PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Russia's new nuclear torpedo aimed at taking out carrier groups (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/611464-russias-new-nuclear-torpedo-aimed-taking-out-carrier-groups.html)

NutLoose 25th Jul 2018 01:16

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

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...top/ar-AAAmFYU

Harley Quinn 25th Jul 2018 06:26

So how is this different to nuclear depth charges?

Pontius Navigator 25th Jul 2018 07:28


Originally Posted by Harley Quinn (Post 10205404)
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 25th Jul 2018 07:36

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... 25th Jul 2018 08:08

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 25th Jul 2018 08:23

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 25th Jul 2018 08:25


Originally Posted by Just This Once... (Post 10205449)
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 25th Jul 2018 09:10


Originally Posted by tdracer (Post 10205466)
...... 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 25th Jul 2018 09:42

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 25th Jul 2018 10:19

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 25th Jul 2018 10:41


Originally Posted by ORAC (Post 10205555)
....
"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 25th Jul 2018 15:20


Originally Posted by tdracer (Post 10205466)
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 25th Jul 2018 16:45


Originally Posted by Less Hair (Post 10205527)
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 25th Jul 2018 17:34

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 25th Jul 2018 17:45

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 25th Jul 2018 18:02

Has anyone blamed "the carriers" for this yet?

Or is it Brexit?

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

Lonewolf_50 25th Jul 2018 18:05


Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator (Post 10205956)
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 25th Jul 2018 18:21


Originally Posted by A_Van (Post 10205573)
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 25th Jul 2018 18:23


Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator (Post 10205956)
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 25th Jul 2018 18:23


Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 (Post 10205978)
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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:10.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.