New Russian Sub.... tsunami causing torpedos...
Discussion
Will this suffer some mysterious accident shortly...?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6958611/R...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6958611/R...
The wikipedia page for the torpedo mentioned is hilarious: Poseidon Super Ultra Mega Weapon
Rarely do you see something so obviously created by a Russian troll farm.
Rarely do you see something so obviously created by a Russian troll farm.
Surely a toy with more fear factor than actual tactical use?
I'd personally much much rather try my chances on the receiving end of a big wave than a nuke landing on my city. OK maybe it's just PR and the actual use is to take out a battle group from a distance - but in the event of a nuclear war I'd be more bothered about nuclear subs and launch sites than e.g making San Fran a bit moist. If they ever did launch then then it is nuclear war and therefore even if they sunk the Nimitz and it's escorts that would be kind of going all in to win 50 quid, in the grand scheme of things.
I'd personally much much rather try my chances on the receiving end of a big wave than a nuke landing on my city. OK maybe it's just PR and the actual use is to take out a battle group from a distance - but in the event of a nuclear war I'd be more bothered about nuclear subs and launch sites than e.g making San Fran a bit moist. If they ever did launch then then it is nuclear war and therefore even if they sunk the Nimitz and it's escorts that would be kind of going all in to win 50 quid, in the grand scheme of things.
Interesting boat...but why build something with so many attachments after all these machines are all about stealth and silence this thing will sound like throwing a tin plate bucket down a set of stairs, I suppose they had to go with prop's as trying to design a twin propulsor set-up would be difficult, twin reactor plant I take it one for each shaft.
The whole tsunami thing is utter b
ks.
Seawater is really good at attenuation of radiation, (and there's rather a lot of it available to dilute fission products.).
The tsunami generation - well a lot depends on the immediate off shore geology and the megatonnage of the warhead.
The physical size of these torpedoes makes me seriously doubt they are more than two or three megs, although I've seen, elsewhere in the press a quoted figure of 200 Mt.
200 Mt. might be enough to cause a tidal wave, but it's beyond any known weapon design. Even nukes suffer from the law of diminishing returns.
I know a little bit about the physics of underwater perturbations, (I'm a retired oil industry engineer who studied and used seismic data for quite a while), and unless the the geology, such as rapidly narrowing fjord like conditions are present, 3-5 Mt. won't do very much.
I think the iodine in seawater has a great effect on attenuating radiation as well.
For what it's worth, the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami released around nine and a half thousand gigatonnes of energy, more than 500 miliion hiroshima bombs.
And that wasn't even the largest recent event, geologically speaking. It certainly puts it into context when people wail about current nuclear arsenals being enough to 'destroy the earth several times over'.
For some context, (lecturing now), the chicxulub impactor, which might have buggered the dinosaurs, was billions of megatonnes, perhaps greater than 500 billion megatonnes.
The earth abides.
Interestingly, that impact killed off around 70% of the species on earth, and we possibly wouldn't be here without it.
If such statistics horrify you, it's best not to contemplate the other mass extinction events the Earth has enjoyed.
Most, if not all, of these have been climate led.
The Permian–Triassic extinction event killed off almost everything.
Basically every land animal died, (mainly insects, but they were horrid bitey things, and those beautiful ammonites suffered as well.
Sorry for being long winded.
ks.Seawater is really good at attenuation of radiation, (and there's rather a lot of it available to dilute fission products.).
The tsunami generation - well a lot depends on the immediate off shore geology and the megatonnage of the warhead.
The physical size of these torpedoes makes me seriously doubt they are more than two or three megs, although I've seen, elsewhere in the press a quoted figure of 200 Mt.
200 Mt. might be enough to cause a tidal wave, but it's beyond any known weapon design. Even nukes suffer from the law of diminishing returns.
I know a little bit about the physics of underwater perturbations, (I'm a retired oil industry engineer who studied and used seismic data for quite a while), and unless the the geology, such as rapidly narrowing fjord like conditions are present, 3-5 Mt. won't do very much.
I think the iodine in seawater has a great effect on attenuating radiation as well.
For what it's worth, the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami released around nine and a half thousand gigatonnes of energy, more than 500 miliion hiroshima bombs.
And that wasn't even the largest recent event, geologically speaking. It certainly puts it into context when people wail about current nuclear arsenals being enough to 'destroy the earth several times over'.
For some context, (lecturing now), the chicxulub impactor, which might have buggered the dinosaurs, was billions of megatonnes, perhaps greater than 500 billion megatonnes.
The earth abides.
Interestingly, that impact killed off around 70% of the species on earth, and we possibly wouldn't be here without it.
If such statistics horrify you, it's best not to contemplate the other mass extinction events the Earth has enjoyed.
