Public opinion on China's AI-powered torpedoes is predominantly skeptical and concerned, with discussions veering towards comparisons with historical military advancements and fictional scenarios like 'Skynet.' While some comments express awe at the technological innovation, others emphasize skepticism about Chinese manufacturing quality, the effectiveness of such technologies, and the potential implications for global security. Concerns about escalating military tensions and the arms race are prevalent, with a notable undercurrent of humor and nationalistic pride, particularly in American military capabilities.

China

United States

Anduril Industries

No.

Deliberately sinking the warship of a foreign power is an act of war.  
During the Cold War EVERYONE was very aware of what could/would happen if WW3 broke out. So despite what you see in THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER no, nobody decided on their own to risk starting WW3.

NO repeat NO mission or objective was worth risking that.

IF you don't believe me, look at what happened in Suez and Hungary in 56 to see the U.S. go out of its way to avoid WW3, or how the USSR backed down in Cuba in 62 to avoid WW3.

NO, nobody was running around sinking enemy warships.

2552686

Your ship can survive most missiles hitting your ship outside of things like poor damage control, magazine detonation, etc. Your ship cannot survive being snapped in half.

SirFrumps

You've got CIWS, chaff, and the NULKA, for missiles. 

You've got prayer for torpedoes. 

So there's that.

sg3niner

Depends whose torpedo. Mk48? You can try to run or hide, but it will hit you and sink you. 

DDGs are built to survive multiple missile hits. But the only way to not sink from a single modern HWT is with tonnage or luck.

Mend1cant

The bad news with torpedoes is where they hit. A missile will blow a nasty hole in a ship, while the underwater explosion of a torpedo can break the ship apart, injure the crew with the shockwave. Some big drawbacks to using torpedoes: they don't have as much range, they require a delivery vehicle of some sort, the delivery vehicle is often at risk before and after the attack, and most importantly, the delivery system is usually very expensive, so that torpedoes aren't cost effective.

Oregon687

Fire is a greater threat to most ships than flooding. Competent damage control can handle flooding. Fire will prevent flooding prevention and repair and will spread faster than flooding.

Anti-ship missiles can usually be detected. Then they can be engaged by missiles and gunfire, and the ship can employ countermeasures like decoys, chaff, jamming and other electronic warfare methods. 

Torpedos may be detected as long as own-ship’s noise doesn’t mask it. But if it gets to you, the warhead going off will break the keel. If for some reason the expanding shockwave doesn’t break the keel, the ship will then poised over a large but short duration hole in the ocean. And that WILL break the keel.

Prestigious-Ad8209

Could you imagine being torpedoed at night time.

Select-Radish9245

There are several reports of ships being hit by missiles in the Black Sea. 

[https://www.reuters.com/world/panama-says-three-ships-hit-black-sea-since-start-ukraine-war-2022-03-16/](https://www.reuters.com/world/panama-says-three-ships-hit-black-sea-since-start-ukraine-war-2022-03-16/)

&amp;#x200B;

This one is today

[https://twitter.com/CovertShores/status/1514310116211843075](https://twitter.com/CovertShores/status/1514310116211843075)

&amp;#x200B;

I am sure torpedoes  would have sunk them all.

I am sure torpedoes would have sunk them all.

Rear-gunner

Not wrong at all. Especially wake-homing. They don’t really have to have a good solution on your ship at all. Fire and return to the deep.

FBI-SurveiIlance

Nearby_Bit7053

No. As a former submariner, there's us (the sub) and targets. Guess which one you are?

deep6it2

ADCAP FTW….and I don’t mean for the win! #IYKYK

[deleted]

There’s only two types of vessels, submarines and targets! You can choose your outcome!

parkjv1

All I know about submarine is from a computer game in the 80s/90s call Red Storm Rising.

I was young and not very good at it, but I enjoyed the tactic of coming up to parascope depth, turning on active sonar and radar and putting one Mk-48 and one Tomahawk on each contact.  Then once those were away, scurry deep and hide.  My theory was that in all the worrying about the big and obvious Tomahawks they wouldn't notice the fish until it was too late.  But really, the game was probably not that sophisticated.

fireduck

Ex RN EWD here. Our PWO's will always prioritise anti-torpedo maneuvers over the ASMD course that the EWD advises. A ship can wear multiple missiles and still have the chance to fight (ASM dependant obviously). A torpedo however, well, that'll just about ruin anyone's day.

