Great explanation of pretty confusing nomenclature. When I retired from NAVSEA 10 years ago, I was heavily involved in integrating UUVs into submarine platforms. There was great competition to demonstrate the "first to market" for a useful UUV/submarine system. Although the prototype UUVs did not typically have explosive charges, they all had super dense energy storage in the form of lithium batteries. This posed some risk that had to be mitigated for deployment aboard submarines. In the US there was quite a bit of cross breeding between the weapons community (torpedoes) and the scientific community (think oceanographers).
@@TechToWatch No, there is not enough time once an internal short develops. Some of the concepts we pursued were launching out of a Dry Deck Shelter ( a lockout device for SEALS carried on the back of an SSN) and launching out of a Trident missile tube. Both of these ideas would keep any battery failures outside the ship's interior. The trident tubes were originally designed to contain the worst case mishap with a D5 missile. Very robust structure.
Always very happy to see a video from you. This didn't disappoint. I've been fascinated by UUV development, but information is relatively scarce. This is a great summary. I'm curious if you could do a predictive roadmap for where you think unmanned naval warfare is going in general. Speculation about the future always excites people, I bet it would get a lot of views.
In the US these road maps have been developed by Office of Naval Research (ONR) and. Naval Sea Systems Command . They are unclassified and you can probably just do a few Google searches to find them.
Underwater drones have some inherent freebies that make them particularly scary. Stealth due to the general absence of sonar in civilian waters. And ability to have a very large payload while using basic propulsion.
I feel a good way to distinguish between a drone and a torpedo, cruise missle, etc. is the guidance system from launch to target. Most of these armed drones still require an operator to manually control it into the target. However, missiles, etc, use built-in guidance systems and "think" independently about how to physically get to the traget after being given one. That said, things like the Shahed using this distinction would be a cheap and very basic version of a long-range missile as it's GPS guided (I believe). Which I think would be a fair way to describe them apposed to being described as a drone.
Love your videos. Interesting and calming without distracting music etc. Would love to see an episode on early subs, 1600-1900. And a special on the amazing Ictineo II
I'd still call most if not all of these torpedoes by convention. Semantics aside the important part is that these new systems can fill operational niches that previous torpedoes could not.
Yes! New video by H I Sutton. And could you do like bigger video on what Anders Puck Nielsen talked in his video on how difficult it is to defend against maritime drones? I'm talking about the part where waves create the clutter and what are the methods to "solve" this problem and what are the potential issues that country trying to solve it can run into (Computational power, proper software, maybe hardware would need to be very specific)? Sorry, but there isn't much info about this in public space. Or rather there is, but it's in hundreds of places.
@@johanmetreus1268 Ehhhh. I know bout that, I was talking more about how ships handle it in multiple ways etc. Passive sonar will have deadspots and will be weaker if the ships is moving as well.
Great Topic! With the advancement of this kind of technology, it's always a good time for HI to drop some knowledge on us about what is floating around out there looking to do bad things to peeps. Thanks HI
One thing I didnt hear you touch on was mine clearance. You also have the emergence of small underwater drones with sophisticated sensors for hunting mines and then a self-detonation capability to clear the mine.
I think the distinction between drone and torpedo/cruise missile is that a drone doesn't necessarily need to be itself an explosive device. The problem distinguishing comes then when you're considering purely kamikaze drones in my opinion
You can always say the difference between torpedoes and underwater drones is how they’re deployed and employed by the military. They’re constructed with different equipment for different capabilities such as range, speed, stealth, endurance, reconnaissance, etc.
I'm curious about the loitering potential of these. Ballast control can very low energy (for a large payload), and sitting nearly static on the ocean floor is about as stealthy as watercraft can get. An onboard system could allow it to surface to recharge via solar, drift into position, and/or relay instructions or observations. Something between a torpedo and a mine. With a network of these shifting about and increasing in numbers over a few years, the swarm potential partially nasty.
This happens a lot with weapons. Just think about the difference between what we perceive as a “rocket” and a “missile”. And then realize an arrow is technically a “missile” So, a “rocket” is a missile. And a “missile” can have rocket propulsion and still be perceived as a “missile” And so on and so on…. All the best to everyone
The differentiation between AUVs and torpedoes makes sense historically and developmentally but will be largely irrelevant. Classifying a torpedo as a type of AUV makes more sense. One of the things history teaches is that the meaning of words can change over time depending on need. In this context, we need two terms: a term for an autonomously guided system (torpedolike) and a term for a remotely guided system (dronelike). At some point, we might also see a hybrid system akin to an underwater Predator/Bayraktar: a drone with guided munitions.
Wire guided torpedos are a thing. mk37 could do it, I guess the real difference is capability’s UUV and USV can be used to recon. torpedos can’t be used as a secondary recon role where as USVs and UUV can be and might have a one way attack feature as a purely secondary function or the recon is secondary guess that depends on intent.
