• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Russia reveals giant nuclear torpedo in state TV "leak"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
pauldun170 said:
They are basically taking a shitty, one trick pony torpedo design armed with a shitty area denial solution and launching it from a shitty drone sub.

I'm guessing they classified this as secret because they have no plans of actually bothering with this.

It's the equivalent of a "doodle" in class
Click to expand...

I think the poor naval officer that was forced to pound out this Power Point would take offense to that statement.

water-cow-are-you-crazy.jpg
 
Genx87 said:
I'd guess using a nuke anywhere outside Russia would be considered an act of war.

Anyways considering the quality of Russian weapons systems. This thing wouldnt make it an hour before veering off course and blowing something useless up. Like some Russia port.
Click to expand...



Those torpedoes are pretty much "launch and hope for the best"
Unless they came up with a working sensor package that allows for fire and forget, these are pretty much really fast versions of the crap launched in WWI, except with bigger "kaplows" at the end and being able to plug in an an attack profile before launch.

They might build a couple of these because they've realized that they can't keep up with the various defensive systems out there.
Instead of worry about their delivery systems being detected and defeated in the air, why not just keep everything under water where it will be tougher to react as quickly to sub movements.

Fire a big bottle rocket at the beach
 
NetWareHead said:
Nuclear depth bombs in no way resemble conventional depth bombs and require a completely different delivery system. Whereas in WW1 & WW2, you could roll them off racks from the side of a destroyer. As the war progressed and depth charges got bigger to be more effective against deeper diving and faster subs, there was a danger that the delivering ship would be sunk/damaged by its own weapons. These charges got so big that only fast ships (usually destroyers at full steam) could use the bigger charges.

A nuclear depth charge cannot be safely delivered this way. The only reliable delivery mechanism would be a missile (or aircraft). Lookup ASROC and SUBROC.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. I was actually aboard (for a short time) an old WWII destroyer that had been retrofitted with ASROC. Even assuming the ASROC might drop the nuclear device 10-12 miles away from the ship, that's still way too close for my comfort! 😀
 
maddogchen said:
having to travel 6000 miles underwater, it'll probably hit a whale and detonate in the middle of the ocean.
Click to expand...

Uhhh... they're to be launched from submarines, so won't have to travel nearly that far. They have much greater range than nuclear armed torpedoes, so the sub can launch them from a distance that keeps it safe from detection.
 
Carson Dyle said:
Uhhh... they're to be launched from submarines, so won't have to travel nearly that far. They have much greater range than nuclear armed torpedoes, so the sub can launch them from a distance that keeps it safe from detection.
Click to expand...


Yeah a distance that keeps it safe from detection....like 6000 miles away...
 
Russian state controlled TV station reports a pie in the sky story and official state newspaper follows up on it. It's pure propaganda, and pure BS. Russians love hearing the government tell them how wonderful things are going to be just around the corner, and they love hearing the government tell them how they are going to show America.
I heard it said that Russia has one foot in the past, one foot in the future, and is taking a dump on its present.
 
They should nickname this thing Putin's Penis because he wants to shove it right up America's ass.

Does that make Putin gay, or at least bisexual? Maybe he simply has an anal sex fetish?
 
Maybe I'm missing something here. It's a freaking drone torpedo/submarine. Doesn't exactly strike me as something too horribly advanced, unless you want to argue the purported speed or weight of its payload.

The scariest weapons are not typically those that are the most advanced technologically, but those that are cheap, plentiful and easily deployed.
 
Looks a little big. The antagonist in the novel Snowcrash had one mounted in a motorcycle side car and had the detonator wirelessly hooked up to his EKG. If anyone ever killed him it detonated.
 
SunnyD said:
The point isn't to destroy actual US military assets... it's to damage US economic assets. I could see them detonating this over prime US fisheries and in US offshore oil areas rendering those areas completely useless for centuries to come. Cutting off local seafood would be huge and local oil impact, especially if Russia were to manage to cut us off from foreign oil would be devastating.
Click to expand...

