Register here

Author Topic: Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system  (Read 26310 times)

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 69
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: 8334
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: 6926
    • 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 (1.71012 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: 621
  • 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

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10446
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: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 143
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: 9642
  • 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: 621
  • 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: 35
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: 621
  • 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

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10446
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.