@@BeKindToBirds what is a explosive underwater suicide drone but a remote controlled torpedo with a trendy name id be different if the drones instead placed limpet mines on the undersides ship hull's before retreating like frog men, also we've had self propelled remote controlled explosive devices in ww2 as well but those were land based slow and short ranged and some even had a wired connection, but we don't call those land drones now do we?
Any torpedo is an UAV by definition. Any and all torpedoes have a search program set into it prior to launching, it tells the torpedo where to go to look for a target, how far down it should search and what depth it should have as its top depth so it doesnt target surface vessels, it will drive itself out xx meters then it engages one or multiple search patterns using its search sonar, once it finds the target it switches to terminal sonar and pings much faster as it closes with its target. They do all this on their own after its launched.
I think the naming convention will possibly settle out with calling the ones that go boom drone torpedoes, and the ones that don't sticking with AUV. Whats the bet the yanks come up with a bunch of awkward backronyms for their versions though? Anyway, I'm interested to see what the defense solutions work out as. Naively, I might suggest torpedo booms coming back into vogue for harbour defense?
You forgot to mention one important distinction between conventional systems (torpedoes, cruise missiles) and and novel systems (drones, UUVs) is the launch platform. Most of the conventional systems are launched by specialised carriers (planes, submarines) and are unable to self-launch. Novel systems, on the other hand are designed to be self launched.
To me a torpedo is like a missile, which is a guided bullet. You tell it where the target is, and it will do its best to destroy that target. They are launched with a known target in mind and their travel period is limited. Weaponized drones (excluding the drones meant for intelligence gathering), also called "loitering munitions" or "kamikaze drones" do not necessarily know their target in advance, and sometimes fail to attack. They either wait to be given target cues by their operator while in-flight or are able to identify their targets autonomously.
(14:00)It helps to remember that the primary mission of a homing torpedo, whether air- or submarine-launched, is anti-submarine warfare. This means that the weapon has to dive as deep as its deepest-diving target, requiring a much stronger hull construction than a near-surface UUV. Tube-launching means that control surfaces, propulsors and sensors have to fit within the tube diameter.
Are AUVs able to communicate fully submerged without needing an antenna at the surface? Loitering submerged without losing comms opens up more possibilities, while being difficult to detect.
I posit that the difference would be if the vehicle was designed to go back to the deployer and be re-deployed if it wasn’t “used”. Drones can land and be refuelled and sent out again, I would presume that a cruise missile is less able to do so?
It's a cheap, crafty guided torpedo. Single use: check. Travels underwater: check. Unmanned: check. Not necessarily deployed from a submarine: check. These are a tiny, shorter range and far less sophisticated version of the giant long range nuclear torpedo deployed from the Belgorod.
The only distinction between armed drones and missiles/ torpedoes. Is that missiles are fired at a target (drone select targets in flight or return). As for the speed, it makes them harder to stop before they hit their target. Having stealthy drones swimming around like sharks is going to make a lot of people nervous, irrespective if they're armed.
drones are suppose to have connection i guess. so many of so called drones are super cheap and super slow missiles. but hey... its all new so there is no right and wrong here
Why not a two stage AUV? Electric power while it is hunting it's target. Then launching a faster, smaller component once in range. Maybe the first stage can return to base for a reload.
The non-reusable version of that is called the (submarine launched) mobile mine. Its a Mk 37 torpedo with one or more warheads that acts like a torpedo till it gets to its destination then becomes a mine. The newer version drops a warhead then goes to a second location and becomes a bottom mine itself.
And again, the world is becoming an increasingly unsafe place; I don't even want to imagine when these things take on a life of their own. Thanks for the information.
I think one of the ancestors of these kind of weapons was the Italo-German "Fallschirm-Motorbombe LT 350" build 1942. It was dropped by parachute in a harbor full of ships and circled around (programmed for different circle-radii and changing turn directions) for about one hout at low speed in a depth of 2 to 6m. It was not very successful. Interestingly the designation "LT" stands for air launched torpedo and the name stood for motorized bomb or mine. So the challenge to find a correct name for this kind of weapon is still around.
I have always looked at torpedoes as drones, even when they aren't very intelligent and sometimes attack their owners.😂 Like a drone they have always maintained their depth and direction🤔 The sub-sea drone just takes the submarine out and becomes a very dangerous loitering munition. I enjoy your videos ❤
One of the larger narratives that all things drones seem to be bringing up is the potential for large shifts in the defense industry at large. In the west they are oligopolies, too big to fail, always over budget and slow. These drone shops are the exact opposite. So will be interesting to see if there is any real disruption caused by these small players or, if like with other sectors, once a drone maker becomes successful to a point, will the traditional players simply come in and buy them up.
My bet is that in common usage, acronyms are not going to win, and that folks will mostly use the term "drone" (with or without the "underwater" qualifier) for any unmanned underwater vehicle not a torpedo. Going back to origins of the term, any kind of device with an explosive was generically referred to as a torpedo which Robert Fulton pioneered in 1805 with moored "torpedos". This is the meaning used by Admiral Faragut's "damn the torpedos" quote in 1864 at the battle of Mobile bay. It is said Fulton used the term torpedo after the Atlantic torpedo ray (Tetronarce nobiliana) because of its powerful electical shock. Land mines used in the american civil war were also sometimes referred to as torpedos, borrowing the naval term for stationary unseen explosives used for area denial. The usage diverged because mobility changed their nature from a passive defensive role to an offensive nature. Does it matter all the splitting of hairs by naval enthusiasts? It does if it is important to understand what is distinct say between a corvette versus a frigate. But in casual use terms are used in a sloppy fashion- whether general terms like "bug" or "boat" or precise terms like "yawl" or "ketch". In non technical contexts it usually doesn't really matter since those who do know the precise definitions know what the casual user most likely means. Thanks very much to people like H I Sutton who take the time to help us lay people comprehend the important distinctions, because in the real world, th changing nature of these different devices are having a significant impact in conflicts.
navies may choose to have armed UUVs on a sub alongside a load of more traditional torpedo's in the future, as tech advances, having a controllable loitering sea-mine is a terrifying thought, or a ISR platform that can snoop around at range (or *very* deep) for the launch sub at standoff range, akin to the loyal wingman of the USAF, even peek at the surface in a heavy ASuW environment without risking the launch sub.
If the target was a ship, there's no reason you couldn't operate a slow electrical long-range underwater drone with a fast chemically propelled torpedo onboard, right? Or model it as a 'mk48 Extended Range Guidance Kit', clipped on to the back of the torpedo, if you like
I'm still unconvinced of referring to weapons such as Shahed as something other than cruise missile. It might not be a SCALP or a Tomahawk but they serve much of the same purposes and techniques. Just not as cutting edge.
What is the point of distinguishing them from torpedoes in nomenclature? Fair enough when UUVs didn't go boom, they were most definitely not torpedoes... But seeing as "torpedo" covers everything from the original spar torpedo to a mk.48 ADCAP, so long as it moves underwater and goes boom, why draw the line here? Why not call them [insert prefix]-torpedo? That way, when they do pretty much merge with typical torpedos, then we won't have to reinvent the naming scheme again.
What about "drone mines"? Do they exist? Would the count as an armed underwater drone or are the just cheap smart seamines? I mean someone must have come up with a drone that dives to a certain spot, then stays dormant or in some kind of observer mode till it gets an order or a target of opportunity presents itself and then the "drone mine" steers itself in.
I think the Quickstrike air-dropped mine does something similar? There is/was a US mine that rests on the seabed and will release and target ships based on their acoustic signature, but I'm not sure of the name or whether it is still in service. Maybe it was CAPTOR? That uses a torpedo to target enemy ships or submarines passing nearby.
There are mines from the cold war that work somewhat like that. Although the word mine might mislead some, it is a torpedo launcher with passive sensors looking out for signals of an enemy vessel.
Difference between uav and cruise missle? I propose loiter ability/time and guidance method. A drone tends to use first person viual guidance to target, whereas a cruise missle tends to use terrain/satellite/laser/inertial/etc. guidance. Cruise missles tend to have limited to no loiter time, whereas drones have extended loiter time.
Thanks for the evolutionary review. I know you like unscripted presentation, but can I ask for a comparison table, feature by feature of the characteristics that you deem discriminate them between torpedo and ROV, UUV & AUV. Frankly, I feel that the distinction is disappearing. Look at MK 37 Torpedo and Mk 48 torpedo (both on Wikipedia) You'll note that the range reported depends on speed. We have had underwater ROVs for many decades. these were probably (I think) completely dependent on their tether for power & control.
Very good watching. Went in search of the Mk41 example to find out more but couldn't get good search resolution on that particular model, what makes it so interesting. Perhaps will revisit? Anyways, good video. I'm subbed.
So a fat, slow torpedo is not a torpedo? It sounds more like the argument over the differences between BattleCruisers and Battleships, than between Battleships and Aircraft Carriers. The differences between the two are more incremental than categorical. Arguing that a torpedo looks like a torpedo, then referencing UUVs that also “look like torpedoes”, kinda contradicts the argument. Nor is arguing that “some” torpedoes have different propulsion systems, convincing, if you accept that some have the same type of propulsion as UUVs. The longer the argument proceeds, the more we hear “appears” and “may have”, without arriving at a definition that is really effective at distinguishing between the two supposedly seperate categories.
Slow, various sizes and shapes, various means of propulsion and guidance, clumsy to deploy. By gosh you're right! These are not torpedo builders! These are torpedo history reenactors!
I would use "torpedo" to be something launched to attack a known target in a limited amount of time and distance (1 hour? 10km?), with little control other than guidance and perhaps a disable function, and further designed to operate only in environments free of constraints requiring navigation. If it has no explosive or similar, it must be a UUV. If the time and distance are past some limit, UUV. If it picks its own target, UUV. If it does any navigation other than a straight line to close with the target, UUV.
You made an interesting comment about the iranian photographs and how they cover the aft section and hypothesised that it was to cover up the fact that it may be wire guided. Now I do not know if it may be a bit of a myth or not, but I heard that propellers on submarines and the like tend to be covered in photos because they can provide some insight into their characteristics and roughly what kind of noise they would make. I ask this now because I am not sure how much truth there is in this and you probably know something about it.
Thank you for doing what you do I didn't even know there was such a thing as a underwater drone that's not a torpedo, Ukraine right now seems to be the world leader in drone weapons, and I can see a lot of countries getting interested in this and coming to Ukraine to get first town knowledge of this and other drone systems, for future wars.
It seems to me that the differene between a modern torpedo and the new killer underwater drones is that the latter is more leisurely, a lot more chatty, and a lot more nosy. lol
Actually, nothing stops us from programming a torpedo to go to a certain coordinate slowly and silently, and then listen for targets and engage if it finds anything. There are (or at least were) two-speed torpedoes, nothing stops us from building one. Still, a good torpedo is expensive, giving them the terminal speed, velocity, and guidance is costly. Might still worth it - you don't have to expose yourself to shoot them, you just need some good satellite images on where the enemy is. This might be a game changer at sea. You might be more cautious where you sail your carrier group if a swarm of these can just appear from the depths...
Torpedoes can also sink to the bottom in shallow water in a channel or other places where surface ships pass to wait for them to pass over them. When they do, the torpedo explodes and breaks the ship's keel.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
"Guys, we've been adrift for days"
"Look, a shore rescuer! We're saved!"
boom boom
That's how i felt, when the Thumbnail said "NOT a Torpedo", then get 2/3 of the video whafting about the history of Torps.
Its literally a torpedo@@Gunni1972
It's that time of year again! 😀
Always delighted to see you upload and educate us landlubbers, Mr. Sutton 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Even old 'Bubbleheads'
love his work,
... deservedly ...
You Sir are THE Authority on this type of thing. Thank you for your excellent presentation!
So nice of you
Waiting for your videos are like waiting for fine wine. The longer it's been, the more I can savor the experience.
Seems to me that a good name for the underwater devices is "undies".😄
Bet that gets picked up in the fleet:
It's catchy,
and
apt.
Of course, I'm biased,
as a Cold War submariner,
and beyond ...
"Sir! We are under attack by an autonomous swarm of undies!"
Single-use exploding undies? Ouch!
Good point. The over-arching theme of this clip is semantics.
Simplicity is always a better approach.
KISS!
You must be aussie to come up with undies lol
Everything you discuss is thoroughly fascinating. Thanks!
Glad you think so!
@20:00 I'm fascinated by the indigenous arms production in Gaza. It's amazing what people come up with when you give nothing to do but plot revenge
Great explanation of pretty confusing nomenclature. When I retired from NAVSEA 10 years ago, I was heavily involved in integrating UUVs into submarine platforms. There was great competition to demonstrate the "first to market" for a useful UUV/submarine system. Although the prototype UUVs did not typically have explosive charges, they all had super dense energy storage in the form of lithium batteries. This posed some risk that had to be mitigated for deployment aboard submarines. In the US there was quite a bit of cross breeding between the weapons community (torpedoes) and the scientific community (think oceanographers).
If a high capacity lithium battery on a sub decided to catch fire, could it be quickly expelled thru a torpedo tube?
@@TechToWatch No, there is not enough time once an internal short develops. Some of the concepts we pursued were launching out of a Dry Deck Shelter ( a lockout device for SEALS carried on the back of an SSN) and launching out of a Trident missile tube. Both of these ideas would keep any battery failures outside the ship's interior. The trident tubes were originally designed to contain the worst case mishap with a D5 missile. Very robust structure.
Always very happy to see a video from you. This didn't disappoint. I've been fascinated by UUV development, but information is relatively scarce. This is a great summary.
I'm curious if you could do a predictive roadmap for where you think unmanned naval warfare is going in general. Speculation about the future always excites people, I bet it would get a lot of views.
In the US these road maps have been developed by Office of Naval Research (ONR) and. Naval Sea Systems Command . They are unclassified and you can probably just do a few Google searches to find them.
I was just rewatching your old videos while working. Thanks for this amazing new video!
