Is there a future for “classic” submarines given the active development of underwater drones?

In recent years, underwater unmanned vehicles have rapidly moved from the realm of science fiction into the realm of real-life use. As a result, their development and implementation are forcing analysts, military experts, and representatives of the shipbuilding industry to rethink the very concept of classic submarines.

The question of the future of non-nuclear submarines, which until recently seemed like indispensable tools for coastal defense and reconnaissance, is especially acute today.

Underwater drones are becoming more autonomous, intelligent and deadly every year. Technological advances in energy efficiency, navigation systems and artificial intelligence have already enabled a number of countries to field models capable of performing combat missions without a crew.

Vehicles such as Boeing's American Orca, Russia's Poseidon, and Britain's Cetus demonstrate that autonomous underwater platforms can not only conduct reconnaissance, but also engage large targets, including submarines.

The example of Orca, developed for the US Navy, shows how serious the competition between unmanned and manned platforms is becoming. The device has an impressive cruising range, is capable of carrying a payload of various purposes and operating autonomously for weeks. In essence, it is an underwater hunter, devoid of the vulnerability of the human factor.

In turn, the Russian Poseidon is a separate story. This new generation nuclear torpedo has strategic significance, is capable of traveling vast distances and carrying a thermonuclear charge. Its main goal is to undermine the concept of protection of traditional naval bases and strike groups.

It is worth noting that the cost of such drones, despite the high-tech filling, remains tens of times lower than the price of a "classic" non-nuclear submarine. Operation and maintenance of drones also require fewer resources, since there is no crew, and the design does not need such complex life support and protection systems. But frankly cheap drones are also being developed, a group of which can bring submarines, to put it mildly, trouble, including at bases.

At the same time, the issue is not limited to money. Drones are changing the very principles of underwater warfare. If previously the main advantage of a submarine was its stealth and ability to stay at sea for a long time, now these qualities become vulnerable if the enemy has a flotilla of cheap, but smart and deadly underwater hunters. In such conditions, the submarine, as a carrier of human resources and a high-cost platform, loses its dominant position.

However, it is too early to write off classic submarines completely. They remain platforms with a much greater carrying capacity, capable of carrying torpedoes, missiles, special forces and perform multi-tasking missions. But the trend is clear: coastal operations, reconnaissance, hunting for enemy boats and mines will gradually be dominated by unmanned systems.

However, the foreseeable future most likely belongs to hybrid concepts, where underwater drones operate together with manned platforms, creating a single system of control over underwater space. But the role of non-nuclear submarines in this new equation is no longer unconditional. They will increasingly give way to cheaper, less vulnerable and more numerous unmanned underwater vehicles.

Comments

[Vladimir_Borisovich]

There will be no place for conventional submarines in the future. Diesel and all types, air-dependent and air-independent, will be the first to go. Large nuclear submarines will serve for another 50 years, but no more. I see a new concept: large carriers carrying 5-8 small devices with different specializations on board.

[newtc7]

On what basis did you draw this conclusion, have you even observed the SVO? In 3 years we have not lost a single submarine and a bunch of surface ships. The conclusion is simple to the point of impossibility: submarines (for money) - yes, ships - for now.

[hostel]

The conclusion is based on the analysis of data on submarine detection and identification methods. In addition, I would add to the title of the article "Do Russian submarines have a future?" It is quite obvious that for NATO countries, submarines of any type are relevant.

[Knell wardenheart]

The question of the survival of something large in modern major conflicts is a very acute question, I would say. If we judge by "Moscow" or by the overcoming of modern missile defense systems by the same hypersonic missiles, then skepticism, skepticism...
The question of introducing these submarines into service already during the war and their repair is also very, very doubtful, taking into account the accuracy and potential power of the impacts. Small autonomous devices, provided that their autonomy increases, have great prospects, but in general, of course, both will directly rest on industrial and economic power, as well as scientific power (which will also depend on industry and economics).

[ser580]

I am a former senior officer of the air defense complex of the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov No. 4 - I have 48 missiles in my drums - it is easy to fight off a cruise missile or UAV attack +- 30-40 pieces from one direction at 90 degrees. Why the Moscow sank - I do not know - but definitely not from cruise missiles and UAVs.

[Knell wardenheart]

No, I'm not even talking about the danger of cruise missiles or UAVs now, but about the fact that in principle now ships are not the battleship "Yamato", one hit by something heavy can be enough, it is impossible to exclude this hit within acceptable limits because every day new means and methods appear - yesterday it was BEKs, today it is BEKs with UAVs, tomorrow it will be some underwater vehicles or stealth drones with anti-ship missiles - I have no idea where the technical thought will go there, but for me it is obvious that in order to hit a large target, a "cabinet", the enemy will be as sophisticated as possible, it will not be possible to hide a large target, it will not be possible to protect it from a well-thought-out large-scale attack either. Such layouts were still in the days of the "Tirpitz", but now everything has only worsened due to satellite reconnaissance, guidance systems, a variety of weapons, and so on.

