Russia has tested a nuclear-capable drone sub that could pose a strategic threat to US ports

KediKesenFare said:

I need a reliable source to believe this story.

Click to expand...

Status-6 Ocean Multipurpose System
For a few seconds on 10 November 2015, evening news programs showed a document with drawings and details of a planned Russian nuclear-capable underwater drone that would be launched from a submarine, dubbed Status-6. Such a torpedo was envisaged in 1950s, during Cold War, by nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov - later a famous dissident and peace activist. The 100-megaton warhead could devastate US coast with massive tsunami and intense radiation.

In bland but chilling language, the document said the purpose of the pilotless subs -- still on the drawing board and at least a decade away from any possible production -- would be to 'strike important enemy economic facilities in coastal areas.' The Russian government newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta later reported details of the weapon, without showing the diagram, and speculated about a super-radioactive cobalt device. NTV television and Channel One state television, which are under strict Kremlin control, both featured footage from a meeting that President Vladimir Putin held with top defense officials in the southern Russian city of Sochi.

At one point, the camera points over what appears to be the shoulder of one of the uniformed military officials attending the meeting, at a document he is holding headlined "Ocean Multipurpose System 'Status-6.'” The document includes drawings of what appears to be a torpedo or an underwater drone. The meeting can be watched on YouTube, with details about the weapon starting at 1:49.

The document states that the planned weapons system will be able to create "extensive zones of radioactive contamination" in "enemy" coastal areas, making them "unsuitable" for military, economic or other activity "for a long time."

President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that NTV and state-run First Channel and NTV had erred by slipping 'secret data' into their broadcasts, and that the authorities would take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. But some observers suspect it was not by accident. According to the document, the drone would be launched from two new models of submarines that Russia has started producing over the past three years. It said the drone would reportedly have a maximum range of 5,400 nautical miles (10,000 kilometers) while traveling at a depth of 1,000 meters.

It was developed by Rubin, a submarine design bureau in St Petersburg. It would, apparently, be launched by nuclear-powered submarines of the 09852 "Belgorod" and 09851 "Khabarovsk" series. Rossiiskaya Gazeta called the torpedo a "robotic mini-submarine", travelling at 100 knots (185km/h; 115mph), which would "avoid all acoustic tracking devices and other traps" [the combitioan of speed and range claimed for this system is implausible].

In the wake of the incident, state media have prominently featured an interview with a defense expert giving more details about the "secret" weapon, fueling speculation that the original leak was no accident. Radio Sputnik, which is part of the Russian state news agency Sputnik, featured an interview with Igor Korotchenko, chief editor of the magazine Natsionalnaya Oborona (National Defense), who provided further details about the Status-6 weapons system.

Creation of Russian multi-purpose ocean system "status-6" devalue the missile defense system (NMD), the United States and will maintain the strategic parity in the world, according to the chief editor of "National Defense" Igor Korotchenko. "Given the commitment of the USA to establish a missile defense system to intercept Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is clear that our military leadership is thinking how to solve the problem destruction of the enemy in the event of a real war, including using non-conventional means of delivering a nuclear warhead to the enemy's territory", - Korotchenko told Tass. According to him, it is to some extent the work of the future, to have in the arsenal of weapons, which devalue the US missile defense system.

"Status-6 is a conglomeration of the latest Russian submarine technology," Korotchenko said in the interview, which was extensively quoted by RIA Novosti and Tass state news agencies. "The purpose of this ocean system is transporting a high-powered nuclear warhead to the coast of the enemy."

Korotchenko continued: "The United States is actively developing an anti-missile defense system and putting very serious money into this, hoping ...to create an impenetrable shield over the United States. But Russia will have capabilities to neutralize any of America's military-technical solutions."

The expert believed that the creation of such a torpedo will support strategic parity in the world and reduce the likelihood of a nuclear war. Speaking about the possibility of the real existence of such a development, the expert said that "the meetings of the President commanders go with real instruments, not with pictures." "Therefore, we can say that this is a real development, which is likely, in the final stages of creation" - added Korochenko.





http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/status-6.htm

maximuswarrior said:

If submarines were a nightmare, just imagine how difficult it would be to track this submerged drone.

Click to expand...

Even more.

The submarine carrier of status-6 also can launch smaller drones from the torpedo tubes which is will imitate the work of drone, in short, i.e. those smaller drones will be a fake targets to make detection and interception even more difficult for the enemy.

Old news (September 2015)

The SC said:

the only thing that is sure is that the US is feeling the heat, and quite frankly, apparently shocked and scared..

Click to expand...

1. We don't scare easy. 2. As for it being just us, you might note, Canada and the US have a joint maritime warning and surveillance structure. So no doubt, Royal Canadian Navy intelligence is equally concerned.

Desertfalcon said:

1. We don't scare easy. 2. As for it being just us, you might note, Canada and the US have a joint maritime warning and surveillance structure. So no doubt, Royal Canadian Navy intelligence is equally concerned.

Click to expand...

