Russia's new nuclear torpedo aimed at taking out carrier groups
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,469
Received 2,594 Likes
on
1,098 Posts
Russia's new nuclear torpedo aimed at taking out carrier groups
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
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?
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?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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?
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...
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
As others have said MAD guarantees the attacker to get fried second. Not much to gain.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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."
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."
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....
"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."
"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."
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,786
Received 129 Likes
on
58 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts