The Navy’s vision is that manned ships will be accompanied
by two different sizes of unmanned surface vessels. From the article (1),
Medium-sized
Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs), about the size of the experimental
132-foot Sea Hunter launched in 2016, will act as scouts and decoys,
carrying sensors and jammers for what the Navy calls Electromagnetic
Maneuver Warfare. If their radio and radar emissions draw enemy
fire, well, they were relatively cheap and there’s nobody aboard to get killed.
Larger
USVs [around 164 ft long], … will
provide additional punch, loaded with missile launchers but relying on other
vessels to find the enemy and relay targeting data – a concept similar to the
Arsenal Ship cancelled 20 years ago.
(1)
On the surface, this doesn’t seem like a bad concept but
let’s dig a little deeper.
There are some assumptions inherent in this concept.
Numbers – With
actively radiating sensors, one has to assume the lifespans of the vessels will
be short. Remember, the enemy can “see”
the USV much further away than the USV can see the enemy. For a small, unarmed (?), sensor vessel it
would only take a single anti-radiation missile (ARM) fired from very long
range to sink or incapacitate the vessel.
This is okay provided that we have sufficient numbers of such vessels
that we can operate more than the enemy can sink or we can replace the vessels
faster than the enemy can sink them.
Having no individual USV defensive protection, a surface group would
need a couple dozen USVs, at least to deal with the attrition and this is
probably the low end of the numbers requirement. This leads directly to the next assumption.
Cost – If numbers
are important then cost becomes paramount.
These unmanned vessels will not be tiny quadcopters costing ten dollars
each. These will be fully functional
ships without a crew. It is not possible
to somehow magically build free ships. A
130-170 ft long ship is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. If we can resist the urge to gold plate the
USV with, say, a UAV landing pad/hangar, ultra high end sensors, complex hybrid
multi-mode co-diesel/turbine/nuclear engines, and super sophisticated
electronics, communications, and electronic countermeasures then, perhaps, we
can keep the cost in the $50M-$100M range – and that’s being very optimistic. Still, that’s a lot of money for a throwaway
vessel that we don’t expect to have a very long life in combat. As suggested above, even a couple dozen such
vessels at $50M-$100M would represent $1.2B-$2.4B. Yikes!
We’re going to casually throw that away and say, “well, they were
relatively cheap and there’s nobody aboard to get killed.”? That’s hard to imagine. “Relatively cheap” is not the same as
cheap. One to two billion dollars, even
if thrown away piecemeal, is still a lot of real money!
Operations –
These USVs are small vessels and there is a limit to the range, speed, and
seakeeping you can build into such a ship.
For comparison, the famous Flower class corvette of WWII was 205 ft long
which is some 25% larger than the large USV and 55% larger than the small USV
and the Flower class still struggled with weather and sea state. How much worse will it be for smaller
USVs? A surface group is going to
operate at 20+ kts which means these USVs are going to have to operate at 20
kts in all manner of sea states. What
will be the impact of these small vessels on the rest of the group. Will we have to conduct daily
refuelings? Will such small vessels be
able to maintain speed in even moderate seas?
Will the USVs become operational ”anchors” on the rest of the group?
Having offered some critical analysis, the general concept
of unmanned, throwaway sensor platforms is not without merit and, in fact,
ComNavOps has suggested this same approach but using UAVs instead of USVs. Think about it … all the faults of the USVs
are remedied by using UAVs. UAVs are a
fraction of the cost of a ship, can be used in very large numbers, and have no
detrimental impact on group operations.
What’s more, they can be stored on, and operated from, almost any
ship. Remember, we’re not talking about
large UAVs with thousand mile range and infinite endurance – all we need is a
small UAV with, perhaps, 200 mile range and, maybe, 12 hour endurance and
around 70 mph speed. The Scan Eagle UAV,
for example, has 24 hr endurance, 60-80 mph speed, weighs 30-40 lbs, and would
easily have 200 mile range with suitable communications modifications (range is
currently comm-limited). Cost is listed
as less than $100,000 each (2) and large scale production would certainly reduce
that cost.
