Confirmation of Russian drone torpedo

[Mr Quatro]

You beat me to it oversoul and welcome aboard even though it is 7 years now that you've checked in.

This will definitely change the face of defensive undersea warfare ... the USN will have to defend itself for sure


https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-un...150115496.html

Russia reportedly possesses an underwater nuclear drone that is capable of carrying a 100-megaton nuclear warhead, a leaked draft of the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review has confirmed.

The weapon is referred to as an autonomous underwater vehicle or ‘AUV’ and features in a chart that offers a comprehensive look at the multitude of nuclear delivery vehicles that are used by Russia.

Specifically, it was claimed that the drone is officially known as Ocean Multipurpose System Status-6 and was first tested in November 2016.

It is reportedly capable of travelling a top distance of 6,200 miles, and boasts a top speed in excess of 56 knots, along with the ability to descend to depths of 3,280 feet below sea level.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

You beat me to it oversoul and welcome aboard even though it is 7 years now that you've checked in.

This will definitely change the face of defensive undersea warfare ... the USN will have to defend itself for sure


https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-un...150115496.html

also listed on the front page of subsim with images too

https://www.defensenews.com/space/20...osture-review/

[ikalugin]

The NPR draft has a number of, ehem, questionable bits.

[Agiel7]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

This will definitely change the face of defensive undersea warfare ... the USN will have to defend itself for sure


https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-un...150115496.html

I'm not actually fully convinced this is something Russia is seriously pursuing (well, if they are probably with the same energy the US is researching lasers on an F-35; they're looking at it, but not holding their breaths that it will lead to something operationally deployed). There seems to be too many ways in which it is redundant in light of the Russia's current and future strategic forces that such a thing doesn't do anything land-based and sub-launched missiles don't do just as well, and for what the US is willing to spend they're never going to get ABM to the level that it will meaningfully make a dent on an all-out attack on CONUS, which is the project's seeming raison d'etre.

[Gerald]