That's why navies like to organise dual threat attacks of ASM and torpedoes. Hard to pull off. Even harder to defend against.

MechaPenguin609

Your best consolation is if you're American we have the best conventional torpedo

IronReece

Reddit_reader_2206

i am still amazed that for all the amazingly complex and quite varied ati missile defence options we have come up with, the anti torpedo department is quite sadly devastatingly and underwhelming in its lack of defensive options.

you basically have the time tested option to listen for it, dodge and hopefully it doesn't come around for a second attempt, drop a loud decoy that may or may not work and lastly  some heavy anti torpedo netting on rather flimsy booms that while effective slows your ship to a crawl and has holes on various angles...  

why aren't there anti torpedo torpedoes, much like we have anti-missile missiles. or some form of ship countermeasure version of the Trophy like active protection measure system that defends against damn fast RPG's, but underwater against torpedoes (maybe using depth charges or something to prematurely detonate torpedoes like it does RPG's?)

Avarus_Lux

I think ASMs are a greater threat. Every country seems to be making better and better and better ASMs.

I think the guys on the USS Stark might disagree with you.  Although a solid hit from either would certainly ruin a day.

ACDeathMD

I dunno if torpedoes would be the only thing to fear. If you ever get the chance you should peruse the red forces manual. Specifically on Russian naval weaponry. They have some nasty stuff cooked up. .

bubblehead171

Otto_von_Grotto

Because torpedo bombers in WW2 took horrendous losses.  They have to get in close and fly slow and straight to deliver the torpedo.  This makes them easy targets.

Anti-ship missiles can be fired outside of SAM range.  The Soviets developed AS systems with even longer range to stand off out of range of the defending fighters.  The general plan is to overwhelm the defensive systems with multiple missiles.  And aircraft can carry multiple missiles, whereas torpedoes are too heavy for that.

Most ASW aircraft can carry torpedoes for use against subs.

RonPossible

Multiple axis of attacks,  multiple altitudes of launch, multiple missiles per platform.  A near peer naval  engagement wouldn't shoot a missile or two. They would be launched in the hundreds. Naval ships operate in a formation, with different layers for different responsibility. 

Pickets for ASW, AEW for anti-air, and a ring for ASuW. 

CIWS is a point defense system. The real defenders are the SM2 and Aegis. If the Phalanxes are shooting, the battle is almost over.

cejmp

Yes.

Not meant to be a trite answer. Modern attack subs are multidomain assets able to perform a broad spectrum of naval roles. ISR, anti-shipping, anti-submarine, fleet protection, special forces insertion, inland attack via cruise missile, decoy deployment and EM attack/jamming for fast jet strike packages, intel sharing nodes via towed surface arrays and surface mast deployment,  and almost certainly many more functions not known to the general public. If the past is an accurate indicator, capabilities are 20 years ahead of public knowledge.

The role attack subs would play in a particular conflict would be tailored to the specific threat environment and tactical requirements. Special forces insertion/extraction would probably be a primary role in any conflict. In conflict in the South China Sea you are looking at an important role in taking out Anti-Ship/Anti-airbase ballistic missiles via cruise missile as well as EM attack and decoy deployment for naval aviation strike packages.

The threat from Russia is more likely to be submarine based, so in that conflict anti-sub  (and in the near future anti-autonomous drone subs defense).

They will always play a role in carrier battle group protection. 

Attack subs really are a lynch pin of naval, marine, air force and intelligence agency capabilities. Modernization and support of the the of the sub is potentially the best value in naval investment.

designer_of_drugs

Everything I have gathered on the subject leads me to believe submarines would dominate any future conflict between major powers in the ocean.They can operate individually without aircover carrying an insane amount of firepower with excellent sensor suites. With a capable commander they could ruin an entire surface fleets day assuming they are well placed. Even if you can find it before it finds you modern torpedoes are terrifying and once they are in the water and live you don't want to be in the area; they run fast with long range, have complex search functions for acquiring/requiring targets. They are also designed to detonate beneath your hull breaking the keel.

If you look at World War 2 the largest amount of Japanese tonnage was sunk by submarines. Submarines with torpedoes which ran straight, submarines which couldn't stay submerged for long, couldn't dive deep, couldn't form a picture of the battlespace... All of which has been greatly improved upon.

toomanynamesaretook

Submarines is a secretive force where the likes of USSR has to gather information from spies to catch up to the state of art.  From what the public can see:

The choice of weapon depends on the boat type: small diesels with only torpedoes is different from large SSGN with dozens if not hundreds of missiles onboard.

