It's one of the newest russian Wunderwaffen. It was said to be armed with a very large warhead, travel autonomous at high speed and would explode near the coast to create some radioactive tsunami
A nuke has different power :
-the explosion produce a ball of fire that can blind people who look at it and vaporize most living being inside
-a heatwave, which can cause third degree burns
-a shockwave, that can be more or less powerful depending on the bomb power, distance, many things.
now explode your nuke underwater :
-nobody can see the light, so no damage here
-it's far colder than in surface, so no damage from the heatwave
-the shockwave will be less powerful because : the water pressure will act as counterbalance, and water is heavier than air, so it will be more difficult to travel.
-radioactivity from a nuke is narrow, so the radioactivity will be diluted in the open water.
it will very much cause enough abnormality to be detected by most navies, expert, and military instruments : congratulation you did frick all with a costly nuke, and now your enemy now you're using atomic weapons.
just look at historical nuclear test in the pacific, the French and American did plenty of underwater detonation : no Tsunami.
2 years ago
Anonymous
you're enemy knows*
2 years ago
Anonymous
You need to displace a metric assload of water to make a tsunami, the largest nukes don't even get one thousandth of the way there.
Flipping a tank with your bare hands would be significantly easier.
wow thanks for the explanation I never realized how much power there is behind a tsunami
It's almost pathetic and kind of humbling if you think of it. Even our most destructive weapons are capable of only a tiny part of the destruction that nature is capable of.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, nature can get scary.
The Russians believe their missiles will get shot down before reaching anywhere near the carrier group.
Torpedoes, particularly very fast ones, are much more difficult to intercept compared to missiles.
>torpedoes >hard to intercept
Maneuverability at high speed goes to shit in water faster than in air, due to higher density and drag of the medium.
Let's not even get into how going really fast underwater requires supercavitation, and supercavitation forces even more draconian constraints on maneuvering.
A Granit might (at least theoretically) pull some pretty hard turns and maybe evade an interceptor, a Poseidon has literally no hope of dodging a standard torpedo looking for a collision course.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's hard to intercept because you can only find it by acoustics. A missile can be found by any radar on a large distance too, while you need to be very close to a sound source like this to hear it. That torpedo is said to move slowly to it's target in silent running mode and do an attack sprint at the last few km because it will be detected by that time.
Another advantage would be that it can be place on the seabed as a second strike weapon. I think all these challenges can be overcome but at the moment most navies probably don't have a good way to defend themselves to this weapon
2 years ago
Anonymous
Missiles can hide under the radar horizon by flying low, sea skimming ASMs aren't new tech, but torpedoes cannot evade sonar detection so easily (seabed skimming is usually not an option).
Also, sonar works better than radar for volumetric scans, so even at low closing speed and with sound absorbing materials the enemy can pick up a torpedo-shaped hole and figure out what hides there.
Assuming Russia managed to overcome those issues through high tech (lol), the result would be a carrier-killer weapon that takes several hours to reach its target: something only usable in a first strike, and Russia can't afford that. >rest on the seabed as a second strike weapon
Hiding your nukes deep behind enemy lines, I wonder what could possibly go wrong with that?
The Poseidon does the opposite of a plunge during its attack run. It first dives very deeply (remember that it has a 1 km diving depth, which is really deep), then shoots up almost vertically at max speed.
Also, what anon here [...] said.
Going deep doesn't make you less visible on sonar, same way going high doesn't make you less visible on radar: attenuation might help a bit if you were 10 km deep, but 1 km deep is nothing with modern sonar.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Going deep doesn't make you less visible on sonar
You can have a bunch of thermoclines in 1 km of water. Remember that water isn't actually homogenous.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No amount of naturally occurring thermal gradients is going to hide your closing velocity and resulting doppler shift, digital processing has simply improved too much.
There's a reason the US spent so much time and effort on sonar tech: once you get it good enough, there's no hiding.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're talking about active sonar right? Or a netwerk of hydrophones? Because I don't know how else you'll find the doppler shift.
I'm actually going to develop a sonar system for a research agency here as my thesis for my masters degree in mechanical engineering. I'll start in a few weeks, still waiting for my clearance. Any advice on what to read as preparation?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Integrated Undersea Surveillance System(IUSS), which is Sound Surveillance System(SOSUS), and Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System(SURTASS) combined. All those integrated with Advanced Deployable System (ADS)
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah so a network. I'll be doing something similar as SOSUS but on a different scale. What would be good technical sources to expand my background in advance?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Find your own intel, Chang.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm Dutch, but thanks
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
Of course you go active (ships are easy to spot anyways), and of course you go for a network of sensors for better resolutions (towed arrays aren't new). >advice on what to read
The tech is so old and well understood that even just looking at the wikipedia sources will get you a good starting point.
