Russian 'Status-6' nuclear attack system

[Brickmuppet]

The project does seem to be real and probably simply about missile shields. Maybe they are hoping to cancel it in exchange for halting missile shield development and deployment?

They can't possibly be worried about missile shields. If GBI achieved 100% success rate it wouldn't make a dent. For example, load up an Oscar with 24 nuclear armed land-attack P-700s, park it off Virgina, and what could stop those missiles from launching a decapitating strike. Certainly not GBI. On the other hand these Russian "torpedoes" would be the perfect terror weapon. If say, Russia decided to go into Poland, a NATO country, and the US decided to attack Russian units with conventional forces, Russia could send these torpedoes on their way to NY, DC, Seattle, Sand Diego, etc. They'd be loud enough we'd certainly detect them. But they'd be recallable. Unlike ICBMs Russia could say, "back off and we'll stop them". Imagine the pressure on a US administration to sit on it's hands and do nothing. 10 hours of bedlam.

Eww.
Well, that would certainly fit into their supposed plans to break NATO politically.
The "we'll stop them." part is the most crucial aspect of that scenario and potentially the weakest link in the chain.


Another possibility might be that the thing has multiple speed settings with varying degrees of quiet and the great range is intended in part to quietly, during peacetime, sneak up rivers which are inherently challenging environments for ASW. This thing is big for a torpedo, but comparatively small for a sub. St. Louis would be unlikely to be reachable but take out and irradiate New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Mobile and you shut a huge chunk of the trade from the central US down. As noted above, the junction of the Anacostia and Potomac is an obvious target, though that would be a challenging shot to say the least and would have to get past Norfolk (which is a target itself).

I don't think it necessarily even needs to be "salted" with cobalt or anything to count as dirty. The dirty (full yield) version of Tsar Bomba has been estimated at 52% fission fraction which, for a 100 MT is quite dirty indeed.

 

[quellish]

But they'd be recallable.

How? ELF is very low bandwidth, one way, prone to errors and spoofing. Other methods would not work at the supposed operating conditions.

 

[sferrin]

But they'd be recallable.

How? ELF is very low bandwidth, one way, prone to errors and spoofing. Other methods would not work at the supposed operating conditions.

Maybe briefly comes to the surface periodically to listen for signals. Presumably Russia would know the where and when and could signal it via satellite. I mean surface for a minute or two and then it heads back down.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Air dropped sonar beacons emitting an encoded recall signal is another possibility.

 

[covert_shores]

Another possibility might be that the thing has multiple speed settings with varying degrees of quiet and the great range is intended in part to quietly, during peacetime, sneak up rivers which are inherently challenging environments for ASW. This thing is big for a torpedo, but comparatively small for a sub. St. Louis would be unlikely to be reachable but take out and irradiate New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Mobile and you shut a huge chunk of the trade from the central US down. As noted above, the junction of the Anacostia and Potomac is an obvious target, though that would be a challenging shot to say the least and would have to get past Norfolk (which is a target itself).

Not sure the reactor could be cooled if it slowed down too much. It has been suggested to me by someone much more knowledgeable that the condenser has direct seawater access, like slots or something; note how the wall of the casing is thinner in the condenser section. And it's got a steam turbine which I doubt is effectively insulated from the casing (due to complexity, compactness etc) so I doubt that it's very quite.

Another factor against doing anything sneaking in peacetime is that it'd leave a radioactive wake wherever it goes - shielding would be minimal at best.

 

[covert_shores]

Web article updated after a lot of feedback http://www.hisutton.com/
Better illustrations etc

 

[Avimimus]

Is there any evidence that status-6 would be launched from a torpedo tube? Wouldn't it make just as much sense for Khabarovsk to carry them outside the pressure hull on a hardpoint/rack?

If I recall correctly there was some research in the Soviet Union towards designing submarines with 'bomb bays' capable of carrying atypical sizes of weapons (e.g. 400mm torpedoes or outsized weapons).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well the good news is the Russians have learnt from Dr Strangelove and decided to tell the world about this doomsday weapon before building it. Because that's what it is: a doomsday weapon that could destroy civilisation in the northern hemisphere (at least).

Because setting of say 20 of these torpedoes across North America while very nasty to the specific target areas would also send over 200 cubic km of water vapour into the stratosphere. Now nuclear winter is an unscientific myth. Ash from burning cities is not so bad because it quickly falls back to earth and the causing fires burn out in a few days. But in the stratosphere water vapour turns into tiny ice crystals which will stay there for years reflecting heat from the planet.

Now despite what hippies think the greatest threat to life on earth is not global warming but global cooling. We are 60 degrees closer to having our water locked up in ice than we are to losing it as steam. No liquid water means no life.

The last time large quantities of water vapour were injected into the stratosphere was almost 1,500 years ago when Mt Sunda blew up creating the Sunda Strait and separating Java and Sumatra. The effect of this explosion on the entire world was to inject 200 cubic km of water vapour into the stratosphere. This caused a 1-2 year long winter and drought around the world which saw a collapse of every state, release of plague, mass death and general unhappiness. It put the dark into the dark ages.

The only good news is that unlike Mt Sunda the North American targets of Status 6 are not near the equator and well into the northern hemisphere. So the year or two without sun and rain caused by this weapon will be limited to the equator band and northwards.

Of course if the Russians were to use more than 20 of these weapons against the USA there would be more ice and therefore less heat and effects would be much worse.

 

[jeffb]

Is there any evidence that status-6 would be launched from a torpedo tube? Wouldn't it make just as much sense for Khabarovsk to carry them outside the pressure hull on a hardpoint/rack?

If I recall correctly there was some research in the Soviet Union towards designing submarines with 'bomb bays' capable of carrying atypical sizes of weapons (e.g. 400mm torpedoes or outsized weapons).

I was wondering this as well. Do they really need to build a whole new class of subs to carry them? Strapping them to the keel of existing missile boats and categorizing them as "specials" would be a cheaper and easier way of deploying them. Given the lack of shielding on the reactors, some sort of strap on pod which could carry them semi-recessed to reduce flow noise and which included some shielding and buoyancy compensation would seem reasonable.

 

[jeffb]

Of course if the Russians were to use more than 20 of these weapons against the USA there would be more ice and therefore less heat and effects would be much worse.

If the Russians set off 20 of these things anywhere, the amount of ice that reaches the stratosphere will probably be the least of our problems.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If the Russians set off 20 of these things anywhere, the amount of ice that reaches the stratosphere will probably be the least of our problems.

Except for those people at the targets it will be the most of our problems. It may sound innocuous but stratospheric ice crystals are far more lethal than the heat, shock wave and radiation effects of 20 x 100 megaton bombs detonating offshore major coastal cities. Tis science not poetry that decides how you die.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Tis science not poetry that decides how you die.

Oh, I don't know... I've seen more people die at rap concerts than scientific conferences.

 

[bobbymike]

Now despite what hippies think the greatest threat to life on earth is not global warming but global cooling. We are 60 degrees closer to having our water locked up in ice than we are to losing it as steam. No liquid water means no life.

Yes 1000X yes such an obvious statement yet global cooling doesn't allow trans-national governments and NGOs to control our lives so global warming must be the threat.

 

[sferrin]

Tis science not poetry that decides how you die.

Oh, I don't know... I've seen more people die at rap concerts than scientific conferences.

Don't know that I'd consider rap music "poetry". ;D

 

[covert_shores]

Re external carriage. These weapons are to be carried in 'torpedo tubes' within the flooded outer hull of the 09851 and 09852 (modified Oscar). On the 09851 they appear more or less where normal tubes would be, but they almost certainly don't penetrate the hull like with a torpedo room. They will likely spend their entire service life inside the tubes of course so environmental protection (in the military sense of protecting weapons from the environment, not the hippy sense of protecting the environment from the weapons) is a big deal. They are large and probably negatively buoyant at operating depth (my speculation) so cannot easily be incorporated into most subs.

Also in line with the strategic mission, the mother sub has to be dedicated to the strategic role. It's like an SSBN but with a different weapon.

Why 09852 has both the Losharik is get sub and the Kanyon confuses me though.

 

[Tzoli]

Now almost everybody thinks and asks if this weapon is real, or how effective could it be, my question is different:
What are or were the other "Status" attack systems? Status-1 through Status-5?

 

[bobbymike]

Now almost everybody thinks and asks if this weapon is real, or how effective could it be, my question is different:
What are or were the other "Status" attack systems? Status-1 through Status-5?

Like the best 'worst' movie ever made 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' we'll never know.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Now almost everybody thinks and asks if this weapon is real, or how effective could it be, my question is different:
What are or were the other "Status" attack systems? Status-1 through Status-5?

They may indicate intensity levels of attack? If so Status 6 is clearly being in the doomsday level of options: ie lets destroy all life on earth. As opposed to a far more benign Status 1 (slap with wet lettuce?) and then working up the scale.

 

[Triton]

I thought those days were behind us. :'(

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.newsweek.com/putins-half-baked-secret-super-nuke-torpedo-real-398852

 

[Rickshaw]

100 Megatons? My understanding is that no one, not even the Soviet Union has ever managed to create a 100 megaton warhead. the Tsar Bomb, reputed to be intended to be 100 Mt. panned out at about 60 IIRC. While more modern technology might make such a warhead possible, it would be a single unitary warhead, not the equivalent to a "city being struck with a single MIRV". MIRVs are invariably much smaller in payload. Usually in the Kiloton range. :

 

[jeffb]

100 Megatons? My understanding is that no one, not even the Soviet Union has ever managed to create a 100 megaton warhead. the Tsar Bomb, reputed to be intended to be 100 Mt. panned out at about 60 IIRC. While more modern technology might make such a warhead possible, it would be a single unitary warhead, not the equivalent to a "city being struck with a single MIRV". MIRVs are invariably much smaller in payload. Usually in the Kiloton range. :

The Russians claimed a design for a 100 Mt bomb I believe, the Tsar-Bomba was a cut down version of that design with a yield of 50 Mt.

Russian SS-18 were fitted with (iirc) 10 Mt or 25 Mt single warheads but they're retired now. I think most Russian warheads (MIRVed ones anyway) are around the 100-150 Kt range. TOPOLs (SS-25) are ~800 Kt. According to wiki...

 

[Hood]

I wonder how Kanyon would be classified in legal terms under New START?
09851 is effectively an SSBN but with a torpedo, not a missile system. Is this therefore an attempt to circumvent the limitations of New START?

Then again, it seems a very complicated and dangerous weapon system. It's not able to be stored for long periods given the lack of reactor shielding and its navigation system most be complicated and probably much less precise than SLBM over long distances. Not that that matters so much because it can only be used against large coastal targets.
It has no real military value, it cannot contribute to counter-attacks or preventive attacks against enemy nuclear forces since those are land and air based and any SSBN is highly unlikely to be around when it goes off.
It takes (up to) five days (r longer if your going slow and stealthy) to reach its target, so do you launch it several days before you think war is likely to break out and recall it or have it orbit somewhere until you are sure of the exact date of the attack? If so the thing is noisy and leaks radiation and can be detected, so any element of surprise is lost. Even if you can't stop it you have more than ample time to threaten a retaliation with your own missiles that will take minutes to arrive. If (likely) you launch it from the Arctic 'bastions' then you've invited every NATO SSN into the area, precisely where most of your SSBNs are.
It has crude blackmail potential (if it can be recalled and recovered) but it has high dangers of backfiring.
Since its so slow (to arrive over long distances) and can only cause coastal damage, if the unthinkable happened and a nuclear war was underway, its of very little use in a second strike.

09852 with Losharik and Kanyon does seem odd, unless its another testbed submarine for the system, or if the Status-6 is actually a cover for a USV vehicle of different purpose.

The other point I would make is, given the aging nature of the Russian nuclear submarine fleet and its limited yard and monetary capacity to replace its Akulas, Oscars and Deltas with like-for-like numbers, is not building 09851 or 09852 in series production a serious waste of resources, even if they do have some secondary SSN use once their main mission is complete?

 

[sferrin]

100 Megatons? My understanding is that no one, not even the Soviet Union has ever managed to create a 100 megaton warhead. the Tsar Bomb, reputed to be intended to be 100 Mt. panned out at about 60 IIRC.

Because they replaced the uranium tamper with a lead one to keep the yield down. With a uranium tamper it most likely would have exceeded 100 Mt. The US B41 bomb did something similar. The low yield version was around 10 Mt with the high yield version being 25 Mt. And that was just a 10,000lb bomb. Given the nature of nuclear bombs a 40,000lb 100Mt weapon would be no problem at all.

While more modern technology might make such a warhead possible, it would be a single unitary warhead, not the equivalent to a "city being struck with a single MIRV". MIRVs are invariably much smaller in payload. Usually in the Kiloton range. :

SS-18 Mod 2 had warheads over 1 Mt. The SS-9 Scarp Mod 4 (R-36P) had 3 RVs of 2.3 Mt each. There's nothing magical about it, or physically impossible. It's just a matter of what size you want them, and what size your launch vehicle is. : One could certainly build a Saturn V sized ICBM with 100 Mt MIRVs. They could have done this in the 60s.

 

[Tzoli]

Something like the ICBM version of Energia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia

 

[sferrin]

Something like the ICBM version of Energia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia

Yep. IIRC Proton was originally planned as an ICBM. It certainly could have hauled a single 100 Mt weapon.

 

[Rickshaw]

I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it. What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt. I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.