After the lesson of the LCS which was designed and built
without a Concept of Operations (CONOPS), does the Navy have a CONOPS for these
unmanned vessels? It appears not.
“We’re
still working through… how specifically we’re going to use these things,” Small
[Rear Adm. Douglas Small, PEO-IWS.] told me. What’s crucial is to
get the technology to the fleet, quickly, so real crews can experiment with it
in real-world conditions. We may have in our small minds some idea of how this
thing’s going to be used,” he said, “but when you turn it over to the sailors, they’re going to have a whole new,
awesome way of using it.”
(1)
No, you idiot!!! This
is how you wind up with an LCS. You
don’t just build something and give it to sailors to see what they’ll do with
it – you develop a solid concept of operations (CONOPS), then design and build
the ship, and then you tell
the sailors what to do with it. The Navy
appears pathologically incapable of learning lessons.
So, what are we left with?
The Navy has a portion of a correct concept (unmanned, distributed
sensors) but, in typical Navy fashion, is screwing it up by choosing to
implement it with an inappropriate platform and without a CONOPS.
(1)Breaking Defense website, “Robot
Wolfpacks: The Faster, Cheaper 355-Ship Fleet ”, Sydney J.
Freedburg, Jr., 22-Jan-2019,
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/01/robot-wolfpacks-the-faster-cheaper-355-ship-fleet/
(2)Barnard MicroSystems,
http://barnardmicrosystems.com/UAV/uav_list/scaneagle.html
Okay lets take a look at costs:
ReplyDeletehttps://web.archive.org/web/20160410112530/http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2016/04/sea_hunter_the_militarys_orego.html
http://science.dodlive.mil/2015/11/09/actuv-sea-trials-set-for-early-2016/
Now range:
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/sea-hunter-asw-continuous-trail-unmanned-vessel-actuv/
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26319/usns-sea-hunter-drone-ship-has-sailed-autonomously-to-hawaii-and-back-amid-talk-of-new-roles
Assuming these links are to be believed then the sea hunter is currently 23m and likely to be under 75m kitted up with low operating costs. I'm being optimistic there lol. Given how poorly armed and armored the LCS is I see no problems with slapping hellfire/NSM and an auto cannon on it and having sea hunter patrol littoral areas in the LCS's place. Maybe the displacement/size would have to increase, but I think that capability can be achieved in a ship under 250t. After all last I remember the Chinese houbei's were very small and packed heavy ASCM firepower. Only real loss compared to an LCS would be the lack of aviation. Assuming the Northrup TERN tail sitter drone works out then that lost aviation could be regained, course that begs the question if you really want to put a drone on a drone ship. Even at 100-125m hypothetically I'm getting 3-4 sea hunters for one LCS. If I remember correctly there were going to be like 12 LCS's for each package? So 12 surface warfare LCS could have (optimistically) been 48 sea hunters. Granted the LCS and sea hunter are completely different ships but I think the concept of a small drone ship performing that LCS mission should be explored.
Now the first link on range states it can get 10,000nm at 12kt. If it has half the claimed capability (given that is claimed round drip from San Diego to Pearl Harbor is around half it's max reach) its range should be just fine.
Now as far as what they plan to do with it? Constantly tracking submarines seems far fetched, worth it if its possible but I'm not sure. What I think is more plausible for sea hunter is to be a cheap and expendable littoral warfare ship, and if they're committing to CEC, then a small scout ship that would be deployed with a fleet and dispersed forward with an okay radar and an IR suite to detect sea skimmers/aircraft. Acting as an extension of the fleets eyes/ears. Granted that a tailsitting drone on each burke could likely do this better and for cheaper but that tech isn't being pursued as quickly so here we are. Maybe a sea hunter could be armed with a c-ram system and used to defend marine landings from missiles/artillery. Assuming that the marines and navy stop cutting well deck space and put effort into being able to do opposed landings. Overall, sea hunter and unmanned platforms in general is something the navy needs more of. There's a lot of things you can do with them and a lot of money that can be saved and reinvested elsewhere.
Follow up, modifications to sea hunter would have to be made to keep up with a fleet, it may end up being closer to the 250t class or a little bigger! Which impact range but hopefully not disastrously.
Delete"Acting as an extension of the fleets eyes/ears."
DeleteWhat do estimate the life span of such a vessel would be in a peer contested battle zone?
You think by now USN would have learned a lesson to go slow and work on CONOPS and bugs before going all full ahead NOPE,let's just keep making the same mistakes. Who cares, it's only taxpayers money!!!!
ReplyDeleteMy suggestion would have been to buy 6 small 100 ft, 4 medium 150 fts and 2 big USVs 200 ft or so. Use an LCS or 2 as mother ships, LCSs not doing anything anyways. Use in single, in groups, in dissimilar groups, work them out with a mother ship or austere base. See what works and doesn't work THEN MAKE A DECISION!!!
I think it's already safe to say that USN will buy this, we'll spend years criticizing this then USN will end up buying a different batch that is closer to what they need!!! After years, USN will say we dont need anything smaller than 250ft but hey, we learned a lot using your money buying all these small USVs! It was impossible to guess! It's not USN fault, trust us!
Armed USVs could be useful in ASW operations to provide additional shooters. They would be more available than a helicopter and could be positioned to attack a sub from a different direction. I suppose you can use them to protect a port or critical waterway too. I don't see them as a replacement for a manned ship, but more like the concept of using drones as an unmanned wingman.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of ASW operations is that number of sensors is more important than number of shooters. You want as many sensors as possible to localize the target. You also need sensors at multiple depths to straddle the thermocline.
DeleteOnce they are localized, their mission has most likely failed since the sub is now focused on evasion and not on attacking. Plus, aside from some Russian subs, you don't need a large number of homing torps to kill a sub.
To be a useful tactical sensor platform, the USV would need to have sufficient speed to sprint and drift as well.
Who's going to fix them when they break?
ReplyDeleteGood question, I guess since it's unmanned, it will never break so no need for maintenance. Problem solved!
DeleteThey are just like any other ship - they break down. But as you correctly point out...there is no one there to fix these. Its funny because a LOT of research is going into battery life. Unfortunately, the current batteries outlast the endurance of many of these UxV's.
DeleteThe unmanned fleet will be fixed by the undermanned fleet ?
DeleteJ.K. point about C&C of USV in an EMCON environment
is an excellent point, how do you control without emitting ?
ECK/ACK
"The unmanned fleet will be fixed by the undermanned fleet ?"
DeleteThat's fantastic!!!! I love it!
Small ship = short mast = small radar horizon. Less of a problem with air search, but major problem for surface search and sea skimmer.
ReplyDeleteAlso - how are we going to control an USV without radiating the location of the controlling ship? If we use a LOS system, then the USV can be only a few NMs from the main fleet which greatly diminishes its value. If it's not LOS, then we're radiating for all to hear. And if it's LOS you're still radiating on the axis of enemy approach since you have the USV between you and the enemy.
And I'll second "who's going to fix them when they break?". If they are deployed with fleet task forces, we would seem to need some sort of fleet USV tender with technicians and spare parts to service them. Not a deal breaker, but it adds to the cost of the system.
and don't forget the cybersecurity aspect. These will get captured or broken down and captured by a fishing boat etc. They must be such that any and all data and critical technology is not revealed.
ReplyDelete"captured ... must be such that any and all data and critical technology is not revealed."
DeleteYou bring up a great point. We've seen the Chinese seize our unmanned underwater drone WHILE WE WERE OPERATING IT. They forced down an EP-3 and disassembled it. I don't think they'll hesitate to seize an unmanned vessel. That will give them our communications protocols and all manner of technological goodies and insights unless we come up with some pretty ingenious methods of self-destruction. Forensic computer analysts can recover almost anything which makes deleting computer code challenging.
Very good comment.
If I read the numbers right in Reference 2, at maximum fuel Scan Eagle can carry a payload of 1.3 pounds, which doesn't seem to allow for much of a payload. The Scan Eagle's larger cousin, the MQ-21A Blackjack, is in service with the Marine Corp and Navy and has seen service in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteThe Blackjack has a range of 50 nmi, an endurance of 16 hours, and a maximum payload of 39 lbs. Apparently, the Marines are studying improvements to the fuselage to increase endurance and new payloads that include a SAR. If range can be extended and the cost under control, this might make a more suitable platform for what the CNO describes later in his post.
