Russia's new nuclear torpedo aimed at taking out carrier groups

[NutLoose]

Hmm

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russia-just-showed-off-a-potentially-world-ending-nuclear-doomsday-torpedo-that-the-us-cant-stop/ar-AAAmFYU

[Harley Quinn]

So how is this different to nuclear depth charges?

[Pontius Navigator]

So how is this different to nuclear depth charges?
Do you mean how is the nuclear effect different?

An NDB indeed contaminates the water and disturbs the sea bed if used in shallow waters. NDB are 'normal ' yield weapons up to 10kt range, if that is normal.

If the torpedo used much higher yields then that is the difference.

The problem is balancing yield against suicide. NDBs are usually dropped by slow aircraft up to 300 kts; this limits the yield of the carrier is to avoid self-damage. The same rule applies to a submarine with the added complication that the detonation will affects us sensors in a s similar way that EMP can affect aircraft.

It follows that the submarine must stand off a considerable distance and more so for a higher yield weapon.

I guess this weapon is supposed to avoid ABM defences. If deployed, it would confer a tactical advantage until anti-torpedo measures were developed and deployed. It is actually more effective as an economic weapon, cheap to deploy, expensive to defend from.

[tdracer]

I'll say again, what part of MAD does Russia fail to understand? Care to think what Russia might look like 24 hours after a USA carrier fleet was destroyed by a Russian nuke?

[Just This Once...]

Perhaps Mother Russia thinks that a sunk carrier in an open-ocean conflict miles away from US shores is unlikely to lead to an all-out attack on its homeland precisely because of MAD. Risky I know but would the US choose to destroy itself for ~10k military casualties?

[Pontius Navigator]

JTO, you clearly missed the link. While the target is stated to be a carrier group it goes on to say 'in harbor' which is rather more than a few thousand fish etc.

[tdracer]

Perhaps Mother Russia thinks that a sunk carrier in an open-ocean conflict miles away from US shores is unlikely to lead to an all-out attack on its homeland precisely because of MAD. Risky I know but would the US choose to destroy itself for ~10k military casualties?
America has shown itself, repeatedly, to respond quite violently when attacked. Destroying an American fleet (not one ship mind you, but a whole freaking fleet) would demand a massive retaliation - and if the attack had been nuclear there is little doubt they'd respond in-kind. Sure, it would start with military targets. But do you really think it would end there? The predictable escalation would pretty much destroy Russia, the USA, and most of the rest of the world.
The danger has always been that during a conventional weapon conflict, someone would - either accidentally or intentionally - use a nuke. Once the gloves were off and nukes were in play, all hell would break loose. God forbid - as some recent reports from Mother Russia have suggested - they are thinking of starting off with nukes.
Basically you're talking Russian Roulette with no empty chambers. Pray that nobody in command is that stupid...

[A_Van]

...... God forbid - as some recent reports from Mother Russia have suggested - they are thinking of starting off with nukes.
...

Would you please provide links to such "recent reports" to see who are the authors and understand how credible are their sources?

[Less Hair]

What is the point of using a torpedo instead of some way faster missile to get your nuke to target?
As others have said MAD guarantees the attacker to get fried second. Not much to gain.

[ORAC]

Va, not sure about starting off with them - but Russia certainly does not have a "no first use" policy, and does state it is willing to use them first.

https://rusemb.org.uk/press/2029

"27. The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy. The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of the Russian Federation."

[A_Van]

....
"27. The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy. The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of the Russian Federation."

Ah, if you mean that .... any nuke-capable country has the same policy and doctrine...

As for the subject, all those "new developments" result from a single, but very dangerous move made by Bush Jr. back in 2001 when US withdrew from the ABMT. When this treaty was in place the situation was balanced.
Since then, the US made a good progress in anti-missile systems and Russia is now being encircled by AeGIS complexes with SM-3. And though the latter is yet not capable to intercept even old Soviet/Russian ICBMs, in 10-15 years the situation will change. And there are also THAAD and GBI "in this game".
Thus, there is a growing risk that sooner or later illusions (of superiority) may be converted into temptations. And since the US political system has no stoppers to let, so to say, not very calm and careful guys occupy the White House (like it happens now) such a balance should be re-established in the changed conditions.
That is why all those new devices are appearing, to bring the temptation back down.

[KenV]

America has shown itself, repeatedly, to respond quite violently when attacked. Destroying an American fleet (not one ship mind you, but a whole freaking fleet) would demand a massive retaliation - and if the attack had been nuclear there is little doubt they'd respond in-kind.I believe this applies to non-nuclear "carrier killer" ballistic missiles as well. Any nation that decided to kill a carrier either with or without nukes would certainly receive a devastating counter strike. If a non nuke was used the counter strike would probably also be non nuclear, but devastating nevertheless.

[Pontius Navigator]

What is the point of using a torpedo instead of some way faster missile to get your nuke to target?
LH,

Aegis cruisers or other ABM systems pose sufficient threat to missiles that you cannot assume a ICBM would get through. A very long range, high speed torpedo would be invulnerable to SAM. However underwater detection and response may well negate such underwater attack.

[Lonewolf_50]

Sigh. There were nuclear tipped torpedoes in various arsenals during the Cold War. How is any of this news? It's certainly not new technology.

[Pontius Navigator]

LW, I think the difference is as stated in the link. This is essentially a land attack torpedo of greater yield intended to contaminate a harbour and it's environs. The question is whether that is a practicable mission and whether the delivery vessel would be outside the danger zone.

[Not_a_boffin]

Has anyone blamed "the carriers" for this yet?

Or is it Brexit?

Surely it must be one or the other....

[Lonewolf_50]

LW, I think the difference is as stated in the link. This is essentially a land attack torpedo of greater yield intended to contaminate a harbour and it's environs. The question is whether that is a practicable mission and whether the delivery vessel would be outside the danger zone. Fair enough, I guess some older torps were questionable in shallow water engagements.

[KenV]

As for the subject, all those "new developments" result from a single, but very dangerous move made by Bush Jr. back in 2001 when US withdrew from the ABMT. When this treaty was in place the situation was balanced.This would be funny if you weren't serious. The development of MIRV warheads and decoys negated the possibility of significant intercept of ICBMs. Bush Jr backed out of the treaty so the US could develop an ABM system against rogue states with ICBMs (like Korea and Iran). It did not effect the ability of Russia to accomplish an ICBM strike in the slightest.

Since then, the US made a good progress in anti-missile systems and Russia is now being encircled by AeGIS complexes with SM-3. And though the latter is yet not capable to intercept even old Soviet/Russian ICBMs, in 10-15 years the situation will change The Aegis system being used to shoot down ICBMs is absurd. It struggles to shoot down theater ballistic missiles. There's lots of work ongoing to improve that, but the notion that Aegis and SM3 could be upgraded to shoot down ICBMs, especially MIRV equipped ICBMs, is beyond absurd. THAAD might be able to do a launch phase intercept, if the THAAD battery was very close to the launch point and had enough advance cueing to avoid any chance of a tail chase. There's no way to place a THAAD battery close enough to a Russian ICBM launch site to have even a remote chance of an intercept.

[MPN11]

LW, I think the difference is as stated in the link. This is essentially a land attack torpedo of greater yield intended to contaminate a harbour and it's environs. The question is whether that is a practicable mission and whether the delivery vessel would be outside the danger zone.
Is a reliable time-fuse not available, to allow the sub to retire quietly?

[KenV]

Fair enough, I guess some older torps were questionable in shallow water engagements.Maybe. But on the other hand, the Japanese had long range shallow water torpedoes and used them very successfully way back in 1941.

[KenV]

is a reliable time-fuse not available, to allow the sub to retire quietly? If there's enough time for the sub to escape, there's enough time for the defenders to find and eliminate the torpedo.

