Russian 'Status-6' nuclear attack system

Surely enough, the late Edward "Strangelove" Teller half-jokingly, half-seriously discussed a 1000 megatons bomb in the 60's...
 
Archibald said:
Surely enough, the late Edward "Strangelove" Teller half-jokingly, half-seriously discussed a 1000 megatons bomb in the 60's...
Click to expand...

Why "half"? He was perfectly serious, and US military also seriously contemplated them. Not 1000-megaton, of course - they were deemed too small - but 5000-10000 megaton ones.

Thing is, that gigaton-scale weapons have... interesting effects, when blown up in space. Sure, detonating on surface it's just a very big nuke. But in space? 100-150 km above Earth? The things get different...

The gigaton superbomb, according to US military calculation, created an enormous flux of X-ray radiation. Upper atmosphere absorbed X-rays very efficiently - but heated up as a result. And 10-gigaton superbomb pump A LOT of X-rays into atmosphere. So much, that under the blast, the wide regions of atmosphere are turned into super-hot plasma. Plasma emit absorbed energy; half went into the space, but half went to the ground.

The gigaton superbomb was a sky burner. It was supposed to create a layer of heated plasma in upper atmosphere, so hot, that it would cause thermal destruction on the ground below it. A continental-scale firestorm - everything that could be easily ignited would burn everywhere under the bomb blast. Forests, plains, cities, armies - everything.

And, since the blast is in space, and fireball did not contact the surface - zero fallout. You have enemy destroyed, its armies vaporized, but no radioactive clouds.

Teller considered such weapon as an ultimate MAD device. He argued, that while some dictator, mad enough, may be willing to sacrifice a large part of his nation in "usual" nuclear war - no dictator would ever be mad enough to start war, in which his nation is assured to be completely obliterated.
 
Ah, that old idea of "let's create a weapon so scary, it will make war impossible".

Completely bonkers if not criminally stupid. And never worked.
 
Archibald said:
Ah, that old idea of "let's create a weapon so scary, it will make war impossible".

Completely bonkers if not criminally stupid. And never worked.
Click to expand...

Why, it worked perfectly. When was the last time two industrially-developed nations came to war with each other? In 1945. Never since. Atomic bomb done more for the world peace than a million of pacifist preachers. :)

And I should remind you, that it was 1960s. Only two decades after one mad dictator launched the war he have no realistic chance to win, just by persuading himself & his nation that he could. Teller and others wanted to ensure, that there would be no situation in which even the most unhinged tyrant would be able to persuade himself (or his senior officers) that war is winnable.
 
I wrote the USNI article, glad it's creating a good discussion.

Re wardhead, 2 MT is a more current estimate. the 100MT thing was misinfo stemming, it seems, from wild speculation in Russian media.
 
Couple of pics, looks very modified from 949A base hull:

E4xDb4_VEAEsVsq

E4wCRClWQAEpWWr
 
The only thing that is considered weird in their position and still pisses me off as their worst choices is even bothering to pay 1-1.5 billion to fix fires for the kuznetsov and probably even more costs for upgrading the old design instead of just investing nearly all that money for a new aircraft carrier like Shturm which for export was given a 5.5 billion price tag, I am already mad as it is that it seems the lidel class destroyers I assume are discontinued. The only thing redeeming about their Navy are the Yasen class subs, the Belgorod layout, Gremyashy class corvettes, Gorshkov class frigates and fitting Zircons, new SAM missiles where some give quadpack options for cells, upgrading underwater sea SONAR networks, UUVs and new Naval Maritime tracking sats.

Arms control will never be realized when politics from the west is in the complete opposite in their political spectrum than where Russia stands.
 
TR1 said:
if the US and Russia come to their senses and get serious about arms control again, this might leave the Belgorod in a.....weird position.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would probably force some alterations, but it wouldn't become a white elephant.

The launchers are somewhat inconveniently dimensioned (very long, but relatively tight in diameter) to act as dry deck shelters, and it's unclear whether there is access from the pressure hull. It might just about work though, there are SDVs which are compact enough to potentially fit two per tube for up to 12 total (assuming the generally accepted 6 tubes). That would be, needless to say, a very impressive payload!

Alternatively, as ROV/AUV hangars they'd be generously sized to house a variety of serious gear - the Multi Mission Portal on the Swedish A26 is 1.5mx6m, so only about 1/5th the volume of one Poseidon launcher. And the Trident II silos repurposed as special forces stowage spaces and diver lockout chambers on the Ohio SSGNs are very similar in diameter while being slightly shorter.

So with some revisions the tubes could probably become a formidable addition to Belgorod's special mission capability - arguably the current combination of disparate roles in the same hull is more awkward. Perhaps this very fact (that is to say, no investment in dedicated Poseidon subs until much later) telegraphs that Russia wants to leave a door open for the US to give in on missile defence limits?
 
Last edited:
I think people focus way too much on the whole coast-busting part of Poseidon and way less on the large nuclear powered UUV, the fact is that Poseidon/Belgorod are GUGI platforms and not RuNavy deterrence subs like Borei. The assumed contradictory roles of being a special operations submarine and a deterrence submarine might not be so contradictory when you look at the Poseidon as having several variants, one being the nuclear weapon and the other being UUVs. Belgorod having the UUV type, and Khabarovsk having the coast-buster.
 
The problem is if Poseidon the weapon gets traded in for the missile defences it was supposed to circumvent, Poseidon the UUV will disappear too. I can't honestly envision a treaty framework where Russia gets to keep it if the weaponized form is banned.
 
Trying to figure out the layout for the massive torpedoes. Sutton's images are amazing but come from slightly older data. From the two tube covers im thinking there are two rotary magazines which both hold three poseidon torpedoes. What do you guys think?

(edited because autospell is a blessing and curse lol)
 
Trident said:
The problem is if Poseidon the weapon gets traded in for the missile defences it was supposed to circumvent, Poseidon the UUV will disappear too. I can't honestly envision a treaty framework where Russia gets to keep it if the weaponized form is banned.
Click to expand...
I mean, realistically, what exactly can poseidon do that a nuclear submarine can't? it doesn't really change the landscape, so I'd imagine arms control treaties would barely bother trying to restrict it's deployment.
 
Case in point: FOBS. McNamara (for all his flaws) and more generally the US diplomatic-political-military chose NOT to make a fuss about it; not even if it is barely violated the Outer Space Treaty barely signed in 1967.

The reason: it had little to no strategic value; it wasn't disrupting the Cold War in favor of the Soviets. It wasn't providing them a major advantage a) because precision took a major hit compared to suborbital ICBMs and b) because the much vaunted advantage "it comes from the south, opposite of US defenses" wasn't really true; more advanced radars soon reduced it to zero.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Case in point: FOBS. McNamara (for all his flaws) and more generally the US diplomatic-political-military chose NOT to make a fuse about it; not even if it is barely violated the Outer Space Treaty barely signed in 1967.

The reason: it had little to no strategic value; it wasn't disrupting the Cold War in favor of the Soviets. It wasn't providing them a major advantage a) because precision took a major hit compared to suborbital ICBMs and b) because the much vaunted advantage "it comes from the south, opposite of US defenses" wasn't really true; more advanced radars soon reduced it to zero.
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree with you totally there. The reason that McNamara effectively condoned the Soviet FOBS while throttling US equivalents was because of his absolutely insane 'Strategic Sufficiency' dogma which had as its basis that the United States needed to cut back on any strategic superiority over the USSR in order to ensure the stability of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine. Ironically though all it actually did was undermine MAD, along with US strategic defences, to such a degree that if the Soviet Union had decided to take the Cold War hot in the late 1970s, they would have more than likely won.
 
Archibald said:
Surely enough, the late Edward "Strangelove" Teller half-jokingly, half-seriously discussed a 1000 megatons bomb in the 60's...
Click to expand...
John von Neumann was the supposed “model” for Dr. Strangelove. It is amazing the number of Hungarians who made up many of the world’s top scientists all born within a few years of each other. Known colloquially as The Martians of Budapest.
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
Archibald said:
Surely enough, the late Edward "Strangelove" Teller half-jokingly, half-seriously discussed a 1000 megatons bomb in the 60's...
Click to expand...
John von Neumann was the supposed “model” for Dr. Strangelove. It is amazing the number of Hungarians who made up many of the world’s top scientists all born within a few years of each other. Known colloquially as The Martians of Budapest.
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head...

Peter Sellers' performance was a composite of influences and improvisation. He borrowed his accent from the on-set stills photographer, Arthur Fellig, nicknamed "Weegee" (and yet another Hungarian). He also noticed Stanley Kubrick handling the hot lights with leather gloves and borrowed one and worked on the uncontrollable hand routine from that. The monologues - particularly Muffley's talk on the phone with Kissov - were improvised. Sellers was the only one of about two actors Kubrick let improvise - the other being R. Lee Ermey.

Later, when working on 2001, Arthur C. Clarke mentioned that Kubrick, knowing that Clarke was a friend of Werner von Braun, wanted Clarke to reassure him that Strangelove wasn't based on him, but he thought that while Kubrick may not have intended it, Sellers probably did.

Sellars was going to play Major Kong too (the producers wanted him in four roles as a gimmick), but he broke his leg (possibly deliberately or he faked it) and Slim Pickens was brought in at short notice. Supposedly he didn't know the film was a satire and just played himself.

And if you were wondering why they had such an enormous buffet in the War Room, it was intended for a pie battle that was cut from the released version.
 

Attachments

  • cs-ds3.jpg
    cs-ds3.jpg
    15.3 KB · Views: 52
  • pie_scene2.jpg
    pie_scene2.jpg
    56.3 KB · Views: 51
  • piefight07.jpg
    piefight07.jpg
    36.9 KB · Views: 48
  • piefight13.jpg
    piefight13.jpg
    94.6 KB · Views: 47
  • piefight05.jpg
    piefight05.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 49
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
I would have to disagree with you totally there. The reason that McNamara effectively condoned the Soviet FOBS while throttling US equivalents was because of his absolutely insane 'Strategic Sufficiency' dogma which had as its basis that the United States needed to cut back on any strategic superiority over the USSR in order to ensure the stability of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine. Ironically though all it actually did was undermine MAD, along with US strategic defences, to such a degree that if the Soviet Union had decided to take the Cold War hot in the late 1970s, they would have more than likely won.
Click to expand...
Why do you say "insane"? It seems more than sane to me. And the fact that no nuclear war did occur is at least arguably a fact in its favor.

And what evidence is there to support the idea that the Soviets would have "won" a nuclear war in the 1970s (even if we assume that "winning" such a fight were possible)? Everything we supposedly knew about the strategic and technical threats posed by the Soviet Union after 1945 has proved to be a mirage. The threat was more Soviet bluff aided and abetted by the US military's insatiable appetite for ever larger budgets. Remember the Bomber Gap, the Missile Gap, the massive Soviet armored superiority that was supposed to overrun NATO in hours, the infamous Reagan-era comic books showing Soviet super weapons? Soviet-era systems inevitably proved inferior to Western equivalents, particularly when it came to reliability, which I would think would be a critical issue with strategic systems. The reason is essentially the same for the Soviets as for the Nazis: inadequate industrial base and lack of economic resources. The USSR was--and is--essentially a poor country where what wealth is available is invariably looted by the kleptocracy, thus keeping the economy poor while squandering the indisputable imagination and enterprise of its engineers and thinkers.
 
iverson said:
Soviet-era systems inevitably proved inferior to Western equivalents,
Click to expand...

Please show me Western SAM, or anti-ship missile comparable to Soviet ones.


iverson said:
particularly when it came to reliability,
Click to expand...
Show me the "unreliable" Soviet weapon system.
iverson said:
The USSR was--and is--essentially a poor country where what wealth is available is invariably looted by the kleptocracy, thus keeping the economy poor while squandering the indisputable imagination and enterprise of its engineers and thinkers
Click to expand...
Could you please learn about USSR a bit, then talk? Your accesment, while fit Western propaganda slogans, have little to do with the actual problems of USSR.
 
Dilandu said:
iverson said:
Soviet-era systems inevitably proved inferior to Western equivalents,
Click to expand...

Please show me Western SAM, or anti-ship missile comparable to Soviet ones.


iverson said:
particularly when it came to reliability,
Click to expand...
Show me the "unreliable" Soviet weapon system.
iverson said:
The USSR was--and is--essentially a poor country where what wealth is available is invariably looted by the kleptocracy, thus keeping the economy poor while squandering the indisputable imagination and enterprise of its engineers and thinkers
Click to expand...
Could you please learn about USSR a bit, then talk? Your accesment, while fit Western propaganda slogans, have little to do with the actual problems of USSR.
Click to expand...
Canada GDP 1.74 trillion population 38 million
Russia GDP 1.7 trillion population 145 million
It’s a second world economy almost completely resource driven with nukes
 
bobbymike said:
Dilandu said:
iverson said:
Soviet-era systems inevitably proved inferior to Western equivalents,
Click to expand...

