Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🚨Putin: Russia is finalizing Poseidon nuclear underwater vehicle for service entry Operating at depths over 1 km, speeds up to 70 knots, and carrying a 2-megaton warhead with unlimited range from its nuclear power plant, Poseidon has no global equal and cannot be intercepted.

21,835 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

OCEANIC SHIELD: RUSSIA'S DOOMSDAY TORPEDO CARRIER NEARS COMPLETION Russia's Khabarovsk submarine, launched in November 2025, is currently completing fitting out and mooring tests at Sevmash shipyard, with sea trials expected later in 2026 and commissioning by year's end. It's a nuclear-powered special-purpose vessel built for one mission: to carry and deploy Poseidon (Status-6) nuclear torpedoes. What is Poseidon? 🔸A nuclear-powered, autonomous underwater torpedo 🔸Estimated range: up to 6,200 miles, intercontinental 🔸Capable of carrying a 2-megaton nuclear warhead, 100x more destructive than the Hiroshima bomb 🔸Runs at depths and speeds that make interception near impossible Putin confirmed its successful test in October 2025, calling it "a huge success" and saying "there is nothing like this." Khabarovsk, Poseidon's carrier: 🔸Nuclear-powered special-purpose submarine, launched November 2025 🔸Designed to carry up to 6 Poseidon torpedoes in specialized side-mounted launch hangars 🔸Powered by a single OK-650V nuclear reactor Operates from protected bastion zones near Russian coastlines, while Poseidon autonomously travels to its target 🔸No countermeasure exists to intercept it Poseidon is Moscow's direct hedge against U.S. missile defense, precision-strike capabilities, and low-yield nuclear systems that Russia views as a threat to strategic stability. Integrated with the Perimeter dead-hand system, Poseidon guarantees retaliation even if Russia's nuclear command and control is destroyed. Russia's plan, according to the U.S. Naval Institute, calls for 30 Poseidons on 4 submarines, with torpedoes in the Atlantic and Pacific capable of autonomously striking U.S. port cities, far beyond the effective reach of any American torpedo. The U.S. has no standoff weapon to intercept Poseidon.

DD Geopolitics

17,640 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

More Batteries vs. Submarines Now that the German TKMS and the French Naval Group have massively adopted lithium-ion batteries, following the Japanese lead, this is consolidating as a major trend, just as I had predicted. The next stage will be solid-state batteries, and at that point, we'll essentially be discussing only speed and submerged endurance in comparison to nuclear submarines. Since solid-state batteries are lighter, they will allow for a greater number to be installed, freeing up space for more powerful propulsion systems. Naval Group has already sold a version of the Scorpène to Indonesia capable of remaining submerged for up to 80 days. That's with lithium-ion batteries. Imagine what this could exceed, more than double, with solid-state batteries. In practical terms, a more powerful engine combined with solid-state batteries in the proportions that Naval Group is now using in the Scorpène would provide three times the speed, meaning something like 10–15 knots at constant speed while maintaining around 50 days submerged. This would give a range of 40,000–50,000 km, requiring less than one hour on the surface for a fast recharge. For speeds above 25 knots, simply adding more batteries and a better engine would suffice, as the solid-state system has high power output. All this at 15–20% of the cost of a nuclear submarine. And if the choice is to power the batteries with a micro-reactor, it would cost 25–35% of a conventional nuclear one. Then someone will say: “But a nuclear sub can stay submerged for years.” That makes no difference at all, since even with around 60 days of endurance, the crew still needs to surface to resupply provisions. The big advantages remain: battery-powered subs are superior in silence, and speed can be addressed with larger battery packs.

Patricia Marins

103,224 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

On the Oreshnik and the eternal question about the warhead There is a particular type of commentator who, after every Oreshnik strike, routinely asks the same question. Was there even a warhead in it this time? The question is meant to suggest that the weapon, without a classical explosive payload, is somehow fake or less dangerous. What it really reveals is that the person asking does not understand how the system works. A conventional ballistic missile carries explosives or a nuclear warhead. The destruction comes from the detonation at the target. The missile is essentially the delivery service. The Oreshnik works differently. It is an intermediate-range missile (range around 5000 kilometers) carrying multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV). These reentry vehicles enter the atmosphere at roughly Mach 10 to Mach 12, with Russian sources claiming higher in some cases. That works out to 3 to 3.5 kilometers per second on terminal approach. This is where the physics comes in. Kinetic energy is calculated as E = 0.5 times mass times velocity squared. Velocity enters the equation as a square. A reentry vehicle of a few hundred kilograms, on impact alone, releases energy in the range of several tons of TNT equivalent. With multiple submunitions per missile, that adds up. A tungsten or steel core entering the ground at this speed produces temperatures of several thousand degrees through friction and compression shock. Bunkers and hardened installations are not destroyed by an explosion, they are destroyed by the sheer force and heat of the impact itself. The technical term is kinetic penetration. Now to the actual answer for the warhead-askers. Yes, the Oreshnik is nuclear-capable. This was part of the design from the start, not a retrofit, but a built-in configuration option. Russian officials have stated this openly. The carrier is there. The only question is what it carries. But that is exactly the point the warhead-asker skips over. The whole point of the Oreshnik is that even in its conventional configuration it achieves an effect that previously required nuclear weapons against hardened targets. To destroy an underground command bunker, historically you needed a small tactical nuclear weapon. Today a reentry vehicle at Mach 10 with a few hundred kilograms of mass is enough. No radioactive fallout, no crossing of the nuclear threshold, no political price attached to a nuclear use. In a strike on a major city, the nuclear configuration would, in this conflict, almost certainly not be deployed. Not because it does not exist, but because it is neither necessary nor politically tenable for that purpose. The conventional version is sufficient to send a message without crossing the threshold above which entirely different chains of escalation are set in motion. In short. The question "was there a warhead in it?" misses the point. The Oreshnik does not need a large warhead, because its velocity is the weapon. It can carry a nuclear warhead, at any time. It just does not do so in the current conflict, because it does not have to.

Zlatti71

36,467 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce