This is literally all there is to it.
Well, I guess the endurance is exceptional and all that.
It does seem to me like a way to generate hype more than anything else.
If I were Russia I'd just invest in better, and more, ICBMs, and instead of this megaton tier thing I'd invest in ways to disable and destroy US subs to prevent second strikes.
>If I were Russia I'd just invest in better, and more, ICBMs, and instead of this megaton tier thing I'd invest in ways to disable and destroy US subs to prevent second strikes.
Here's the tricky part: both attempts to launch Sarmat in 2022 failed
https://iz.ru/1427707/2022-11-18/vs-rf-uspeshno-proveli-letnye-ispytaniia-kompleksa-sarmat
(gtranslate obv)
heh, I guess you have super speshul CIA report that say both failed, but it’s being shipped to the army now, so…
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/21/politics/russia-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-test/index.html >sources say
Ridiculous
>anonymous officials tell CCN - it’s true >very much not anonymous general tells Russian media - filthy lie
I guess you could always say that Russians have a skin in the game, but so does US when claiming those test were unsuccessful.
Anyway, it’s funny that you’re so high on gasoline, that you’ve failed to understand - your argument is just
>CNN says it FAILED! >CHECKMATE!
1 year ago
Anonymous
Its not the same though.
The CIA saying don't worry russias shit failed is a world of difference from russia saying it worked be very afraid.
And this is the CIA we are talking about.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Its not the same though.
Pray tell how >The CIA saying don't worry russias shit failed is a world of difference from russia saying it worked be very afraid.
Yeah, it’s “Russian shit didn’t work don’t worry, U S A U S A” >And this is the CIA we are talking about.
No, we’re talking “anonymous sources tell CNN”, but anyway, exactly - it’s CIA we’re talking about, your point?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Yeah, it’s “Russian shit didn’t work don’t worry, U S A U S A”
Except you do realize CIA has a vested interest in overblowing foreign threats, not lowballing them?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Except you do realize CIA has a vested interest in overblowing foreign threats
More like keeping you docile
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yeah, again, it’s not CIA, it’s CNN and anonymous sources in administration
1 year ago
Anonymous
>seriously implying russia is as trustworthy as ANYTHING else
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH
oh god were you serious with that dipshit cope?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Thats fricking hilarious!
Yeah we are gonna pretend that the nation notorious for lying OUT ITS ASS for centuries about everything is gonna tell the truth about its moronic impossible weapon.
What about just not spending in the military and focus on nation-building, expanding resource extraction in the literal millions of square miles of free territory they have? And then, once they have the money (if they have some that wasn't pocketed) spend that in, what was it, the basis of all modern forces' abilities? C4I? No, fricking trucks to supply forces. Maybe fricking pellets for a change.
Or you know, maybe just becoming a decent civilized country and making all its citizens happy and productive and having positive relations with EU and US and making loads of cash off all the trade and industry and everyone winning? Ah well.
>It's pointless, even if it performs to the maximum of the propaganda values. >You can't stop ICBMs with it, so using it would be your undoing.
It's worse than that. Slow, easy to destroy enroute. Everyone knows the US has blanketed the ocean floors with microphones, Russian stealth sucks by current standards. It requires the very skills they've lost the hardest.
Even if by a miracle it somehow manages to arrive in one piece and work, it can't even do anything because it can only attack the coast. All the major cities would have been hit by ICBMs anyway (and if not then it's not going to work either), and it can't hurt anything inland so it has zilch effect beyond pissing off everyone even more.
it's probably very quiet actually, and the SOSUS net (that we know of) could be bypassed by taking a longer route, especially if time isn't a concern. it could cruise at 5 knots and probably be undetectable, especially since it can probably run very deep. it's still another moronic weapon system designed by vodka soaked has-beens though.
>it's probably very quiet actually
Based on fricking what anon? Being quiet underwater, like stealth above water, entails extreme attention to detail and quality of construction, not even just good designs or advanced tech. Even in terms of power, it's very hard to make a quiet nuclear reactor for example which is why a lot of attack subs stayed diesel-electric, since the engine can then be shut off and while on battery that whole set of noise is eliminated. But you can have the best design on the planet and it'll still not work if whoever was making it was corrupt or workers underpaid and unmotivated and cut corners somewhere and there is some part that has exposed riveting or not quite in perfect alignment or a million other details. And THAT is an area where Russia has clearly totally fallen apart. With just, like, artillery or guns or something there is a lot of tolerance for deviation, you can design weapon systems that can be treated like shit and assembled out of stamped metal or whatever and they'll generally do the basic job. Stealth isn't like that though, be it sea or air. Small imperfections and the whole thing falls apart. Actually this is true for going deep too, details are really important for surviving and operating under very high pressure. Not that it even CAN go deep anyway because its target is coastal not blue water which means it has to come up the continental shelf regardless and there aren't that many big coast cities to aim at so the US knows where to have attack subs/surface ships/ASWs sitting and actively pinging. You aren't forgetting about active sonar right?