Hobbysts are also worth looking at, especially as you're planning on actually building something.
>a Poseidon has literally no hope of dodging a standard torpedo looking for a collision course.
Poseidon has stealth technology. Americ**ts will be dead before they know it.
>screaming through water at 100mph+ >stealth
Top zozzle
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Poseidon does the opposite of a plunge during its attack run. It first dives very deeply (remember that it has a 1 km diving depth, which is really deep), then shoots up almost vertically at max speed.
Also, what anon here
It's hard to intercept because you can only find it by acoustics. A missile can be found by any radar on a large distance too, while you need to be very close to a sound source like this to hear it. That torpedo is said to move slowly to it's target in silent running mode and do an attack sprint at the last few km because it will be detected by that time.
Another advantage would be that it can be place on the seabed as a second strike weapon. I think all these challenges can be overcome but at the moment most navies probably don't have a good way to defend themselves to this weapon
said.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> what could possibly go wrong?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The continued survival of a carrier group, natochud.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Everything, but you have to remember: it's Russians we're talking about.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>a Poseidon has literally no hope of dodging a standard torpedo looking for a collision course.
Poseidon has stealth technology. Americ**ts will be dead before they know it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
thermal torps have a depth limit as they can't expell exhaust gasses past a certain depth
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Even our most destructive weapons are capable of only a tiny part of the destruction that nature is capable of.
Keep in mind though that this is in part a deliberate choice. America (and specifically a team under that whacky guy Edward Teller) actually looked seriously at a 10 gigaton nuke. Thermonuclear technology can scale very well. That's a lot of energy, even by nature standards. Something like the dinosaur asteroid impact level of energy.
As a weapon though it was dumb, the goal of war at least for decent countries isn't "frick the entire world forever for lulz" it's to gain some measure of actual victory.
2 years ago
Anonymous
yeah I went a bit over the top with my comment but it's still fascinating how much energy there is behind natural disasters
2 years ago
Anonymous
>congratulation you did frick all with a costly
You can wipe the entire aircraft carrier battlegroup or multiple submarines easily with nuclear torpedos easily.
2 years ago
Anonymous
if you say easily several more times i'm sure someone will finally believe you
2 years ago
Anonymous
Cope, mutt.
2 years ago
Anonymous
keep coping, slavmutt
2 years ago
Anonymous
i can't because i don't know how easily it is to easily do it easily
You need to displace a metric assload of water to make a tsunami, the largest nukes don't even get one thousandth of the way there.
Flipping a tank with your bare hands would be significantly easier.
The Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, which caused the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, is estimated to have released energy equivalent to 23,000 Hiroshima-type atomic bombs.
That's 6x the power of the largest nuke we have, but the water displacement will be fricked up by evaporation as well, so it may create a wave 1-2ft high but that's it.
The Poseidon torpedoes are intended to instakill carrier groups. Like, actually delete them, rather than just cause severe shock damage. They're last-ditch defensive weapons, rather than whatever bullshit nuclear tsunami fanfic peddled by either the Russians or Western idiots is doing the rounds.
A swarm of ASMs with nuclear warheads does it faster, more reliably, while being harder to intercept, and still takes up less space on the launch platform.
Poseidon is such a meme it's unreal.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Russians believe their missiles will get shot down before reaching anywhere near the carrier group.
Torpedoes, particularly very fast ones, are much more difficult to intercept compared to missiles.
>They aren't confident that the ballistic missiles would get through.
Same thing with Tridents. Russia will shot them down and then wipe the USA with things like Poseidon and Avangard.
Oh. It’s only two megatons.
I thought for sure that since Russia was bragging about how it would cause super duper mega tsunamis that it would be at least fifty megatons. I guess it’s even more useless than I thought
With the amount of shit the Russians are having to scrap for parts to avoid humiliating defeat against Ukraine, you have to assume their nuke subs are being pretty badly neglected when bluffing works just as well right up to armageddon.
It’s also not being used like other nukes.
Two megatons on an ICBM is a pretty good size.
Two megatons when compared to the energy of an underwater earthquake is fricking nothing
Because, like I said in a previous post, it's an anticarrier weapon. The Russians don't trust their antiship missiles, and current torpedoes aren't that good at intercepting other torpedoes (especially when said torpedo is travelling at almost twice the speed of the would-be interceptor). It's why Northrop-Grumman are developing a dedicated interceptor torpedo (the VLT).