[MPN11]

If there's enough time for the sub to escape, there's enough time for the defenders to find and eliminate the torpedo.
If they even know it’s arrived! And what time-line would be needed to discover, locate, comprehend threat, assemble EOD teams, work out how to get into it, unravel fuses and anti-handling devices .... the sub would be home in Vladivostok by then!! ;)

[SASless]

So....let's skip to the fine print shall we.

Russia nukes a Fleet Anchorage of the US Navy.

We in response....do what?

Wring our Hands and cry about it not being fair or something?

Face it....any use of a Nuke and we shall be emptying Silos and Boomers of their contents straight back at them.

The Russians are not stupid people.

[KenV]

If they even know it’s arrived! And what time-line would be needed to discover, locate, comprehend threat, assemble EOD teams, work out how to get into it, unravel fuses and anti-handling devices .... the sub would be home in Vladivostok by then!! ;)
Torpedos are noisy and easy to detect and track. Also easy to locate on the bottom of a shallow harbor. US Navy has dolphins trained to do that. As for an EOD team, why bother? Set off the conventional explosive in the warhead. The US Navy has trained seals (not SEALs) trained to do just that. Then recover the nuclear package at your leisure.

[MPN11]

SASless ... excuse me. WHO did that? Was it Russia, China, NoK, Iran ... who owns the fireball on that particular day? “Kill everybody!!”

KenV ... glad there’s a 365/24 watch on all the Mil ports on our side of the new Cold Wall, even without a declaration of ‘intent’ ;) Remember Pearl Harbor?

[KenV]

SASless ... excuse me. WHO did that? Was it Russia, China, NoK, Iran ... who owns the fireball on that particular day? “Kill everybody!!”

KanV ... glad there’s a 365/24 watch on all the Mil ports on our side of the new Cold Wall ;)
Me thinks such an attack would not come out of the blue. There'd be a LOT of posturing, saber rattling, and military/political intrigue leading up to such an event. Pearl Harbor was predictable had there been the military and political will to do it. The US is not remotely as naive and ill prepared as it was in 1940/41. Nuking a USN anchorage is orders of magnitude more serious than Pearl Harbor was.

[MPN11]

Apologies for updating my post!

International tension would undoubtedly be a precursor to offensive action. Where that line is drawn depends on the sanity of Putin, Trump, an Ayatollah and a fat kid who inherited a country.

[Pontius Navigator]

My response to KenV got lost. While some torpedoes such as the lightweight ones can be noisy at high speed it does not follow that all torpedoes are noisy. There are also other means of detection.

Other issues are the self damage to the delivery vessel, how to navigate the torpedo to its target, being certain that the fleet is active in the target area.

The delivery vessel would vulnerable to prior destruction unless use of the torpedo was the first enemy action.

[FODPlod]

As if dolphins with freakin’ lasers weren’t enough, we now have to worry about torpedoes making pre-emptive nuclear strikes on our ports and anchorages to take out our carrier battle groups? Just wait until they can program UUVs tipped with nuclear warheads to navigate our sewer systems. No city will be safe. :hmm:

[glad rag]

Torpedos are noisy and easy to detect and track.

Well you might wonder if [in the decades since your experiences] that things may [or equally, may not have] moved on a bit since your time.

However it would be wise not to generalise on evidence from the past when considering the unknown present or even future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

[SASless]

Why a Torpedo?

Why not just a sail boat or small fishing boat?

Or...a humble Taxi used to haul Sailors from the Ship to the Whore Houses//Bars downtown.....errr.....to the Christian Reading Rooms downtown?

[NutLoose]

Or bring it in with the diplomatic mail and leave it behind as you close down the Embassy and head home as tensions rise

[Pontius Navigator]

Against a floaty thing torpedoes have many advantages though not a few disadvantages. Against a land target and with a nuclear warhead they offer very few advantages and many disadvantages.

Of the first, they avoid SAM, Radars and AAA. However delivery is slow, the subject is vulnerable for days not minutes, and simple counter measures may counter a torpedo.

[Planet Basher]

Or bring it in with the diplomatic mail and leave it behind as you close down the Embassy and head home as tensions rise

Like they are not already in place.:cool:

[NutLoose]

Yup





............