By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Russian Ministry of Defense has not commented on the recent attack on Novorossiysk, though Russian military bloggers suggest the damage was minimal. However, if the SBU’s claims are accurate, the financial implications for Russia could be significant, potentially costing hundreds of millions of dollars. This attack is part of Ukraine’s ongoing deep-strike campaign against Russian military and energy targets. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy emphasized the importance of maintaining Ukraine’s ability to defend itself as leverage in potential negotiations.
Read the original article here
Ukraine blows up Russian submarine using underwater drone, and the audacity of the maneuver is truly striking. Apparently, this underwater drone, let’s call it a “Sea Baby” for now, managed to navigate directly into the Russian Black Sea port and strike a submarine. It’s the kind of move that makes you wonder if we’ve fast-forwarded into some kind of high-stakes video game scenario.
The immediate reaction is to imagine the Russian Navy scrambling to reinforce their defenses, likely with old-fashioned torpedo nets. It’s understandable when you consider that submarines are incredibly valuable assets, and losing one is a significant blow. The economic implications and military impact are considerable. This sort of warfare feels like something straight out of a movie, with underwater drones taking out expensive targets like submarines.
However, there’s some debate around the exact damage. Initial reports suggest the drone may have hit the pier, not the submarine itself, or that the damage to the submarine may have been exaggerated. Satellite imagery doesn’t provide a definitive answer, and underwater damage is, of course, difficult to assess from above. It raises the question of whether this was a complete knockout or just a significant disruption.
Speaking of damage, a critical part of a submarine’s functionality is maintaining hull integrity. Any compromise can be very difficult to identify, and can lead to immediate and complete failure. It’s easy to understand why being on a submarine can be a nerve-wracking experience.
Now, the terminology. What’s the real difference between an underwater drone and a torpedo? Essentially, both are designed to deliver a payload underwater, but the key distinction appears to be control and mission flexibility. A drone can be remotely controlled and potentially reprogrammed mid-mission, unlike a traditional torpedo, which is typically a one-shot, pre-programmed weapon. A drone offers more control and adaptability.
The fact that the drone seemingly slipped into the port undetected is astonishing. It suggests a weakness in the Russian Navy’s defenses. It’s likely that the Ukrainians exploited a gap in the net coverage, perhaps while another vessel was entering or exiting the port. This highlights the importance of constant vigilance and complete coverage, especially in high-risk areas.
The technology is fascinating. Imagine a drone traveling at low speeds, maybe around 10 knots, making it incredibly difficult to detect. This would rely on electrical propulsion, making it quiet. This, combined with the use of inertial guidance, rather than sonar, would make it even harder to detect. The design could potentially allow it to “dolphin jump” over the nets.
Of course, the potential for these kinds of weapons is a little frightening. It’s almost inevitable that these technologies would evolve and become weaponized. We might even be entering a future where the underwater battlefield becomes a more active part of modern warfare.
Regarding the capabilities, and the likelihood of a successful strike, the drone would have been designed to achieve maximum effectiveness. The Ukrainian intelligence services would have likely planned the perfect approach.
There is a significant difference in the range of the weapons. Torpedoes have a limited range, whereas this drone could have a much more significant reach, maybe 50 or so miles, using a surface run and then diving to avoid detection. Given the circumstances and the location of the submarine, a torpedo would have been an improbable weapon for the attack.
The drone is most likely designed for one-time use, trading control for its range.