>They have continously rotted away and lost expertise and skill ever since the USSR imploded
This is true, any competent USSR military man either defected to the West for money during the fall or got rich from criminal activity and left the military. The few that remained and the few competent ideologues that joined later have been whittled away by the glorified gopniks in uniform that outnumber them.
> 'many special features'
most of which can and probably will fail in spectacular fashion killing the entire crew, but on the bright side will give the kremlin more opportunities to blame accidents on the 'evil capitalist running dogs'.
> 'many special features'
most of which can and probably will fail in spectacular fashion killing the entire crew, but on the bright side will give the kremlin more opportunities to blame accidents on the 'evil capitalist running dogs'.
They're the leader in submarines at the bottom of the ocean during peacetime
Their SSBNs are reportedly very quiet... for the first year or two of service. Then they start making a lot of banging noises and are easily identified.
Attack subs seem fine.
For diesels you'll want to go European.
How would this affect their detectability ? > It turns out that in addition to hull sections, the Dolgorukiy SSBN is borrowing used steam turbines from scrapped nuclear-powered submarines that were built nearly 30 years ago.
https://7fbtk.blogspot.com/2014/09/dolgorukiy-ssbn-dirty-secret-under-hood.html
1. Russian subs are loud.
2. The russian navy has no money to keep them running without everything be broken.
3. Massively overstated capability
4. Russians can’t stop damaging subs beyond repair
5. Russia sank five nuclear submarines (one sank twice)
Our competitors will improve over time, which is why we need to stay on top of the technology edge and work with our allies (our real allies not "allies") to pool research and maintain our position.
What? Didn't India build a submarine recently that immediately sank?
Yes but that was because they forgot to close all the hatches
Submarines are supposed to d that.
Romeo class?
They are good at making things that sink. Like their economy among others.
what's the point of a "Nuclear torpedo" ?
It's one of the newest russian Wunderwaffen. It was said to be armed with a very large warhead, travel autonomous at high speed and would explode near the coast to create some radioactive tsunami
you can't make a Tsunami, so they're either completely moronic or bluffing.
why can't you make a tsunami?
A nuke has different power :
-the explosion produce a ball of fire that can blind people who look at it and vaporize most living being inside
-a heatwave, which can cause third degree burns
-a shockwave, that can be more or less powerful depending on the bomb power, distance, many things.
now explode your nuke underwater :
-nobody can see the light, so no damage here
-it's far colder than in surface, so no damage from the heatwave
-the shockwave will be less powerful because : the water pressure will act as counterbalance, and water is heavier than air, so it will be more difficult to travel.
-radioactivity from a nuke is narrow, so the radioactivity will be diluted in the open water.
it will very much cause enough abnormality to be detected by most navies, expert, and military instruments : congratulation you did frick all with a costly nuke, and now your enemy now you're using atomic weapons.
just look at historical nuclear test in the pacific, the French and American did plenty of underwater detonation : no Tsunami.
you're enemy knows*
wow thanks for the explanation I never realized how much power there is behind a tsunami
It's almost pathetic and kind of humbling if you think of it. Even our most destructive weapons are capable of only a tiny part of the destruction that nature is capable of.
Yeah, nature can get scary.
>torpedoes
>hard to intercept
Maneuverability at high speed goes to shit in water faster than in air, due to higher density and drag of the medium.
Let's not even get into how going really fast underwater requires supercavitation, and supercavitation forces even more draconian constraints on maneuvering.
A Granit might (at least theoretically) pull some pretty hard turns and maybe evade an interceptor, a Poseidon has literally no hope of dodging a standard torpedo looking for a collision course.
It's hard to intercept because you can only find it by acoustics. A missile can be found by any radar on a large distance too, while you need to be very close to a sound source like this to hear it. That torpedo is said to move slowly to it's target in silent running mode and do an attack sprint at the last few km because it will be detected by that time.
Another advantage would be that it can be place on the seabed as a second strike weapon. I think all these challenges can be overcome but at the moment most navies probably don't have a good way to defend themselves to this weapon
Missiles can hide under the radar horizon by flying low, sea skimming ASMs aren't new tech, but torpedoes cannot evade sonar detection so easily (seabed skimming is usually not an option).
Also, sonar works better than radar for volumetric scans, so even at low closing speed and with sound absorbing materials the enemy can pick up a torpedo-shaped hole and figure out what hides there.
Assuming Russia managed to overcome those issues through high tech (lol), the result would be a carrier-killer weapon that takes several hours to reach its target: something only usable in a first strike, and Russia can't afford that.
