015, 11:33:54 pm »
I'm asking whether a 100Mt weapon is feasible from a cost/effects point of view.  Do you need a 100Mt weapon to devastate a port and surrounds with radioactive rain out when a 10 or 20Mt weapon would probably be just as effective?

Of course you don't need a 100 MT if a 10-20 MT will do the job. However the assumption that this is the case is unfounded. This weapon *probably* won't be able to penetrate into the actual port of a likely target. Regardless of port defences shallow water will be quite an obstacle to such a high speed underwater object. Because depth control is very much dependent on speed. And driving into the seabed at >50 knots is not a good idea.

So if the torpedo was to detonate outside the shallow water zone it could be a long way from the target city/port. In the case of New York detonation at the start of the Ambrose Channel would leave it some 25km away from the bottom end of Manhattan Island. Even detonation at the Narrows would leave it some 15km away from Downtown. And it is blowing up in water which is going to absorb a lot of the heat and force of the explosion. Even with a lot of very lethal, highly irradiated matter (cobalt+plutonium+water) you are going to need an awfully big blast to send that water towards the target otherwise it will stay in the ocean and just kill fish.

As I mentioned earlier the biggest problem with such huge detonations underwater is the amount of ice crystals that will be generated in the stratosphere. Multiple attacks within the space of a year will have major effects on hemispheric or global weather (depending on the location of the attacks). Crazy Ivan.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #82 on: December 01, 2015, 03:24:58 am »
Sorry I know others have made the reference but such a good movie  ;D

Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #83 on: December 01, 2015, 04:23:21 am »
At that speed any onboard sonar would be deaf, and the torpedo could be picked up from a long distance. Get a track, and move the CBG. Have some ships drop modified nuke depth charges set to go off when a crazy sonar signal is received, and "Status-6" could become "Status-0"

Bring back the S-3 Viking...

Right... but for reaction times.

Lets assume that it isn't always going at maximum speed - but only uses its speed to do the dangerous job of bypassing the anti-submarine screen around the battle group.

If it approaches at a lower speed (say alternating between 0 and 20 kts at depth) to within 20-50 km of the carrier and then runs in at high speed (100 kts) there is no way a destroyer (or fixed winged aircraft even) is going to be able to spot it, adjust, and attack. The exception of course would be a guided glide bomb or an ASROC type weapon - both plausible. However, you'd need your sensors set up and a fast reacting crew to place the weapon precisely. Even then your ASROC is going to have to be bigger than any existing weapon in order to carry a fast enough torpedo.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #84 on: December 01, 2015, 04:28:27 am »
Does the West have anything like the Russian VA-111 Shkval supercavitating torpedo?  It will do 200 knots for 10-15 kms so if you could get ahead or close to a "Kanyon" running at 100 knots...

Germany does (and there may be prototypes by other countries):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superkavitierender_Unterwasserlaufkörper

However, you still need to aim the torpedo very precisely and most of the aiming has to be done from the launch platform (even if the supercavitator isn't unguided, it still is going to be acoustically blind). A Status-6 torpedo going 100 kts is going to be harder to intercept because it is crossing more area per second and you'd need to have a very precise estimate to be sure of interception.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #85 on: December 01, 2015, 04:29:24 am »
Assuming it operates alone. Reliable, low data-rate (e.g. a track of the carrier group) opto-acoustic transmission down to the depths where Status-6 is said to operate was demonstrated (at least) a decade ago.

Ah, so I take it you'd assume that it will need external guidance. That sounds reasonable to me.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 977
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #86 on: December 01, 2015, 08:56:11 am »
Quote
Interesting lines of thought. One question tough: why do you not think it makes a good second strike weapon. I thought that was exactly what it is.
Pretty much because of the reasons everyone else here is hung up on, how much seabed you can vaporise and how many fish can you can fry.
Because in a nuclear war your own ICBMs and SLBMs should have neutralised your enemy's main silos and airbases and knocked out their first or second strike forces. Assuming you can sustain any kind of bombardment beyond the first couple of hours into the following days or weeks, irradiating your enemy's coastline is probably the least of the strategic goals when several hundred megatons have already been expended while your Kanyon has taken 5 days to finish off whatever might still be standing.
As I've said, blackmail as first strike is only possible if you gamble your enemy won't just fire up its ICBMs and seriously outpace you before your Kanyon near enough its target.