So no, I honestly do not think current Russia is physically capable of putting together something that is quiet or stealthy by modern standards and having it slow boat from Siberia to NYC or wherever.
Particularly since as you say it's so obviously pointless and moronic that that, all by itself, just makes it more likely nobody working on it will take it seriously lol.
the newer russian nuke boats apparently are pretty damn quiet. nuclear reactors (at least western ones) running on low power settings have a reputation for being very quiet holes in the water. i'm not sure why russia is putting so much stock into it though by accommodating on its most modern sub, other than pure deterrent type of weapon. if it was ever used i'd imagine russia would have already been glassed and it's just a revenge weapon to hit potentially weeks after the initial strikes.
What's the actual point of it anyway, they've already tested what an underwater nuke's capacities are and at worst you'll have a spike in residual radiation, the destruction of local fish stocks, and probably long term health effects, but it won't be some kind of apocalyptic tidal wave that will cause mass destruction far inland.
It can wreck a harbor, make it economically nonviable for years or even decades. That's pretty much it. Long-term economic damage could easily reach into the trillions, because sea trade is incredibly valuable.
So can a regular nuke, far more so. Detonating in the water is just going to eat a laughable amount of energy for no reason other than Bond villain logic.
Actually, setting a Bomb off in shallow waters is the *dirtiest* thing you can do, aside from theoretical "salted" Bombs that have never been tried in practice. An airburst will wreck warehouses and piers. A harbor detonation will do the same thing, but it will also liberally coat the area in *all* of the fallout that would normally spread out over hundreds of square miles. This was discovered by accident after Crossroads Baker.
Now, strategically, it's still a pretty dumb idea; but, any harbor that eats one of these may well be uninhabitable for decades.
You can just ignore everything ICBM/Nuclear related weaponry at this point. It will never be used in any conflict. Especially in your lifetime. Even if somehow direct confrontation happens no one will use it. Even thinking about it is pointless.
Didn't this blunderwaffen need to have a yield several orders of magnitude larger to actually do what it's supposed to do? You know, the whole 'flooding most of the british isles' thing.
>is to obliterate port cities.
An ICBM can obliterate any city, port or otherwise. >Pretty much imposible to intercept.
What new flavor of /misc/nig&vatnik homosexualry is this? It's a slow, weak submarine. Any ASW asset can intercept it. Much, much easier to intercept then reentry vehicles coming in at Mach 30.
>Is it real?
Maybe? >what is it's true yield
Probably less than what is says on the tin since the Russians have been lying through their teeth about everything they've made post 91.
It's kind of a shit weapon all around and I can only imagine it exists for foreign and domestic propaganda, ICBMs are old hat but this is new and exciting even if it's use would end the exact same way just dropping a conventional ICBM on the same target would.
The whole "nukular tsun00mi" is just Russian psyop.
The Poseidon is an anti-carrier weapon, just like other nuclear torpedoes developed in the USSR throughout the decades. The only difference is, this one has infinite range and can do autonomous maneuvering. Also a 100+ kt terminal run, which is hard to intercept with current anti-torpedo measures (hence why the US navy is developing that very light torpedo).
>Cobalt, big centuries long giga tsunami fallout around ports
It's a MAD option and technically simple. Positioning such a torp drone undetected and keeping it that way is an issue.
Poseidon, in ancient Greek religion, god of the sea (and of water generally), earthquakes, and horses. He is distinguished from Pontus, the personification of the sea and the oldest Greek divinity of the waters. The name Poseidon means either “husband of the earth” or “lord of the earth.” Traditionally, he was a son of Cronus (the youngest of the 12 Titans) and of Cronus’s sister and consort Rhea, a fertility goddess. Poseidon was a brother of Zeus, the sky god and chief deity of ancient Greece, and of Hades, god of the underworld. When the three brothers deposed their father, the kingdom of the sea fell by lot to Poseidon. His weapon and main symbol was the trident, perhaps once a fish spear. According to the Greek poet Hesiod, Poseidon’s trident, like Zeus’s thunderbolt and Hades’ helmet, was fashioned by the three Cyclopes.