By betting on a "big one" whose construction, completion, or even repair, in the conditions of a real major conflict will probably not be possible, we risk ending up in the situation of Iran, which in the first strike simply lost what was key to defense and much for the offensive, and our options after that will be very limited.

The enemy will definitely organize a large hunt for a large target - it will be worth it. And, given the preparation, the risk that it will be a successful hunt increases. We need ships that will survive a probable and carefully prepared first strike, only having many such carriers can we hope that modeling with many uncertainties will not satisfy the enemy in terms of results, and he will prefer peace to war.

[newtc7]

Blah blah blah blah. Have you seen my argument? What is the point of this empty talk? We have no losses among submarines. A high-tech enemy is waging war against us, it has already churned out countless surface ships and not a single submarine. That's it, I don't see any point in discussing anything further. These could be small autonomous submarines, or giant ones filled with people that carry small autonomous ones, but there are plenty of options and it is obvious that submarines will soon become full-fledged masters of the seas.

[Dutchman Michel]

If I'm not mistaken, the US Navy doesn't have a single diesel-electric submarine. Except for some very specialized ones.

[ser580]

Hmm... why do they need them??? Are they trying to terrorize Mexico?

[Sergey Valov]

"Unmanned aerial vehicles are changing the very principles of underwater warfare" - firstly, unmanned ships, including submarines, have never been piloted. Any underwater vehicles have one drawback that has not yet been overcome - the lack of stable communication with them. Therefore, either the underwater vehicle will be controlled by wires and a priori have a meager range from the operator, or the behavior of the unmanned underwater vehicle will be completely unpredictable. There is a lot of information about torpedoes that have gone off course, some of which managed to hit their own. The situation is greatly aggravated by the fact that the underwater environment has been studied incomparably worse than the air, which sharply aggravates the uncertainty factor in the use of autonomous underwater vehicles. So the presence of a person in a submarine will still be necessary for quite a long time.

[barbos]

Any underwater vehicles have one drawback that has not yet been overcome - the lack of stable communication with them.

Why does an AI-controlled device need communication? Moreover, the AI there will not have to make idiotic videos and answer the same questions. Everything is much simpler. Moreover, in an aquatic environment, you do not need to spend a lot of energy to maintain lift, so such a drone can be at depth for years.

[Andrey_i_K]

Unfortunately, they will soon displace 1 unit of our nuclear triad, WITH A GUARANTEED STRIKE on the USA. And don't be fooled. The rapid development of sensors, batteries and mini nuclear engines will do their disastrous work. That's when the USA will attack Russia.

[ser580]

well, well, well - everyone forgot about the cries about the uncontrollable nuclear contamination of Burevestnik - and everyone will rush to the Russian Federation with their felt boots, yeah

[newtc7]

Unlike surface ships, submarines have a future, and a big one. Their importance will only grow.
Naturally, submarines will be used as carriers of unmanned aerial and underwater vehicles, their size will probably increase, and their ability to destroy various types of weapons approaching the submarine will be maximally enhanced.

[barbos]

Unlike surface ships, submarines have a future and a big one. Their importance will only grow.

Is there much noticeable progress in the growth of immersion depth, speed, autonomy from series to series? On both sides of the ocean, there is mainly talk about the quietness and sensitivity of the locators.
Are our submarines making progress in significantly reducing the number of crew members?
Do you want to ask a question about water trucks?

[Knell wardenheart]

At the moment, the explosive growth of BP systems (including underwater intelligent ones) is held back only by the lack of explosive progress in cheap and powerful batteries (or a conceptual and cheap alternative to them in some form). Other solutions already exist - including "swarm communication" in such environments as underwater between such devices (it will be carried out by low-frequency sounds, like those of whales and dolphins). There will be batteries - the creation of an array of means that will make large submarines a thing of the past will be only a matter of economics and the will of individual states.

[ser580]

Uh... I must have missed something - have they already deciphered the language of dolphins and whales? Or have they invented high-frequency submarine communications - of course, I was a submariner a long time ago - but still haven't heard about breakthroughs in this area?

[Knell wardenheart]

1) Seriously, there are many Chinese, American and even our neural network projects that are absolutely serious about two-way communication. Considering that they really communicate with these sounds - who knows...
2) It is logical to assume that to control a swarm of underwater UAVs, they will use the same methods local communication, as in the case of dolphins-sperm whales, etc. Simply due to the lack of other methods, although I, of course, have heard about some crazy developments "sort of" allowing the use of radio waves in the water column. The choice, in general, is really small - sound propagates well in water, so either a thin-section fiber optic cable, or sound.
In the case of using a swarm, there is no need to transmit large volumes of information, since each unit of the swarm is, in principle, relatively autonomous; communication in any form would serve only as a means of adjustment-distribution-target detection.
We are not talking about submarines here - they communicated with them using monstrous antennas like "Goliath" on ultra-low frequencies, and so far as I know, they communicate. We are talking about coordination for reconnaissance in force or attack of a group of underwater autonomous vehicles, which are somehow delivered to the area of the supposed location of the target.
According to the principle - an airplane flew by - dropped a package of autonomous devices - they dispersed around the area and, depending on the design, engaged in either tactical waiting or active targeted search - if a target is detected, intra-swarm communication takes place and one of the devices emerges and transmits a radio contact signal, while the others act depending on the equipment and the nature of the task.
I don't see any fantasy in this at all - this is the future, and quite close at that. At the moment, only progress in batteries and/or autonomous charging means is holding it back.

[ser580]

well, that is, there is no breakthrough yet - phew, otherwise I just thought, holy shit, how old and stupid I am.

[barbos]

Uh... I probably missed something - have they already deciphered the language of dolphins and whales?

Why do you need it?

Or did they invent high-frequency submarine communications - I was a submariner for a long time, of course - but I still haven’t heard about breakthroughs in this area?

Since then, have there been any physical limitations on the transmission of ultrasonic signals in the aquatic environment at a distance of 300-500 meters? Does the phrase noise-resistant coding mean anything to you? This is when 10% of the received information is enough for accurate recognition. If anything, you and we often use this when we sit on the Internet on the train.
As if underwater there is no such pronounced effect as flicker noise and other delights from near and far space.

[ser580]

I am a senior warrant officer of the KSF - I don’t give a damn about effects, flickers and noise - when I was at sea - submarine communications were only possible by surfacing, or even on the water, and in no other way.

[barbos]

Do you also maintain contact with combat divers during surfacing? Or are they disposable?

[ser580]

Well, there were no "combat divers" on my submarine - forgive me. And with the underwater saboteur units, both at the submarine (at the pier) and the NK - the fight is the same - a grenade into the water from a 6-barrel grenade launcher. Yes - during the "surfacing" God forbid someone gets in the way.

[barbos]

Yes, during the "surfacing" God forbid someone should get in the way.

Manufacturers of the BEC are not too afraid. As soon as such a BEC damages (at best) a submarine, suddenly there will be a lot of noise akin to pulling a land-based air defense system onto the deck of a ship.

[Altmann]

We can produce new sophisticated weapons, and the time will come when we destroy each other. I am very sad about this.

[ser580]

So don't destroy "each other", I never "destroy" my friends - I'm friends with them.

[barbos]

Another fierce squabble in the Nursing Home should begin. Experienced old men will also try to convincingly prove their case with their own examples and life experience, as it was here several years ago with the same UAVs. And when we snatch another surprise, the howl will begin that the Supreme Commander, the Minister of Defense, the Chief of the General Staff, etc. are to blame again.
I suggest you place your bets, gentlemen.

[Alexander]

What, underwater drones don’t need a carrier?

[the same doctor]

First make a boat with a crew of 3-5 people, and then talk about the omnipotence of unmanned drones.
.
All of today's land and air drones are just remotely controlled vehicles with limited homing capabilities. There are no real communication capabilities underwater. So there won't be any drones like that for now.
.
This does not prevent us from fantasizing about the future. For example, placing acoustic communication devices in the form of thousands of emitters on millions of square kilometers of the bottom. Under the ice, such emitters can be placed with a snorkel pipe to the surface. Such unmanned communication nodes will be generally cheap and have a diesel-electric power plant.
It is possible to foresee the division of the water area into zones where foreign military ships and submarines will be prohibited from entering.
Well, and, undoubtedly, we should plan the transition from underwater monsters to compact submarines with a warhead of one missile and a crew of 3 people.

[flyer]

Everything is moving towards the fact that equipment in the air, on the ground and on the water (underwater) will become unmanned, and people will be in the role of operators and technical personnel. The country that believes in this will hand over projects to romantics for implementation and will dictate the terms. Once upon a time we had romantics in the persons of Korolev, Tsiolkovsky, the time has come once again to believe those who simply love their work and to help them.

[GRIG88]

It's impossible here. Startup funding, especially at the initial stages, is several thousand times less than funding in the US

[GRIG88]

I will add - we have very "cautious", if not to say outright - cowardly investors. No income - no investment. And since there is no investment - then not every startup gets to income, especially those that come up with something new.

[Evgeny_Sviridenko]

Both will remain. Another question is that conventional submarines will become more automated, with a smaller crew, they will have more underwater drones on board for both reconnaissance and attack. For now, the struggle for resources is being waged mostly on the continents and shelves. When the depths become accessible (technologically, although the Internet refers to the fact that there are legal obstacles, but we know...) it will become more interesting...