I think something that many people overlook is that these drone boats are fairly simple to control using commercially available equipment . I used to build fibreglass boats and I’m also a sailor , just by using my current navigation and steerage control systems you could preprogram a boat to go anywhere in the black sea as long as it has enough fuel . And to be honest I could easily build one , if I could get the explosives , to attack a fixed object such as the Kerch bridge . As you say they are not particularly stealthy but they are small enough to make it difficult to detect by radar because of wave clutter . To attack a moving target you will need a much more sophisticated targeting system and perhaps two way communication but to attack a fixed target these could be built easily for $20,000
These are quite crude but they could be made much more sophisticated, and automated so comms wouldn't be an issue. The Turkish designs appear to offer some stealth. With a few tweaks these things could be used to attack capital ships and tow mines. I'm an outlier, but I feel the US navy is gonna get smacked down with its large capital ships in the next real shooting war. I believe the Capital carrier is the New Battleship.
@@thomaslthomas1506 The cruisers of the us navy aren't any bigger than those of their Chi/Rus counter parts, and USV's will need to be deployed from somewhere.. so I don't really understand what your concern is? I don't think we'll see usv's superseding guided missile systems in an anti ship role based on their inherent design limitations (as a boat) being used either in conjunction or as an ad hoc alternative seems more likely. I defiantly agree that carriers are experiencing a renaissance which I think will continue as UAV systems become more capable.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographeruus coast guard's can intercept the narco submersible, not sure if the black fleet could do the same. So far the black sea fleet have barely managed to stay afloat when attacked
The One way attack USV is really the surface version of an existing weapon class. Namely the wire guided torpedo. Being a surface vessel makes the applied technology a little different namely using air breathing engines and radio communications. Also operating in an only 2D environment makes navigation and attack profiles simpler, guided torpedoes operate in 3D and in the absence of GPS,Galileo,etc guidance.
Back in 2002 I was working for a US defense contractor and we were developing a USV. The platform was based on a Jet Ski; we loaded it up with remote control system and it was designed to tow a sonar system. It worked well during testing in the bay but didn't do well in higher sea states. The Navy lost interest because of this and started working with the larger companies who had larger and more stable platforms.
Ukraine held many of the USSR's top defense manufacturers. Russia's only aircraft carrier was built in Ukraine. Even today no Russian shipyard could build another. So do not sell Ukraine short.
@@kurtwicklund8901 Ukraine had its industry established by the USSR's government. It didn't establish it. They learnt to work there and developed a culture in engineering. These factories were and still are the only thing Ukraine is worth in terms of industry as well as the only thing Russia lacks (in only a few cases), since they still haven't reestablished certain heavy infrastructure that was present there. In terms of education and competence in STEM, Russians are leagues ahead of Ukraine. It's pretty funny that people forget how all this "ingenuity" and "brilliance" and "innovation" that suddenly unstuck the Ukrainians from their post-Soviet state came to be only after the West shoved its hand up Ukraine's @ss. These drones are no exception. Not to mention that their guidance over the insane distances mentioned in these video could only be facilitated by Starlink or some aerial platform capable of relaying communication signals (like the RQ-4B and the numerous maritime NATO aircraft that fly over the black sea 24/7).
Thank you for posting this, very good piece to think on.... I'm glad you're back to making videos, I thought you'd quit!! I watched the other one that was before this and the one that was after tomorrow sometime.... Thank you for your time; Monte
I never expected these speedboat style drones to act like an area denial weapon. The Russians are totally scared of them. That Russian boat that stopped the grain ship didn't spend long on there. They got some film and hauled a55. Thanks for the info and perspectives.
Don’t forget that they don’t have to sink target ships to be successful. Simply damaging a ship so that it needs repairs not only takes the ship out of the line for a period, it also costs resources that are likely to be more expensive than the drone.
Informative as always, Mr Sutton. As you were describing these vessels and the possibility of detection, what do you think of the idea of a semisubmersible version? Obvious issues as an armchair observer would be increased drag - possibly more difficult control and communication, but imagine if they could transit largely below water, then "pop up" for a short-range high speed attack?
Submerging a vessel adds massively to its complexity, hence cost What hull form is fast under water, isn't above water and vice versa These drones are already very low in the water anyway
I've always liked the idea of having a swarm of unmanned submarines capable of electronic warfare jamming but that'll be impossible. Imagine sneaking those under some navy vessels right before taking them out with fighter jets firing anti-ship missiles.
@@everypitchcounts4875 Water is not very kind to the propagation of radio signals ... It'd do next to nothing underwater And when it pops up to radiate, it screams ' I'm here ! '
Using concepts and techniques developed by the Canadian Navy. Look up hammerhead drones, look at American - Canadian naval exercises in San Diego from many years ago when the Canadians introduced the technology. The guidance systems used in new kamikaze drones were Canadian in origin.
The low cost is a huge factor. These don't seem to sink large ships in 1 hit. But you can build 4-10 of these for the cost of one modern torpedo and disable several ships.
The tech is available to identify ships based on propeller sounds, colors, visual shapes and sounds. Maybe even off heat signatures. I'm sure someone out there is researching AI powered killer maritime drones. It's tech that's about as scary that it is impressive.
Hey there big fan. Heard a lot of your notes and saw your illustrations on sub brief channel. There are some USVs being used in Ladakh right now at least tested if nothing else, in pangong tso near the LAC. They are however in prototype stages and dont include a warhead. More for surveillance and keeping an eye on Chinese boat patrols. Regards from India.
Thanks for this analysis! I wonder if they could be more effective if they had wire powered torpedo armament. I mean, the main body is a low profile boat, but it's towed by a torpedo via power cable. The point is that this avoids relatively expensive batteries, while offering the possibility of trying to explode underneath the target. The design enables experimentation with different lengths of power cable to see if extra length makes it easier to get close enough. Since the engine is used only as a generator, it could be placed wherever is most convenient. For example, the main boat body could be nothing but fuel tanks, with the engine under the keel. Even if the tanks get shot up, the generator can still operate so long as the intake tube is okay.
An interesting concept, essentially the 'boat' half can just be a kind of quasi snorkel but rather then bring air down to engines, the engine is on the surface and electrical power runs down the cable to the torpedeo which has the propellers and warhead. With a small battery the torpedo can even detatch for it's final attack run thus giving the surface target nothing to see or shoot at.
There is another attack mode, if you tow a mine with a drone and place a small field in the Kerch straight. Or carry a homing missle that is released in proxim8tg to the target..
How are these drones successful? They didn't sink a single warship nor did they manage to destroy the Crimean bridge. Also notice that Ukraine can't match Russian firepower and that's why they're giving asymmetrical answers. Like naval drones instead of warships, UAVs instead of aircraft.....
Very interesting as usual sir. I was wondering what impact the drones have had on repair capabilities of the Russian navy. It seems like there has been less caliber missal launches. Not sure if it was just a lack of supply or mission capabilities or some combination.
Less? LOLwhat? Did you miss week long massive bombardment of Odessa and other ports from which the drones were deployed after the terrorist attack on bridge? If anything, proved complete opposite of what you said. Also, seeing these drone attacks do less and less, looks like Russian navy adapted and learned how to easily deal with them, even barely armed recon ship recently repelled big drone attack with zero damage...