If we are talking recon like you and CNO is talking about in his post, then yes, UAVs are way to go and fit better BUT USN seems to that they are implying a lot more capability and weapons than a small to medium size UAV, it seems they really want small ships.
DeleteThe quote from the article also clearly references their role as decoys. So now you have a conflict in mission between being a decoy and being a sensor platform. That would seem to mean you are building an expendable sensor platform ship. Back to CNO's point that decoys need to be cheap and plentiful.
DeleteAnd logistically I don't see how they would work. They either have to be robust enough to weather North Atlantic seas, and fast enough to sail with a CVBG. Or they have to be small enough to carry with you, be "launched" in some manner and then scootle off towards the enemy when you get near their defense perimeter. In which case you still need a fair sized platform for seakeeping, sensor and electronic stability and to be large enough to attract the enemies attention.
" USN seems to that they are implying a lot more capability and weapons than a small to medium size UAV,"
DeleteNo. From the article, the Navy is talking about only two vessels: a medium (small compared to any manned warship) sensor USV and a large (smaller than a corvette) arsenal ship USV.
The arsenal ship USV is pointless. We already have more VLS cells than we have missile inventory to put in them. Why we want even more excess VLS capacity is a mystery.
That leaves the sensor USV and I've explained that function can be better performed by UAVs.
If you take them at their word (never a smart thing to do with the Navy!), the Navy is not looking to create a warship USV, just a missile barge.
"Blackjack ... might make a more suitable platform"
DeleteI have no problem with that. The challenge is size. The Blackjack is significantly larger and heavier than the Scan Eagle which makes it more difficult to launch and recover as well as store aboard ship. Remember, this UAV is supposed to be able to be carried in large numbers on any ship and launch/recover with no extraordinary equipment. Presumably, the larger size also equates to greater cost which is a drawback to numbers and expendability. Still, if it can be procured cheaply enough, stored in large numbers, and operated easily then I'm all for it.
I also note that the Scan Eagle is being continuously improved. From Wiki,
"a Royal Australian Navy ScanEagle tested Sentient Vision Systems’s ViDAR optical detection system, turning the UAV into a broad area maritime surveillance (BAMS) asset capable of covering up to 80 times more area in a single sortie than is possible with standard cameras. The self-contained ViDAR system consists of high-resolution digital video cameras and software that analyses image feed and autonomously detects, tracks, and photographs each contact ..."
And,
"successfully flight-tested a ScanEagle with ImSAR's NanoSAR A radar mounted aboard. The ImSAR NanoSAR is the world's smallest Synthetic Aperture Radar, weighs 3.5 lb"
Regardless of choice of UAV, there are lots of options. Scan Eagle and Blackjack, among others, are just conceptual starting points.
Per the Wiki article on the RQ-21 Blackjack, the Scan Eagle and Blackjack use the same launch and recovery equipment.
DeleteI read the Navy Recognition article on the ViDAR payload and it ended with, "Targets detected during the trial included a fast boat at a range of 9.1 nautical miles, a frigate at 12.6, an airborne helicopter at 3.5, and even a submerged whale at 1.5 nautical miles." It's a little risky to be that close to a frigate.
Relative to the ViDAR and NanoSAR payloads, it comes down to who can see who first, the drone or the target? If the target is a frigate-size ship or better, I'll wager that the ship is able to detect and destroy the drone long before the drone is in range to detect the ship.
Delete" It's a little risky to be that close to a frigate. "
DeleteIt is! That's why small size, low cost, and expendability are so important for this function.
"I'll wager that the ship is able to detect and destroy the drone long before the drone is in range to detect the ship."
Think operationally! You understand that the destruction of a drone is 'detection' of the frigate, right? We're monitoring the flight of a drone and it suddenly disappears - we can reasonably conclude that there's a ship or aircraft there and we can redirect our sensing efforts to confirm. Destruction = detection! This is the same dilemma that submarines face: do I sink that worthless corvette and give myself away or do I stay quiet and hope I'm not detected?
