The Advantage of a Mini Sub

Who would expect 9 crew members to maintain watches for 24 hours a day over the course of a 30 day patrol?

Russian subs are known for their automation, they were more automated than western subs. An operational crew of 3-4 with 8-10 hour shifts would make 24 hour operations no problem at all. With one person to steer the ship and one person to command the ship, you just need one person on sonar and one to control weapons. Loading of the Torpedos is automated so it isn’t like you need 5-10 guys to man handle a torpedo into a tube.
In addition to the 9 man crew there is room aboard for 6 combat divers so if you wanted to operationally man the vessel 24/7 then you could use the diver accomodation to man the sub for a patrol 24/7 if you needed.

You hardly need a Scotty to manage hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell systems.

Note that the midget subs like Piranya have crews of 4 or so and carry diver delivery vehicles like Murena for the swimmer delivery role, why build a mini sub if you just want to deploy divers? Any Typhoon class can fire a 533mm torpedo so can launch a Murena swimmer delivery vehicle, the point is that a mini sub can get much closer to the coastline than a full sized sub, while a midget sub like a Piranya can get even closer. In places where the water is very shallow normal subs can’t operate effectively, hense the purpose for both mini subs and midget subs.

So whether a sub is mini or not is defined by a comparison with Swedish and German subs?
Couldn’t possibly be the case that these two countries have defencive requirements that outweigh other considerations, which lead to their subs being short range mini sub type vessels rather than long range conventional patrol types like the Foxtrots or even Tangos?

Indeed, Baltic and North Sea operating conditions helped to shape German and Swedish operating requirements. To be fair, the 500 ton Type 205/206/207 might be correctly termed “coastal submarines,” while the various 1,000+ ton Swedish types are relatively small patrol submarines – albeit highly specialized for the Baltic littoral.

The Germans did consider a 200 ton Type 202 class of minisubs in the 1960s. Two were built and they were successful from a technical standpoint. They were also deemed to be fundimentally useless, and were promptly scrapped.

Reduced crew size, less than 1,000 ton weight, relatively short range, though carrying full size torpedos and having a good speed (for a conventional design) is how I define a mini sub, and these subs meet these criteria. Certainly the 900 ton vessel is at the upper reaches of the range, but it is designed to operate as a normal sub, but be small. A midget sub does not act like a full size sub… at 12 knts for the Russian examples they would not be capable of performing most missions a sub is expeted to perform. It can however perform other missions…

It would seem as if the 920 ton “minisub” is neither fish nor fowl, as the saying goes. Who would expect 9 crew members to maintain watches for 24 hours a day over the course of a 30 day patrol? Any 70 meter vessel is oversized for the specialized ASDV mission, the only clear mission available for a so-called minisub.

Why not deploy a small swimmer delivery vehicle (ASDV) from a larger patrol or fleet submarine? Why not make your ASDV small enough to be air transportable?

It would seem that the “mini-sub” – or more properly the ASDV – has a genuine role, but not in the sense most people assume.

How about a modern day fast attack U-Boat?

This would be a craft capable of high speeds on the surface, armed with a few anti-ship weapons that could rapidly dive to safety from current surface attack weapons. It would then remain submerged and silent and launch self defence missiles at hunter-killer units searching for it.

The small crew (4?) would be housed in a pressurized safety sphere capable of withstanding explosions in the same way mine protected vehicles do on land. This sphere would also act as a escape capsule.

The 16m long, 50kt capable Halmatic VSV could be the basis for a fast attack U-Boat http://www.vosperthornycroft.co.uk/halmatic/product.asp?itemID=414&catid=92

Explain to me how a 920 ton vessel constitutes a “mini-sub.”

This unbuilt, unsold and highly unlikely proposal is for an undercrewed full sized submarine that is only slightly smaller than many modern Swedish and German ocean going submarine types.

So whether a sub is mini or not is defined by a comparison with Swedish and German subs?
Couldn’t possibly be the case that these two countries have defencive requirements that outweigh other considerations, which lead to their subs being short range mini sub type vessels rather than long range conventional patrol types like the Foxtrots or even Tangos?

Reduced crew size, less than 1,000 ton weight, relatively short range, though carrying full size torpedos and having a good speed (for a conventional design) is how I define a mini sub, and these subs meet these criteria. Certainly the 900 ton vessel is at the upper reaches of the range, but it is designed to operate as a normal sub, but be small. A midget sub does not act like a full size sub… at 12 knts for the Russian examples they would not be capable of performing most missions a sub is expeted to perform. It can however perform other missions…

Here are some mini submarine designs.

