• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
703
Reaction score
164
Website
www.hisutton.com
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. ;)
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,134
Reaction score
1,239
"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"
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
703
Reaction score
164
Website
www.hisutton.com
so Status-6 = KANYON?

Sub IDs:
u1PvmJC.jpg

k3iNxrX.jpg

mDXd6rL.jpg


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

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,134
Reaction score
1,239
Both coasts are secured by private property, businesses and kids of Russian political elite, living, studying and having fun there, I guess.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
256
flateric said:
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).
 

Brickmuppet

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
26
Website
brickmuppet.mee.nu
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
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
703
Reaction score
164
Website
www.hisutton.com
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.
 

RAP

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
691
Reaction score
435
Excellent Gregory! LOL. I hope we can steal the plans.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
Just send the Bothans, they'll take care of it.
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
191
Reaction score
97
flateric said:
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.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,062
Reaction score
1,490
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
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.
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
191
Reaction score
97
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.

18w2qndb2fcwijpg.jpg
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,134
Reaction score
1,239
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.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,062
Reaction score
1,490
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
JeffB said:
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

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]
 

Gridlock

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
5
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.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
703
Reaction score
164
Website
www.hisutton.com
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.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,802
Reaction score
2,020
Orionblamblam said:
JeffB said:
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.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
217
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.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
774
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"More on Status-6/Kanyon"
by Jeffrey Lewis | November 13, 2015

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

styx

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
i think that a 1,5 m diameter long range nuclear powered torpedo/uuv woul be an interesying standoff weapon against cvbg.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
703
Reaction score
164
Website
www.hisutton.com
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.
 

moonbeamsts

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
44
Reaction score
6
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.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
703
Reaction score
164
Website
www.hisutton.com
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?)
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,802
Reaction score
2,020
covert_shores said:
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.
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
539
Reaction score
13
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.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,802
Reaction score
2,020
DrRansom said:
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.
 

moonbeamsts

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
44
Reaction score
6
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.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
703
Reaction score
164
Website
www.hisutton.com
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.


RwLkkvi.jpg

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.
uzcSwPd.jpg

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.
wzG1svl.jpg

vdltXh7.jpg

OJ77zdl.jpg
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
94
What/where/whence is the evidence for the cobalt shell?

Thanks,
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
94
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.
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,211
Reaction score
173
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.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
703
Reaction score
164
Website
www.hisutton.com
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?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,814
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?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,802
Reaction score
2,020
covert_shores said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Top