During a state address in March 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled the world’s first nuclear-armed unmanned submarine — essentially a nuclear torpedo — known as the Poseidon. Now, more recently, Russia has announced that the first submarine capable of carrying the drone will launch in 2019.
While some experts have questioned Russia’s claims about the Poseidon’s ability to inflict damage, its development has long concerned military experts in the west.
But it’s not just Russia that’s working to harness rapidly developing underwater drone technology. On February 14, the United States Navy awarded a $43 million contract to Boeing to build four so-called Extra-Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicles code-named “Orca”.
The Orca is intended to prowl the world’s oceans under the control of its own artificial intelligence for months at a time. The US Navy says it wants to use it to locate hidden mines, track submarines and surface ships, engage in electronic surveillance and conduct strike missions.
Australia plays catch-up
This flurry of activity on underwater drones by the world’s two biggest military powers highlights Australia’s recent decision to ink a $50 billion contract for 12 submarines with French state-owned company Naval Group.
The time frame for the delivery of these traditionally manned submarines has already been stretched out to 2034, making their manufacture and their deployment lifespan an extremely long-term project. Already, the possibility has surfaced that at least some of Australia’s existing Collins-class submarines may need to be refurbished to plug the gap until the new submarines arrive.
Military experts who spoke to Crikey have noted how significantly the strategic outlook has changed in Asia Pacific in recent years, yet Australia’s submarine strategy is making a gamble that the submarines will still be a valid asset in 30 or more years. An increasing number of experts both inside and outside the Australian Defence Force have questioned this strategy and whether the Royal Australian Navy should be placing more focus on newer technologies that are driving underwater drone development.
What are underwater drones?
Submarines remain a valuable strategic asset. They can take out shipping, remain undetected while gathering intelligence, carry huge payloads — both nuclear and traditional — and strike relatively quickly.
Broadly speaking, there are two classes of unmanned submarines, or unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs): remotely operated underwater vehicles, controlled by a remote human operator in the same way as aerial drones; and autonomous underwater vehicles, which operate independently of direct human control using sophisticated sensor technology.
UUV’s are not solely for defence — ocean and climate researchers are also pinning their hopes on this new class of submersibles considerably adding to research capabilities. There’s also a growing sector of detection technologies, nanotechnology and magnetics involved in their rise.
What is the navy doing about underwater drones?
The Royal Australian Navy is paying a small amount of attention to UUVs. Last year it put on an open day at HMAS Cresswell in Jervis Bay to showcase autonomous technology. But it has not been part of the public conversations involved with the navy’s $90 billion Naval Shipbuilding Plan, of which the submarine contract is the biggest single component.
Critics say that this is because there is no political mileage in underwater drones. But, as one navy insider put it, the dilemma is what happens if we do nothing.
Was Christopher Pyne’s last big deal as Defence Minister a good investment? Write to boss@crikey.com.au with your full name and let us know.
It’s amazing to me that we quibble over a million here and a million there in other policy areas but in defence they just lay $50 billion on the table and it basically goes unremarked upon because neither major party wants to look soft on defence or make defence into a very divisive area.
You’d think there should be some national conversation as to why as a non-nucleae were were spending 50 billion on submarines in an era of drone strikes, ICBMs, information warfare, and terrorism as the major world threat. And after all the expensive hassle we’ve had with the Collins class…
Instead, apart from discussion of how much of the build will be done locally, it’s just gone unquestioned until now. I’m interested to see this story followed up.
Here’s something to keep an eye out for, Arky, in the follow up.
Watch where Pyne finishes up hanging his ‘ex Defence Minister’ shingle.
He has been developing some very interesting relationships and ‘deals’, shall we say.
One such has been in the UAE – some time back, in order to foster that relationship, Oz signed on to ‘defend’ the UAE, should they be ‘attacked’ by Iran.
The ‘paperwork’ to confirm that was found in one of those filing cabinets the ABC lost (and meekly surrendered, without informing the Oz public, as per their charter).
Yep. Christopher Pyne (Merchant Of Death) will be interesting to watch. Busy setting himself up for life after politics………..
You may like to check out “Juice Media” on Youtube, Penny.
Look out for “Pyney’s Warhouse”, in amongst their “Honest Government Ads”.
Just watched it. Yep, sums it up well. Christopher Pyne MOD wants to get involved in the killing business.
Alas, yes, there’s no way that he’ll go quietly into the dark night.
There is a way but we’re Australians not Americans so we wouldn’t do it. Speaking of doing bad things to pollies, there was a reminder in the WA news that things aren’t as bad as we sometimes see them. A youngster swimming was stung by a stingray and in great pain. He needed to be moved urgently to hospital and Premier Mark McGowan who was nearby handed the boy’s family his car keys and insisted they use his car since theirs was out of action. Couldn’t happen in America.
Ah, not really true. Have heard many, many stories of this and that US politicians doing things like that including people who otherwise come across as shitheads like Mitt Romney.
If Pyne doesn’t sail straight into at least 2 directorships with links to his former portfolios within 12 months my worldview will be shaken.
Yes Arky I’ve wondered about this too. I think it’s about numbers the average punter can comprehend. Remember Reith’s 50k phone card scandal ? That’s a big number that means something to regular folk and made it a big deal – much to our collective good luck. Add lots of zeroes and people zone out as has been increasingly realised by carpetbaggers. $400 million has become the sweet spot lately from wacky reef protection grants to beach shack based security company contracts. People see the 400 and ignore the millions.
The subs home build was about shoring up SA votes particularly Pyne’s. Now he’s shuffling off to his next SRC could we just buy Toyota’s like originally planned ?
Exactly. The same goes for Bronwyn Bishop’s helicopter ride; not only a figure but an event the average punter can relate to.
Yes, it’s the old Stalin line. 1 death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. Rorting $50,000 for your kid’s phone calls or for a helicopter ride is a scandal, rorting $400 million is a statistic. And few pay attention to statistics.
One thing about these autonomous warfare thingies puzzles me.
They are going to be programed with AI (artificial intelligence).
As part of this I guess they will have some form of self preservation response to stop them wandering off cliffs or the like.
If their IQ is greater than about 8 it shouldn’t take them long to figure out that their best procedure for self preservation is to destroy all humans.
We’ve proved ourselves to be utterly incompetent in our submarine procurements – the Collins were a disaster. Why can’t we get either an ‘off the shelf’ DE, or just build our own & market it. The massive wait for these subs could be better used in building our own infrastructure. Don’t get me started on the jet program where one of our 5 eye partners (Canada) decided long ago that they were not worth it – not to mention not deliverable by the expected date. We are clearly a third world purchaser of inferior product and lack the willpower to ‘build local’ except in the ‘shallowest’ sense.
John Hall I would dispute your claim that “the Collins were a disaster”. The last report I saw (by British engineer and submarine specialist John Coles) described them highly as did Navy Chief Ray Griggs. In fact if memory serves the Taiwanese wanted to buy some. As for the rest I agree you with entirely
Point accepted. I was referring to the massive teething problems, which took years to resolve. They became effective in the end and at least were largely built locally. The biggest problems were later having enough submariners to crew them.
The problems are ongoing. The diesel engines are a heepa junk. The manufacturer has gone belly up and spares unobtainable.
The really dumb thing is, had the Navy asked the merchant fleet about the engines they would have been warned how unreliable they are.
On the upside I have known many ex Navy. Submariners and they say the subs perform brilliantly, when they are working. They claim that they have shown up the Seppos many a time.
Have the doomsday preppers wised up to this prospect 124C4U?
Yeah they are onto it.
The problem for all prepers is that they are isolated units and in any doomsday senario they will stand out. The bigger rougher and more organised groups like say bikies will take them out and take their stuff.
“do you want terminators? Because that’s how you get terminators”
Obligatory meme aside, I’d question the need for subs and that other huge white elephant, the JSF
We could have had subs from Japan but Australia is a country that needs to be wary of the designs of three large powers in our general region: China, India and Japan, any one or two of which might want to have more control over our resources than they currently have. So if submarines are still a useful thing to have they probably should be sourced from Europe. As for the JSF, it’s hard to see how a non-great, non-nuclear power could need fighter aircraft more advanced than the much cheaper and well-proven ones available over the counter from France or Sweden.
That said, in the present circumstances of the world a government determined to deter major powers from acquiring Australia would probably need to be trying to get hold of 10 to 15 nuclear warheads and quietly make it known that they have the independent means of delivering them as far as Beijing, Tokyo or Delhi. That’s not Mutually Assured Destruction, just the means of making an attack unacceptably painful for the attacker.
See, I’m completely against nuclear proliferation and yet at least that would make some strategic sense to me as a defence strategy for Australia on one level. I don’t see how submarines for Australia serve as a deterrent against a foreign invasion – particularly as any conceivable real invader probably has nukes and can overwhelm us with sheer numbers. Submarines make sense for the fleets of nuclear powers who can use them as stealthy missile launch platforms, but what will we use them for? I don’t see how they are the best use of $50 billion in defence, let alone $50 billion for the country. It’s not the 1980s and our main military role is not assisting the NATO forces against the Russkies.
Ok Michael, having slung mud at a carefully considered and researched decision, what would YOU have decided to acquire if you were the Government of the day?
I wonder whether Pyne has got himself a job with the submarine project and if this is the reason he is retiring???
Command & Control networks for UUV’s are still a long way off and not guaranteed to not need ‘minding’ from a manned sub. Apart from the obvious politicking around the submarine procurement, I don’t think they are a bad idea at all.
The biggest issue we have is why the hell do we still have an armed forces split amongst land, air and sea instead of an integrated defence model.
Take the JSF and LHD’s for example, the LHD’s are plainly suited to operating as an Aircraft carrier, but instead we use them as just landing ships, thus needing all those pretty JSF fighters to have US support to operate past our shores.