I really can't see any logical reason why this weapon system or its parent submarines should exist given the existing missile technology (unless you assume a 100% kill ABM system is around the corner). It seems a very expensive blind alley. I still think its a disinformation exercise and that those 'leaked' plans are just propaganda while the real purpose of 09851 and 09852 is something much more mundane and Status-6 may well really be some kind of nuclear-powered reconnaissance USV or something along those lines.

Offline Gridlock

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #87 on: December 01, 2015, 10:35:08 am »

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #88 on: December 01, 2015, 10:58:03 am »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #89 on: December 01, 2015, 01:45:35 pm »
Quote
Interesting lines of thought. One question tough: why do you not think it makes a good second strike weapon. I thought that was exactly what it is.
Pretty much because of the reasons everyone else here is hung up on, how much seabed you can vaporise and how many fish can you can fry.
Because in a nuclear war your own ICBMs and SLBMs should have neutralised your enemy's main silos and airbases and knocked out their first or second strike forces. Assuming you can sustain any kind of bombardment beyond the first couple of hours into the following days or weeks, irradiating your enemy's coastline is probably the least of the strategic goals when several hundred megatons have already been expended while your Kanyon has taken 5 days to finish off whatever might still be standing.
As I've said, blackmail as first strike is only possible if you gamble your enemy won't just fire up its ICBMs and seriously outpace you before your Kanyon near enough its target.

I really can't see any logical reason why this weapon system or its parent submarines should exist given the existing missile technology (unless you assume a 100% kill ABM system is around the corner). It seems a very expensive blind alley. I still think its a disinformation exercise and that those 'leaked' plans are just propaganda while the real purpose of 09851 and 09852 is something much more mundane and Status-6 may well really be some kind of nuclear-powered reconnaissance USV or something along those lines.
i find myself nodding in agreement with much of what you say, but not the overall argument. The way I see it it, and I don't think I am alone, it's a second strike weapon. Like other strategic weapons it is very one-dimensional. Which makes 09852 very confusing I admit.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Rhinocrates

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #90 on: December 01, 2015, 06:39:51 pm »
"Was it to be delivered via NASA Crawler?"

IIRC, he scribbled in his notes something like, "Method of delivery: back yard". That is, it would kill everyone on earth no matter where it was, so you might as well leave it where you built it. I think it was pretty much just a thought experiment.
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink.

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 910
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #91 on: December 01, 2015, 09:34:38 pm »
At that speed any onboard sonar would be deaf, and the torpedo could be picked up from a long distance. Get a track, and move the CBG. Have some ships drop modified nuke depth charges set to go off when a crazy sonar signal is received, and "Status-6" could become "Status-0"

Bring back the S-3 Viking...

Right... but for reaction times.

Lets assume that it isn't always going at maximum speed - but only uses its speed to do the dangerous job of bypassing the anti-submarine screen around the battle group.

If it approaches at a lower speed (say alternating between 0 and 20 kts at depth) to within 20-50 km of the carrier and then runs in at high speed (100 kts) there is no way a destroyer (or fixed winged aircraft even) is going to be able to spot it, adjust, and attack. The exception of course would be a guided glide bomb or an ASROC type weapon - both plausible. However, you'd need your sensors set up and a fast reacting crew to place the weapon precisely. Even then your ASROC is going to have to be bigger than any existing weapon in order to carry a fast enough torpedo.

But how does it achieve this? Is it fully automated? If so, that could be dangerous.

Can it maneuver well at high speed? I'm doubtful. Fire a nuclear depth-charge in its path.

If it is attacking a CBG, then is it brought to the vicinity by a sub? Why not launch a nuke-tipped missile?

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline NilsD

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #93 on: December 05, 2015, 01:00:25 pm »
What if this torpedo is quieted much like a proper submarine? Then it could prove very difficult to detect if transiting at slower speeds. After all only the terminal phase needs the 100kts speed and by that time it would probably be too late to intercept.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #94 on: December 05, 2015, 01:08:38 pm »
What if this torpedo is quieted much like a proper submarine? Then it could prove very difficult to detect if transiting at slower speeds. After all only the terminal phase needs the 100kts speed and by that time it would probably be too late to intercept.
Going by the design, it does not seem to be at all quiet. And it irradiates the water as it goes. This is not at all a stealth weapon, except that the detection systems may be degraded during the First Strike.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 910
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #95 on: December 07, 2015, 06:21:13 pm »
Going by the design, it does not seem to be at all quiet. And it irradiates the water as it goes. This is not at all a stealth weapon, except that the detection systems may be degraded during the First Strike.