Please show me Western SAM, or anti-ship missile comparable to Soviet ones.


iverson said:
particularly when it came to reliability,
Click to expand...
Show me the "unreliable" Soviet weapon system.
iverson said:
The USSR was--and is--essentially a poor country where what wealth is available is invariably looted by the kleptocracy, thus keeping the economy poor while squandering the indisputable imagination and enterprise of its engineers and thinkers
Click to expand...
Could you please learn about USSR a bit, then talk? Your accesment, while fit Western propaganda slogans, have little to do with the actual problems of USSR.
Click to expand...
Canada GDP 1.74 trillion population 38 million
Russia GDP 1.7 trillion population 145 million
It’s a second world economy almost completely resource driven with nukes
Click to expand...

Oh, Russia buys domestic weapons with dollars? That's news.
 
As this thread still is about the Status-6 system, I cannot help the feeling, that it is severely
endangered to topple into some kind of political discussion. In the last posts, I find it hard
to see a direct relation to the original topic. Somehow a pity, isn't it ? ;)
 
Agreed, Status-6 is a crazy enough concept to handle without pointless political discussions. Whatever we may think, the idea made sense to enough of the Russian political and military leadership to actually develop this thing.

In future let's keep posts here technical, any more off topics will get deleted.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Click to expand...
As well as submarine launch, there are reports and rumors that Poseidon has a seabed launch option, waiting on the sea floor for as long as necessary. In this mode the system may be known as Skif (Скиф – possibly named after the Scythian nomads who once Eurasian steppes 1500 years ago). It is unclear whether it will be deployed by Host Submarines (above) or surface vessels. In the latter case, the Pr. 20180 Class weapons ship ZVEZDOCHKA 600 is known to be involved in Poseidon testing and is a likely candidate for both laying and retrieving a seabed version. Due to the weight of the system (possibly 100 tons) deployment from surface vessels is likely to be simpler and more practical, but potentially exposes position of the launchers. The launchers also require a reliable and secure means of communicating with their base and a way of receiving the order to launch. The Pr.20180 has an ice-breaking bow allowing Arctic operations:
Poseidon Skif Status-6 KANYON - Covert Shores


Deployment of nuclear weapons on the seabed beyond the 12-mile territorial limit contravenes the Seabed Arms Control Treaty 1972 (formally: Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof).
Click to expand...
 
First "Status-6"/"Poseidon" carrier accepted by fleet

bmpd.livejournal.com

В состав ВМФ России введена атомная подводная лодка специального назначения «Белгород» проекта 09852

Как сообщило 8 июля 2022 года АО Объединенная судостроительная корпорация (ОСК), на входящем в её состав крупнейшем судостроительном предприятии России АО Производственное объединение Северное машиностроительное предприятие (СМП) в Северодвинске состоялась…
bmpd.livejournal.com bmpd.livejournal.com
 

Attachments

  • (с)CrazyMK.jpg
    (с)CrazyMK.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 49
According german Newspaper STERN
Is China building there version of "Poseidon" but scale down and Cheaper
A standard size Torpedo, nuclear powered
With range of 10000km in travel time of a week
Oddly, the Article mention that 150kg reactor is dump on final approach to Target
What imply that attack will be with conventional means not nuclear.

source in German
www.stern.de

China plant Billig-Kopie von Putins Weltuntergangstorpedo Poseidon

Ein Einwegreaktor soll Chinas Torpedo die Reichweite einer Interkontinental-Rakete verschaffen. Die Waffe soll möglichst billig produziert werden, damit ganze Schwärme eingesetzt werden können.
www.stern.de www.stern.de
 
Russian nuclear submarine ″Belgorod″ deliver two nuclear warhead torpedo ″Poseidon″.
Nuclear effect into the sea, make radioactivity mega tsunami power attack for enemy country.
 

Attachments

  • GN36143-Artboard_2.png
    GN36143-Artboard_2.png
    115.3 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
klem said:
I think there are posts on SPF on Belgorod and Poseidon, a real tsunami to read.
Click to expand...

Thank you teach my misstake.
Poseidon nuclear warhead effect yield 2megaton of TNT.
Underwater nuke effect is make highest water colomn and big artificial earthquake.
 
Tomahawk missile fan said:
klem said:
I think there are posts on SPF on Belgorod and Poseidon, a real tsunami to read.
Click to expand...

Thank you teach my misstake.
Poseidon nuclear warhead effect yield 2megaton of TNT.
Underwater nuke effect is make highest water colomn and big artificial earthquake.
Click to expand...
Exactly it is the projected vision, however I am far from nuclear, it is not my hobby.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom