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

Russian 'status-6' nuclear attack system

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
Avimimus said:
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.
 

Abraham Gubler

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

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,723
Reaction score
1,799
Sorry I know others have made the reference but such a good movie ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mUCLHzWiJo
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
94
starviking said:
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"

starviking said:
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.
 

Avimimus

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

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
94
marauder2048 said:
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.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
1,804
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.
 

Gridlock

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
5
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-bigger-boom/

Teller wanted a 10,000MT device :eek:
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,802
Reaction score
2,020
Gridlock said:
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-bigger-boom/

Teller wanted a 10,000MT device :eek:

Was it to be delivered via NASA Crawler?
 

covert_shores

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

Rhinocrates

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
380
Reaction score
432
"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.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
256
Avimimus said:
starviking said:
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"

starviking said:
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?
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
703
Reaction score
164
Website
www.hisutton.com
Great article from USNI news. :) http://news.usni.org/2015/12/04/russian-mystery-submarine-likely-deployment-vehicle-for-new-nuclear-torpedo
 

NilsD

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
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.
 

covert_shores

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

starviking

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

covert_shores

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

sferrin

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

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
94
That might actually make some sense... missiles too long to be stored at anything other than a horizontal angle?
 

covert_shores

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

sferrin

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

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
703
Reaction score
164
Website
www.hisutton.com
Quite a good analysis. http://www.tvn24.pl/magazyn-tvn24-na-weekend/drugie-zycie-tajemniczej-atomowej-torpedy,17,357 (in Polish)
 

Avimimus

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

Gridlock

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

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,813
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-tests-nuclear-capable-drone-sub/
 

sferrin

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

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
94
Gridlock said:
Avimimus said:
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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo

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).
 

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
666
Reaction score
19
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.
 

bigvlada

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
369
Reaction score
29
Orionblamblam said:
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.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
703
Reaction score
164
Website
www.hisutton.com
Updated the Sarov article on Covert Shores. http://www.hisutton.com/SAROV-Class_Submarine.html

Eix5Wji.jpg

VDEmMEt.jpg
 

Avimimus

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

sferrin

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

Avimimus said:
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.
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
94
sferrin said:
Avimimus said:
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?

Avimimus said:
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
 

sferrin

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

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
94
sferrin said:
Avimimus said:
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)?
 

sferrin

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

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
666
Reaction score
19
sferrin said:
Avimimus said:
\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
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,802
Reaction score
2,020
kcran567 said:
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.

kcran567 said:
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".

kcran567 said:
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".
 

Similar threads

Top