Makes Skhval Look Like a Minnow
Thread Starter
Makes Skhval Look Like a Minnow
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/w...e-us-2ck7335l5
The Times today reports on a Rusian autonomous 2MT nuclear armed underwater drone allegedly 43m long capable of 110Kts speed (presumably dash speed) and a range of over 6000 miles apparently ready for iminent deployment.
As a weapon against coastal or seaborne targets this thing would be utterly unstoppable wouldn't it? How you gonna lay out a picket line ahead of one of those even with a squadron of Poseidons? And why are you going to prosecute it with?
Sounds bloody scary to me, and should be a big wake-up call to all in the West who still believe - if any so naiive are left - that the Thug In The Kremlin isn't squaring up for a proper fight.
The Times today reports on a Rusian autonomous 2MT nuclear armed underwater drone allegedly 43m long capable of 110Kts speed (presumably dash speed) and a range of over 6000 miles apparently ready for iminent deployment.
As a weapon against coastal or seaborne targets this thing would be utterly unstoppable wouldn't it? How you gonna lay out a picket line ahead of one of those even with a squadron of Poseidons? And why are you going to prosecute it with?
Sounds bloody scary to me, and should be a big wake-up call to all in the West who still believe - if any so naiive are left - that the Thug In The Kremlin isn't squaring up for a proper fight.
Last edited by meleagertoo; 14th Jan 2019 at 22:08.
It's OK, Forrest Trump will build an underwater wall to stop the drones. The Mexican Wall will extend into the sea and up to the other enemy, Canada.
I would suspect that the moment Putin uses a nuke against the US or US interests it would be all over anyway. Trump strikes me as the sort that shoots first and doesn’t even worry about asking questions later.
We are rapidly arriving at the point where decisions will be made as to whether an act of war has occurred. Not only this device, but others in the same class of mass casualty weapon, and could see the lids come off.
For example if aforesaid weapon was used to strike a large carrier with a crew of 4-5000, would, without doubt, bring about massive retaliation, so one had better be ready for incoming. I suspect that an invisible line is already drawn in the sand, and the powers that hold the keys know just how far they can go in terms of casualties. The risk of crossing said line is high.
IG
For example if aforesaid weapon was used to strike a large carrier with a crew of 4-5000, would, without doubt, bring about massive retaliation, so one had better be ready for incoming. I suspect that an invisible line is already drawn in the sand, and the powers that hold the keys know just how far they can go in terms of casualties. The risk of crossing said line is high.
IG
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are rapidly arriving at the point where decisions will be made as to whether an act of war has occurred. Not only this device, but others in the same class of mass casualty weapon, and could see the lids come off.
For example if aforesaid weapon was used to strike a large carrier with a crew of 4-5000, would, without doubt, bring about massive retaliation, so one had better be ready for incoming. I suspect that an invisible line is already drawn in the sand, and the powers that hold the keys know just how far they can go in terms of casualties. The risk of crossing said line is high.
IG
For example if aforesaid weapon was used to strike a large carrier with a crew of 4-5000, would, without doubt, bring about massive retaliation, so one had better be ready for incoming. I suspect that an invisible line is already drawn in the sand, and the powers that hold the keys know just how far they can go in terms of casualties. The risk of crossing said line is high.
IG
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,077
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Just don't let him know it will enhance his orange tanned skin permanently.
I think its not particularly well thought out. The weapon has a reactor for endurance purposes. Even so, how is the weapon going to be re-tasked in the event of a change of heart? Not as if you can send an RF signal to under water. It comes across as a great idea on paper, not great from a command and control perspective, especially if it pokes off in a random direction, with no means to terminate, then ends up detonating on the coast of somewhere that will retaliate in kind.
If you're not filling the things with people you can build more of them more cheaply, deploy them for longer, and presumably put them into riskier situations. With a reactor and no crew to feed, endurance could be almost indefinite...
It might even function as a strategic deterrent. Rather than having a handful of SSBNs cruising around the oceans, you deploy a bunch of these and leave your adversary to wonder whether they're sitting on the seabed outside its major ports...
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real game changer were ICBMs deployed on both sides in late 50's - early 60's. For the first time in history both conflicting sides were guaranteed to be eliminated nearly totally, no matter who shot first.
After that there was only a slow evolution of such weapons. Increase of accuracy, penetration capabilities (for underground targets), stealth, etc. etc.
All those new toys (including this unmanned sub, highly manoeuverable BM heads and hypersonic missiles) were designed decades ago (and ideas formulated half a century back in time). While there was a strategic balance and several treaties signed and obeyed, there was no need to build them. First, it was costly at that technology level, and, second, raising the political and military tension was counter-productive.
But then the US attempted to change the game back by withdrawing from anti-ballistic missile treaty (in early 2000's) and then deploying dozens of Aegis/SM-3 cruisers/destroyers (and recently "Aegis Ashore"). This could not be left unanswered. Also, the economic and information war against Russia (started recently) already raised tension so high that switching to the next generation of weapons would not add much to the existing hysteria. N.B.: all these nextgen things do not break any treaty.
After that there was only a slow evolution of such weapons. Increase of accuracy, penetration capabilities (for underground targets), stealth, etc. etc.
All those new toys (including this unmanned sub, highly manoeuverable BM heads and hypersonic missiles) were designed decades ago (and ideas formulated half a century back in time). While there was a strategic balance and several treaties signed and obeyed, there was no need to build them. First, it was costly at that technology level, and, second, raising the political and military tension was counter-productive.
But then the US attempted to change the game back by withdrawing from anti-ballistic missile treaty (in early 2000's) and then deploying dozens of Aegis/SM-3 cruisers/destroyers (and recently "Aegis Ashore"). This could not be left unanswered. Also, the economic and information war against Russia (started recently) already raised tension so high that switching to the next generation of weapons would not add much to the existing hysteria. N.B.: all these nextgen things do not break any treaty.
