"Poseidon" Nuclear-armed Underwater Drone

It should be a minor modification to install onto the Poseidon few standard torpedo, or a towed sonar.

They can accompany normal submarines, or they can give extreme level of punch to a Kilo submarine.


They can surface, do long term communication.

Or if nothing else they are more cheaper than a Yassen, means say twenty Poseidon can cruise in the atlantic ocean, for the price of on Yassen, and tide up all anti submairine warfare resources.

Hole wrote:The Poseidon is the equivalent to the Okhotnik drone. Long-range. For high-value targets. Western attack subs will mostly be intercepted by lighter UUVs, some fellow at Army-2021 was hinting that they already testing some underwater drones in that role, but out in the Arctic Ocean or even the Atlantic a few Poseidons could hunt down Virginias or Ohios.

I'm thinking Poseidon-based UUVs as hunter-killers that prowl the SSBN bastions (or other essential sea spaces) on a constant basis and scour them for enemy SSNs. I wonder what IFF technologies will work underwater? Hydro-acoustic transmitters? Don't want to give away position so use HF and accept it operates over short range. UUVs will cruise a search pattern running deep and quiet, and once a target is identified they go to investigate ie get close, read the IFF. Once satisfied its a friendly, it moves on to resume patrol. If its a bogey, send an (encrypted) message over ULF back to base. In wartime, more.... energetic.... responses would result

The truth is that the West is unable to create an effective ABM defense against ICBM and SLBM missiles.

They don't have to for it to be terribly destabilising.

The west will spend trillions on it, and not just AEGIS ashore in Poland and Japan and South Korea and Alaska, but also AEGIS at sea on US Navy ships in the arctic ocean close to Canadas coast and off the US coasts in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans... whether it actually works or not doesn't matter... the politicians are going to say it is amazing and an example of American technical knowhow... there is only one way to find out for sure if it actually works but by then it will be too late for everyone.

Ironically with S-400 and S-500 and the ABM system around Moscow with potential for a similar system around St Petersberg and Vladivostok and other major areas it is probably Russia that is in the best position to look at ABM defence and protection...

They have the radars and battle management systems and the missiles themselves for the job but it is still something they want to avoid at almost all costs.

Currently, Western ABM systems even have a problem with intercept much slower ballistic targets than ICBMs.

That is very true, but their first ICBM rocket was a modified V-2 and with work and money and time they ended up with missiles able to do the job.

It is not the first generation of US ABM systems that is the problem... it is the fifth and sixth generation models that are all over the place including space.

The West would have trouble defending itself against a larger attack by subsonic cruise missiles. At the moment, Russia has much better protection against cruise missiles, SRBMs, MRBMs, IRBMs and possibly even ICBMs than the US and NATO. Ironically, Russia obtained better ABM protection than the US.

Very true... western aggression has forced Russia to respond in terms of both defence and attack and they are really doing rather better than the entire west combined... perhaps the west should get Russia to develop their ABM system...

But even if they did they wouldn't turn it on because they are back stabbing assholes and think everyone else is too.

Russia is planning or already constructing a SOSUS-like sonar system arount her shores.

Well they had that mini sub that got stuck in an underwater sonar array a few years ago...

The Poseidon is the equivalent to the Okhotnik drone.

More accurately it is the equivalent of the Буревестник... which translates to Storm Petrel, but also to Thunderbird....
Both only used when WWIII has started with no chance of stopping or pausing...

Or if nothing else they are more cheaper than a Yassen, means say twenty Poseidon can cruise in the atlantic ocean, for the price of on Yassen, and tide up all anti submairine warfare resources.

Would likely lack a lot of the sensors it would need to be a drone and the risk of it getting captured is too big I would say.

It could certainly be made exceptionally strong to withstand being hit by torpedoes and depth charges so that when say attacking a ship it always gets through...

External surface mount charges with electro magnetic clamps to attach to the bottom of ships and subs... it could sail up to enemy vessels and attach an explosive charge and then move on to the next target with a 2 minute countdown fuse on the bombs....

GarryB wrote:

Or if nothing else they are more cheaper than a Yassen, means say twenty Poseidon can cruise in the atlantic ocean, for the price of on Yassen, and tide up all anti submairine warfare resources.

Would likely lack a lot of the sensors it would need to be a drone and the risk of it getting captured is too big I would say.

It could certainly be made exceptionally strong to withstand being hit by torpedoes and depth charges so that when say attacking a ship it always gets through...

External surface mount charges with electro magnetic clamps to attach to the bottom of ships and subs... it could sail up to enemy vessels and attach an explosive charge and then move on to the next target with a 2 minute countdown fuse on the bombs....