Underwater drones have some inherent freebies that make them particularly scary. Stealth due to the general absence of sonar in civilian waters. And ability to have a very large payload while using basic propulsion.
just like a whitehead torpedo
I feel a good way to distinguish between a drone and a torpedo, cruise missle, etc. is the guidance system from launch to target. Most of these armed drones still require an operator to manually control it into the target. However, missiles, etc, use built-in guidance systems and "think" independently about how to physically get to the traget after being given one. That said, things like the Shahed using this distinction would be a cheap and very basic version of a long-range missile as it's GPS guided (I believe). Which I think would be a fair way to describe them apposed to being described as a drone.
Can’t miss an HI Sutton report!
Love your videos. Interesting and calming without distracting music etc. Would love to see an episode on early subs, 1600-1900. And a special on the amazing Ictineo II
I'd still call most if not all of these torpedoes by convention. Semantics aside the important part is that these new systems can fill operational niches that previous torpedoes could not.
I think of kamikaze drones and underwater drones as cheaper cruise missiles and torpedoes
Great video and information, could you create a circular chart with qualifiers to illustrate the differences?
Have been looking forward to your coverage of this inevitable topic. Thanks!
Yes! New video by H I Sutton.
And could you do like bigger video on what Anders Puck Nielsen talked in his video on how difficult it is to defend against maritime drones? I'm talking about the part where waves create the clutter and what are the methods to "solve" this problem and what are the potential issues that country trying to solve it can run into (Computational power, proper software, maybe hardware would need to be very specific)? Sorry, but there isn't much info about this in public space. Or rather there is, but it's in hundreds of places.
Passive sonar. anything moving fast in the water will make noise.
@@johanmetreus1268 Ehhhh. I know bout that, I was talking more about how ships handle it in multiple ways etc.
Passive sonar will have deadspots and will be weaker if the ships is moving as well.
@@jannegrey Fixed arrays solve that particular problem. As for ships, going active is an option.
I agree with Paul . Its been too long since you Posted. Hungry for your Content!!!!
Great Topic! With the advancement of this kind of technology, it's always a good time for HI to drop some knowledge on us about what is floating around out there looking to do bad things to peeps.
Thanks HI
The UAV is the cruise missile we have at home
thats like the best defenition ive heard so far
@@leonschroeder4771Yep.
@@leonschroeder4771Poor mans cruise missiles.
One thing I didnt hear you touch on was mine clearance. You also have the emergence of small underwater drones with sophisticated sensors for hunting mines and then a self-detonation capability to clear the mine.
As always superb info and analysis H.I. Thank you for sharing. Cheers!
Always interesting. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience 👍👍
*I always appreciate your insight brother*
I think the distinction between drone and torpedo/cruise missile is that a drone doesn't necessarily need to be itself an explosive device. The problem distinguishing comes then when you're considering purely kamikaze drones in my opinion
You can always say the difference between torpedoes and underwater drones is how they’re deployed and employed by the military. They’re constructed with different equipment for different capabilities such as range, speed, stealth, endurance, reconnaissance, etc.
that was my first thought. the difference is usecase and mission profile
I'm curious about the loitering potential of these. Ballast control can very low energy (for a large payload), and sitting nearly static on the ocean floor is about as stealthy as watercraft can get. An onboard system could allow it to surface to recharge via solar, drift into position, and/or relay instructions or observations. Something between a torpedo and a mine. With a network of these shifting about and increasing in numbers over a few years, the swarm potential partially nasty.
Very informative! Are there any pics out there about the electrical connection/cable between a torpedo and a submarine? Or similar stuff?
17:18 you always cover the propeller geometry because you can use computational methods to figure out what sound a propeller makes from its shape
Knowing the number of blades gets you a long way without needing a computer. ;-)
You didn't cover when the arguments of double hulled vs single hulled UUV's begins though.
Please keep these Great videos coming!
This happens a lot with weapons.
Just think about the difference between what we perceive as a “rocket” and a “missile”.
And then realize an arrow is technically a “missile”
So, a “rocket” is a missile. And a “missile” can have rocket propulsion and still be perceived as a “missile”
And so on and so on….
All the best to everyone
An interesting take on remotely guided loitering torpedos
The Kettering bug ww1
The differentiation between AUVs and torpedoes makes sense historically and developmentally but will be largely irrelevant. Classifying a torpedo as a type of AUV makes more sense. One of the things history teaches is that the meaning of words can change over time depending on need. In this context, we need two terms: a term for an autonomously guided system (torpedolike) and a term for a remotely guided system (dronelike). At some point, we might also see a hybrid system akin to an underwater Predator/Bayraktar: a drone with guided munitions.
Wire guided torpedos are a thing. mk37 could do it, I guess the real difference is capability’s UUV and USV can be used to recon. torpedos can’t be used as a secondary recon role where as USVs and UUV can be and might have a one way attack feature as a purely secondary function or the recon is secondary guess that depends on intent.
"programmable torpedo's? don't be ridiculous we use underwater drones"
There is a reason for the scholarly definition being specific. You are making up an emotional interpretation to a technical definition.
@@BeKindToBirds what is a explosive underwater suicide drone but a remote controlled torpedo with a trendy name
id be different if the drones instead placed limpet mines on the undersides ship hull's before retreating like frog men, also we've had self propelled remote controlled explosive devices in ww2 as well but those were land based slow and short ranged and some even had a wired connection, but we don't call those land drones now do we?
Houthi and the Blowfish?
Yes lmfao
Another fantastic video! Thanks!
Thank you very much for an excellent video.
Thank you Sir !
Any torpedo is an UAV by definition. Any and all torpedoes have a search program set into it prior to launching, it tells the torpedo where to go to look for a target, how far down it should search and what depth it should have as its top depth so it doesnt target surface vessels, it will drive itself out xx meters then it engages one or multiple search patterns using its search sonar, once it finds the target it switches to terminal sonar and pings much faster as it closes with its target. They do all this on their own after its launched.
Honestly this channel could be Perun with some production value, but I do appreciate the "do it live" mentality.
Well a Torpedo is a UAV too. Fido etc of WW2 were also self steering drones.
Welcome back with your ☆☆☆☆☆ content ❤
Thanks. Watching your videos is always a pleasure.
It's been too long since you posted content. If you posted content everyday, I would watch it.
He has a job, and it's free. So,be patient.
@@Syndr1this is part of his job as a defense analyst, according to him.
Quality over quantity.
How you feel about the Reds this season?
@@treky4life488 feeling pretty good! Loving De La Cruz and India!
Great insight as always!
I think the naming convention will possibly settle out with calling the ones that go boom drone torpedoes, and the ones that don't sticking with AUV.
Whats the bet the yanks come up with a bunch of awkward backronyms for their versions though?
Anyway, I'm interested to see what the defense solutions work out as. Naively, I might suggest torpedo booms coming back into vogue for harbour defense?
You forgot to mention one important distinction between conventional systems (torpedoes, cruise missiles) and and novel systems (drones, UUVs) is the launch platform. Most of the conventional systems are launched by specialised carriers (planes, submarines) and are unable to self-launch. Novel systems, on the other hand are designed to be self launched.
19:45 If the weapon had a marketing brochure it would mention "hand crafted" and "artisanal production methods"
"making extensive use of pre loved hardware"
To me a torpedo is like a missile, which is a guided bullet. You tell it where the target is, and it will do its best to destroy that target. They are launched with a known target in mind and their travel period is limited. Weaponized drones (excluding the drones meant for intelligence gathering), also called "loitering munitions" or "kamikaze drones" do not necessarily know their target in advance, and sometimes fail to attack. They either wait to be given target cues by their operator while in-flight or are able to identify their targets autonomously.
Any day H I Sutton drops a video is a good day!
(14:00)It helps to remember that the primary mission of a homing torpedo, whether air- or submarine-launched, is anti-submarine warfare. This means that the weapon has to dive as deep as its deepest-diving target, requiring a much stronger hull construction than a near-surface UUV. Tube-launching means that control surfaces, propulsors and sensors have to fit within the tube diameter.
Are AUVs able to communicate fully submerged without needing an antenna at the surface?
Loitering submerged without losing comms opens up more possibilities, while being difficult to detect.
Not unless they have also been able to change the laws of physics. See the titan submersible.
I posit that the difference would be if the vehicle was designed to go back to the deployer and be re-deployed if it wasn’t “used”. Drones can land and be refuelled and sent out again, I would presume that a cruise missile is less able to do so?
Thanks, HI Sutton.
I hope you're feeling better mate!
Imagine a swarm of small underwater drones with shaped charges blasting holes in every compartment
It's a cheap, crafty guided torpedo. Single use: check. Travels underwater: check. Unmanned: check. Not necessarily deployed from a submarine: check. These are a tiny, shorter range and far less sophisticated version of the giant long range nuclear torpedo deployed from the Belgorod.
Yup
The only distinction between armed drones and missiles/ torpedoes. Is that missiles are fired at a target (drone select targets in flight or return). As for the speed, it makes them harder to stop before they hit their target.
Having stealthy drones swimming around like sharks is going to make a lot of people nervous, irrespective if they're armed.
drones are suppose to have connection i guess. so many of so called drones are super cheap and super slow missiles. but hey... its all new so there is no right and wrong here
Anyone have info on the vehicle (beetle tank) @4:15?
No way is that real right? Turret looks like there's no room
Why not a two stage AUV?