The 70t Sea Dagger modular design http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/seadagger.html http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dagger/
The 200t TR200 http://www.nordseewerke.de/e/prod/tr200.html

Yeah, displacement means nothing… length is what counts… not.

Explain to me how a 920 ton vessel constitutes a “mini-sub.”

This unbuilt, unsold and highly unlikely proposal is for an undercrewed full sized submarine that is only slightly smaller than many modern Swedish and German ocean going submarine types.

There is nothing “mini” about a submarine that is nearly 70 meters long?

Yeah, displacement means nothing… length is what counts… not.

Go to the links I posted above. 2,000nm, 22knts for a 900ton sub is not no speed and no range. Added the fact you can operate in shallower waters than any nuke sub and can be both operated from smaller ports but also made at smaller docks and maintained at smaller facilities I can see a real trend toward smaller subs. A tiny sub doesn’t have the same problems a tiny ship has. Air power means a small patrol boat needs a medium range SAM to protect it from helos and fixed wing aircraft. Even then it is very vulnerable and the SAM is expensive. Small subs can have very sophisticated systems on board and can be very quiet to operate… especially with fuel cell technology.
A tiny crew can be rotated like on any other sub… three crews on 8 hour shifts.

Regarding survivability from most weapons any sub is not safe… the sea is the real danger. A small sub operating in shallow waters would offer the crew the best chance of an escape than a large sub in the open ocean. In up to 300ft you can simply perform a free ascent.
Regarding limited weapons loadout… in the Falklands campaign only one of the British subs fired anything… when was the last time a sub ran out of ammo at war?
Four torpedos is plenty if they work as advertised… we are talking about using several small subs instead of a few larger ones.

I don’t think anyone suggested leading an invasion with minisubs.

As a defensive measure in shallow waters.

There is nothing “mini” about a submarine that is nearly 70 meters long?

-no speed
-no range

Go to the links I posted above. 2,000nm, 22knts for a 900ton sub is not no speed and no range. Added the fact you can operate in shallower waters than any nuke sub and can be both operated from smaller ports but also made at smaller docks and maintained at smaller facilities I can see a real trend toward smaller subs. A tiny sub doesn’t have the same problems a tiny ship has. Air power means a small patrol boat needs a medium range SAM to protect it from helos and fixed wing aircraft. Even then it is very vulnerable and the SAM is expensive. Small subs can have very sophisticated systems on board and can be very quiet to operate… especially with fuel cell technology.
A tiny crew can be rotated like on any other sub… three crews on 8 hour shifts.

Regarding survivability from most weapons any sub is not safe… the sea is the real danger. A small sub operating in shallow waters would offer the crew the best chance of an escape than a large sub in the open ocean. In up to 300ft you can simply perform a free ascent.
Regarding limited weapons loadout… in the Falklands campaign only one of the British subs fired anything… when was the last time a sub ran out of ammo at war?
Four torpedos is plenty if they work as advertised… we are talking about using several small subs instead of a few larger ones.

I don’t think anyone suggested leading an invasion with minisubs.

As a defensive measure in shallow waters.

I guess a mini sub may be good for some insertion of specops type of ops. And perhaps to do some intell, or check underwater cables/sensors, or do just basic science.

But as an attack weapon? C’mon! 😡

To put it very simply, a small sub has these following alarming weaknesses:

-laughabale sensors and systems
-very small weapons/vehicles loadout
-tiny crew who will tire out very quickly
-zero survivability (it can’t take a hit)
-no speed
-no range

Apart from these, I guess a mini sub may be a nice little toy to put-put around the shallows.

Thats using technology at least 15 years old.

It would be quite straightforward to get the necessary processing power onboard a torpedo now.

New Russian torpedo UGST has traditional algorithms of passive-active homing (subs and surface ships) and wake-homing algorithms (surface ships).
Planar array with electronic scanning is added with complex of additional sonars. Probably such system cannot “be deceived” (soft-kill), only “to destroy” (hard-kill). But it is very, very difficultly.

The Soviet produced plenty of wake following torpedos – and there was no countermeasure capable of defeating them at the time.

Of course, the Soviets had so little confidence in the guidance of their wake homing torpedos that most of the them had nuclear warheads.

Thats using technology at least 15 years old.

It would be quite straightforward to get the necessary processing power onboard a torpedo now.

The future in covered mine laying, obviously, not for midget or mini subs, but for specialized UUV.
If to imagine UUV, 200 miles having range and carrying 4-8 bottom mines. It uses GPS and can be started from any place of coast. Struggle against such system of mining will be very much complicated.

The crew for midget subs is necessary only for decision-making on application of weapon.

The Americans also adapted obsolete Mk37 torpedos to carry a ground mine in place of a warhead. In this way, an American submarine could mine a Soviet harbor while staying well away from the coast – far safer than actually entering an enemy harbor.

Wouldn’t get through the torpedo nets, but nice idea. (the Soviets have something similar).

The Americans developed the CAPTOR mine during the Cold War as a means of combating Soviet missile subs while sparing civilian shiping. The CAPTOR was a moored mine which released a 324mm anti-submarine torpedo in response to specific propellor sounds – in this case the slow turning prop(s) of a Soviet SSBN. Hundred of civilian ships could pass over the CAPTOR unharmed, but the first nuclear missile sub would have received a nasty surprise.

Soviets have two similar models that can be ship, sub or air (helo or fixed wing) launched/layed.

Why couldn’t the Iranians develop midget, remote Subs, used as live-feed “underwater” cruise
missiles, using electronic and visual cues. These could sit at the bottom, undetected, for months.
And, activated when needed. Sort of like mines, except these actually “search” and destroy Subs
and surface Ships. They don’t need to be Kamikaze either. They could be used for several different targets.

The Americans developed the CAPTOR mine during the Cold War as a means of combating Soviet missile subs while sparing civilian shiping. The CAPTOR was a moored mine which released a 324mm anti-submarine torpedo in response to specific propellor sounds – in this case the slow turning prop(s) of a Soviet SSBN. Hundred of civilian ships could pass over the CAPTOR unharmed, but the first nuclear missile sub would have received a nasty surprise.

The Americans also adapted obsolete Mk37 torpedos to carry a ground mine in place of a warhead. In this way, an American submarine could mine a Soviet harbor while staying well away from the coast – far safer than actually entering an enemy harbor.

The two concepts could be combined -in theory.

The Iranians have tended to use mines very indiscriminantly – some, if not most, being set adrift in hopes of hitting any target, miliary or civilian. Random drift mines are a weapon of general terror, not selective military intent.

The Iranians are also fond of suicide tactics, for reasons of ideology more than effectiveness.

A couple of torpedoes with smart algorithms to go after the propellors. If you get them you will:

– unbalance the engine, wrecking the drivetrain.
– bust the seals, flooding the engine room

This will either sink the boat, or render it a large barge. With carriers needing to generate wind over the deck for launching operations you have effectively removed it from the fight.

The Soviet produced plenty of wake following torpedos – and there was no countermeasure capable of defeating them at the time.

Of course, the Soviets had so little confidence in the guidance of their wake homing torpedos that most of the them had nuclear warheads.

And, is there a weapon that can be fired by one of these Subs, that can bring down a CVN with
one shot?

A couple of torpedoes with smart algorithms to go after the propellors. If you get them you will:

– unbalance the engine, wrecking the drivetrain.
– bust the seals, flooding the engine room

This will either sink the boat, or render it a large barge. With carriers needing to generate wind over the deck for launching operations you have effectively removed it from the fight.

[QUOTE=GarryB]

Only a nuke could hope to defeat a carrier with one shot. A dozen heavyweight torpedos would be the best conventional option… of course they don’t all have to come from the same mini sub.
[QUOTE]

However, even one heavyweight torpedo (300 kg charge) is capable to put heavy damages to big ship. Two (furthermore 4 ) torpedoes are capable to sink an aircraft carrier.

Sonars and computers of the torpedo allow to achieve explosion under the bottom of the ship on distance of 6-8 m, than to cause enormous damage to all systems of the ship.

don’t think there alot of use other then for really covert stuff – taping into cables – snooping around ports etc. They just don’t have hitting power required to inflict enough damage to big players – ore do they maybe im misinformed/smallminded/ lol.

Why couldn’t the Iranians develop midget, remote Subs, used as live-feed “underwater” cruise
missiles, using electronic and visual cues. These could sit at the bottom, undetected, for months.
And, activated when needed. Sort of like mines, except these actually “search” and destroy Subs
and surface Ships. They don’t need to be Kamikaze either. They could be used for several different targets.