>rest on the seabed as a second strike weapon
Hiding your nukes deep behind enemy lines, I wonder what could possibly go wrong with that?
Going deep doesn't make you less visible on sonar, same way going high doesn't make you less visible on radar: attenuation might help a bit if you were 10 km deep, but 1 km deep is nothing with modern sonar.
>Going deep doesn't make you less visible on sonar
You can have a bunch of thermoclines in 1 km of water. Remember that water isn't actually homogenous.
No amount of naturally occurring thermal gradients is going to hide your closing velocity and resulting doppler shift, digital processing has simply improved too much.
There's a reason the US spent so much time and effort on sonar tech: once you get it good enough, there's no hiding.
You're talking about active sonar right? Or a netwerk of hydrophones? Because I don't know how else you'll find the doppler shift.
I'm actually going to develop a sonar system for a research agency here as my thesis for my masters degree in mechanical engineering. I'll start in a few weeks, still waiting for my clearance. Any advice on what to read as preparation?
Integrated Undersea Surveillance System(IUSS), which is Sound Surveillance System(SOSUS), and Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System(SURTASS) combined. All those integrated with Advanced Deployable System (ADS)
Yeah so a network. I'll be doing something similar as SOSUS but on a different scale. What would be good technical sources to expand my background in advance?
Find your own intel, Chang.
I'm Dutch, but thanks
Of course you go active (ships are easy to spot anyways), and of course you go for a network of sensors for better resolutions (towed arrays aren't new).
>advice on what to read
The tech is so old and well understood that even just looking at the wikipedia sources will get you a good starting point.
Hobbysts are also worth looking at, especially as you're planning on actually building something.
>screaming through water at 100mph+
>stealth
Top zozzle
The Poseidon does the opposite of a plunge during its attack run. It first dives very deeply (remember that it has a 1 km diving depth, which is really deep), then shoots up almost vertically at max speed.
Also, what anon here
said.
> what could possibly go wrong?
The continued survival of a carrier group, natochud.
Everything, but you have to remember: it's Russians we're talking about.
>a Poseidon has literally no hope of dodging a standard torpedo looking for a collision course.
Poseidon has stealth technology. Americ**ts will be dead before they know it.
thermal torps have a depth limit as they can't expell exhaust gasses past a certain depth
>Even our most destructive weapons are capable of only a tiny part of the destruction that nature is capable of.
Keep in mind though that this is in part a deliberate choice. America (and specifically a team under that whacky guy Edward Teller) actually looked seriously at a 10 gigaton nuke. Thermonuclear technology can scale very well. That's a lot of energy, even by nature standards. Something like the dinosaur asteroid impact level of energy.
As a weapon though it was dumb, the goal of war at least for decent countries isn't "frick the entire world forever for lulz" it's to gain some measure of actual victory.
yeah I went a bit over the top with my comment but it's still fascinating how much energy there is behind natural disasters
>congratulation you did frick all with a costly
You can wipe the entire aircraft carrier battlegroup or multiple submarines easily with nuclear torpedos easily.
if you say easily several more times i'm sure someone will finally believe you
Cope, mutt.
keep coping, slavmutt
i can't because i don't know how easily it is to easily do it easily
You need to displace a metric assload of water to make a tsunami, the largest nukes don't even get one thousandth of the way there.
Flipping a tank with your bare hands would be significantly easier.
The Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, which caused the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, is estimated to have released energy equivalent to 23,000 Hiroshima-type atomic bombs.
That's 6x the power of the largest nuke we have, but the water displacement will be fricked up by evaporation as well, so it may create a wave 1-2ft high but that's it.
The Poseidon torpedoes are intended to instakill carrier groups. Like, actually delete them, rather than just cause severe shock damage. They're last-ditch defensive weapons, rather than whatever bullshit nuclear tsunami fanfic peddled by either the Russians or Western idiots is doing the rounds.
A swarm of ASMs with nuclear warheads does it faster, more reliably, while being harder to intercept, and still takes up less space on the launch platform.
Poseidon is such a meme it's unreal.
The Russians believe their missiles will get shot down before reaching anywhere near the carrier group.
Torpedoes, particularly very fast ones, are much more difficult to intercept compared to missiles.
To keep your nuclear scientists employed so they don't move to France.
Shredding whales
They aren't confident that the ballistic missiles would get through.
>They aren't confident that the ballistic missiles would get through.
Same thing with Tridents. Russia will shot them down and then wipe the USA with things like Poseidon and Avangard.
Oh. It’s only two megatons.