I'm not sold on the 'irradiation' detection problem: the main isotope produced by irradiation by neutrons would be tritium, and I don't think that would be in large quantities. Additionally, tritium emits beta-radiation, which travels a very short distance in air, and even shorter in water. Detection would have to be from water sampling, and that won't fly in this case - it just takes too long.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #96 on: December 09, 2015, 07:31:45 am »
I wasn't meaning to suggest that the radiation is a detection issue in the way that this weapon will be used, it was just an additional point re stealth. It would be in some of the loiter profiles suggested in this thread and NATO could invest in sniffer type detection. But that's unnecessary as the Kanyon will be noisey enough.


I think that we should be careful of mixing up whether we understand it with whether it's real. The subs are real and there is plenty of reason to think that this is real. Plenty of countries have invested in technologies that others think is foolish or impractical. Please excuse rushed comments.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #97 on: December 09, 2015, 07:39:15 am »
I think that we should be careful of mixing up whether we understand it with whether it's real. The subs are real and there is plenty of reason to think that this is real. Plenty of countries have invested in technologies that others think is foolish or impractical. Please excuse rushed comments.

We should return the favor and blow the dust off Project Pluto.   ;)  j/k  I'm also wondering if the nuclear powered giant torpedo is a ruse.  What if those spots were for carrying a few LARGE missiles instead.  Imagine a large, very depressed, very fast trajectory, solid rocket propelled missile, designed specifically for delivering the decapitating strike at the opening of a war.  A missile designed to deliver, say, 3 1 Mt warheads shotgun style, from 200 miles out flying as low and as fast as possible. 
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 07:51:02 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #98 on: December 09, 2015, 08:41:44 am »
That might actually make some sense... missiles too long to be stored at anything other than a horizontal angle?

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #99 on: December 09, 2015, 11:51:50 am »
How would they stand against the existing treaties?

Interesting hypothetical weapon system but what evidence points to that? They wouldn't need the sea lift support ship (p.20180) that is associated with Sarov and on the 'leaked' PowerPoint.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 11:53:34 am by covert_shores »
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #100 on: December 09, 2015, 11:55:13 am »
How would they stand against the existing treaties?

Interesting hypothetical weapon system but what evidence points to that? They wouldn't need the sea lift support ship (p.20180) that is associated with Sarov and on the 'leaked' PowerPoint.

None.  Just that a nuclear powered super torpedo sounds more Goldfinger than a real weapon so I was trying to think of alternative uses.  Or maybe it houses mini UAV subs or something.   ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #102 on: January 07, 2016, 12:55:04 pm »
I had an idea a while back and thought I'd share it. I think we're overthinking this. The weapon doesn't actually have to make sense.

There are two obvious possibilities:

The first is that the hierarchical non-democratic Russian government has even more opportunities for sycophants than the U.S. government, and as a result may make even worse decisions regarding military procurement.

The second is that the Russians are using the 'Madman theory' of psychological warfare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory). The goal isn't to message to the public, it is to give the impression to world governments and analysts that the Russian regime is unpredictable and irrational in its decisions.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #103 on: January 07, 2016, 01:51:06 pm »
 ;)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Gridlock

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #104 on: January 08, 2016, 06:09:15 am »
The second is that the Russians are using the 'Madman theory' of psychological warfare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory). The goal isn't to message to the public, it is to give the impression to world governments and analysts that the Russian regime is unpredictable and irrational in its decisions.

Along these lines I think this weapon makes sense as part of PERIMETR

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7733
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #106 on: December 08, 2016, 02:10:52 pm »
Interesting, thanks. Pity about the political commentary, prefer straightforward defense analysis
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #107 on: December 08, 2016, 03:08:51 pm »
"“Status-6 is designed to kill civilians by massive blast and fallout,” he said, noting that such targeting violates the law of armed conflict."

That's just precious.  Somebody actually believes any rules of war would be adhered to in an all out nuclear exchange. 

"“We could even propose a ban on such weapons,” Schneider said. “There is no indication from the Obama administration that any negotiations are underway, or that the U.S. has even raised the issue with Russia.”"

What would be the point?  We have no leverage and Russia is clearly doing whatever it wants to in regards to nuclear weapons at this point.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 03:10:42 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #108 on: December 08, 2016, 04:53:27 pm »
The second is that the Russians are using the 'Madman theory' of psychological warfare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory). The goal isn't to message to the public, it is to give the impression to world governments and analysts that the Russian regime is unpredictable and irrational in its decisions.

Along these lines I think this weapon makes sense as part of PERIMETR

Or perhaps they want to be seen as the 'reasonable man' in the room?

Maybe we should take them at their word (this once) that it is meant to discourage further development of ABM systems:



It may just be one of the cheapest strategic delivery systems that they could produce on short notice (and motivated by cost savings more then tactical or strategic uses).

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 625
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #109 on: December 08, 2016, 07:26:12 pm »
Russia does what it can afford. Why waste money on $Billion Defensive system when you can develop new offensive systems in an asymmetric way to keep the balance of power from tipping too far in one direction. Its a pretty common sense pragmatic approach. Putin seems to be concerned about the danger of the ABM systems causing destabilizing effect on balance of power.

Offline bigvlada

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 369
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #110 on: December 10, 2016, 12:27:54 am »
With the rise of crazy on the world stage coupled with increased availability of horrifying WMDs (never mind nukes... imagine what can be done with bioweapons), I believe it's well past time to consider a change in strategy. Rather than trying to come up with a counter to every weapons system imaginable... it's time to colonize the Moon. And Mars. And the skies of Venus. And the asteroids. Fill the sky with habitats all fling the same flag, separated from each other by at least days of travel time. Then complete destruction becomes nearly impossible. And if somebody decides to start popping off nukes in harbors, they can expect a rain of ruin from deep space.

I wholeheartedly agree. When you think of it, there are dozens of billions of >1km objects in Oort cloud and Cuiper belt, more than enough for everyone. We could start with habitats using materials from asteroid field between Mars and Jupiter and go from there. Even if it takes more than 20 years to build the first one. There are more than enough examples of structures on Earth taking centuries to complete; habitats are definitely more useful than cathedrals.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #111 on: December 12, 2016, 06:57:03 am »
Updated the Sarov article on Covert Shores. http://www.hisutton.com/SAROV-Class_Submarine.html


COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #112 on: March 05, 2018, 09:41:23 am »
So apparently the March 1st speech indicates a secondary anti-carrier group capability... I guess I recanted too soon?

Do you guys think a conventionally armed version would be feasible? Or would it be a waste of time/capacity? (I assume the latter)

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #113 on: March 05, 2018, 10:10:33 am »
Or perhaps they want to be seen as the 'reasonable man' in the room?

How the hell is threatening to nuke everybody with terror weapons (even during the Cold War huge nukes were seen as nothing more) the act of the "reasonable man" in the room?

Maybe we should take them at their word (this once) that it is meant to discourage further development of ABM systems:

Sure, let's appease a blackmailer.  What could possibly go wrong.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #114 on: March 06, 2018, 05:32:14 am »
Or perhaps they want to be seen as the 'reasonable man' in the room?

How the hell is threatening to nuke everybody with terror weapons (even during the Cold War huge nukes were seen as nothing more) the act of the "reasonable man" in the room?

Maybe we should take them at their word (this once) that it is meant to discourage further development of ABM systems:

Sure, let's appease a blackmailer.  What could possibly go wrong.

How is this different from the United States threatening to attack North Korea or Iran if they don't do what we want? Anyway, I'm moving this discussion here as it is a more general thread discussing Russian modernisation plans (and presumably motivation for those plans):
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8304.msg325825.html#msg325825

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #115 on: March 24, 2018, 05:18:40 pm »
How is this different from the United States threatening to attack North Korea or Iran if they don't do what we want?

You mean aside from the fact that both Iran and North Korea have expressed an interest in nuking the US, export terrorism, and are pursuing nuclear weapons, while the US has never threatened Russia that way?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #116 on: March 24, 2018, 05:41:33 pm »
How is this different from the United States threatening to attack North Korea or Iran if they don't do what we want?

You mean aside from the fact that both Iran and North Korea have expressed an interest in nuking the US, export terrorism, and are pursuing nuclear weapons, while the US has never threatened Russia that way?

You do realise that the United States had the world's largest nuclear arsenal almost entirely focussed on the Soviet Union, and also supplied the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (not to mention many other examples)?

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #117 on: March 24, 2018, 06:37:42 pm »
\You do realise that the United States had the world's largest nuclear arsenal almost entirely focussed on the Soviet Union, and also supplied the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (not to mention many other examples)?

Have we threatened to nuke Russia?  No. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 625
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #118 on: March 24, 2018, 07:33:52 pm »
\You do realise that the United States had the world's largest nuclear arsenal almost entirely focussed on the Soviet Union, and also supplied the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (not to mention many other examples)?

Have we threatened to nuke Russia?  No.

From Russian perspective maybe they felt a little threatened about the US Navy presence in the Black sea (the Donald Cook incident among other things) To me that would be like the Russian Navy sailing in the Great Lakes area.

They are also upset about US presence in Syria and "interference" Their ties to Syria being very strong.

They also feel threatened and encircled by NATO and are also upset about Ukraine and general USA Hegemony and "New World Order" constantly promoted by every US President since Bush #1 including Obama.

Given Russia's history of being invaded by foreign aggressors its easy to see they want to be as absolutely deadly as possible to any potential current/future enemy

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #119 on: March 24, 2018, 08:34:05 pm »
From Russian perspective maybe they felt a little threatened about the US Navy presence in the Black sea (the Donald Cook incident among other things) To me that would be like the Russian Navy sailing in the Great Lakes area.

Hardly.  More like the Gulf of Mexico, which they've done numerous times in the past.

They are also upset about US presence in Syria and "interference" Their ties to Syria being very strong.

Which doesn't say, "we're going to nuke you".

Given Russia's history of being invaded by foreign aggressors its easy to see they want to be as absolutely deadly as possible to any potential current/future enemy

Again, that's on them.  We're not saying, "we're going to nuke you".  So no, threatening to nuke the US does not make one the "reasonable person in the room". 
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 08:35:41 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7733
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7733
  • The path not taken.
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #121 on: July 24, 2018, 12:38:47 am »
https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russia-begins-sea-trials-of-nuclear-capable-poseidon-underwater-prone/

Quote
Russia has reportedly commenced sea trials of its ultimate doomsday weapon, a nuclear-capable underwater vehicle (UUV), dubbed ‘Poseidon,’ purportedly designed to deliver a 2-megaton nuclear warhead to destroy naval bases, carrier strike groups, and entire coastal cities by triggering a radioactive Tsunami wave.

The sea trials of the “Poseidon” began last week and are primarily focused on the UUVs guidance system and underwater operations in autonomous mode. Work on the “Poseidon” is reportedly progressing according to schedule, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) said in a July 19 statement.

The “Poseidon,” also known under Ocean Multipurpose System Status-6 or “Kanyon” by the U.S. intelligence community, “is a new intercontinental, nuclear armed, nuclear-powered, undersea autonomous torpedo,” according to the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review. The UUV is thought to have been developed in reaction to the increasing sophistication of U.S. ballistic missile defense systems.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #123 on: July 24, 2018, 04:22:24 pm »
2 MT sounds unusually low.  Something that large could easily pack a 100 MT warhead.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7018
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #124 on: July 24, 2018, 06:53:16 pm »
What do you want to bet SPECTRE steals one of these things during a trial?
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #125 on: July 24, 2018, 08:38:42 pm »
2 MT sounds unusually low.  Something that large could easily pack a 100 MT warhead.
Russia still must have a few of those 20Mt warheads used in the single RV version of the R-36M lying around?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #126 on: July 25, 2018, 02:22:13 pm »
2 MT sounds unusually low.  Something that large could easily pack a 100 MT warhead.

W-56 had a weight of 680 pounds and a one megaton yield in a physics package 18 inches wide, so, presumably, a two megaton yield warhead could fit in a 650mm torpedo and possibly a 21 inch one.