>In a perfect world (where the navies of nuclear capable world powers are relatively similair) status-6 is a weird and extremely expensive but cute addition to a nuclear arsenal. Like we could have built 4 to 5 SSBNs with 16 MIRVed SLBMs (every one of those subs is either 6th or 5th greatest nuclear power nation in the world) for the price of this weird contraption but whatever, our nuclear retaliatory strike capabilities are still more than enough so we can indulge ourselves. Oooh, the "nuclear tsunami" sounds good for propaganda...
In the real world where one nuclear capable power more or less has the complete control of the world's oceans and the other nation's flagships can be destroyed by the country which doesn't have navy at all, it's an incredibly ridiculous waste of money and time which can actually play a significant role in the ultimate nuclear exchange. Russia could have spent its resources on expanding its SSBN fleet to the point where it would be unsafe for US to even think about preemptive strike but instead they wasted their resources on useless crap like Poseidon which could have already shifted the balance of power forever.
It's probably just a torpedo with a time-fuzed nuke, shit's wack, if it exists at all.
Yeah, it's real.
This is literally all there is to it.
Well, I guess the endurance is exceptional and all that.
It does seem to me like a way to generate hype more than anything else.
If I were Russia I'd just invest in better, and more, ICBMs, and instead of this megaton tier thing I'd invest in ways to disable and destroy US subs to prevent second strikes.
>If I were Russia I'd just invest in better, and more, ICBMs, and instead of this megaton tier thing I'd invest in ways to disable and destroy US subs to prevent second strikes.
Here's the tricky part: both attempts to launch Sarmat in 2022 failed
>both failed
https://iz.ru/1323695/2022-04-20/rf-uspeshno-provela-ispytatelnyi-pusk-ballisticheskoi-rakety-sarmat
https://iz.ru/1427707/2022-11-18/vs-rf-uspeshno-proveli-letnye-ispytaniia-kompleksa-sarmat
(gtranslate obv)
heh, I guess you have super speshul CIA report that say both failed, but it’s being shipped to the army now, so…
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/21/politics/russia-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-test/index.html
>sources say
Ridiculous
>russia says it DIDNT FAIL!
>CHECKMATE!
>anonymous officials tell CCN - it’s true
>very much not anonymous general tells Russian media - filthy lie
I guess you could always say that Russians have a skin in the game, but so does US when claiming those test were unsuccessful.
Anyway, it’s funny that you’re so high on gasoline, that you’ve failed to understand - your argument is just
>CNN says it FAILED!
>CHECKMATE!
Its not the same though.
The CIA saying don't worry russias shit failed is a world of difference from russia saying it worked be very afraid.
And this is the CIA we are talking about.
>Its not the same though.
Pray tell how
>The CIA saying don't worry russias shit failed is a world of difference from russia saying it worked be very afraid.
Yeah, it’s “Russian shit didn’t work don’t worry, U S A U S A”
>And this is the CIA we are talking about.
No, we’re talking “anonymous sources tell CNN”, but anyway, exactly - it’s CIA we’re talking about, your point?
>Yeah, it’s “Russian shit didn’t work don’t worry, U S A U S A”
Except you do realize CIA has a vested interest in overblowing foreign threats, not lowballing them?
>Except you do realize CIA has a vested interest in overblowing foreign threats
More like keeping you docile
Yeah, again, it’s not CIA, it’s CNN and anonymous sources in administration
>seriously implying russia is as trustworthy as ANYTHING else
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH
oh god were you serious with that dipshit cope?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Thats fricking hilarious!
Yeah we are gonna pretend that the nation notorious for lying OUT ITS ASS for centuries about everything is gonna tell the truth about its moronic impossible weapon.
What about just not spending in the military and focus on nation-building, expanding resource extraction in the literal millions of square miles of free territory they have? And then, once they have the money (if they have some that wasn't pocketed) spend that in, what was it, the basis of all modern forces' abilities? C4I? No, fricking trucks to supply forces. Maybe fricking pellets for a change.
Or you know, maybe just becoming a decent civilized country and making all its citizens happy and productive and having positive relations with EU and US and making loads of cash off all the trade and industry and everyone winning? Ah well.
that won't work unless you kill the russians
It's real
Why make a cartoon villain tier weapon when you already have ICBMs?
Because they know their ICBMs are heavily rotted, and also the target of this stupid shit is their own population not us anon.
To avoid ground based missile defence, I wager
Are the Bulats inoperable now too?