I've just stoped for moment, and think about the chances to fish out something akin to a fully armed torpedo, appart from that it is huge, and has a hot nuclear reactor : )


Fishing out a poseidon would be considered as suicidal mission for commanding officer.
Risking to bring onboard in good case a working nuclear reactor, with self destruction charges, in bad case a fully armed nuclear bomb with a working reactor attached ?

One more close-up. I wonder if it's Poseidon UUV? No driving elements are visible. It is doubtful for me.

Maybe a protective cover to shield it from damage during the loading procedure?

It might have a cover over external props, but it might have an internal water jet... remember it is supposed to operate from near the sea surface to over 1km deep, and at rather high speeds in both cases so its propulsion system might be a bit exotic and worth covering.

both cases so its propulsion system might be a bit exotic and worth covering. wrote:

It was not so hidden in these photos. Picture is slightly blurred.

Fins are folded. Cover in place.

Covers are not just to hide stuff, they also protect things from damage.

If you look at air to air missiles... the real ones... not the dummies... when they are on the dolly to carry them out to the aircraft they are loaded on they have covers over the seekers and covers over the electrical connectors too to prevent damage while handling the weapons... this weapon wont be any different though there wont be optical ports or dielectric panels in the nose for radar, it will have sonar to detect enemy use of sonar to avoid enemy forces searching for it.

Exactly my point.

Fishing out a poseidon would be considered as suicidal mission for commanding officer.
Risking to bring onboard in good case a working nuclear reactor, with self destruction charges, in bad case a fully armed nuclear bomb with a working reactor attached ?

Posiedon is a dooms day weapon and would only be deployed after WWIII had started so it is likely to be fully armed and very very dangerous... if I saw one, I would head in the opposite direction...

There are rumours about the possibility of putting Poseidon drones on long-term patrols as opposed to sending them on more or less direct routes to some target. Nuclear propulsion would certainly lend itself to such an operating mode, at least in principle, but how about all the other aspects?

Navigation - How does a drone moving about at a depth of about 1000 meters navigate over longer time spans?
Communication - How to communicate with a drone travelling at such depths?
Retrieval - Nuclear propulsion produces radioactive isotopes that must be shielded against if the drone is to be retrievable after finishing a patrol. Does Poseidon provide any space for installing such shielding?
Artificial intelligence - Poseidon is certainly not dispensable. Is AI up to the task of controlling and protecting such a valuable asset over long time spans in a potentially hostile environment?

A failure would mean loosing the drone that could be then either taken by the enemy. It could also fall on a shore. Worst is a failure in the computer leading it to explode. This thing will be used just as much as a Bulava.

Isos wrote:A failure would mean loosing the drone that could be then either taken by the enemy. It could also fall on a shore. Worst is a failure in the computer leading it to explode. This thing will be used just as much as a Bulava.

The biggest question about the poseidon is the design lifetime, so how long the reactor of it could operate before a malfunction.

As a doomsday weapon if it can works for 200 hours with 95% certancy then that is more than enought, but for any other purpose that is unsatisfactory.

However, if they can certificate it for longer operation then several interesting use could be considered:
1. Shadowing SLBMS, and detroy them if they want to launch SLBMs.
2. replace the screw with a generator, and strap a few onto a kilo submarine

The Poseidon has 2-3 MW shaft power, the Kilo has 2MW of diesel and 4-5 MW of electric motor.
Means the reactor from the Poseidon would be more than sificient for the Kilo to replace the diesel motors.

Neither Poseidon nor the nuclear cruise missile Burevesnik have unlimited range.

At some point the mechanical part of the engine will lack of oil and get destroyed.

The point of those weapons is just ultra long range with some hovering time over the ocean while ICBMs destroy everything, then attacking what's left anf ve sure the enemybis anhilated.

The more theyvrun the higher chances it fails get.

An example of the AI that Russia can produce is in the UAV made by Kalashnikov. It can navigate autonomously and optimize
the route by itself. Russia has high resolution bathymetry data sets for a lot of the world's oceans. So the Poseidon drones
can navigate near the seabed without remote instructions.

The 900 meter depth being thrown around is some sort of guess. Since they are unmanned these drones do not need air compartments.
So they can dive to well below 5 km and will not have to resist crushing pressure. I am sure that the electronics compartment can be
more easily made robust against crushing since the surface area is not large. The reactor does not need any air compartments.
I recall discussion of them hiding on the seabed in the past and this makes perfect sense.

There are rumours about the possibility of putting Poseidon drones on long-term patrols as opposed to sending them on more or less direct routes to some target. Nuclear propulsion would certainly lend itself to such an operating mode, at least in principle, but how about all the other aspects?