Lol, not if the US is the net positive oil exporter. Fool.
 
Carson Dyle said:
Maybe I'm missing something here. It's a freaking drone torpedo/submarine. Doesn't exactly strike me as something too horribly advanced, unless you want to argue the purported speed or weight of its payload.

The scariest weapons are not typically those that are the most advanced technologically, but those that are cheap, plentiful and easily deployed.
Click to expand...
You mean like illegal immigrants? Damn I'm on a roll.
 
twinrider1 said:
Putin's foreign policy is so hamfisted. I'm amazed it plays well to his people.
Click to expand...

The thing is, it doesn't.

He has been less popular at home than Dubya was here for most of his tenure. And that is...fucking awful.

Recall that his most recent fraudulent reelection teetered on the brink of a mini coup because the people were so angry.
 
NetWareHead said:
Nuclear depth bombs in no way resemble conventional depth bombs and require a completely different delivery system. Whereas in WW1 & WW2, you could roll them off racks from the side of a destroyer. As the war progressed and depth charges got bigger to be more effective against deeper diving and faster subs, there was a danger that the delivering ship would be sunk/damaged by its own weapons. These charges got so big that only fast ships (usually destroyers at full steam) could use the bigger charges.

A nuclear depth charge cannot be safely delivered this way. The only reliable delivery mechanism would be a missile (or aircraft). Lookup ASROC and SUBROC.
Click to expand...

The German navy basically had 2 types of subs in WW2, the type 7 and the longer-range type 9 (this was used off the US east coast with great success for the first 6 months in '42). There was the type 21 was very advanced but only 3-4 were deemed seaworthy very late in the war, it could sustain 18 knots submerged compared to the 7-8 knots of the 7 or 9. The anti-submarine effort yielded the "hedgehog", a front-throwing launching system of up to 24 "spigot-mortars" which would only detonate on contact but even one hit would breach the pressure-hull or damage the sub so badly it had to surface. Any US naval destroyer had ample speed to deploy traditional depth-charges, the real breakthrough was smaller radar sets that could be installed on airplanes. When this happened it was bad news to be on a U-boat, they could no longer rely on the cover of darkness to surface and re-charge their batteries. 75% of the U-boat crews never returned.
 
BrunoPuntzJones said:
6200 mile range at 115mph?

Nope.
Click to expand...

Agree, only a nuclear power-plant would be even remotely possible of offering this level of performance. There is no battery that could supply the kind of energy needed to propel a mini-sub design for that long and that fast. We don't even have any torpedoes (which are much better at going through water) that can attain that speed.
 
Another news story I've read repeats the 6200 mile range, but claims a more realistic 56 knot speed.

One of these things launched at New York City wouldn't be coming from freaking South Africa, it would be launched from the North Atlantic, maybe 1500 to 2000 miles.
 
Jaepheth said:
It's kind of clever; if the delivery system never leaves the water most anti-ballistic systems wouldn't be able to engage it (I assume). Could we detect and intercept such a device?
Click to expand...

I'd build a giant wooden badger to counter the giant torpedo. It could do everything the torpedo could do, TIMES 100
 
Last edited:
Carson Dyle said:
Another news story I've read repeats the 6200 mile range, but claims a more realistic 56 knot speed.

One of these things launched at New York City wouldn't be coming from freaking South Africa, it would be launched from the North Atlantic, maybe 1500 to 2000 miles.
Click to expand...

The torpedo? No. Not even close.
The drone sub possibly....but it would need to have a high level of automation

If they list 6000+ range then they are talking about the the entire weapons system.
Drone sub plus penis water bomb kaplowerpooey
 
pauldun170 said:
The torpedo? No. Not even close.
The drone sub possibly....but it would need to have a high level of automation

If they list 6000+ range then they are talking about the the entire weapons system.
Drone sub plus penis water bomb kaplowerpooey
Click to expand...

Pay attention. What are we talking about? Yes, the drone sub in the OP. Yes, highly automated. It's not a torpedo. Penis what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top