## 1 Introduction
The possible model of this scheme is shown in Figure 1, where the occurrence of dead nodes is rescued through inter-nodes adjustment, and an alternate routing path is provided by a rotational orbit-based path as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, the data received from dead nodes are covered by the internodes as these are responsible for transferring the data to sonobuoys. In case of data delivery failure to the internodes, the nearest sonobuoys automatically take the data using a first-come,first-served approach. In this regard, the PA-ROBINA and PL-ROBINA can provide a smooth communication path towards the sonobuoys and ensure that the data from the nodes (dead nodes) can be delivered to the destination. In addition, the atomic shape-based data gathering routing protocol is already added to our contribution in the literature [9; 10] for efficient delay and data gathering purposes. For this purpose, Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) are deployed along with member and gateway nodes [11]. Underwater AUVs are responsible for transferring the data to the derived destination without using internode adjustment; however, the long, unnecessary propagation delay occurs [12]. In addition, the extra consumption of energy and chances of packet dropping also make their impact [13]. Ultimately, the performance of the routing protocol is compromised. ROBINA takes this scenrion as an advantage for introducing inter-nodes adjustment between void holes rather than using AUVs. Although the Potential Forwarder Node (PFN) can be replaced and substituted for inter-node adjustment for some reason, the establishment of the path, long routing cache, and criteria of selection of the PFN can be responsible for not outperforming in a well-disciplined manner. The dependency in EBER\({}^{2}\)[14] (that uses the concept of PFN) also takes different transmissions for data delivery (which is not required; it is because we usually encourage more transmission in the vehicular network, ad hoc network, and for terrestrial networks). ROBINA does not use a different transmission; data delivery is performed through internode adjustment. Otherwise, packets will be dropped. Though depth is the most trustable factor in an underwater environment, it is not constant in oceans due to the dynamic nature of water surfaces. Therefore, line of sight direction, Zig-Zag path, and depth-based information followed by the shortest path cannot be performed well. As the underwater environmemt is based upon the medium to large-scale networks, to cover this area with minimum energy consumption, there is a dire need to establish a path strategy that covers the area with minimum EC impact. Extensive simulations were conducted, where the state-of-the-art routing protocols like AVH-AHH-VBF [9], ASEDG [11], AEDG [13], EBER\({}^{2}\)[14], and WDFAD-DBR [15] were compared. It was demonstrated that the ROBINA outperforms affordable EC, minimum E2E delay, and high PDR. Our suggested method, ROBINA, and its co-variant PL-ROBINA  
Figure 1: Mechanism of choosing the Immediate Available Forwarder Nodes (I\({}_{\text{AFN}}\)), adjusted by the proposed scheme ROBINA with the help of relay nodes and gateway nodes. employ Immediate Available Forwarder Nodes (I\({}_{\text{AFN}}\)). The basic function of using I\({}_{\text{AFN}}\) rescues the routing path when it is established between two nodes. The relay nodes are randomly deployed inside the network that plays a part-and-parcel role to make the communication reliable and smoothly proceed the process of data packet delivery. From Figure 1, the (I\({}_{\text{AFN}}\)) near-relay nodes are available for communication as the subsitiution for dead nodes. Relay nodes basically provide the information about these I\({}_{\text{AFN}}\) with gateways for established communication between forwarder nodes and sink through the selected path. Our Contributions.