Modern mini-subs
- Thread starter kilo
- Start date
Khairul Alam
New Member
I think mini-subs are quite effective. Rite now they are being used mainly for troop insertion and intelligence gathering. Their small size means they cant be easily detected.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Mini-subs definately have their uses, as do UUWV. However, they also have a number of limiting factors, which I don't see being overcome any time soon.
For mini-subs, they are distinctly short-ranged by virtue of their size. This forces them either to operate from a nearby home port, or a replenishment/sub tender/mothership. This in turn tends to dictate that most anti-shipping operations will be defensive. Similarly, the small size of a mini-sub also limits the amount of armament carried as well as the capabilities of the equipment. As I understand it, the sonar arrays found on SSK and SSN are larger and capable of engaging a mini-sub that it detects before a mini-sub would be able to engage an SSK or SSN.
The areas where a mini-sub could excell in are things like covert insertion/extraction, where the small size is an aid in operating in restricted waters. Or covert mine deployment, again, where the small size can allow submerged operation in shallow areas. Lastly, defensive anti-shipping, close to a home port. By close, I mean close enough so that the mini-sub can operation off of an AIP system (if there is one small enough) and/or batteries for the duration of the engagement and the time needed to transit to & from the home port without surfacing and/or operating diesel engines.
As for UUV, I don't particularly see a combat type being deployed just yet, at least not for ASW work. There are issues with C4ISR that need to be resolved before a UUV would become combat effective. Among them is the datalink between the UUV and the command center. In order to be effective, the datalink needs to be reliable and secure, without giving away the positioning of the UUV. It also needs to have sufficient range for the UUV to operate effectively as a combat vessel. I believe one of the current preferred communication methods for UUV or ROV is a tether, not something that I believe would lend itself to combat.
Still, given time, who knows where things will end up.
For mini-subs, they are distinctly short-ranged by virtue of their size. This forces them either to operate from a nearby home port, or a replenishment/sub tender/mothership. This in turn tends to dictate that most anti-shipping operations will be defensive. Similarly, the small size of a mini-sub also limits the amount of armament carried as well as the capabilities of the equipment. As I understand it, the sonar arrays found on SSK and SSN are larger and capable of engaging a mini-sub that it detects before a mini-sub would be able to engage an SSK or SSN.
The areas where a mini-sub could excell in are things like covert insertion/extraction, where the small size is an aid in operating in restricted waters. Or covert mine deployment, again, where the small size can allow submerged operation in shallow areas. Lastly, defensive anti-shipping, close to a home port. By close, I mean close enough so that the mini-sub can operation off of an AIP system (if there is one small enough) and/or batteries for the duration of the engagement and the time needed to transit to & from the home port without surfacing and/or operating diesel engines.
As for UUV, I don't particularly see a combat type being deployed just yet, at least not for ASW work. There are issues with C4ISR that need to be resolved before a UUV would become combat effective. Among them is the datalink between the UUV and the command center. In order to be effective, the datalink needs to be reliable and secure, without giving away the positioning of the UUV. It also needs to have sufficient range for the UUV to operate effectively as a combat vessel. I believe one of the current preferred communication methods for UUV or ROV is a tether, not something that I believe would lend itself to combat.
Still, given time, who knows where things will end up.
Actually, size as a measurement of detectability is not a valid argument for subs. Its a common fallacy.
Small subs can be harder to find - but its most definitely not a given. A sub is an underwater transducer - and smaller subs by their very size can mean a greater amplification of footprint.
acoustic and signature management for subs can be almost the exact opposite of the assumptions made for aerodynamics.
fluid dynamics and aerodynamics are close cousins - but at times, and in certain detection envelopes they can take vastly different paths.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
I found this article on global securitity about the piranya/losos class. It seems to be designed for a similar purpose as North Koreas sang-o class but more advanced.
it also mentions that there may be need for small-submersibles on the export market in 2010, and that the only competitor to the improved and customizable losos will be a german mini-sub. I think that the piranya would have great appeal to nations like Iran or Nort Korea. Also has anyone heard of the germans developing a mini-sub?
it also mentions that there may be need for small-submersibles on the export market in 2010, and that the only competitor to the improved and customizable losos will be a german mini-sub. I think that the piranya would have great appeal to nations like Iran or Nort Korea. Also has anyone heard of the germans developing a mini-sub?
I actually think that the motivation to employ mini subs is rapidly diminishing amongst the modern Tier 1 navies. I can see the appeal for 3rd world navies, but certainly less of a need for modern navies. New sensor technologies developed since 9/11 for SafeHarbor concepts make insertion by sea a lot more difficult. There are far easier ways to get teams onshore to engage in specops than by mini sub.
In the last 3 years, the advances made in ROV's and USV's has been extraordinary - certainly in generational terms they're making quantum leaps.
There may be an opportunity to employ mini subs for specific niche tasks, but the ROV/USV combat capable opportunities and developments are far outstripping the mini sub advantages.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8
as far as unmanned submersibles go i think humans will always be better. they can think more creatively. machines are good or doing specific tasks but put one in charge of a combat submarine is ridiculus. to command a submarine that does in emmense variety of tasks you need something that can think creatively and learn.
No. not so at all. We already know a number of mission profiles where unmanned subs will decidedly outperform manned mini subs.
it depends on the tasking
a traditionally manned combat submarine already has a degree of limitation. the pace of advancement in remote management in the last 18 months is phenomenal. In a generation, ?? - I'd put my money on more unmanned subs being around and doing far more risky missions than you would dare to expose a manned sub.
these are complimentary assets - much like UCAVs and manned aircraft. You only have to look at the pace of development between unmanned and manned combat aircraft to see what and why they are being employed. There is very little difference between those same operational synergies for manned and unmanned submersibles.
the need for both exists - but the mission opportunities for unmanned submersibles - esp combat related are going to be way way disproportionate within a generation.
IMV, UDT technology advances are making quantum leaps greater than the F-22 transition from the F-15E.
Last edited:
How far has underwater data links come? I thought the barrier presented by the environment makes it practically impossible to achieve high bandwidth.
Well - nothing is impossible in an absolute sense. There have been significant strides made over the last 12 months. RAN however has elected to stay with neutral bouyant umbilicals (for specific missions) as the volumes of data we want can only be achieved through new-gen cables.
I don't see it being an absolute problem due to some recent advances. - and comms is always going to be a mission specific issue anyway - some will require bucket loads, so will be preprogrammed for "nn"% of a mission etc....
its a brave call - but IMV, if we continue to make progress in the next 5 years like has happened in the last 18 months, then there will be a convergence of platform development and software/comms limitations.