Most, if not all, of these have been climate led.
The Permian–Triassic extinction event killed off almost everything.
Basically every land animal died, (mainly insects, but they were horrid bitey things, and those beautiful ammonites suffered as well.
Sorry for being long winded.
Mr. Jimmy said:
And that wasn't even the largest recent event, geologically speaking. It certainly puts it into context when people wail about current nuclear arsenals being enough to 'destroy the earth several times over'.
For some context, (lecturing now), the chicxulub impactor, which might have buggered the dinosaurs, was billions of megatonnes, perhaps greater than 500 billion megatonnes.
The earth abides.
Interestingly, that impact killed off around 70% of the species on earth, and we possibly wouldn't be here without it.
If such statistics horrify you, it's best not to contemplate the other mass extinction events the Earth has enjoyed.
Most, if not all, of these have been climate led.
The Permian–Triassic extinction event killed off almost everything.
Basically every land animal died, (mainly insects, but they were horrid bitey things, and those beautiful ammonites suffered as well.
Sorry for being long winded.
A bit off topic, but I'm glad that I'm not the only one who realises this. The whole nuclear/green movement apocalyptic stuff thrown around is so human-centric. The Earth has been through far worse than we could ever do to it. Life goes on (though admittedly maybe not for us), and on a geological timescale everything is recyclable.For some context, (lecturing now), the chicxulub impactor, which might have buggered the dinosaurs, was billions of megatonnes, perhaps greater than 500 billion megatonnes.
The earth abides.
Interestingly, that impact killed off around 70% of the species on earth, and we possibly wouldn't be here without it.
If such statistics horrify you, it's best not to contemplate the other mass extinction events the Earth has enjoyed.
Most, if not all, of these have been climate led.
The Permian–Triassic extinction event killed off almost everything.
Basically every land animal died, (mainly insects, but they were horrid bitey things, and those beautiful ammonites suffered as well.
Sorry for being long winded.
LimaDelta said:
A bit off topic, but I'm glad that I'm not the only one who realises this. The whole nuclear/green movement apocalyptic stuff thrown around is so human-centric. The Earth has been through far worse than we could ever do to it. Life goes on (though admittedly maybe not for us), and on a geological timescale everything is recyclable.
It's not just human-centric, more mammal-centric in many cases, but they do have a small point. Not even the worst-case projections for global warming could cause significant food shortages, famine and hundreds of millions of deaths... That said, they like a good bluster, which spoils it just as much as saying too little.
Errr. An external nuclear reactor? That'll be a stealthy as me getting back from the pub and trying not to wake the Mrs...
This thing has all the engineering elegance of a kick in the pods. I suspect the fact the crew report to Putin directly is that he's the one who has set the specs and told them to build it. It is the sub equivalent of this
This thing has all the engineering elegance of a kick in the pods. I suspect the fact the crew report to Putin directly is that he's the one who has set the specs and told them to build it. It is the sub equivalent of this
IforB said:
Errr. An external nuclear reactor? That'll be a stealthy as me getting back from the pub and trying not to wake the Mrs...
This thing has all the engineering elegance of a kick in the pods. I suspect the fact the crew report to Putin directly is that he's the one who has set the specs and told them to build it. It is the sub equivalent of this
The NR1 mini nuclear submarine relied on seawater to shield the crew from harmful radiation instead of a thick lead bulkhead. When the reactor was powered up nobody was allowed in the water aft of a certain point.This thing has all the engineering elegance of a kick in the pods. I suspect the fact the crew report to Putin directly is that he's the one who has set the specs and told them to build it. It is the sub equivalent of this
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Waters-Americas-Secr...
IforB said:
Errr. An external nuclear reactor? That'll be a stealthy as me getting back from the pub and trying not to wake the Mrs...
This thing has all the engineering elegance of a kick in the pods. I suspect the fact the crew report to Putin directly is that he's the one who has set the specs and told them to build it. It is the sub equivalent of this
The external nuke isnt there to power the sub, its an accessory the sub can carry. This thing has all the engineering elegance of a kick in the pods. I suspect the fact the crew report to Putin directly is that he's the one who has set the specs and told them to build it. It is the sub equivalent of this
Russia is building a new network of undersea sensors, and the small nuke is going to be carried by this sub to where it is needed and dropped on the sea floor, which will then power the underwater sensor array. The mounting point can then be used for something else if required, or removed completely.
The sub is more of a special purpose intelligence machine than a hunter killer or ballistic missile sub.
EDIT - for anyone interested, who wants more/better info than a Daily Wail link try these;
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-shi...
Harmony undersea array -
http://www.hisutton.com/Spy%20Subs%20-Project%2009... (Hi Sutton is pretty well regarded)
Edited by Condi on Saturday 27th April 11:55
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff