Talk:Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System

General Quality
I second the below comment. This system is depicted as having exaggerated range, speed, stealth, and destructive capabilities. Some articles mention Cobalt seeding. While any one of these characteristics or capability might be true, there aren't facts to back up any of the technical assertions. -taamvan

This is probably one of the worst wiki articles I've ever read. This article reads as if Russia Today published it. Half of the articles are exaggerated speculations lacking proper references, especially the "Design" section. The image "Estimated diameter of the Poseidon" is rediculous in quality as well as assumptions on the matter. Referenced articles are entirely in Russian. When I use a translator to translate them it turns out they are opinion articles and/ or purely speculative, while those speculations are presented as facts in this wiki article. Why should this weapon system carry a nuclear warhead equivalent to 100 Megaton TNT? Why are there images of nukemap depicting what would happen if a 100 Megaton nuke hit NYC with this or that wind directions? This is not specific to this weapon system but to any 100 Megaton TNT nuclear warhead deployed from any system, which anyway does not exist (anymore) to date. The calculation that this weapon system could carry a 100 megaton nuke is based on its size in comaprision to the Tsar bomb, which neglects that Poseidon torpedoes are also equipped with a nuclear propulsion sytsem among other devices. I'm sorry, maybe it's just me, but to me this whole article reads like Russian scare propaganda. This is not why I came to wikipedia. And I also thing this is of utmost importance since such articles erode the trust in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:6020:17EC:FC00:1065:DD25:3558:3859 (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC": From Vladimir Putin:  From Nuclear torpedo: Russia reveals giant nuclear torpedo in state TV 'leak' - BBC News 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Status6-2015.png
I have removed this image from the article because it is entirely in Russian without any English translation or description. It is therefore not useful for the reader of the English Wikipedia. If someone would like to add an English caption to explain the image, or translate some of the image's text, and then add it back into the article, that would be great. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Washington Free Beacon Citations
The Washington Free Beacon is repeatedly used as a reference for this article. Does this publication meet the criteria for being a  reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobyroo (talk • contribs) 04:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In regard to political commentary, it should probably be only used with care because of its biases, but for the way that it is used here to describe essentially uncontroversial facts, I don't see a problem. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article would be better quality if we didn't directly use the Washington Free Beacon as a direct source. Newsweek and Popular Mechanics cite the Beacon's info from unnamed "Pentagon officials"; the Beacon isn't anyone's first choice to leak to, and suggests that maybe outlets like the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times didn't or wouldn't have considered them credible. Newsweek and Popular Mechanics aren't A+ sources, but I have no objections to keep the hearsay in the article, as long as it's attributed in-text to the Beacon and sourced to Newsweek or Popular Mechanics. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Reaction section addition sourced to Gregg Herken
I added a somewhat contrary-view addition to the Reaction section, which was reverted on the reasonable grounds that the source was not WP:RS (I might add: as are quite a few of the other cites in this article). My addition is on the basis of WP:RS "acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." I contend Gregg Herken is an expert: senior Historian and Curator and chairman of the Department of Space History at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, taught at Yale and Caltech, author of four books on nuclear weapons (one finalist for the 2003 Los Angeles Times Book Prize in History). I think he is an easily credible expert for using a self-published source in the rather minor Reaction section. Also armscontrolwonk.com is a blog by experts in the field, though it might be little known, and the Gregg Herken item is introduced by Jeffrey Lewis (academic) who is notable enough to have a WP article. I'll re-insert it if there are no objections. Rwendland (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to stipulate he's an expert. WP:RS states "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications". WP:USESPS (though not a policy) adds "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." I've always interpreted "may sometimes be acceptable" as "has a significantly higher bar for inclusion than non-self-published material". Given that every expert in the world has an opinion about every alleged weapon development in the world, IMHO its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. If you like you or I can ask WP:RS to add or link to some examples of appropriate use of expert self-published material to clarify the issue; I didn't have any luck with asking a related questions about newsblogs but maybe I can try again. As far as other dubious sources on the article, feel free to nuke or tag them. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Rename article to "Poseidon (underwater drone)"
Russian MoD revealed the official name that had won the public vote: Poseidon. For disambiguation, I suggest we use "underwater drone". It's not really a "torpedo" because it is using a sonar to travel along the bottom of the sea and is capable of autonomous operation for significant periods of time. 46.242.8.24 (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Jane's calls it a "nuclear-armed and powered torpedo". Are there WP:RS calling it an underwater drone? If not, it seems to me Poseidon (torpedo) would be a better way to disambiguate it; I don't see anything in the definition of the word "torpedo" that prevents it from being autonomous. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a tough call. In Russian media, I've heard it being called "intercontinental nuclear torpedo" or "intercontinental autonomous nuclear torpedo". I guess a "drone" is something that would return to the home base after completing its mission. While a torpedo, being an "underwater missile", has a one-time use of delivering its payload to the target. Poseidon, having a long-lasting source of power, communication capabilities, and allegedly a stand-by capability, does not completely fit into the "underwater missile" definition. For example, one of its usage scenarios is waiting in low-power mode in an underwater crevice near the coast of an adversary for months or even years, then launching on command. Would you really call that a "torpedo"? It also has enough power and navigation capabilities to return to the home base. If I remember correctly, during the sea trials it did exactly that, i.e. it was launched from a port and then returned back. In my opinion, it is thus closer to a hypothetical Predator drone with a built-in nuclear warhead, or a hypothetical X-37B orbital drone with a built-in nuclear warhead, which could spend a long time in the air/space before returning to its home base or attacking an adversary. So, while Poseidon does have the torpedo form-factor and its simplest use-case is as a torpedo, it's more than that. Hence my proposal to call it an "underwater drone". But I'm not against "torpedo". If people prefer "torpedo", so be it. 46.242.8.24 (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the RS appears to call it a torpedo. Googling for exceptions, Newsweek recently calls it an "underwater drone" and 'a "doomsday" torpedo-bearing unmanned underwater vehicle' . Newsweek isn't an extremely reliable source; do stronger sources agree that the Poseidon can likely launch a massive doomsday warhead as a torpedo, rather than just detonate it? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Kan'on is a torpedo .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.30.117 (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"Design" speculation
I've reverted what appears to me to be unreferenced speculation about the working of the Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System. The actual workings of system this are presumably a closely-guarded Russian state secret; for this reason, sourcing for design details needs to be impeccable. If anyone wants to re-add this material, please discuss it here first. -- The Anome (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Size of the warhead
The final part of Operation needs some improvement, I feel. No citations are given for the physical size of the warhead, nor the source for the "early reports". Also, the given volume is one-fourth that given for the Tsar Bomba; assuming similar configuration, that would indicate a yield of at most one-fourth of the Tsar Bomba's. As the thing would have to be contained within a pressure vessel, the available volume is probably smaller than the external dimensions suggest, giving an even smaller yield.

TLDR: No citations and ungrounded speculation on the yield of the device. NelC (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * up to 50 Mt or more (100 or beyond still on table ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.30.117 (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party, but using Tsar Bomb as a basis to claim the yield is wrong is grossly misinformed. Tsar Bomb was an early 1960s weapon made by the runner up power and quite literally slapped together in a few weeks. The US nuclear weapons establishment let out a massive sigh of relief when they first saw pictures of it and realised the Soviets had not made any technological breakthroughs in the design but had instead just scaled their existing weapon designs up. Tsar bomb weighed 27,000kg and had a yield of 50Mt, giving it a measly 2Mt/tonne weight efficiency or 4Mt/tonne in its dirty configuration. Meanwhile in the same era the US achieved 1.2Mt in a 270kg weapon or 5.1 Mt/tonne (W56, the current record holder for a tested weapon) while their larger weapons (never tested at full yield) were estimated to get 25Mt in a 4850kg weapon or 5.2Mt/tonne (B41). You then have to remember the B41 includes laydown hardware like a honeycomb shell and a massive parachute which (estimated from the similarly sized B53) probably shaves another 1000kg off, putting it more in the range of 6.5Mt/tonne.

This is well within Russia's technological capability given they were putting 25Mt warheads on the SS-18 only a decade ago. A 25Mt B41 bomb with all its lay-down hardware would easily fit inside the dimensions given. Weapon weight is roughly representative of weapon size.

If you want to criticise this weapon, criticise it for the fact it's perfectly crafted to be a meme weapons and that the article includes zero citations from peer reviewed analyses.Kylesenior (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The point remains that we should delete unsourced or weakly-sourced material, and even for strong sources we should attribute their estimates when they are openly speculating. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

specifics

 * == Design ==
 * === Development ===
 * === Development ===


 * Propulsion
 * nuclear engine, steam turbine can be involved , nozzle (propellers) or pumpjet can be added and possible collegated to the complex , a turbogenerator linked to the turbine can generate electricity usable to the whole apparatus
 * a insight into it (but ameno keps deletn it :/ )

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.30.117 (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

One source?
Hi the paragraph from However the actual height of a tsunami created by such a weapon is likely to be significantly less than claimed even under the most optimal conditions. until 9,320,000 megatons (MT) of energy which is 5 orders of magnitude greater than the largest possible yields estimated for the Poseidon and created a tsunami wave up to 40.5 metres (133 ft) tall. Is only sourced by one source which is business insider and it looks like an opinion by someone who isn't that notable. I tried searching for other reliable sources that give similar claims and I couldn't find any. I guess it should be deleted. imagine writing every opinion of every person who has little notability in the science field. Also I have seen somewhere in Wikipedia that claims that business insider is not reliable and if it's used it should supported by a secondary source. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the whole reference to Tohoku earthquake, or just earthquakes in general, in this context is just plain irrelevant. Tohoku earthquake released aforementioned amount of energy 29km inside the earth crust. Obviously if one somehow manages to dig a 29 km shaft and detonates a 100 MT weapon that far underground it will barely cause a seismograph needle to twitch, but how does this relate? This paragraph should just be removed. Vasiliy Fofanov (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Clean up, garbage sources and poor English skills
I just went ahead and cleaned up this article of crappy sources, unsourced statements, original research and statements not supported by the sources etc. I also cleaned up some of the terrible English skills displayed here (though a lot more work is needed!).

Start using reputable source for now on. If you don't, I will just come back and deleted it again. Kylesenior (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Poseidon-Akademik-Aleksandrov.png

External video
Is that an official YouTube channel for the branch of the Russian military responsible for these? It looks fake to me. - Scarpy (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)