Given the size of this thing is about the same size as the old T-15, which was one of the delivery mechanisms that was supposed to cary the "Tsar Bomba"I'd bet on a much higher yield, otherwise there wouldn't seem to be much point.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 02:24:09 pm by Brickmuppet »

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #127 on: July 25, 2018, 05:58:14 pm »
Surely there is still a point to a 2 megaton warhead... the possibility for even greater destruction shouldn't cause the already incomprehensible amount of destruction posed by a 2MT warhead to seem small.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #128 on: July 26, 2018, 01:23:49 pm »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #129 on: July 26, 2018, 01:25:15 pm »
Surely there is still a point to a 2 megaton warhead... the possibility for even greater destruction shouldn't cause the already incomprehensible amount of destruction posed by a 2MT warhead to seem small.

I don't think a 2 Mt device is as apocalyptically huge as you think it is.  Even Spartan had a 5 MT warhead.  Also, it's not as though these would be 1st strike weapons, or that there would be hundreds of them.  These would be pure "revenge" weapons.  20 - 30 of them, each with 100+ MT targeted at large ports such as Norfolk, San Fransisco, San Diego, etc.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 01:28:47 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #130 on: July 26, 2018, 02:00:54 pm »
There might be a point to a 2 megaton warhead, but there isn't a point in putting a 2 megaton warhead in a torpedo the size of a WW2 japanese midget submarine when one can put pretty much the same warhead on a standard torpedo. I have no info on the warhead of the Russian 650mm torpedoes, but the Japanese type 93 of WW2 carried over a thousand pounds of explosive.

Beyond some point, I think its a bit under a Megaton, bigger bombs give diminishing returns in mayhem and woe compared compared to multiple smaller weapons. However, if one goes for a ground or subsurface burst, the cratering and fallout effects of a really big weapon do give a unique capability,


According to Nukemap, a 2 megaton warhead ground burst will result in an 1600 foot wide 300 foot deep crater, which in practice is going to be a circular reef made of radioactive trinitite blocking the shipping channel. The blast wave will create a big wave out of what doesn't get evaporated and in a harbor the seiche effects will likely be nasty. Both effects, exclusive of radiation, are sufficient to shut down a port except maybe New York (which might require two) for months or years. 5psi blast radius is listed as 3.58 miles, and in practice would be much less with an underwater explosion. The water wave might travel farther inland. However the short term fallout from even a 'Plowshare' charge added to that (let alone a salted warhead) and one has a quite nasty weapon...that could be fired in salvo from 80 or so miles off the coast using existing torpedo tubes and likely much farther if a nuclear waterjet is in fact used.

So why the supergigantic torpedo?

A 100 Megaton warhead leaves a 1440 foot deep crater nearly 8 miles across. Your whole harbor is now a radioactive lagoon surrounded by an obsidian atoll. The FIREBALL radius is nearly 5 miles so water in a 30-50foot deep channel is not going to be much of a mitigating factor. 200 psi pressures will be experienced about 2 miles away, and the 5 psi pressures that we see exploding houses in the Apple-2/Operation Cue footage would be happening as much as 13 miles from ground zero. Really big bombs cause severe heat effects on clear days farther than their blast can blow the fires out. #rd degree burns, dry leaves igniting and hair catching on fire would be happening as far away as 39 miles and dry wood would burst into flames at more than 30. The fires alone would cause all sorts of chaos. There would be an earthquake effect too. Tsar Bomba, at "only"50MT registered at over 5 on the richter scale despite being detonated more than 4 clicks up. A 4.9 earthquake here in Virginia knocked over chimneys and wrecked a bank a few years back, the effects of a 100 megaton blast at ground level over a wide area would be...bad. Fallout, depending on prevailing winds, time of year and the position of the jet stream at the time of blast could subject vast swaths of North America  to what the crew of FV Lucky Dragon experienced.

6 to 12 of these weapons could end the United States by eliminating its biggest coastal cities and rendering the heartland poisonous for a decade or more. (And no one would be able to eat Maine or Canadian lobsters ever again).

That would be worth the hassle of fielding a torpedo the size of a small submarine.

Attached picture is an example of 5psi.

« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 02:25:12 pm by Brickmuppet »

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 625
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #131 on: July 26, 2018, 07:15:43 pm »
Russia's enemies have plenty of Coastline, so yet another example of good Russian practicality.  Doing things the simple and effective way as cheaply as possible.

Whats going to happen to the ones they lose though? I guess when cancer rates skyrocket in Florida and Maine we might find out. Or would they only be deployed during a shooting war, or on a status mode patrol all the time?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 07:18:19 pm by kcran567 »

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #132 on: July 27, 2018, 07:23:48 am »
Good points.