Of course, but the Russians are targeting the US coastline with this terrible new weapon.. It is scary because now you need underwater interceptors, the Russians just got around the whole idea of air defenses..
I know you don't get scared easy, but the top brass is very concerned..Canada will suffer from the nuclear fallout and radiations too so obviously it is also quite concerned about these weapons,,

maximuswarrior said:

Talk about solidifying the triad capability. This underwater drone capability is just in a league of its own. If submarines were a nightmare, just imagine how difficult it would be to track this submerged drone.

Click to expand...

Pakistan need to work on this nuclear capable drone Submarine....and perhaps we will be among the pioneers of this along with Russia... Pls GOD!!!

The SC said:

Of course, but the Russians are targeting the US coastline with this terrible new weapon.. It is scary because now you need underwater interceptors, the Russians just got around the whole idea of air defenses..
I know you don't get scared easy, but the top brass is very concerned..Canada will suffer from the nuclear fallout and radiations too so obviously it is also quite concerned about these weapons,,

Click to expand...

Enter: Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV)

http://www.darpa.mil/program/anti-submarine-warfare-continuous-trail-unmanned-vessel

Russia’s perhaps-not-real super torpedo
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2015/11/18/russias-perhaps-not-real-super-torpedo/

Why A Russian Super-Radioactive Atomic Torpedo Isn’t The News You Think It Is
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-a-russian-super-radioactive-atomic-torpedo-isn-t-th-1742131846

Prechko said:

US made first mistake by pulling out from ABM and then pretending it`s because of Iran. Armaments treaties are like house of cards, you take one card out and structure collapses (even is everyone keeps pretending it did not collapse). Only really working and binding treaty is the New START (2010), all others are more dead than alive.

Click to expand...

The agreement - going back over forty years, if I recall correctly - is that neither the U.S. nor the USSR/Russia (Russia assumed these obligations when the USSR dissolved) will deploy or even develop anonymous bolt-from-the-blue weapons of mass destruction.

As far as I know it's not a treaty. It's not in writing. It's an informal arrangement between the parties. This gives leaders great flexibility to resolve the matter quickly, either by renewing the agreement or by establishing countermeasures.

It has taken Russia years - probably decades - to bring this nuclear-bomb drone submersible to the test stage. By contrast, it took only eight weeks for the U.S. Navy to machine (under Russian observation), re-purpose, deploy, and launch a Navy missile to destroy an errant satellite a few years ago. So I'm confident that with just a small nudge the Russians will realize that it's in their self-interest to change course, just as they signed on to the old ABM treaty when economists and strategists explained to the Politburo that nuclear ABM defenses against mass ICBM attack would drain the economy, increase risks of a nuclear war, and make such a war much more damaging if it did happen..

Solomon2 said:

The agreement - going back over forty years, if I recall correctly - is that neither the U.S. nor the USSR/Russia (Russia assumed these obligations when the USSR dissolved) will deploy or even develop anonymous bolt-from-the-blue weapons of mass destruction.

As far as I know it's not a treaty. It's not in writing. It's an informal arrangement between the parties. This gives leaders great flexibility to resolve the matter quickly, either by renewing the agreement or by establishing countermeasures.

It has taken Russia years - probably decades - to bring this nuclear-bomb drone submersible to the test stage. By contrast, it took only eight weeks for the U.S. Navy to machine (under Russian observation), re-purpose, deploy, and launch a Navy missile to destroy an errant satellite a few years ago. So I'm confident that with just a small nudge the Russians will realize that it's in their self-interest to change course, just as they signed on to the old ABM treaty when economists and strategists explained to the Politburo that nuclear ABM defenses against mass ICBM attack would drain the economy, increase risks of a nuclear war, and make such a war much more damaging if it did happen..

Click to expand...

How many H-bombs does US have? I know that you guys have 450 MIII and 336 TD5 Missiles...

Solomon2 said:

The agreement - going back over forty years, if I recall correctly - is that neither the U.S. nor the USSR/Russia (Russia assumed these obligations when the USSR dissolved) will deploy or even develop anonymous bolt-from-the-blue weapons of mass destruction.

As far as I know it's not a treaty. It's not in writing. It's an informal arrangement between the parties. This gives leaders great flexibility to resolve the matter quickly, either by renewing the agreement or by establishing countermeasures.

It has taken Russia years - probably decades - to bring this nuclear-bomb drone submersible to the test stage. By contrast, it took only eight weeks for the U.S. Navy to machine (under Russian observation), re-purpose, deploy, and launch a Navy missile to destroy an errant satellite a few years ago. So I'm confident that with just a small nudge the Russians will realize that it's in their self-interest to change course, just as they signed on to the old ABM treaty when economists and strategists explained to the Politburo that nuclear ABM defenses against mass ICBM attack would drain the economy, increase risks of a nuclear war, and make such a war much more damaging if it did happen..

Click to expand...

Yeah...OK. I give up, Americans are exceptionally genius while Russians (& Chinese) are stupid.