I thought for sure that since Russia was bragging about how it would cause super duper mega tsunamis that it would be at least fifty megatons. I guess it’s even more useless than I thought
Its more powerful than any other nuke like Trident.
Take your meds.
But the Trident is actually real, and in production. How's that nuclear-powered cruise missile going? Still blowing up, and radiating Russian's?
With the amount of shit the Russians are having to scrap for parts to avoid humiliating defeat against Ukraine, you have to assume their nuke subs are being pretty badly neglected when bluffing works just as well right up to armageddon.
It’s also not being used like other nukes.
Two megatons on an ICBM is a pretty good size.
Two megatons when compared to the energy of an underwater earthquake is fricking nothing
Because, like I said in a previous post, it's an anticarrier weapon. The Russians don't trust their antiship missiles, and current torpedoes aren't that good at intercepting other torpedoes (especially when said torpedo is travelling at almost twice the speed of the would-be interceptor). It's why Northrop-Grumman are developing a dedicated interceptor torpedo (the VLT).
j b
What was the Losharik up to when the fire happened, I wonder
bjhb
>Russia is the global leader of-BLUBLUBBBLBLB...
russia surely learned a lot since then and won't have similar incidents
True, they'll have brand new ones.
They learned less than nothing. They have continously rotted away and lost expertise and skill ever since the USSR imploded.
Theo only thing Russia is good at today is producing vapourware for propaganda purposes.
>They have continously rotted away and lost expertise and skill ever since the USSR imploded
This is true, any competent USSR military man either defected to the West for money during the fall or got rich from criminal activity and left the military. The few that remained and the few competent ideologues that joined later have been whittled away by the glorified gopniks in uniform that outnumber them.
The original smooker
why did the front fall off?
a wave hit it
Made from cardboard derivatives.
No.
> 'many special features'
most of which can and probably will fail in spectacular fashion killing the entire crew, but on the bright side will give the kremlin more opportunities to blame accidents on the 'evil capitalist running dogs'.
They're the leader in submarines at the bottom of the ocean during peacetime
>They have so many submarine types with special features.
Yeah, too bad that they still need to work out "being able to resurface" feature
It's truly impressive, they even managed to convert their flagship into a submarine.
Cope amerishits
All of your ballistic missile submarines are being followed by American attack submarines at this very moment, russoid.
>All of your ballistic missile submarines are being followed by American attack submarines at this very moment, russoid.
Sure, amerimutt.
How many?
Their SSBNs are reportedly very quiet... for the first year or two of service. Then they start making a lot of banging noises and are easily identified.
Attack subs seem fine.
For diesels you'll want to go European.
How would this affect their detectability ?
> It turns out that in addition to hull sections, the Dolgorukiy SSBN is borrowing used steam turbines from scrapped nuclear-powered submarines that were built nearly 30 years ago.
https://7fbtk.blogspot.com/2014/09/dolgorukiy-ssbn-dirty-secret-under-hood.html
Turbine is fine, cumrad.
Armatard suck donkey sick :^)
*dick
>Russian technology
That's a hard no, but we will only find out how shit their subs really are if they pick a fight with a nation that has a navy.
>special features
more like special needs features
Status 6 is a badass name for that nuclear torpedo.
Indeed.
>Russia
>Global leader of anything except aids and alcoholism
Lmao no
Fricking stupid Russian military cheerleaders. Fricking fanbois. Why don't you Russian Black folk find something better to jerk off too.
Ever since that accident with the photo of your naked mom going viral worldwide people have been developing the weirdest fetishes from trauma.
>lada class
heh
1. Russian subs are loud.
2. The russian navy has no money to keep them running without everything be broken.
3. Massively overstated capability
4. Russians can’t stop damaging subs beyond repair
5. Russia sank five nuclear submarines (one sank twice)
What is Ukraine going to do with the Belgorod when it's seized as a war reparations?
No. Leader in nuclear sub accidents? Yes, by far.
Source for picrel: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/026/28026137.pdf
where does USS Narwhal (SSN 671) fit in this graph? It was a neat one off and it's fun to play with in Cold Waters
Our competitors will improve over time, which is why we need to stay on top of the technology edge and work with our allies (our real allies not "allies") to pool research and maintain our position.
Cope
>literal paper model
The Russian military is extremely powerful if you factor in stuff they don't have but want to have
Neat model, I made them when I was a kid.
>an autistic kid has more powerful navy than world's second strongest military
Correct, that model is cope
The Moskva is probably one of the largest submarines in the world so that's one thing they lead in.
It pales in comparison to the USS America (CV-66).
Nah, it's Sweden and Britian as far as silence and kill likelihood goes.