 

[covert_shores]

I wonder how Kanyon would be classified in legal terms under New START?
09851 is effectively an SSBN but with a torpedo, not a missile system. Is this therefore an attempt to circumvent the limitations of New START?

Then again, it seems a very complicated and dangerous weapon system. It's not able to be stored for long periods given the lack of reactor shielding and its navigation system most be complicated and probably much less precise than SLBM over long distances. Not that that matters so much because it can only be used against large coastal targets.
It has no real military value, it cannot contribute to counter-attacks or preventive attacks against enemy nuclear forces since those are land and air based and any SSBN is highly unlikely to be around when it goes off.
It takes (up to) five days (r longer if your going slow and stealthy) to reach its target, so do you launch it several days before you think war is likely to break out and recall it or have it orbit somewhere until you are sure of the exact date of the attack? If so the thing is noisy and leaks radiation and can be detected, so any element of surprise is lost. Even if you can't stop it you have more than ample time to threaten a retaliation with your own missiles that will take minutes to arrive. If (likely) you launch it from the Arctic 'bastions' then you've invited every NATO SSN into the area, precisely where most of your SSBNs are.
It has crude blackmail potential (if it can be recalled and recovered) but it has high dangers of backfiring.
Since its so slow (to arrive over long distances) and can only cause coastal damage, if the unthinkable happened and a nuclear war was underway, its of very little use in a second strike.

09852 with Losharik and Kanyon does seem odd, unless its another testbed submarine for the system, or if the Status-6 is actually a cover for a USV vehicle of different purpose.

The other point I would make is, given the aging nature of the Russian nuclear submarine fleet and its limited yard and monetary capacity to replace its Akulas, Oscars and Deltas with like-for-like numbers, is not building 09851 or 09852 in series production a serious waste of resources, even if they do have some secondary SSN use once their main mission is complete?

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.

 

[sferrin]

I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it. What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt. I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.

Did you read the article? This isn't just a 21"/533cm torpedo.

Specification
Length: 24m (79ft) (estimate)
Diameter: 1.6m (5.5ft)

Even if all you did was use the same packaging density of a B41, which entered service in 1961, it would take up less than 30' of the 79' long device. It would most likely take up significantly less than that. Like maybe half that. (Because a lot of the B41s volume is taken up by parachutes among other things.)

 

[jeffb]

I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it. What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt. I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.

Did you read the article? This isn't just a 21"/533cm torpedo.

Specification
Length: 24m (79ft) (estimate)
Diameter: 1.6m (5.5ft)

Even if all you did was use the same packaging density of a B41, which entered service in 1961, it would take up less than 30' of the 79' long device. It would most likely take up significantly less than that. Like maybe half that. (Because a lot of the B41s volume is taken up by parachutes among other things.)

I think the point is that a 100Mt warhead seems like massive overkill. They certainly have designs for ~25Mt weapons which would be (you'd think) far easier and cheaper to field and are better understood in terms of their shelf lives etc. Does the hassle and expense of using a 100Mt weapon offer any substantive advantage over a smaller 10 or 25Mt one in terms of end effects? The devastation caused by even a relatively small one of these things would quite sufficient you'd think.

Does the extra expense and hassle of designing, building and integrating a new 100Mt weapon plus the cost of designing, building, testing, crewing, supporting and maintaining a new submarine class as well really make sense? To me the only way that sort of investment makes sense is if they believe the US is about to effectively neutralize their existing strategic forces and they're desperate to find a new counter.

 

[marauder2048]

I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it. What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt. I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.

Did you read the article? This isn't just a 21"/533cm torpedo.

Specification
Length: 24m (79ft) (estimate)
Diameter: 1.6m (5.5ft)

Even if all you did was use the same packaging density of a B41, which entered service in 1961, it would take up less than 30' of the 79' long device. It would most likely take up significantly less than that. Like maybe half that. (Because a lot of the B41s volume is taken up by parachutes among other things.)

I think the point is that a 100Mt warhead seems like massive overkill. They certainly have designs for ~25Mt weapons which would be (you'd think) far easier and cheaper to field and are better understood in terms of their shelf lives etc. Does the hassle and expense of using a 100Mt weapon offer any substantive advantage over a smaller 10 or 25Mt one in terms of end effects? The devastation caused by even a relatively small one of these things would quite sufficient you'd think.

Does the extra expense and hassle of designing, building and integrating a new 100Mt weapon plus the cost of designing, building, testing, crewing, supporting and maintaining a new submarine class as well really make sense? To me the only way that sort of investment makes sense is if they believe the US is about to effectively neutralize their existing strategic forces and they're desperate to find a new counter.