Americans were first to broke both written & unwritten treaties, perhaps people in Washington Beltway should have thought about long term consequences of their actions, arrogance will lead US nowhere but again in series of strategic mistakes.

Prechko said:

Yeah...OK. I give up -

Click to expand...

There is no "giving up" here, just a reasoned and mutual rearrangement to more relaxed confrontational stances.

Solomon2 said:

The agreement - going back over forty years, if I recall correctly - is that neither the U.S. nor the USSR/Russia (Russia assumed these obligations when the USSR dissolved) will deploy or even develop anonymous bolt-from-the-blue weapons of mass destruction.

As far as I know it's not a treaty. It's not in writing. It's an informal arrangement between the parties. This gives leaders great flexibility to resolve the matter quickly, either by renewing the agreement or by establishing countermeasures.

It has taken Russia years - probably decades - to bring this nuclear-bomb drone submersible to the test stage. By contrast, it took only eight weeks for the U.S. Navy to machine (under Russian observation), re-purpose, deploy, and launch a Navy missile to destroy an errant satellite a few years ago. So I'm confident that with just a small nudge the Russians will realize that it's in their self-interest to change course, just as they signed on to the old ABM treaty when economists and strategists explained to the Politburo that nuclear ABM defenses against mass ICBM attack would drain the economy, increase risks of a nuclear war, and make such a war much more damaging if it did happen..

Click to expand...

LOL at it took probably decades... You talk like as if you have all the precise details. Also, you think the US can develop an advanced nuclear-capable drone sub in a few weeks? How can anyone in their right mind make a comparison between the destruction of a satellite and the trials of an advanced nuclear-capable drone sub? It doesn't make any sense at all. Don't oversimplify things. There is a whole host of reasons why the former USSR collapsed. An increased risk of nuclear armageddon or the development of ABM systems wasn't one of them.

You cannot sell this mumbo-jumbo to anyone. The US is pouring vast amount of resources in the development of advanced dangerous weapons. Other major powers aren't going to sit idle. The Russians are smart enough to calculate what is in their self-interest. This nuclear-capable drone sub is a game changer. No wonder highly placed officials in the US are sweating.

Penguin said:

Enter: Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV)

http://www.darpa.mil/program/anti-submarine-warfare-continuous-trail-unmanned-vessel

Russia’s perhaps-not-real super torpedo
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2015/11/18/russias-perhaps-not-real-super-torpedo/

Why A Russian Super-Radioactive Atomic Torpedo Isn’t The News You Think It Is
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-a-russian-super-radioactive-atomic-torpedo-isn-t-th-1742131846

Click to expand...

Thanks, I am aware of that, it will be tested and if it works _due to some very heavy parameters.. like avoiding other ships for instance_, that it might be considered//still this new Russian drone/sub dives at 1000 m or a bit more than 3000 ft !!!

maximuswarrior said:

LOL at it took probably decades... You talk like as if you have all the precise details. Also, you think the US can develop an advanced nuclear-capable drone sub in a few weeks? How can anyone in their right mind make a comparison between the destruction of a satellite and the trials of an advanced nuclear-capable drone sub? It doesn't make any sense at all. Don't oversimplify things. There is a whole host of reasons why the former USSR collapsed. An increased risk of nuclear armageddon or the development of ABM systems wasn't one of them.

You cannot sell this mumbo-jumbo to anyone. The US is pouring vast amount of resources in the development of advanced dangerous weapons. Other major powers aren't going to sit idle. The Russians are smart enough to calculate what is in their self-interest. This nuclear-capable drone sub is a game changer. No wonder highly placed officials in the US are sweating.

Click to expand...

It comes down to investment in R&D and resources. US is miles ahead of Russia in these two key areas.

These advanced Russian technologies are getting considerable publicity and appraise but they are far from mass production or something like that. US, on the other hand, has already fielded a number of state-of-the-art technologies and tools whose capabilities are not openly discussed.

There is no parity between Russian and American military capability, and both know it. Don't let concerns and sensational journalism fool you.

LeGenD said:

It comes down to investment in R&D and resources. US is miles ahead of Russia in these two key areas.

These advanced Russian technologies are getting considerable publicity and appraise but they are far from mass production or something like that. US, on the other hand, has already fielded a number of state-of-the-art technologies and tools whose capabilities are not openly discussed.

There is no parity between Russian and American military capability, and both know it. Don't let concerns and sensational journalism fool you.

Click to expand...

I think you are fooling yourself and trying to find comfort by believing that this capability amounts to no challenge for the US.

Any person who has a basic understanding of submarine warfare would acknowledge that such a nuke drone sub capability needs to be taken deadly serious.

Just because the US is ahead in R&D or other areas doesn't in anyway negate the seriousness and lethality of such a capability. Also, being ahead in R&D doesn't always have to mean that the opposing side is incapable of producing technological marvels.

The Russians aren't amateurs when it comes to state of the art technological capabilities. We know what they are capable of despite their lack of resources as compared to the US.