The drone and/or stealth properties of it are likely overstated. The fact that Russia is constructing at least two incredibly expensive submarines (Khabarovsk

The drone and/or stealth properties of it are likely overstated. The fact that Russia is constructing at least two incredibly expensive submarines (Khabarovsk and Belgorod) to carry them suggests that they aren't suited or intended for long term independent operation. For economically troubled Russia to construct two very costly host submarines suggests that these devices are more akin to torpedoes than autonomous submarines. Less significantly, the diagrams Russia "published" don't seem to have any room for ballast tanks, which means it would not have hydrostatic control over it's buoyancy (like a traditional submarine does.) Operating depth would therefore be controlled hydrodynamically (as a traditional torpedo does.) Unless it were doing laps, and thus easier to detect, it probably cannot loiter for very long. Despite all of the above, there are some rumors of a sea bed variant, however I still suspect the system cannot simply settle itself down on the sea bed. Rather it, along with supporting infrastructure, would be placed there by a submarine or surface ship. The Belgorod in particular seems the likely candidate for this sort of operation, since it is additionally reported to be the host for a Paltus-class midget submarine. > "This is a deadmans switch kind of weapon" e.g. for retaliation, not first strikes. On that we agree. SSBNs have traditionally served this role, since assuring their destruction during a preemptive strike would be virtually impossible. Advances in ballistic missile defenses threaten to make the inability to assure destruction of all SSBNs irrelevant, and this new torpedo is obviously a response to that.