Electric power while it is hunting it's target. Then launching a faster, smaller component once in range.
Maybe the first stage can return to base for a reload.
Do you still have a merch store?
Legend is back!
Post more please! If you run out of current events I’m sure we would all love to hear some (unscripted) historical content
What would term a reusable sea drone that could carry a sea mine and drop it on the approach to an enemy harbor?
The non-reusable version of that is called the (submarine launched) mobile mine. Its a Mk 37 torpedo with one or more warheads that acts like a torpedo till it gets to its destination then becomes a mine. The newer version drops a warhead then goes to a second location and becomes a bottom mine itself.
Thank you
And again, the world is becoming an increasingly unsafe place; I don't even want to imagine when these things take on a life of their own. Thanks for the information.
I think one of the ancestors of these kind of weapons was the Italo-German "Fallschirm-Motorbombe LT 350" build 1942. It was dropped by parachute in a harbor full of ships and circled around (programmed for different circle-radii and changing turn directions) for about one hout at low speed in a depth of 2 to 6m. It was not very successful. Interestingly the designation "LT" stands for air launched torpedo and the name stood for motorized bomb or mine. So the challenge to find a correct name for this kind of weapon is still around.
Hello again, H I ! Never mind the pause since last time, Quality has a Quantity All Its Own!
Excellent.
Very interesting thanks 🙂🤘
I have always looked at torpedoes as drones, even when they aren't very intelligent and sometimes attack their owners.😂
Like a drone they have always maintained their depth and direction🤔
The sub-sea drone just takes the submarine out and becomes a very dangerous loitering munition.
I enjoy your videos ❤
Is it unscripted as usual and is Sutton apologizing? 😂😂😂❤❤❤❤
One of the larger narratives that all things drones seem to be bringing up is the potential for large shifts in the defense industry at large. In the west they are oligopolies, too big to fail, always over budget and slow. These drone shops are the exact opposite. So will be interesting to see if there is any real disruption caused by these small players or, if like with other sectors, once a drone maker becomes successful to a point, will the traditional players simply come in and buy them up.
My bet is that in common usage, acronyms are not going to win, and that folks will mostly use the term "drone" (with or without the "underwater" qualifier) for any unmanned underwater vehicle not a torpedo.
Going back to origins of the term, any kind of device with an explosive was generically referred to as a torpedo which Robert Fulton pioneered in 1805 with moored "torpedos". This is the meaning used by Admiral Faragut's "damn the torpedos" quote in 1864 at the battle of Mobile bay. It is said Fulton used the term torpedo after the Atlantic torpedo ray (Tetronarce nobiliana) because of its powerful electical shock. Land mines used in the american civil war were also sometimes referred to as torpedos, borrowing the naval term for stationary unseen explosives used for area denial. The usage diverged because mobility changed their nature from a passive defensive role to an offensive nature.
Does it matter all the splitting of hairs by naval enthusiasts? It does if it is important to understand what is distinct say between a corvette versus a frigate. But in casual use terms are used in a sloppy fashion- whether general terms like "bug" or "boat" or precise terms like "yawl" or "ketch". In non technical contexts it usually doesn't really matter since those who do know the precise definitions know what the casual user most likely means.
Thanks very much to people like H I Sutton who take the time to help us lay people comprehend the important distinctions, because in the real world, th changing nature of these different devices are having a significant impact in conflicts.
navies may choose to have armed UUVs on a sub alongside a load of more traditional torpedo's in the future, as tech advances, having a controllable loitering sea-mine is a terrifying thought, or a ISR platform that can snoop around at range (or *very* deep) for the launch sub at standoff range, akin to the loyal wingman of the USAF, even peek at the surface in a heavy ASuW environment without risking the launch sub.
If the target was a ship, there's no reason you couldn't operate a slow electrical long-range underwater drone with a fast chemically propelled torpedo onboard, right? Or model it as a 'mk48 Extended Range Guidance Kit', clipped on to the back of the torpedo, if you like
I'm still unconvinced of referring to weapons such as Shahed as something other than cruise missile. It might not be a SCALP or a Tomahawk but they serve much of the same purposes and techniques. Just not as cutting edge.
What is the point of distinguishing them from torpedoes in nomenclature?
Fair enough when UUVs didn't go boom, they were most definitely not torpedoes... But seeing as "torpedo" covers everything from the original spar torpedo to a mk.48 ADCAP, so long as it moves underwater and goes boom, why draw the line here?
Why not call them [insert prefix]-torpedo? That way, when they do pretty much merge with typical torpedos, then we won't have to reinvent the naming scheme again.
I don't know it sounds like a guided torpedo to me the only difference is someone steering it
What about "drone mines"? Do they exist? Would the count as an armed underwater drone or are the just cheap smart seamines?
I mean someone must have come up with a drone that dives to a certain spot, then stays dormant or in some kind of observer mode till it gets an order or a target of opportunity presents itself and then the "drone mine" steers itself in.
I think the Quickstrike air-dropped mine does something similar?
There is/was a US mine that rests on the seabed and will release and target ships based on their acoustic signature, but I'm not sure of the name or whether it is still in service. Maybe it was CAPTOR? That uses a torpedo to target enemy ships or submarines passing nearby.
There are mines from the cold war that work somewhat like that. Although the word mine might mislead some, it is a torpedo launcher with passive sensors looking out for signals of an enemy vessel.
Thank you.
Difference between uav and cruise missle? I propose loiter ability/time and guidance method. A drone tends to use first person viual guidance to target, whereas a cruise missle tends to use terrain/satellite/laser/inertial/etc. guidance. Cruise missles tend to have limited to no loiter time, whereas drones have extended loiter time.
Torpedos and loitering aerial munitions are both capable of chilling out for a good while looking for a target.
Thanks for the evolutionary review.
I know you like unscripted presentation, but can I ask for a comparison table, feature by feature of the characteristics that you deem discriminate them between torpedo and ROV, UUV & AUV. Frankly, I feel that the distinction is disappearing.
Look at MK 37 Torpedo and Mk 48 torpedo (both on Wikipedia)
You'll note that the range reported depends on speed.
We have had underwater ROVs for many decades. these were probably (I think) completely dependent on their tether for power & control.
Very good watching. Went in search of the Mk41 example to find out more but couldn't get good search resolution on that particular model, what makes it so interesting. Perhaps will revisit? Anyways, good video. I'm subbed.
Very interesting as always. More, please. How about one on narco submarines?
He's done narco submarines. Very good and informative, also.
So a fat, slow torpedo is not a torpedo?
It sounds more like the argument over the differences between BattleCruisers and Battleships, than between Battleships and Aircraft Carriers. The differences between the two are more incremental than categorical.
Arguing that a torpedo looks like a torpedo, then referencing UUVs that also “look like torpedoes”, kinda contradicts the argument. Nor is arguing that “some” torpedoes have different propulsion systems, convincing, if you accept that some have the same type of propulsion as UUVs.
The longer the argument proceeds, the more we hear “appears” and “may have”, without arriving at a definition that is really effective at distinguishing between the two supposedly seperate categories.
Really quite intersting!
Slow, various sizes and shapes, various means of propulsion and guidance, clumsy to deploy. By gosh you're right! These are not torpedo builders! These are torpedo history reenactors!
haha
Forgot to mention the SUVs and TRUCKS (of peace).
"They are more for going up and down than they are for going along" -H I Sutton. Can I get this on a t-shirt?
I would use "torpedo" to be something launched to attack a known target in a limited amount of time and distance (1 hour? 10km?), with little control other than guidance and perhaps a disable function, and further designed to operate only in environments free of constraints requiring navigation. If it has no explosive or similar, it must be a UUV. If the time and distance are past some limit, UUV. If it picks its own target, UUV. If it does any navigation other than a straight line to close with the target, UUV.
You made an interesting comment about the iranian photographs and how they cover the aft section and hypothesised that it was to cover up the fact that it may be wire guided.
Now I do not know if it may be a bit of a myth or not, but I heard that propellers on submarines and the like tend to be covered in photos because they can provide some insight into their characteristics and roughly what kind of noise they would make. I ask this now because I am not sure how much truth there is in this and you probably know something about it.
please where do you get the photo of the argentinians with the torpedo?? its incredible!!1! greetings from Argentina 🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷
Thank you for doing what you do I didn't even know there was such a thing as a underwater drone that's not a torpedo, Ukraine right now seems to be the world leader in drone weapons, and I can see a lot of countries getting interested in this and coming to Ukraine to get first town knowledge of this and other drone systems, for future wars.
It seems to me that the differene between a modern torpedo and the new killer underwater drones is that the latter is more leisurely, a lot more chatty, and a lot more nosy. lol
And how do you control this
Actually, nothing stops us from programming a torpedo to go to a certain coordinate slowly and silently, and then listen for targets and engage if it finds anything. There are (or at least were) two-speed torpedoes, nothing stops us from building one.
Still, a good torpedo is expensive, giving them the terminal speed, velocity, and guidance is costly. Might still worth it - you don't have to expose yourself to shoot them, you just need some good satellite images on where the enemy is.
This might be a game changer at sea. You might be more cautious where you sail your carrier group if a swarm of these can just appear from the depths...
Torpedoes can also sink to the bottom in shallow water in a channel or other places where surface ships pass to wait for them to pass over them. When they do, the torpedo explodes and breaks the ship's keel.
(Not A Torpedo)
Ok, you got me.
back in the day we had "maverick" tv guided missiles on the A10. they were just called guided missiles