@@KuK137 > seeing these drone attacks do less and less, looks like Russian navy adapted and learned how to easily deal with them Then why is the Russian navy cowering in Novorussiysk? Why attack Odesa with missiles instead of shells from warships?
Their effectiveness can be magnified 20x by loading the warhead into a mini torpedo (gravity powered) that the boat drops off 3.5 meters short of contact with the target ship's hull. The toroedo should have negative bouyqncy so it sinks to just below the target ship's keel. By exploding under the keel, it can crack the target in half. That's how torpedos actually work.
If combat drones weren't so common in the news, I wonder if these maritime drones would be called 'cruise torpedoes' or 'surface torpedoes.' That seems to be basically what they are.
From a non-military point of view, these drones are very much an outcome that should not surprise. This is the result of the miniaturization and in some way the commercial democratization of smaller, generically speaking, computers (be it SBCs, MCUs, etc...). 20 years ago only the most advanced defense industries could afford GPS guided, inertial navigation backup, target acquisition tech to slap an explosive on the front and a rocket, engine, etc.. on the back. The fact is that, while not to the same level of precision or cutting edge tech, anyone can go buy all of those parts right now on Mouser or Digikey. You have taken a group of people that in peace might be called Makers, and put their homes, family, country at risk or loved ones killed. For the cost of a single Moskva, that group of people will absolutely have no problems starting out by rigging a speed boat with GPS guidance, remote control, thermal imaging, LORA, 4G, starlink, etc... and the requisite explosives on the front and outboard on the back. Except instead of one warship, they can make 100 and not even hit half the cost of the target they are sending their bots after. Take it another step: give them 3D metal printers, cnc machines, image recognition AI, feed in silhouettes of the Russian Black Sea fleet; warships and logistic vessels alike, dockside fueling stations, etc... When Russia adds the coat of black paint, update your image recognition programs with those new images. I would be willing to bet they have these things networked to each other to some extent as well creating their own mobile networks between all the vessels, each node a redundancy so that you can't disrupt them by GPS jamming or by taking out a command node. The devices to construct what was once the provenance of only the most elite is now an online shopping cart click, some clever programmers and a group of builders and tinkerers that a well educated society can field by the thousands and with a, relative to attack submarines and cruisers, unlimited budget, even if one or three ideas don't pan out, who cares, you just have one less drone than the 200 you had a budget for originally. It's not just throwing all the stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, its engineering capable low cost options and picking the best ones to then iterate upon in real time and continue the production line. I will make a totally unfounded guess at this point and say the only thing that would keep this from improving in quality and capability exponentially would be the mindset that only a giant defense company is capable of making high tech weapons of war and thus paying for the Rolls Royce when all you need is 100 mopeds with raspberry pis, cameras and guidance related sensors. I do of course use a pi as a generalization and don't mean to infer that's what they are actually using of course, though if there were some I wouldn't be shocked at all. Nor would the sudden improvement of the moped engines, range and speed bit by bit, in a relatively short time producing something(s) rather more advanced than what they started with.
We might soon see, submersible drones armed with a couple of anti ship missiles. Add an ELF receiner in addition to the satellite uplink and a swarm of these becomes a relocatible minefield with great range. Having multiple ASMs coming in on different vectors at the same time would be effective. Detecting such submersibles on the ocean floor would be hard.😊
I think it might have an additional effect. Russian navy used to boast numbers (most from Soviet times) but really skimped on maintenance. Look at the sorry state the Moskva was in when it got sunk. Like, not even being able to use its radar and internal communications at the same time. The immediate solution was to just pull that navy out of missile range. Now even that's not enough, because, as you say these drones can hit much farther away and hit very hard. What I'm saying is that Russia could previously just use some barely functional ships to scare away some gunboats or civilian transport ships. Nowadays it's becoming too risky to use a barely functional ship anywhere. Like, you can't have one that can't use its radar full time or half its guns, when a drone might show up at any time. What I'm saying is that this will further increase the cost of the war for Russia. Quite likely significantly. All those decades of skipped maintenance have to be made up for, and fast.
These would seem to be an ideal way to raise the stakes against boarding operations of Ukrainian freighters by Russian warships. If a convoy of freighters is being escorted by a slew of these drone ships riding the bow waves of the freighters, any boarding operations would become much more dangerous to the warships nearby, decreasing their frequency and effectiveness, and allowing more freighters avoid such boardings. Add a version with a torpedo for maximum effect.
woah that map you show at 5:00 blew my mind, I can't believe those tiny things have that kind of long range. Fuel wise but especially like you said: communications. What do you think about the possibility that the drones involved in those attacks weren't launched from shore but from some sort of clandestine ship operating somewhere in the Black Sea? Edit: Or maybe the com signals were relayed through an allied electronic warfare plane flying through neutral airspace?
Of course they were deployed from ship, namely smuggled in on one of "grain" ships pretending to be civilian only to do a terrorist attack on civilian target (Russian navy targets are too well defended so Ukr try to murder innocents instead). Which is a war crime, BTW. This was a BIG reason why Russia withdrawn from the grain farce. Too bad western media never mentions these inconvenient details, they just vanish from infospace lest the western public learns what all these wolfsangels, celtic crosses, black suns, and balkenkreuz emblems on Ukr troops and vehicles really are and starts ask questions who is the baddie here...
It is highly likely they have Starlink connections for command and control, but I would believe that the Ukranians are recieveing location data from allied nations. The open-ocean attacks in the south of the Black sea are evidence of that, you don't sail away from the main battle zone unless you know there is something out there.
In the case of stationary targets (that aren't protected by GPS jamming equipment), GPS would do the trick, (other communications tech unnecessary in that case) but GPS by itself won't guide a long distance drone to the location of a moving ship
Its not all that different than the use of fire ships, in the past. Just a high tech version, made for modern warfare. Your sending a small unmanned ship, to destroy the enemies ship, by causing a lot of damage. Only instead of fire, on a flammable wooden tall ship, its a bomb to put holes in a large metal ship. And has a computer, so they can avoid sending one man to pilot it, until getting close, and abandoning ship. Basically not that different of a concept.
-i wonder if you couldn’t combine solar and gas propulsion??? -use the solar on initial launch to get the drone in the area where you want it, fuel wouldn’t be too much of a consideration since it would run on solar (although I imagine slower), but you could have it go far since it’s running on solar -but once the target is in sight, switch to gas for the quick attack -and if on solar while the drone maneuvers and waits, couldn’t it stay out there for days (assuming some sunny weather) lurking and waiting for an appropriate target -or do you think it would get detected??? -and since it doesn’t need as much gas, any weight savings in fuel weight, could be used to provide a bigger bang (more explosive) -although now that I think of it, you would have added weight of the battery
I mean, they're basically just jet skis with what I assume is a satellite internet uplink and a bomb in the front end. They're unmanned piloted torpedoes. Kinda a no brainer really.
Expendable? Of course they are bombs/ surface running torpedoes by their very nature are expendable. If they really want to sink a target ship, they should fire off 6 to 12 at a time. After 3 or 4 hit the main target, the rest should either target another ship or wait for a new target to show up to pick up the crew of the first ship.🤔 work like a controlled active hunting mine field.
Evidently not very in the traditional sense, the ship returned to base under own power with no visible signs of damage. The attack was arguably successful as part of the wider shaping of Russian naval activity
I think we need to call these things Autonomus Torpedo boats, they effectivly reimplement the tactical logic of thouse original boats, cheap expendible and low endurance ships that can swam from shore to attack an enemy fleet that is attempting to interdict your coastal waters. Also the obvious evolution of these boats will be to actually carry 1-2 short range torpedeos in the future rather then kamikazi rammings.
What has to be carefully monitored by NATO is the movement of Russian Submarines in the Black Sea. The four Kilo Class submarines have as yet not been used in a blockading role, acting primarily as a launch platform for Kalibr cruise missiles. However, these boats can clandestinely lay up to 24 naval mines each during a single patrol. A direct torpedo attack by the Russians would be more audacious but, I would suggest, is highly unlikely because of the immediate ramifications. 😉
What i wonder is why Ukraine has not been using off the shelf unmanned submersibles fitted with bombs or making their own. Drones with dive capabilities would be almost unstoppable and its not like the tech isn’t available.
It's because a jetski is a lot cheaper. The market for jetskis is a lot bigger, so their production benefits from economies of scale. They are working on their own torpedo-like submersible drones, though. The TLK-150 seems particularly far in development. With its batteries, I'm sure it's more expensive - but they would be very difficult to stop. A cheaper jetski type USV could tow it into range of the target.
I do wonder how long it will be until the Ukrainians start deploying attack divers with scubajets in Sevastopol harbor to lay mines under, not onto the warships. Scubajets can be fixed to the bottom of surfboards and it would not take a genius to fix mines to the boards with buoyancy bags that can vary the depth like a remote-controlled submersible. The diver would not have to be particularly close to the target and the board could lay the mines on the sea bed so they were not spotted by the clearance divers. A bit like the X-boat attack on Tirpiz, but without risking the humans to carry out the attack. A trailing wire on the surface could pick up the signals and transmit the camera views to the operator and when the mines have been deployed, return the craft for re-arming.
I wonder how long it will take to develop naval drones that go on foils. This would eliminate the wake, thus make them much harder to spot optically, especially when visibility is reduced (see the various videos of the attacks). Same applies to sound detection, the foil (and a possible propulsion propeller) are pretty quiet. With their small size, electronic detection is a problem anyways. Foil vessels are also much more energy efficient. There are many commercial developments of foil vessels recently, so its just a question of time of when we will see such vessel in a military application.
A problem with a hydrofoil drone is that a sea skimming missile/drone can go much faster. This gives enemy CIWS much less time to try and shoot the incoming. Also, a small hydrofoil is going to have problems operating at all in high waves. A sea skimming missile/drone can simply adjust its altitude to go just above the wave tops.
@@IsaacKuo Sure a hydrofoil is no replacement for a missile, I see it more as an additional option for operations where visual detection is main "threat" to the drone, i.e. flat water, harbor or bridge approaches etc, such as we have seen in most attacks in the Black sea so far.. Modern hydrofoils are also pretty good in choppy water, as they can automatically adjust and adapt the foil lift through simple sensing mechanisms (see a moth sailboat for the most simplistic "sensor").
@@mandalatmask5394 I still feel like a big hydrofoil boat above the water is going to be relatively detectable - both visually and with radar. However, maybe the size of the pod above water could be minimized. It could contain just a generator, camera, and comms. The hydrofoil support is wide enough for a fuel line and power lines. The hydrofoil is towed by a larger torpedo, which contains the fuel tanks and an electric motor. So, the relatively big and clumsy torpedo can stay underwater, while the hydrofoil nimbly climbs/dives with the waves. The point is, the big fuel tanks required for long range are conveniently underwater. Of course, a battery may be included if it helps with the final approach.
Most likely those drones are of Western design, using Western supplied components and controlled ia Star Link. Itseems that they were carried by motherships close to the operations area, it is hard to believe that they have a 300 -400 NM range and the ability to survive days in the open sea.
yep your right, I forgot about Star Link, I was thinking military satellites or observation/communication airplanes, so much simpler using Star Link. Now who's providing the, "warmer, your getting warmer...", info is still the same.
I think it would worth Ukraine to build some semi submersible narco boats. They would be pretty hard to detect visually. They would also be a little harder to detect on Russian radar
These are basically small unmanned narco boats. The main difference is the need for a camera poking up to try and find and home in on a target. Narco boats don't need that.
@@IsaacKuo Narco semi submersible boats have people on board guiding the boat. At least two. One to pilot and on to manage the engine or swap out with the pilot. Ukraine doesn't need them. They would need a small snorkel for the engine, and an electronics mast. Narco boats can carry more weight than the current drones.
Every attack on patrol ships failed. Got close, but in the end the sailors spot them and destroy them with machineguns. Really important to rely not only on radars but also on people. What these boats have proven to be better at is the bridges. From what i know at least 2 bridges have been hit by these, one on each side.
Last year I talked to Torsten Heinrich (Military and History Channel) about the fact that these small drones will change the Navy. Anyone who has ever fought a swarm of mosquitoes knows you can't win that fight. If you look at the cost of a warship versus the cost of a drone fleet... As Clausewitz said, wars always cost money. Whoever runs out of money first loses. It's nice that you've changed your mind about the drones after a year, Mr H I Sutton.
They’re useful for attacking fixed targets but I don’t see them having much value for attack maneuvering vessels at sea. That’s what missiles and torpedos are for.
@@grahamstrouse1165 I see them as very useful weapons even against moving targets. However, the drones are swarm weapons that overwhelm the opponent's defenses and destroy or damage all remaining drones. The problem for the defender is that he has to do without very limited space/main combat weapons in order to be able to defend himself against a swarm of drones. If you now compare the cost of a frigate of a swarm of drones with a submarine + torpedoes then you will see and calculate that the drones are the weapon of the 21st century. It has a value for money in combat that will degrade your defenders to unnecessary luxuries. Now if we look to the future, we will find drones that will detect a moving frigate and calculate its short, then move to the position where the frigate will soon be and only dive 1-2 m. The drone then only has to wait until the frigate has come close enough to attack in a swarm. As long as the drones are so much cheaper than a torpedo, they are the weapon of choice because of the cost-benefit ratio.
You get rid of mosquitos by saturating the air with RAID. Same with these glorified radio-controlled tubs. Saturate their approach with lead. The only reason anyone is talking about these is the fact that Russian navy is supremely, utterly, INCOMPETENT. A capable navy would simply have a working CIWS and forget about it. Note that Russians have to use HELICOPTERS to shoot at these drones. IN-COM-PE-TENT.
Still gonna point out a lot of "Ukrainian" equipments aren't Ukrainian but supplied from NATO countries for trial or just for fun. It's one reason the US asked China a dozen times to not allow Chinese companies nor individuals to send equipment to the conflict.
It would be interesting to see what Russia would do if the grain shipments were re-flagged under a NATO nation, but probably a bad idea being such a dangerous move. I hadn't realized where the failed attacks taken place, the furthest, if started from Odessa, what...450-500 miles? That had to be done with satellite communication or maybe an aircraft that could relay the signal, but there's only one way they would have know where the vessel was and we know who was providing the target identification for that. Great stuff as always Mr. Sutton. Do you work for a specific company or are you more along the lines of a "consultant"?
Do you think Russia care😂 NATO are actively aiding Ukraine, while at the same time forbading others from aiding Russia.... Be prepare to pay high price for food and power this winter 😂 seve you guys right
The design of the TLK-150 looks very interesting, as it doesn't need to fit in a torpedo tube. It looks like it uses differential thrust to steer, along with small canard diving planes for pitch control. But there's also a "rudder", which is bizarrely small and placed poorly for yaw control. I don't know what it could be for ... maybe it's actually a water flow directional sensor?
Something like an automatic grenade launcher might be a useful defense against these ... maybe even useful as a hard kill torpedo defense system. Floating grenades could be used against surface drones, while sinking grenades could be used against torpedoes. Maybe they use command laser detonation. That way, a human piloting an overhead drone could shine the laser around the incoming target with a radius determined to be useful. The point is - it's not dependent on the grenade being smart enough to detect the target and detonate at the ideal distance. Shooting a bunch of sinking grenades to try and take out an incoming torpedo may be a bit desperate, but is there a better alternative?
I'm quite interested to see how effective these will be against navies that deploy CWISS or Phalanx systems on their vessels Many CWISS systems have surface defence modes and can probably target vessels like this, so I'm not sure if these will fare well against anything other than transporters
ciws systems have limited ammo, and it takes time to reload. And other systems are not even economically viable to use. Meanwhile air and sea drones are cheap, and numerous.
Very good analysis. In the US we have had the technology to do fully autonomous warfare (humans out of the decision loop) for some years. This is based on Computer aided detection/Computer aided classification (CAD/CAC) technology. However, ethical concerns have prevented full implementation. What if the software makes a mistake and classifies something as a target that is a fishing boat? Where would the culpability lie? This was the point of discussion 10 years ago when I retired. Don't know where things stand today.
I think it was always a given that inexpensive remotely controlled vessels would be loaded with explosives and used against ships, after all what is a wire guided torpedo? What was the V1, what's a cruise missile? They even had wire controlled tracked robots delivering explosives to tanks during WWII. The question was if it would be improvised by informal resistance groups, by terrorists or even such devices being used to smuggle drugs or if it would be by an actual government military. The other question is how would they do the long distance communications when civilian telecommunication were all by Russian companies. Of course, we've always had data communication over short wave and indeed hobbyists actually used the internet's protocols such as SLIP and PPP over shortwave from as far back as the early 80's and indeed there are marine radio channels that broadcast out the weather chart (there are mobile apps that can listen to that broadcast with your phone's microphone jack and show you the chart) so long distance data communication was always a given with civilian equipment even if satellite and cellular communication wasn't available plus there's always autonomous vehicles that require no communication other than to initiate an attack. I don't think this is unexpected but rather extremely expected as far back as WWII.
Imagining that surface suicide boats that are in every way inferiour to a torpedo or an antiship missile, and thus do not have a single successful attack on a surface combatant vessel to their name are going to significantly influence the way surface vessels are going to be employed is some peak Western analysis, of course. In fact, the only case where these toys can make a difference is if the Ukraine continues its policy of attacking civilian Russian targets with drones, and moves to attack civilian shipping.
It looks like a number of grain ships have called Putin's bluff, and are defying Putin's blockade of Ukraine. So far, no Russian warships have attempted to stop the grain ships. Clearly the Russian warships are afraid of something.
How would they communicate to the controller? They could do but they would need to be shallow and what sensors would they use? I would like to see a video on what Iran and the Houthi have done with their earlier USV.
@@Emperorvalse A submarine version could communicate periodically by popping up to the surface. If we want to do it on the cheap, frequent pops up to snorkel depth is necessary anyway for the air. Maybe it could have two wings, which look like diving planes. But they operate independently, allowing the drone to bank for control. The snorkel is in one wing, allowing the drone to "take a breath" by rolling to expose only the wingtip. This wing could also have a camera and aerial.
I don't see what's really new. These are just primitive, long-range, precision-guided torpedoes. The technology has been available for more than a decade.
I think something that many people overlook is that these drone boats are fairly simple to control using commercially available equipment .
I used to build fibreglass boats and I’m also a sailor , just by using my current navigation and steerage control systems you could preprogram a boat to go anywhere in the black sea as long as it has enough fuel . And to be honest I could easily build one , if I could get the explosives , to attack a fixed object such as the Kerch bridge .
As you say they are not particularly stealthy but they are small enough to make it difficult to detect by radar because of wave clutter .
To attack a moving target you will need a much more sophisticated targeting system and perhaps two way communication but to attack a fixed target these could be built easily for $20,000
These are quite crude but they could be made much more sophisticated, and automated so comms wouldn't be an issue.
The Turkish designs appear to offer some stealth.
With a few tweaks these things could be used to attack capital ships and tow mines.
I'm an outlier, but I feel the US navy is gonna get smacked down with its large capital ships in the next real shooting war. I believe the Capital carrier is the New Battleship.
@@thomaslthomas1506 The cruisers of the us navy aren't any bigger than those of their Chi/Rus counter parts, and USV's will need to be deployed from somewhere.. so I don't really understand what your concern is? I don't think we'll see usv's superseding guided missile systems in an anti ship role based on their inherent design limitations (as a boat) being used either in conjunction or as an ad hoc alternative seems more likely.
I defiantly agree that carriers are experiencing a renaissance which I think will continue as UAV systems become more capable.
how about a design based on the narco semi submersibles?
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer This might be like the the god for premature pour, coming soon.....
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographeruus coast guard's can intercept the narco submersible, not sure if the black fleet could do the same.
So far the black sea fleet have barely managed to stay afloat when attacked
"narco subs are the future of naval logistics" little did Sub Brief know, they would also be the bane of naval logistics.
The One way attack USV is really the surface version of an existing weapon class. Namely the wire guided torpedo.
Being a surface vessel makes the applied technology a little different namely using air breathing engines and radio communications. Also operating in an only 2D environment makes navigation and attack profiles simpler, guided torpedoes operate in 3D and in the absence of GPS,Galileo,etc guidance.
Back in 2002 I was working for a US defense contractor and we were developing a USV. The platform was based on a Jet Ski; we loaded it up with remote control system and it was designed to tow a sonar system. It worked well during testing in the bay but didn't do well in higher sea states. The Navy lost interest because of this and started working with the larger companies who had larger and more stable platforms.
i very much doubt that these Ukrainian drone-boats came from Ukraine
@@andyf4292Ukrainians proved to be creative and adept in developing new weapons systems I don‘t see why this wouldn‘t be one of them.
@@lennyjay8390 you mean the Tartarian deep state jews are proving creative
Ukraine held many of the USSR's top defense manufacturers. Russia's only aircraft carrier was built in Ukraine. Even today no Russian shipyard could build another. So do not sell Ukraine short.
@@kurtwicklund8901 Ukraine had its industry established by the USSR's government. It didn't establish it. They learnt to work there and developed a culture in engineering. These factories were and still are the only thing Ukraine is worth in terms of industry as well as the only thing Russia lacks (in only a few cases), since they still haven't reestablished certain heavy infrastructure that was present there. In terms of education and competence in STEM, Russians are leagues ahead of Ukraine. It's pretty funny that people forget how all this "ingenuity" and "brilliance" and "innovation" that suddenly unstuck the Ukrainians from their post-Soviet state came to be only after the West shoved its hand up Ukraine's @ss. These drones are no exception. Not to mention that their guidance over the insane distances mentioned in these video could only be facilitated by Starlink or some aerial platform capable of relaying communication signals (like the RQ-4B and the numerous maritime NATO aircraft that fly over the black sea 24/7).
This topic is evolving quickly. I'd really appreciate an update within a few weeks.
I really enjoy your videos. I'm so happy that I stumbled across one a few weeks back.
Glad you like them!
Only a few minutes in and yet concur with HI's hypothesis. What a champ.
I am quite addicted to your content. I love the analysis and reality you employ. No hype, just fact. Keep up the great work!
Glad you enjoy it!
Please upload more! I could watch this for hours, and your drawings are impressive.
Very much looking forward to your next upload 👌👍💛💙🌻
Love the information rich, straight-to-the-point content! Keep 'em coming! :)
Thank you for posting this, very good piece to think on....
I'm glad you're back to making videos, I thought you'd quit!! I watched the other one that was before this and the one that was after tomorrow sometime....
Thank you for your time;
Monte
Omg this thumbnail - it just happened!
Looks like the USS Cole really made an impression, and we just took the man out of the boat and put in a remote control.
As a former sailor in the Canadian Navy, Yukon/Calgary, I love what you do. Bravo Zulu
I never expected these speedboat style drones to act like an area denial weapon. The Russians are totally scared of them. That Russian boat that stopped the grain ship didn't spend long on there. They got some film and hauled a55. Thanks for the info and perspectives.
I can only imagine the shitstorm that would result if a drone happened upon a Russian sub on the surface just before returning to port.
Мужики! С днём ВМФ вас!!!🚤🛳⛴🛥🚢💪💪💪
Great information once again looking forward to the next one please keep them coming awesome job thank you
Don’t forget that they don’t have to sink target ships to be successful. Simply damaging a ship so that it needs repairs not only takes the ship out of the line for a period, it also costs resources that are likely to be more expensive than the drone.
Damage of impact of such a drone is way more expensive than the Drone itself.
Quality content. Always so interesting. Please more videos 😊
As always, your superb analysis rises like cream in an ocean of swill.
One question - can they develop something that could go after Russian subs?
ASW isn't really realistic for these
Go Ukraine!! Go you little beauty, go!
Informative as always, Mr Sutton. As you were describing these vessels and the possibility of detection, what do you think of the idea of a semisubmersible version? Obvious issues as an armchair observer would be increased drag - possibly more difficult control and communication, but imagine if they could transit largely below water, then "pop up" for a short-range high speed attack?
Submerging a vessel adds massively to its complexity, hence cost
What hull form is fast under water, isn't above water and vice versa
These drones are already very low in the water anyway
I've always liked the idea of having a swarm of unmanned submarines capable of electronic warfare jamming but that'll be impossible. Imagine sneaking those under some navy vessels right before taking them out with fighter jets firing anti-ship missiles.
@@Tanks_In_Space I'm sure if they could guide a torpedo over 150Km, they would. No, just thinking about reducing the vessels detection signature.
A bit hard to get oxygen to the engine.
@@everypitchcounts4875 Water is not very kind to the propagation of radio signals ...
It'd do next to nothing underwater
And when it pops up to radiate, it screams ' I'm here ! '
I like the current event centric content.
Absolutely
I enjoy the historic content too, just a great contrast.
Excellent quality observations, as aye :)
Using concepts and techniques developed by the Canadian Navy. Look up hammerhead drones, look at American - Canadian naval exercises in San Diego from many years ago when the Canadians introduced the technology. The guidance systems used in new kamikaze drones were Canadian in origin.
The low cost is a huge factor. These don't seem to sink large ships in 1 hit. But you can build 4-10 of these for the cost of one modern torpedo and disable several ships.
In a few months I anticipate an increased number of Narco drones ( inspired by Ukraine )that will be deployed towards US and Europe. ViVa la Coca!
Possibly
ua-cam.com/video/yixvJw-ZVO8/v-deo.html
well
more like the opposite, but you were largely correct, it has been 11 months
Apparently enough range to reach Novorossiysk.
thanks for the upload
Thanks.
The tech is available to identify ships based on propeller sounds, colors, visual shapes and sounds. Maybe even off heat signatures. I'm sure someone out there is researching AI powered killer maritime drones. It's tech that's about as scary that it is impressive.
Great content as usual 👍
Great vid
Hey there big fan. Heard a lot of your notes and saw your illustrations on sub brief channel.
There are some USVs being used in Ladakh right now at least tested if nothing else, in pangong tso near the LAC. They are however in prototype stages and dont include a warhead. More for surveillance and keeping an eye on Chinese boat patrols.
Regards from India.
It would be nice to start back from 2014, not 2022. There were a bunch of interesting events back then.
Don't rock the boat now.... would spoil the narrative.
Thanks for this analysis!
I wonder if they could be more effective if they had wire powered torpedo armament. I mean, the main body is a low profile boat, but it's towed by a torpedo via power cable.
The point is that this avoids relatively expensive batteries, while offering the possibility of trying to explode underneath the target. The design enables experimentation with different lengths of power cable to see if extra length makes it easier to get close enough.
Since the engine is used only as a generator, it could be placed wherever is most convenient. For example, the main boat body could be nothing but fuel tanks, with the engine under the keel. Even if the tanks get shot up, the generator can still operate so long as the intake tube is okay.
An interesting concept, essentially the 'boat' half can just be a kind of quasi snorkel but rather then bring air down to engines, the engine is on the surface and electrical power runs down the cable to the torpedeo which has the propellers and warhead. With a small battery the torpedo can even detatch for it's final attack run thus giving the surface target nothing to see or shoot at.
There is another attack mode, if you tow a mine with a drone and place a small field in the Kerch straight. Or carry a homing missle that is released in proxim8tg to the target..
Lets goooo another video!
How are these drones successful? They didn't sink a single warship nor did they manage to destroy the Crimean bridge. Also notice that Ukraine can't match Russian firepower and that's why they're giving asymmetrical answers. Like naval drones instead of warships, UAVs instead of aircraft.....
Distance wouldn’t be a problem because they would have detachable towed fuel tanks.
Very interesting as usual sir. I was wondering what impact the drones have had on repair capabilities of the Russian navy. It seems like there has been less caliber missal launches. Not sure if it was just a lack of supply or mission capabilities or some combination.
Less? LOLwhat? Did you miss week long massive bombardment of Odessa and other ports from which the drones were deployed after the terrorist attack on bridge? If anything, proved complete opposite of what you said. Also, seeing these drone attacks do less and less, looks like Russian navy adapted and learned how to easily deal with them, even barely armed recon ship recently repelled big drone attack with zero damage...
@@KuK137that aged well 😂
@@KuK137 > seeing these drone attacks do less and less, looks like Russian navy adapted and learned how to easily deal with them
Then why is the Russian navy cowering in Novorussiysk? Why attack Odesa with missiles instead of shells from warships?
"Russia may board ships". That one was positively psychic.
Thks
We like Sutton
Their effectiveness can be magnified 20x by loading the warhead into a mini torpedo (gravity powered) that the boat drops off 3.5 meters short of contact with the target ship's hull. The toroedo should have negative bouyqncy so it sinks to just below the target ship's keel. By exploding under the keel, it can crack the target in half. That's how torpedos actually work.
Any one-way-attack drone will never not be a Kamikaze drone to me, lol
More content sir...👍👍👍
@HISuttonCovertShores >>> Great video...👍
If combat drones weren't so common in the news, I wonder if these maritime drones would be called 'cruise torpedoes' or 'surface torpedoes.' That seems to be basically what they are.
Love the chats!
Millennium Challenge 2002 comes to mind
From a non-military point of view, these drones are very much an outcome that should not surprise. This is the result of the miniaturization and in some way the commercial democratization of smaller, generically speaking, computers (be it SBCs, MCUs, etc...). 20 years ago only the most advanced defense industries could afford GPS guided, inertial navigation backup, target acquisition tech to slap an explosive on the front and a rocket, engine, etc.. on the back. The fact is that, while not to the same level of precision or cutting edge tech, anyone can go buy all of those parts right now on Mouser or Digikey. You have taken a group of people that in peace might be called Makers, and put their homes, family, country at risk or loved ones killed. For the cost of a single Moskva, that group of people will absolutely have no problems starting out by rigging a speed boat with GPS guidance, remote control, thermal imaging, LORA, 4G, starlink, etc... and the requisite explosives on the front and outboard on the back. Except instead of one warship, they can make 100 and not even hit half the cost of the target they are sending their bots after. Take it another step: give them 3D metal printers, cnc machines, image recognition AI, feed in silhouettes of the Russian Black Sea fleet; warships and logistic vessels alike, dockside fueling stations, etc... When Russia adds the coat of black paint, update your image recognition programs with those new images. I would be willing to bet they have these things networked to each other to some extent as well creating their own mobile networks between all the vessels, each node a redundancy so that you can't disrupt them by GPS jamming or by taking out a command node. The devices to construct what was once the provenance of only the most elite is now an online shopping cart click, some clever programmers and a group of builders and tinkerers that a well educated society can field by the thousands and with a, relative to attack submarines and cruisers, unlimited budget, even if one or three ideas don't pan out, who cares, you just have one less drone than the 200 you had a budget for originally. It's not just throwing all the stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, its engineering capable low cost options and picking the best ones to then iterate upon in real time and continue the production line. I will make a totally unfounded guess at this point and say the only thing that would keep this from improving in quality and capability exponentially would be the mindset that only a giant defense company is capable of making high tech weapons of war and thus paying for the Rolls Royce when all you need is 100 mopeds with raspberry pis, cameras and guidance related sensors. I do of course use a pi as a generalization and don't mean to infer that's what they are actually using of course, though if there were some I wouldn't be shocked at all. Nor would the sudden improvement of the moped engines, range and speed bit by bit, in a relatively short time producing something(s) rather more advanced than what they started with.
We might soon see, submersible drones armed with a couple of anti ship missiles. Add an ELF receiner in addition to the satellite uplink and a swarm of these becomes a relocatible minefield with great range. Having multiple ASMs coming in on different vectors at the same time would be effective. Detecting such submersibles on the ocean floor would be hard.😊
I think it might have an additional effect. Russian navy used to boast numbers (most from Soviet times) but really skimped on maintenance. Look at the sorry state the Moskva was in when it got sunk. Like, not even being able to use its radar and internal communications at the same time. The immediate solution was to just pull that navy out of missile range. Now even that's not enough, because, as you say these drones can hit much farther away and hit very hard.
What I'm saying is that Russia could previously just use some barely functional ships to scare away some gunboats or civilian transport ships. Nowadays it's becoming too risky to use a barely functional ship anywhere. Like, you can't have one that can't use its radar full time or half its guns, when a drone might show up at any time.
What I'm saying is that this will further increase the cost of the war for Russia. Quite likely significantly. All those decades of skipped maintenance have to be made up for, and fast.
Good video, thanks
These would seem to be an ideal way to raise the stakes against boarding operations of Ukrainian freighters by Russian warships. If a convoy of freighters is being escorted by a slew of these drone ships riding the bow waves of the freighters, any boarding operations would become much more dangerous to the warships nearby, decreasing their frequency and effectiveness, and allowing more freighters avoid such boardings. Add a version with a torpedo for maximum effect.
Interesting.
woah that map you show at 5:00 blew my mind, I can't believe those tiny things have that kind of long range. Fuel wise but especially like you said: communications. What do you think about the possibility that the drones involved in those attacks weren't launched from shore but from some sort of clandestine ship operating somewhere in the Black Sea?
Edit: Or maybe the com signals were relayed through an allied electronic warfare plane flying through neutral airspace?
Of course they were deployed from ship, namely smuggled in on one of "grain" ships pretending to be civilian only to do a terrorist attack on civilian target (Russian navy targets are too well defended so Ukr try to murder innocents instead). Which is a war crime, BTW. This was a BIG reason why Russia withdrawn from the grain farce. Too bad western media never mentions these inconvenient details, they just vanish from infospace lest the western public learns what all these wolfsangels, celtic crosses, black suns, and balkenkreuz emblems on Ukr troops and vehicles really are and starts ask questions who is the baddie here...
It is highly likely they have Starlink connections for command and control, but I would believe that the Ukranians are recieveing location data from allied nations. The open-ocean attacks in the south of the Black sea are evidence of that, you don't sail away from the main battle zone unless you know there is something out there.
In the case of stationary targets (that aren't protected by GPS jamming equipment), GPS would do the trick, (other communications tech unnecessary in that case) but GPS by itself won't guide a long distance drone to the location of a moving ship
the low latence high bandwidth connection that starlink offers is a major military advantage in video real time control of drones
Mr. Sutton, how do you create your illustrations? Presumably not Pain/Photoshop or something?
drawn in MS Paint, shaded in GIMP
You are mad as a hatter! If you get these resuls in Paint, think what you would get with proper, honest to God CAD software.
Surely there’ll be a relatively simple countermeasure developed to counter these USVs?
Not really. You have to know they’re coming & see them coming before you can jam them. Just being small is stealth enough.
If you can think of one you'll make a lot of money!
Big hugs from bohemian forest.
Its not all that different than the use of fire ships, in the past. Just a high tech version, made for modern warfare. Your sending a small unmanned ship, to destroy the enemies ship, by causing a lot of damage. Only instead of fire, on a flammable wooden tall ship, its a bomb to put holes in a large metal ship. And has a computer, so they can avoid sending one man to pilot it, until getting close, and abandoning ship.
Basically not that different of a concept.
I'm partial to "kamikazskis" personally.
-i wonder if you couldn’t combine solar and gas propulsion???
-use the solar on initial launch to get the drone in the area where you want it, fuel wouldn’t be too much of a consideration since it would run on solar (although I imagine slower), but you could have it go far since it’s running on solar
-but once the target is in sight, switch to gas for the quick attack
-and if on solar while the drone maneuvers and waits, couldn’t it stay out there for days (assuming some sunny weather) lurking and waiting for an appropriate target
-or do you think it would get detected???
-and since it doesn’t need as much gas, any weight savings in fuel weight, could be used to provide a bigger bang (more explosive)
-although now that I think of it, you would have added weight of the battery
I mean, they're basically just jet skis with what I assume is a satellite internet uplink and a bomb in the front end. They're unmanned piloted torpedoes. Kinda a no brainer really.
Did you say "I am HMS Sutton" ? or did it just sound like that.
Expendable? Of course they are bombs/ surface running torpedoes by their very nature are expendable.
If they really want to sink a target ship, they should fire off 6 to 12 at a time. After 3 or 4 hit the main target, the rest should either target another ship or wait for a new target to show up to pick up the crew of the first ship.🤔 work like a controlled active hunting mine field.
These remind me of the Fire boats that has been used for centuries.
Great video, does anyone know how successful the attack on the Ivan Khurs was?
Evidently not very in the traditional sense, the ship returned to base under own power with no visible signs of damage. The attack was arguably successful as part of the wider shaping of Russian naval activity
I think we need to call these things Autonomus Torpedo boats, they effectivly reimplement the tactical logic of thouse original boats, cheap expendible and low endurance ships that can swam from shore to attack an enemy fleet that is attempting to interdict your coastal waters. Also the obvious evolution of these boats will be to actually carry 1-2 short range torpedeos in the future rather then kamikazi rammings.
What has to be carefully monitored by NATO is the movement of Russian Submarines in the Black Sea. The four Kilo Class submarines have as yet not been used in a blockading role, acting primarily as a launch platform for Kalibr cruise missiles. However, these boats can clandestinely lay up to 24 naval mines each during a single patrol. A direct torpedo attack by the Russians would be more audacious but, I would suggest, is highly unlikely because of the immediate ramifications. 😉
A surface torpedo ?
As a torpedo in itself is an uncrewed kamikaze submarine
What i wonder is why Ukraine has not been using off the shelf unmanned submersibles fitted with bombs or making their own. Drones with dive capabilities would be almost unstoppable and its not like the tech isn’t available.
It's because a jetski is a lot cheaper. The market for jetskis is a lot bigger, so their production benefits from economies of scale.
They are working on their own torpedo-like submersible drones, though. The TLK-150 seems particularly far in development. With its batteries, I'm sure it's more expensive - but they would be very difficult to stop. A cheaper jetski type USV could tow it into range of the target.
@@IsaacKuo outstanding!
It would be interesting if someone developed a semisubmersible MK-48 range extender
Need to send them some Colombian designs for semi-submersibles.
I do wonder how long it will be until the Ukrainians start deploying attack divers with scubajets in Sevastopol harbor to lay mines under, not onto the warships. Scubajets can be fixed to the bottom of surfboards and it would not take a genius to fix mines to the boards with buoyancy bags that can vary the depth like a remote-controlled submersible. The diver would not have to be particularly close to the target and the board could lay the mines on the sea bed so they were not spotted by the clearance divers. A bit like the X-boat attack on Tirpiz, but without risking the humans to carry out the attack. A trailing wire on the surface could pick up the signals and transmit the camera views to the operator and when the mines have been deployed, return the craft for re-arming.
That's a big "if".
Boy, I sure hope non state actors don't get any bad ideas!
Look up U.S.S. Cole.
I wonder how long it will take to develop naval drones that go on foils. This would eliminate the wake, thus make them much harder to spot optically, especially when visibility is reduced (see the various videos of the attacks). Same applies to sound detection, the foil (and a possible propulsion propeller) are pretty quiet. With their small size, electronic detection is a problem anyways. Foil vessels are also much more energy efficient. There are many commercial developments of foil vessels recently, so its just a question of time of when we will see such vessel in a military application.
A problem with a hydrofoil drone is that a sea skimming missile/drone can go much faster. This gives enemy CIWS much less time to try and shoot the incoming.
Also, a small hydrofoil is going to have problems operating at all in high waves. A sea skimming missile/drone can simply adjust its altitude to go just above the wave tops.
@@IsaacKuo Sure a hydrofoil is no replacement for a missile, I see it more as an additional option for operations where visual detection is main "threat" to the drone, i.e. flat water, harbor or bridge approaches etc, such as we have seen in most attacks in the Black sea so far.. Modern hydrofoils are also pretty good in choppy water, as they can automatically adjust and adapt the foil lift through simple sensing mechanisms (see a moth sailboat for the most simplistic "sensor").
@@mandalatmask5394 I still feel like a big hydrofoil boat above the water is going to be relatively detectable - both visually and with radar.
However, maybe the size of the pod above water could be minimized. It could contain just a generator, camera, and comms. The hydrofoil support is wide enough for a fuel line and power lines.
The hydrofoil is towed by a larger torpedo, which contains the fuel tanks and an electric motor. So, the relatively big and clumsy torpedo can stay underwater, while the hydrofoil nimbly climbs/dives with the waves.
The point is, the big fuel tanks required for long range are conveniently underwater. Of course, a battery may be included if it helps with the final approach.
@@mandalatmask5394There’s just no point, really.
Most likely those drones are of Western design, using Western supplied components and controlled ia Star Link. Itseems that they were carried by motherships close to the operations area, it is hard to believe that they have a 300 -400 NM range and the ability to survive days in the open sea.
A fair point i guess we will find out more in due course
yep your right, I forgot about Star Link, I was thinking military satellites or observation/communication airplanes, so much simpler using Star Link. Now who's providing the, "warmer, your getting warmer...", info is still the same.
@@lawless201 interesting that Mr Sutton goes around the issues of yhe targeting data, target tracking and drone comtrol.
I think it would worth Ukraine to build some semi submersible narco boats. They would be pretty hard to detect visually. They would also be a little harder to detect on Russian radar
These are basically small unmanned narco boats. The main difference is the need for a camera poking up to try and find and home in on a target. Narco boats don't need that.
@@IsaacKuo Narco semi submersible boats have people on board guiding the boat. At least two. One to pilot and on to manage the engine or swap out with the pilot. Ukraine doesn't need them. They would need a small snorkel for the engine, and an electronics mast. Narco boats can carry more weight than the current drones.
Every attack on patrol ships failed. Got close, but in the end the sailors spot them and destroy them with machineguns. Really important to rely not only on radars but also on people.
What these boats have proven to be better at is the bridges. From what i know at least 2 bridges have been hit by these, one on each side.
Now...if the drones were able to sink just a few feet, prior to detonating... :)
Just thinking what China might think if Taiwan put about 1000 of these in the ocean around their island. Good bye invasion fleet.
Last year I talked to Torsten Heinrich (Military and History Channel) about the fact that these small drones will change the Navy. Anyone who has ever fought a swarm of mosquitoes knows you can't win that fight. If you look at the cost of a warship versus the cost of a drone fleet...
As Clausewitz said, wars always cost money. Whoever runs out of money first loses.
It's nice that you've changed your mind about the drones after a year, Mr H I Sutton.
That's just because it's not necessary enough to get rid of those mosquitoes. If it was, they could be eradicated. Heavy-handedly, but eradicated.
They’re useful for attacking fixed targets but I don’t see them having much value for attack maneuvering vessels at sea. That’s what missiles and torpedos are for.
@@grahamstrouse1165 I see them as very useful weapons even against moving targets.
However, the drones are swarm weapons that overwhelm the opponent's defenses and destroy or damage all remaining drones.
The problem for the defender is that he has to do without very limited space/main combat weapons in order to be able to defend himself against a swarm of drones.
If you now compare the cost of a frigate of a swarm of drones with a submarine + torpedoes then you will see and calculate that the drones are the weapon of the 21st century.
It has a value for money in combat that will degrade your defenders to unnecessary luxuries.
Now if we look to the future, we will find drones that will detect a moving frigate and calculate its short, then move to the position where the frigate will soon be and only dive 1-2 m. The drone then only has to wait until the frigate has come close enough to attack in a swarm. As long as the drones are so much cheaper than a torpedo, they are the weapon of choice because of the cost-benefit ratio.
You get rid of mosquitos by saturating the air with RAID. Same with these glorified radio-controlled tubs. Saturate their approach with lead.
The only reason anyone is talking about these is the fact that Russian navy is supremely, utterly, INCOMPETENT. A capable navy would simply have a working CIWS and forget about it.
Note that Russians have to use HELICOPTERS to shoot at these drones. IN-COM-PE-TENT.
Still gonna point out a lot of "Ukrainian" equipments aren't Ukrainian but supplied from NATO countries for trial or just for fun. It's one reason the US asked China a dozen times to not allow Chinese companies nor individuals to send equipment to the conflict.
It would be interesting to see what Russia would do if the grain shipments were re-flagged under a NATO nation, but probably a bad idea being such a dangerous move. I hadn't realized where the failed attacks taken place, the furthest, if started from Odessa, what...450-500 miles? That had to be done with satellite communication or maybe an aircraft that could relay the signal, but there's only one way they would have know where the vessel was and we know who was providing the target identification for that. Great stuff as always Mr. Sutton. Do you work for a specific company or are you more along the lines of a "consultant"?
Do you think Russia care😂 NATO are actively aiding Ukraine, while at the same time forbading others from aiding Russia.... Be prepare to pay high price for food and power this winter 😂 seve you guys right
It's illegal to fly a flag that doesn't belong to the boat so I doubt Russia and NATO would care except for the tabloids
Oh we definitely know how the Ukrainians knew where the ships were.
Those P8s, EP3s, RC135s and global hawks are there just for sight seeing
@@lawrenceng7971 Hey comrade, are you not in a trench yet? Go take a stick and join your vatnik friends. The soil needs fertilizer!
@@guillaumelalonde7945 uhh, actually that's exactly what they are doing.
there is a submerged type with periscope coming online . more torpedoe in profile obviously .
The design of the TLK-150 looks very interesting, as it doesn't need to fit in a torpedo tube. It looks like it uses differential thrust to steer, along with small canard diving planes for pitch control.
But there's also a "rudder", which is bizarrely small and placed poorly for yaw control. I don't know what it could be for ... maybe it's actually a water flow directional sensor?
Something like an automatic grenade launcher might be a useful defense against these ... maybe even useful as a hard kill torpedo defense system.
Floating grenades could be used against surface drones, while sinking grenades could be used against torpedoes.
Maybe they use command laser detonation. That way, a human piloting an overhead drone could shine the laser around the incoming target with a radius determined to be useful. The point is - it's not dependent on the grenade being smart enough to detect the target and detonate at the ideal distance.
Shooting a bunch of sinking grenades to try and take out an incoming torpedo may be a bit desperate, but is there a better alternative?
I'm quite interested to see how effective these will be against navies that deploy CWISS or Phalanx systems on their vessels
Many CWISS systems have surface defence modes and can probably target vessels like this, so I'm not sure if these will fare well against anything other than transporters
ciws systems have limited ammo, and it takes time to reload. And other systems are not even economically viable to use. Meanwhile air and sea drones are cheap, and numerous.
Its ciws, (close in weapon system) which phalanx is, same with goalkeeper etc. Russians have this, its the AK-630.
@@Connor312_ ah right, thanks for the correction
To quote Czar Nicky da Foirst "quantity has quality all its own!"
In the next war cheap and plentiful will win over expensive every time.
@@thomaslthomas1506 That is kinda what happened in ww2 too.
If made mostly of carbon fiber, would they be nearly invisible to radar or sonar? Except engine..
Very good analysis. In the US we have had the technology to do fully autonomous warfare (humans out of the decision loop) for some years. This is based on Computer aided detection/Computer aided classification (CAD/CAC) technology. However, ethical concerns have prevented full implementation. What if the software makes a mistake and classifies something as a target that is a fishing boat? Where would the culpability lie? This was the point of discussion 10 years ago when I retired. Don't know where things stand today.
Iran will surely start fielding these in the Gulf.
I think it was always a given that inexpensive remotely controlled vessels would be loaded with explosives and used against ships, after all what is a wire guided torpedo? What was the V1, what's a cruise missile? They even had wire controlled tracked robots delivering explosives to tanks during WWII. The question was if it would be improvised by informal resistance groups, by terrorists or even such devices being used to smuggle drugs or if it would be by an actual government military. The other question is how would they do the long distance communications when civilian telecommunication were all by Russian companies. Of course, we've always had data communication over short wave and indeed hobbyists actually used the internet's protocols such as SLIP and PPP over shortwave from as far back as the early 80's and indeed there are marine radio channels that broadcast out the weather chart (there are mobile apps that can listen to that broadcast with your phone's microphone jack and show you the chart) so long distance data communication was always a given with civilian equipment even if satellite and cellular communication wasn't available plus there's always autonomous vehicles that require no communication other than to initiate an attack. I don't think this is unexpected but rather extremely expected as far back as WWII.
Imagining that surface suicide boats that are in every way inferiour to a torpedo or an antiship missile, and thus do not have a single successful attack on a surface combatant vessel to their name are going to significantly influence the way surface vessels are going to be employed is some peak Western analysis, of course.
In fact, the only case where these toys can make a difference is if the Ukraine continues its policy of attacking civilian Russian targets with drones, and moves to attack civilian shipping.
It looks like a number of grain ships have called Putin's bluff, and are defying Putin's blockade of Ukraine. So far, no Russian warships have attempted to stop the grain ships. Clearly the Russian warships are afraid of something.
So by attacking civilian target's.. like in ww1...hmmm
Would submarine versions be viable?
How would they communicate to the controller? They could do but they would need to be shallow and what sensors would they use?
I would like to see a video on what Iran and the Houthi have done with their earlier USV.
@@Emperorvalse A submarine version could communicate periodically by popping up to the surface. If we want to do it on the cheap, frequent pops up to snorkel depth is necessary anyway for the air.
Maybe it could have two wings, which look like diving planes. But they operate independently, allowing the drone to bank for control. The snorkel is in one wing, allowing the drone to "take a breath" by rolling to expose only the wingtip. This wing could also have a camera and aerial.
I don't see what's really new. These are just primitive, long-range, precision-guided torpedoes. The technology has been available for more than a decade.