Do Submarines make sense in the Trek universe?

Do major powers have a reason to use them? What value do they have besides conquering aquatic civilisations?

 

Submarines would certainly remain useful in facilitating transportation to, from, and within aquatic civilizations or settlements -- if 24th century Humans are building underwater cities like TNG's "Family" implies, they'd be useful.

But in terms of conventional military uses, I think it's safe to say that submarines are simply not as useful as starships. Control of a planet's orbit will generally yield control of the planet's surface. There may be asymmetrical combat uses for submarines, though--limited stealth assaults and the like.

Also, apparently turning starships into submarines is a useful way to avoid detection by Stone Age civilizations if you need to get close to sensor-disrupting volcanos, according to Star Trek Into Darkness.

 

I could see a small submersible be a module option for a runabout.

 

Submarines would be useful in underwater research. I don't know if Admiral Nelson's USOS Seaview ever conquered an underwater civilization.

 

Can't starships already be used in that manner? STiD and that one Voyager episode both come to mind.

 

Subs are smaller than starships usually, so they'd be able to reach areas a starship can't.

 

Shuttles would be more practical to use though, right?

 

TAS aquashuttles are the only way to dive.

 

...An internally carried module that transforms the whole runabout into a submersible, perhaps.

Clearly, there are some things that a starship or a shuttlecraft needs to do differently to qualify as a practical underwater vehicle. Not the "crushes like an empty eggshell under any pressure higher than one atmosphere" thing familiar from Futurama, as clearly starships can repel high external pressure by virtue of shields or SIFs or whatever (unless it's really high pressure, such as deep down in a Jovian, and then you build the Delta Flyer)...

...But Scotty in the above scenario was complaining about corrosion when water comes to contact with the hull; obviously, shields weren't in use (or of use) there! Craft with a special surface finish that can resist seawater corrosion without the need for shielding or other tricks would probably be useful, then. Also, thermal management in space and in thin atmospheres might be very different from thermal management underwater - but such issues don't appear to be showstoppers in any environment, as we have seen starships immersed in this fancy "fluid realm" (supposedly not just thin gas but something stickier) or diving deep into gas giants or even stars.

In the end, though, the best reason to have submarines would be their inability to do anything else but dive. The aquashuttle, with spaceflight, atmospheric flight and perhaps warp (see the nacelles?) abilities, is fine for certain deep space exploration tasks. But a shuttle that does nothing but dive, and perhaps fly a bit, would be something you would be happier to leave permanently for use by an underwater outpost or mine or city or the like. It just wouldn't be affordable or necessary to use warp-capable shuttles as submarines if you don't intend to take them to warp, like, ever.

I doubt subs could ever have a reasonable edge over generic starships in combat, including underwater combat; starships are such mighty ace-of-all-trades, humungous-overkill-with-a-vengeance machines that they could always outfight a fine-tuned sub by sheer superior power. What good is underwater sneakiness if your opponent can, say, boil the sea away from around you?

Timo Saloniemi

 

Ignoring STID, Voyager made it clear extensive work had to be done to the Delta Flyer before it could go underwater. And even then, it still sprung a leak. Sure, there are some vehicles that can fly in space and go through water, like the aqua shuttles in TAS. But just because they exist doesn't mean there's no need for actual submarines.

It only makes sense that there would still be dedicated submersible vehicles for purposes of conducting underwater research. In fact, perhaps this is what that "Federation Naval Patrol" Tom Paris talked about does.

 

Sure. Starships can maneuver underwater but they aren't specialized for it. They aren't designed to deal with massive amounts of pressure, they're optimized for space where they don't have to deal with any pressure at all.

They'd definitely have craft designed for deep underwater, just they'd probably be science vessels.

 

I for one think the concept is entirely absurd.

In the Star trek universe, the Klingon Bird of Prey was hit by photon torpedoes, did two timewarps and kept running, but when dipped into seawater prompltly sank.

But the best explanation comes from that Futurama episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU

 

Too bad they never made that DS9 episode where the Defiant is flooded, which later became Defiant "sinking" in a nebula.

It was compromised by the Whale Probe, like every other equipment and ship. It sank a little, after having crashed. We don't know how well it could withstand water under normal conditions.

 

I think even in the Trek universe most people only use starships exceptionally, if at all, most of the time they use other vehicles, including submarines.

 

and a large amount of its interior was already flooded before it crashed due to the whales

 

It provided a dramatic moment before the release of the whales.

 

The Xindi-Insectoid shuttlecraft was also a submersible, that Archer took underwater on Azati Prime to try to take out the Xindi superweapon.

 

A plan that was based on the assumption that the Xindi-Insectoids were complete morons...


But back to the topic, the xindi ships doubled as submersible probably due to the aquatics and the fact that they all had to deal with them. An Earth ship doesn't have to have that ability.