Long range sensing is possible given bottom bounce and sonar convergence zones, but targeting would be unreliable.

The use of SSN will heavily depend on the war being fought.  Someone fighting the Americans would likely attempt to kill CVNs, while navies depending on successful surface action (eg. convoy escort) would likely put subs on the defensive.

If there are changes, it is likely to come from development in UUV (unmanned underwater vehicles), and fixed unattended underwater systems (sensors, weapons, etc)

swpigwang

This is one of those stupid hypotheticals in which everyone's going to theorycraft why their personal version of the Taiwanese invasion conflict will play out like their DCS friends mapped it out with the Yamato asset they modded in because reasons.

Submarines can shoot missiles.  They can hide in vast expanses of the ocean.  Chinese ASW isn't especially well regarded and it's going to be operating in a place that's going to have a lot of missiles and death going down.    


Which is bad if you're an ASW vessel as you can't do what ASW vessels like to do and go far afield to keep the submarines (which again, can shoot missiles now) away from what you're protecting because now you're getting smoked by a B-1 that's like 400 KM outside of your own air defense radius and you're on the fringe of friendly air defense protection.  Same deal for aviation based ASW flying in airspace that's going to have stealth aircraft just looking for stuff to murder.

None of that is a hypothetical "how it'll go down" it's just basically the challenge is trying to do ASW in an environment that's also trying to kill you pretty dead while looking for a quiet thing.  It doesn't mean "great success!" for submarines by default, but that's kind of one of the thoughts for why it'll be a dangerous environment for ASW operations.   

These kinds of questions are especially odious because it mostly gets down to personal opinion because anyone who's talking in more than vague generalities is hopefully not enough of an idiot to post with specificity here in the name of masturbatory nationalist internet circle jerking.   And if you're tempted I will fucking find an SSO and we will sort this out.

pnzsaurkrautwerfer

There are a few key differences between most people's generally WW2-related understanding of submarines and ASW and the modern situation, which largely (though certainly not entirely) favor the submarine.

Modern SS(G)Ns, like, say, Los Angeles-class boats are different from WW2-era submarines like a Type VII U-Boat in at least these major respects:

1. A modern SSN never needs to surface, or even come to periscope depth to snorkel if it doesn't want to, while on patrol.  WW2 submarines had to surface or at least snorkel the majority of the time they were at sea to charge their batteries, meaning they could be visually spotted (or detected by radar) and killed by aircraft with anti-surface weapons if not sufficiently alert.
2. A modern SSN can travel at very high speeds of 30+ knots, deep underwater, pretty much indefinitely.  Submarines in WW2 were much slower submerged than surfaced (and were not terribly fast on the surface to begin with), meaning that a submarine that was spotted on the surface and then dived to escape had trouble putting a lot of distance between itself and its last known position, and that even ASW escorts that were very slow by surface ship standards could chase a sub.  Today, the situation is, if anything, reversed-- modern surface escorts with nonnuclear engines generally cannot keep traveling at their top speed for an unlimited period of time.
3. Modern SSNs have vastly superior weapons compared to WW2 subs-- long range (see: dozens of miles) heavyweight torpedoes that can be guided in, used as decoys, or home in with their own onboard sensors, and then strike at the center of the keel of an enemy ship to snap it in two.  They can also carry missiles with even greater range, which means that any ASW ship has to have its own missile defense or an air defense escort capable of projecting a reasonably-sized defense bubble.

Taken together, this means that while in WW2 submarines were primarily commerce raiders, today submarines are the primary ship-to-ship combatant in the world's navies.  With the possible exception of aircraft carriers, a modern nuclear attack submarine can take on pretty much any kind of lone surface ship and expect to win.  Note, for instance, that when it became known that an RN submarine sank the *General Belgrano* in the Falklands War, the Argentine Navy essentially stayed in port for the remainder of the war-- despite having purchased new destroyers from the UK of the exact same type that the RN operated in the war.  Sure, a large, well-equipped, ASW task force can absolutely sink a submarine if it can find it-- but do *you* really want to take the risk that *your* ship is the one that goes down with all hands in the process?  In a less-committed force, the answer may be no.