If they are going to be deployed in peace time or only at times of heightened tensions then why would you need carrier vessels for it... just launch them from ports in enormous numbers to operate at very low speeds... the new subs they make these days can operate at 10-20 knots in silent mode, so these weapons should be able to achieve something similar...

Navigation - How does a drone moving about at a depth of about 1000 meters navigate over longer time spans?

Over time its positional accuracy would degrade but then it could use passive sonar to locate underwater features from the background noise that it could use to update its position using three D topographical maps of the ocean floor...

Communication - How to communicate with a drone travelling at such depths?

It would most likely be autonomous so communication with it would be as redundant as communicating with an ICBM MIRV warhead...

Retrieval - Nuclear propulsion produces radioactive isotopes that must be shielded against if the drone is to be retrievable after finishing a patrol. Does Poseidon provide any space for installing such shielding?

If it left a trail of radiation it would not be very stealthy and hard to find.

Artificial intelligence - Poseidon is certainly not dispensable. Is AI up to the task of controlling and protecting such a valuable asset over long time spans in a potentially hostile environment?

Would be quite a conundrum for the CIA.... a nuclear armed doomsday weapon... do you want to catch one and take it to pieces.... what if it is set to explode when it enters US waters or some geographical area like a secret CIA base...

The biggest question about the poseidon is the design lifetime, so how long the reactor of it could operate before a malfunction.

I would honestly expect they are working on nuclear powered underwater drones that might operate for years or decades... but not carry a nuclear weapon payload....

2. replace the screw with a generator, and strap a few onto a kilo submarine

Nuclear battery... nice...

At some point the mechanical part of the engine will lack of oil and get destroyed

If the cruise missile uses a ramjet where the air is heated by reactor instead of burning fuel it would need no moving parts.

For a sub... a nuclear power plant operates for decades at a time and an all electric drive train would mean no oil or consumables needed....

Agree they wont be sailing/flying around the place for years... but unlimited range in the sense that it is not restricted by onboard fossil fuel supply.

I doubt that those reactors are meant to operate close to humans

They are designed for one way trip

They wont be super human safe, but I doubt they leak radiation badly... compact nuclear power systems have been in development for years for satellites and moon bases...

Singular_Transform wrote:
1. Shadowing SLBMS, and detroy them if they want to launch SLBMs.

Which would be hilariously destabilizing. It would only cost but a small fraction of what it would take to develop a nationwide ABM - and yet have a much greater chance of success. The Russians would have to be off their rockers if they aren't pouring as much money as they could into developing Poseidon to succeed in this role.

If the cruise missile uses a ramjet where the air is heated by reactor instead of burning fuel it would need no moving parts.

For a sub... a nuclear power plant operates for decades at a time and an all electric drive train would mean no oil or consumables needed....

Rambet/scramjet means high speeds and high temperatures because of air friction so unlikely to be sustainable duribg a long time.

Subs have crew that keep taking care of the machinery. Oil is need for even electrical motors since there is a rotating part that turns on a non mobil part, so there is frictions. No oil means they touch each other and quickly get destroyed.

kvs wrote:AI am sure that the electronics compartment can be
more easily made robust against crushing since the surface area is not large.   The reactor does not need any air compartments.

Subsea electronics used in oil & gas production is housed within SCMs (Subsea Control Modules) where the active electronics are housed within nitrogen-purged hyperbaric canisters at a constant internal pressure (usually slightly > 1bara), but the associated equipment (sensors, actuators, solenoids etc) are housed in a oil-filled enclosure that is kept at the same hydrostatic pressure as the environment at the working depth by means of a passive pressure compensator (essentially a hydraulic accumulator with a internal bladder that is exposed to the environment). The ones I have used are rated to 2,000m but higher ratings are available for ultra deep water service. These are decades old technologies and are sufficiently reliable to allow for years (or decades) of deployed service.

UUV electronics on systems like Poseidon will be more than capable of operating at several kms depth.

Isos wrote:Oil is need for even electrical motors since there is a rotating part that turns on a non mobil part, so there is frictions. No oil means they touch each other and quickly get destroyed.

Its correct that motor bearings need to be greased, but the bearings are isolated from the environment behind several layers of shaft seals, so loss of lubricant isn't an issue unless there is major mechanical damage. As a rule of thumb, a regular industrial motor only get a greasing once a year, so its hardly an issue.

Regarding mechanical seals around turbine shafts and the like, I expect they will use water lubricated bearings. They are used a lot in polar operations where props often strike ice and result in shocks to propeller shafts, making it more difficult for shaft seals to maintain their leak-tightness and prevent the loss of lube oil to the environment. This is of course a non-standard application due to the submerged operating depth, but the principles are still sound.