>you already have ICBMs?
Because they don't have ICBMs
If you have something that works you don't need to fearmonger everyone
Armatard ? Where have you been, your grandma was worried!
It's pointless, even if it performs to the maximum of the propaganda values.
You can't stop ICBMs with it, so using it would be your undoing.
>It's pointless, even if it performs to the maximum of the propaganda values.
>You can't stop ICBMs with it, so using it would be your undoing.
It's worse than that. Slow, easy to destroy enroute. Everyone knows the US has blanketed the ocean floors with microphones, Russian stealth sucks by current standards. It requires the very skills they've lost the hardest.
Even if by a miracle it somehow manages to arrive in one piece and work, it can't even do anything because it can only attack the coast. All the major cities would have been hit by ICBMs anyway (and if not then it's not going to work either), and it can't hurt anything inland so it has zilch effect beyond pissing off everyone even more.
it's probably very quiet actually, and the SOSUS net (that we know of) could be bypassed by taking a longer route, especially if time isn't a concern. it could cruise at 5 knots and probably be undetectable, especially since it can probably run very deep. it's still another moronic weapon system designed by vodka soaked has-beens though.
yeah, torpedoes that don't work ARE usually very quiet.
>it's probably very quiet actually
Based on fricking what anon? Being quiet underwater, like stealth above water, entails extreme attention to detail and quality of construction, not even just good designs or advanced tech. Even in terms of power, it's very hard to make a quiet nuclear reactor for example which is why a lot of attack subs stayed diesel-electric, since the engine can then be shut off and while on battery that whole set of noise is eliminated. But you can have the best design on the planet and it'll still not work if whoever was making it was corrupt or workers underpaid and unmotivated and cut corners somewhere and there is some part that has exposed riveting or not quite in perfect alignment or a million other details. And THAT is an area where Russia has clearly totally fallen apart. With just, like, artillery or guns or something there is a lot of tolerance for deviation, you can design weapon systems that can be treated like shit and assembled out of stamped metal or whatever and they'll generally do the basic job. Stealth isn't like that though, be it sea or air. Small imperfections and the whole thing falls apart. Actually this is true for going deep too, details are really important for surviving and operating under very high pressure. Not that it even CAN go deep anyway because its target is coastal not blue water which means it has to come up the continental shelf regardless and there aren't that many big coast cities to aim at so the US knows where to have attack subs/surface ships/ASWs sitting and actively pinging. You aren't forgetting about active sonar right?
So no, I honestly do not think current Russia is physically capable of putting together something that is quiet or stealthy by modern standards and having it slow boat from Siberia to NYC or wherever.
Particularly since as you say it's so obviously pointless and moronic that that, all by itself, just makes it more likely nobody working on it will take it seriously lol.
the newer russian nuke boats apparently are pretty damn quiet. nuclear reactors (at least western ones) running on low power settings have a reputation for being very quiet holes in the water. i'm not sure why russia is putting so much stock into it though by accommodating on its most modern sub, other than pure deterrent type of weapon. if it was ever used i'd imagine russia would have already been glassed and it's just a revenge weapon to hit potentially weeks after the initial strikes.
>probably
>probably
>probably
No
You forgot that it will also take several days to reach the target, making it worthless for any preemptive strike mission
What's the actual point of it anyway, they've already tested what an underwater nuke's capacities are and at worst you'll have a spike in residual radiation, the destruction of local fish stocks, and probably long term health effects, but it won't be some kind of apocalyptic tidal wave that will cause mass destruction far inland.
It can wreck a harbor, make it economically nonviable for years or even decades. That's pretty much it. Long-term economic damage could easily reach into the trillions, because sea trade is incredibly valuable.
So can a regular nuke, far more so. Detonating in the water is just going to eat a laughable amount of energy for no reason other than Bond villain logic.
Actually, setting a Bomb off in shallow waters is the *dirtiest* thing you can do, aside from theoretical "salted" Bombs that have never been tried in practice. An airburst will wreck warehouses and piers. A harbor detonation will do the same thing, but it will also liberally coat the area in *all* of the fallout that would normally spread out over hundreds of square miles. This was discovered by accident after Crossroads Baker.
Now, strategically, it's still a pretty dumb idea; but, any harbor that eats one of these may well be uninhabitable for decades.
You can just ignore everything ICBM/Nuclear related weaponry at this point. It will never be used in any conflict. Especially in your lifetime. Even if somehow direct confrontation happens no one will use it. Even thinking about it is pointless.