There are, of course, technological advances that do *not* favor the submarine-- surface ships with towed array sonar, various types of (potentially missile-deployed) antisubmarine torpedoes, and most of all, helicopters with dipping sonar and ASW torpedoes.  But helicopters have relatively short range, limited endurance, and an aversion to poor weather, issues that do not bother nuclear attack submarines.  Further, lightweight ASW torpedoes tend to have a somewhat limited range, meaning that an SSN that simply dives deep and runs at flank speed at any distance from the position where the torpedo was dropped can *theoretically* outrun the torpedo long enough for it to run out of juice.

The basic issue for ASW forces, though, is that they have to be eternally vigilant everywhere all the time, searching all relevant areas or covering all shipping at all times, etc, while a submarine can simply watch and wait for the right moment to strike, all the while getting regular sleep and food.  Thus the situation is (if nothing else) far more straining for the crews of the ASW force.

Cardinal_Reason

Submarine and corresponding ASW capabilities are some of the most closely guarded secrets in the military. Anyone claiming to have an accurate enough picture of PLAN ASW on a public forum should not be believed, because of they actually do, they are talking about things that are top secret.

What we DO know is that most military thinkers think that chinese subs are at least on par with soviet era submarines (although this is likely outdated) , being a little 'noisy', but also quite capable. China's Longpo naval base has its own demagnetization facility (observed from satellite imagery) so it would appear chinese thinking on submarine stealth is fairly advanced - which would also reflect their corresponding ASW capabilities. 

What we Don't know about chinese ASW is what their exact capabilities are. How good are their sensors? No idea. What have done in the SCS? Have they set up their own hydro acoustic sensor network? That's entirely plausible and would explain some of their activity there. 

War is not as simple as 'ASW makes subs go away'. Modern submarines are absolutely very, very stealthy machines and the ocean is a VERY big place. It's harder to find a submarine than many people think, even if you might be aware that a submarine is operating in the area.

ghostofwinter88

Modern sensors means submarines will be able to see enemy ships and stand dozens if not hundreds of miles away. Depth charges aren’t used anymore because you really can’t even get close. 

Add to that how quiet a modern SSN is, they’re hard to find for even a top tier Navy with decades of ASW experience. 

That combination means American submarines would absolutely feast in any conflict against the Chinese. The greatest real effective counter for a modern SSN is another modern SSN and this is one area where we still have a big advantage.

DannyBones00

Amphibious guided missiles? You mean torpedoes right? That's how subs are killed via asw, not with depth charges.  They drop a torpedo on them from a helicopter. 

 To answer your question, nobody really knows how a war would go down. Plenty of people have an idea of how it might, but nobody knows for sure. Everything changes perspective wise once the noise starts. Just look at the current Ukraine conflict or the speed  of the fall of the Afghan government for two very recent examples.

nightgerbil

There is a concept called Mission Kill. The idea is that you prevent the enemy asset from completing the mission (killed it) by disrupting it enough.

How hard it is to find and sink a modern submarine? Very hard. They can both run and they can hide. A sub can sit next to a rock on the bottom doing nothing or it can be steaming full speed out of the area. They can travel at temperature/salinity density gradients where sound bounces off like it would from a hard surface.

Sound doesn't travel in straight lines so dealing with SONAR is similar to long wavelength radio signals that bounce around over the horizon and act really weird with lots of deadzones. It's not like in the movies where you see a dot on the screen.

How about a mission kill? A lot easier. If you hunt for it and force it to be deep and quiet then it can't do its job. Satellites and air surveillance platforms China has can see under the surface enough for any submarine that decides to launch missiles.

None?

We know that the Virginia-class would be an absolute monster. But do we know anything about the Chinese subs?

What China has is land-based ASW assets. A crap ton of MLRS dumping ASROCs into the SCS. And another crap ton of AD to protect those assets from getting striked by B-1s or Tomahawks. And then the Type-052s and 055s. And Ka-29s. And their own subs. America has the best subs in the world. And their own ASW helis.

So there's that. Not much is known about the capability of the PLA's ASW forces, at least in the public domain anyway. So any person claiming "Chini asw shiet" or "MH-60s would snipe chini subs" is spouting pure BS. For every 1000 pics or ZTZ-99A there's 1 pic of PLAN ASW heli.

Tagging u/PLArealtalk cuz he should be quite experienced with this stuff.

iloveneekoles

nashuanuke

I wouldn’t want to be a sub in the SCS, regardless of deficiencies in PLAN ASW. Both nations are working on autonomous subs - the Chinese ones carry torpedos.

China is advancing its submarine warfare capabilities by developing AI-powered torpedoes with high accuracy in target discrimination.

China's AI-Powered Torpedoes in Submarine Warfare

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want