I just hope the West remembers how to build high yield nuclear depth charges . As to New START, the treaty (unlike the original) doesn't even consider SLCMs to be strategic delivery systems...

 

[Brickmuppet]

Something like the ICBM version of Energia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia

Yep. IIRC Proton was originally planned as an ICBM. It certainly could have hauled a single 100 Mt weapon.

Yes. That's the reason that Proton is fueled by such toxic (but storable)propellants, which are a bit of a hassle for such a large commercial rocket. It was designed as a storable ICBM.

Interestingly, shortly after the RDS-220 "Tsar Bomba" test (which was slightly over the expected 50 MT) russian documents started referring to the Proton payload as 150 Megatons. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/multimeg.html#S2

Note that he dimensions of Status6/Kanyon are pretty close to the T-15 torpedo designed to cary the full yield version of the 'Tsar Bomba" device. This doesn't mean that this weapon has to cary such a large warhead, but if one wants to maximize radioactive contamination adding a third stage does that as well as making the explosion more powerful. A twofer. Note too that the RDS-200 was in fact designed and tested...in 1963, so it's not a great technological challenge or risk.

Finally, the blast effects of big nukes experience diminishing returns above a certain point, but the local earthquake effects of a ground burst might not and the fallout is likely to be far greater than the 25 T bomb. For a weapon designed to destroy a harbor, overkill isn't a concern untill you risk punching through to the mantle...which requires a whole different scale of damage than this.

 

[Orionblamblam]

if one wants to maximize radioactive contamination adding a third stage does that as well as making the explosion more powerful.

If one wanted to maximize radioactive fallout, one might also mount the nuclear warhead just in front of a nuclear reactor. Won't do diddly to the explosive yield, but the vaporized reactor won't do the surroundings any good.

 

[sferrin]

I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it. What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt. I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.

Did you read the article? This isn't just a 21"/533cm torpedo.

Specification
Length: 24m (79ft) (estimate)
Diameter: 1.6m (5.5ft)

Even if all you did was use the same packaging density of a B41, which entered service in 1961, it would take up less than 30' of the 79' long device. It would most likely take up significantly less than that. Like maybe half that. (Because a lot of the B41s volume is taken up by parachutes among other things.)

I think the point is that a 100Mt warhead seems like massive overkill.

Except that wasn't the discussion. The feasibility of a 100 Mt weapon was. Whether it's the best, most efficient, etc. etc. etc. is irrelevant here.

 

[jeffb]

I am not saying that a 100 Mt weapon is impossible or that no ICBM could loft it. What I am questioning is that this weapon is 100 Mt. I suspect the nuclear torpedo is too small to carry a 100 Mt. warhead.

Did you read the article? This isn't just a 21"/533cm torpedo.

Specification
Length: 24m (79ft) (estimate)
Diameter: 1.6m (5.5ft)

Even if all you did was use the same packaging density of a B41, which entered service in 1961, it would take up less than 30' of the 79' long device. It would most likely take up significantly less than that. Like maybe half that. (Because a lot of the B41s volume is taken up by parachutes among other things.)

I think the point is that a 100Mt warhead seems like massive overkill.

Except that wasn't the discussion. The feasibility of a 100 Mt weapon was. Whether it's the best, most efficient, etc. etc. etc. is irrelevant here.

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?

 

[sferrin]

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?

Depends what your aim is. If it's just a terror weapon then "100 Mt, biggest bomb evah" sounds scarier to Joe Blow on the street than "we calculated the most cost effective way to destroy a port. . .."

 

[Avimimus]

If it goes 100 kts and has a blast effective to 5 kilometres... then it would be pretty hard to defend a carrier against it (a 10 km radius is harder to defend than a 500 metre one). It makes the bulls-eye bigger...

Fire off six and only one needs to get through. Replacement for the Oscar-II?

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?

 

[starviking]

If it goes 100 kts and has a blast effective to 5 kilometres... then it would be pretty hard to defend a carrier against it (a 10 km radius is harder to defend than a 500 metre one). It makes the bulls-eye bigger...

Fire off six and only one needs to get through. Replacement for the Oscar-II?

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?

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"

 

[jeffb]

I just hope the West remembers how to build high yield nuclear depth charges . As to New START, the treaty (unlike the original) doesn't even consider SLCMs to be strategic delivery systems...

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...

 

[starviking]

I just hope the West remembers how to build high yield nuclear depth charges . As to New START, the treaty (unlike the original) doesn't even consider SLCMs to be strategic delivery systems...

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...

Bring back the S-3 Viking...