>Especially in your lifetime
More like “ends my lifetime with a nuclear mushroom”
>Especially in your lifetime
it wont be used in my lifetimne, cuz when its used my lifetime will be very much over
Its fake in that it can't create tsunamis
Waste of nuclear material and will get you nuked in return.
Armatard sucks donkey dicks.
propaganda weapon with no real value.its James Bond tier nonsense with kursk tier maintainance and kursk tier perfomance.
Hey, I saw this thread on /misc/!
Went about as we’ve expected
Didn't this blunderwaffen need to have a yield several orders of magnitude larger to actually do what it's supposed to do? You know, the whole 'flooding most of the british isles' thing.
Considering it needs the energy of a fricking asteroid impact or massive earthquake to do what it's supposed to do, yes.
underwater copetube
the turd i flushed away this morning is more real and has a higher yield
Well they haven't done a test to prove it exists and will do what they say it will. So until then it doesn't exist.
is to obliterate port cities. Pretty much imposible to intercept.
>is to obliterate port cities.
An ICBM can obliterate any city, port or otherwise.
>Pretty much imposible to intercept.
What new flavor of /misc/nig&vatnik homosexualry is this? It's a slow, weak submarine. Any ASW asset can intercept it. Much, much easier to intercept then reentry vehicles coming in at Mach 30.
Is /misc/ in the room with you right now? Its a Russian state video thats been spammed here for years newbie
>What new flavor of /misc/nig&vatnik homosexualry is this?
calm your breasts, pol is not going to hurt you.
>Is it real?
Maybe?
>what is it's true yield
Probably less than what is says on the tin since the Russians have been lying through their teeth about everything they've made post 91.
It's kind of a shit weapon all around and I can only imagine it exists for foreign and domestic propaganda, ICBMs are old hat but this is new and exciting even if it's use would end the exact same way just dropping a conventional ICBM on the same target would.
The whole "nukular tsun00mi" is just Russian psyop.
The Poseidon is an anti-carrier weapon, just like other nuclear torpedoes developed in the USSR throughout the decades. The only difference is, this one has infinite range and can do autonomous maneuvering. Also a 100+ kt terminal run, which is hard to intercept with current anti-torpedo measures (hence why the US navy is developing that very light torpedo).
Maybe it can do both.
>100+ kt terminal run
doubt.png
>Cobalt, big centuries long giga tsunami fallout around ports
It's a MAD option and technically simple. Positioning such a torp drone undetected and keeping it that way is an issue.
One billion, gajillion, fafillion killotons
>obliterate port cities
The largest yield nuclear explosion wouldn't be capable of this.
Poseidon, in ancient Greek religion, god of the sea (and of water generally), earthquakes, and horses. He is distinguished from Pontus, the personification of the sea and the oldest Greek divinity of the waters. The name Poseidon means either “husband of the earth” or “lord of the earth.” Traditionally, he was a son of Cronus (the youngest of the 12 Titans) and of Cronus’s sister and consort Rhea, a fertility goddess. Poseidon was a brother of Zeus, the sky god and chief deity of ancient Greece, and of Hades, god of the underworld. When the three brothers deposed their father, the kingdom of the sea fell by lot to Poseidon. His weapon and main symbol was the trident, perhaps once a fish spear. According to the Greek poet Hesiod, Poseidon’s trident, like Zeus’s thunderbolt and Hades’ helmet, was fashioned by the three Cyclopes.
>muh ICBMs
Jesus, and this is supposed to be weapons dedicated board
Do we need to rehash what constitutes nuclear triad?
ok
>In a perfect world (where the navies of nuclear capable world powers are relatively similair) status-6 is a weird and extremely expensive but cute addition to a nuclear arsenal. Like we could have built 4 to 5 SSBNs with 16 MIRVed SLBMs (every one of those subs is either 6th or 5th greatest nuclear power nation in the world) for the price of this weird contraption but whatever, our nuclear retaliatory strike capabilities are still more than enough so we can indulge ourselves. Oooh, the "nuclear tsunami" sounds good for propaganda...
In the real world where one nuclear capable power more or less has the complete control of the world's oceans and the other nation's flagships can be destroyed by the country which doesn't have navy at all, it's an incredibly ridiculous waste of money and time which can actually play a significant role in the ultimate nuclear exchange. Russia could have spent its resources on expanding its SSBN fleet to the point where it would be unsafe for US to even think about preemptive strike but instead they wasted their resources on useless crap like Poseidon which could have already shifted the balance of power forever.