I wonder if we're looking at this thing wrong. Rather than hitting economic and military centers, the costal versions of which are on the east and gulf coasts in the U.S., the fallout might be the bigger goal here. Thus Belgorod and the soon to be comissioned Khabarovsk would be able to alternate with each other and keep 6 of these things at sea most of the time

Attached is a framegrab from the Nukemap online nightmare facillitator.
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

This is 6 x 100Megaton groundbursts in 5 deepwater ports and a Fishing harbor (Bangor, Astoria, Crescent City, San Fransisco, Sacramento, Long Beach) plus a 2 megaton groundburst for perspective in a salt marsh at Vandenburg AFB. I had the fallout pattern from the smaller blast go south to make it stand out.

Note that the orange circles are the zone of burnination. At the outer edge of those circles, on a clear day people outside go blind, get third degree burns, leaves,  hair and dark clothing can catch fire, everything inside of that gets more combustable. the light grey bit just inside that is the outer limit of smashed windows and associated lacerations of people who might already be blind and on fire . Damage, gets worse in from that, the darker grey circle on each blast pattern is the 5 PSI limit seen in the .gif  in the post above. Everything inside that circle gets progressively more unpleasant. None of those effects save the outer burn limit are visible at this scale on the 2mt bomb, though I very much would not want to be at Vandenburg in this instance.

The fallout contours vary because I varied the wind speed. The mushroom cloud from a full yield RDS220 is estimated to get over 30 miles high so it's going to be blown east by high speed upper level winds, especially if it intersects the jet stream(s). The wind speeds in this image vary from 10mph to 180mph. In practice such fallout patterns would follow a lazy s curve well into Canada...I would not want to be in Saskatoon or Winnipeg...before arcing down into our breadbasket and possibly (depending on wind speed) looping up through the northeast and poisoning New England & the Maritimes. This is, of course highly dependent on the time of year (things like is the  subtropical jet stream active as well as effects of North America's comparatively mild Monsoon pattern).

The 2MT weapon is positively hideous, but a 1 or 2 megaton weapon should be fireable from a standard torpedo tube. Here a full spread of 6 high yield weapons from Belgorod killed or poisoned at least half the country. Given the size and complexity of this project, 2MT just doesn't seem right. I strongly suspect that IF this is not a Potempkin torpedo, that the yield is much higher, between 50 and 150 megatons.

Note too that 150MT was according to The Johnston Archive, the final maximum design yield for the RDS220 physics package...see here:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/multimeg.html#S2
Even given space and weight restrictions in the weapon, 100 MT doesn't seem unreasonable.
In any event, if you take the parachute, and casing off the old, 1963 Tsar Bomba the actual 'splody bits should just fit into a Poseidon. 1963 was 55 years ago. I'm sure the Russians have made some progress in the intervening years.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2018, 07:43:57 am by Brickmuppet »

Offline iverson

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #133 on: July 28, 2018, 04:00:49 pm »
Good points....

Good arguments, I suppose. But I am skeptical.

I doubt that the Russians have made a lot of progress with very high-yield bombs. The USSR was already entering the initial stages of its decline in the late '60s. It remained seriously behind in computing for the rest of its existence and had little or no opportunity to test. With neither tests nor supercomputer simulations, I don't see a lot of advance being likely. Since the collapse, the economic resources required for major nuclear development have simply been unavailable.

In addition, status-6 looks more like a warmed over 1950s idea than a new concept--like something concocted as a fall-back when bombers and missiles were not going well.

The doomsday weapon concept is likewise pretty '50s retro. As a tactic, it offers no military advantage, because it destroys purely civilian lives and installations. Craters in seaboard harbors and massive irradiation of the heartland don't affect ballistic missile silos, bombers, and submarines at sea. But they would really provoke a response. So a status-6 attack would not preempt massive nuclear retaliation against civilian AND military targets in Russia.

All in all, I suspect that this status-6 thing, like the recent nuclear-powered cruise missile and the original Tsar Bomba, is less a serious weapon system than a publicity/propaganda stunt intended to draw attention away from Russia's long-term economic crisis and growing military weakness.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #134 on: July 28, 2018, 05:58:27 pm »
Pure speculation... but what if the 2 MT version has an airburst mode and the additional warhead weight is the booster to get it up 100 metres ASL?

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #135 on: July 28, 2018, 09:48:29 pm »
Pure speculation... but what if the 2 MT version has an airburst mode and the additional warhead weight is the booster to get it up 100 metres ASL?

Better to put it on a Shipwreck.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 977
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #136 on: July 29, 2018, 03:07:40 am »
Every time I read about this weapon I can't get Dr Strangelove out my mind!

I think its development, alongside the hypersonic efforts, is simply a reaction to modern and potential future ABM developments. With the development of laser and particle beam technologies the chances of successful destruction of the warhead or missile remains higher than an underwater weapon that no  A/S weapon can currently deal with and which no adequate early warning sensor exists.
I wonder if the development of this weapon didn't start out back in the late 1980s as a counter to Reagan's Star Wars and was dusted off the shelf? Certainly modern navigation systems make this a more feasible system today than during the Cold War.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2025
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #137 on: July 29, 2018, 04:04:26 am »
I read the entire thread this morning, plus the best links. Now shaking my head in disbelief. As noted in one of the link (and somewhere on this thread) this looks like a pre- ICBM delivery system of the 50's. Really. A bit like Project PACER for civilian fission / fusion: a Teller brute force approach.
Seriously: submarine + drone + torpedo + H-bomb + colbalt, all poured into a single doomsday vehicle. Which takes two days to reach its target, with a huge noise, in an ocean filled with USN SOSUS (or whatever it is called today) networks.

Somebody also mentioned Vought SLAM, that other doomsday weapon. Spot on: once again, SLAM was typical 50's "Tellerian madness", pre - MAD and pre - ICBM.
And then of course, is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burevestnik_(missile) Putin toying with SLAM.

Overall, considering the economic state of Russia those days, ithttps://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=post;msg=333462;topic=26054.135 looks like Putin brickmanship to mask issues with a declining ICBM force facing U.S ABM system (even a limited one).

On a least serious note...  somebody noted Putin had found a radical way to fry fishes. Reminds me of that line in Ang Lee much maligned Hulk. At the beginning of the movie they are testing the Hulk thing on frogs... which invariably explode. At some point a frustrated Jennifer Connally (those eyes !!) tell his friend

Quote

Bruce Banner: You want to go to the review board on Monday and tell them we have developed a brand new method for exploding frogs?

Betty Ross: I think there's a market for it. I mean, what if there's a plague?

Bruce Banner: What have you had, Betty, like one beer?

Betty Ross: I'm... I'm just saying... frogs start falling from the sky... who do they come to? We'll be world renowned.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2018, 04:11:15 am by Archibald »
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 630
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #138 on: July 31, 2018, 03:16:49 am »
Every time I read about this weapon I can't get Dr Strangelove out my mind!

I think its development, alongside the hypersonic efforts, is simply a reaction to modern and potential future ABM developments. With the development of laser and particle beam technologies the chances of successful destruction of the warhead or missile remains higher than an underwater weapon that no  A/S weapon can currently deal with and which no adequate early warning sensor exists.
I wonder if the development of this weapon didn't start out back in the late 1980s as a counter to Reagan's Star Wars and was dusted off the shelf? Certainly modern navigation systems make this a more feasible system today than during the Cold War.
generally agree with Hood on these aspects of the system.

Have been considering writing an article covering the ways of countering this weapon but a bit of a sensitive topic. The short answer is that Russia is diversifying its deterrence which will cost $$$$ to build counters for. Likely only US and UK will try to build counters; the US might be limited by existing investments and the U.K. Political process simply cannot cope with commen sense defence investments, especially if it involves new nuclear weapons. So the weapon will likely go un-countered for many years.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Crockus

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 3
Re: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system
« Reply #139 on: September 10, 2018, 02:19:56 am »
Seriously: submarine + drone + torpedo + H-bomb + colbalt, all poured into a single doomsday vehicle. Which takes two days to reach its target, with a huge noise, in an ocean filled with USN SOSUS (or whatever it is called today) networks.

I think that knowing where it is is one thing and deploying a weapon actually capable of intercepting it is completely another. Current torpedoes in US arsenal can't hit targets beyond a certain depth. Then there are mines and depth charges with nuclear warhead. Not sure if they can guarantee success though. Aiming and timing would need to be ridiculously precise and the target would need to NOT change its course. Is there anything else?