You (and all of us!) need to lose that one-on-one battle mentality that we so often resort to in discussions about weapons. The reality of combat is that there are always many assets and factors in play and they interact. Destruction of the drone equals detection of a threat. In fact, since we know the location of the destruction and could estimate the ship SAM range, we could even launch an anti-ship missile and we'd have a moderate chance of getting a hit! Also, if the frigate opts to shoot down the drone, it has to use its radar which, again, gives away its position. Well done, tiny drone! You've served your purpose.
Think operationally!
Thinking operationally, without knowing what happened, you don't know if the drone was shot down, crashed, or simply just stopped transmitting.
DeleteSeriously? You can't figure this out? Okay, I'll guide you through it.
DeleteSo … what would you, as the Commander, assume and what would you do?
Okay, a few assumptions. First, let's assume a ship brought down the drone outside of the range the drone could detect the ship. Second, I know the drone's position, speed, and heading at the time it was lost. But, since we didn't make contact with the enemy, I don't know their position, speed, and heading. Third, let's assume the enemy is moving away increasing the search area over time.
DeleteWhat do we do? If there were other drones nearby, I could retask one or more to search the area where the drone was lost or launch new drones to search the area. If I retask one or more drones, I'm pulling them away from their assigned search area and might miss observing other enemy targets. Launching new drones, given their speed, would increase the search area adding to the difficulty of locating the enemy.
Say, as you suggested, I launched an antiship missile, or a small spread of missiles, in the direction where the drone was lost. For a medium range SAM, the search area could be 40 nmi in diameter. This would make the chances of hitting the enemy rather slim. And, if detected, the missiles would alert the enemy to your presence.
Now, if I lost a drone and detected an enemy radar nearby, I would move to take a closer look. If I lost several drones in a particular area, I would move to take a closer look. But, I wouldn't immediately assume I made contact with the enemy from the loss of a single drone. In that case, I would just send a replacement until I knew more.
Now, like every other aircraft, these drones have an accident rate. What that is, I don't know. So, from time to time, a drone will fall out of the sky or simply stop transmitting.
" I would just send a replacement until I knew more. "
DeleteThere you go! In combat, any prudent commander would assume a possible enemy contact and investigate further. Simple as that. You now have a 'flaming datum' to initiate your track and kill process on the enemy. You begin searching around that point. Simple. That wasn't so hard, was it? You were just trying to make an argument out of nothing.
Remember, in this concept you've got an almost unlimited number of small, cheap, expendable UAVs to use so, if you have reason to believe the presence of an enemy you can more or less blanket the search area. If they're there, you'll find them.
Now, stop arguing and start discussing.
Not for nothing, but it would be better to have a small, cheap, expendable drone that could see the enemy before it was shot down.
Delete"drone that could see the enemy before it was shot down. "
DeleteYou're still focused on one-on-one. Think operationally!
We have more than just a single drone we can use to find the enemy. We have all kinds of sensors, signal intercepts, passive radio/radar frequency sensing, satellites, and, if we're doing our jobs, a decent sense of where the enemy is and is likely to be, at least in general terms. If we're doing our job correctly, we ought to have some idea of where an enemy is or is not before we send out drones. The drones are often just used to confirm and pin down what we kind of already know or strongly suspect. So, back to the possibility that the drone failed on its own … if it happens in an area that we already suspect the enemy is, then we have even more confidence that it was due to enemy action.
Think operationally.
"Per the Wiki article on the RQ-21 Blackjack, "
DeleteYou might want to check out this older post on the RQ-21 Blackjack: see, "RQ-21 Blackjack"
It's a bit old and I've seen no newer DOT&E assessment but it illustrates the dangers of believing the manufacturer's claims.
You might want to read what the US Navy wants to do with the LCS from the Navy Times article
ReplyDeleteAdmiral: LCS will hunt drug smugglers
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/02/07/admiral-lcs-will-hunt-drug-smugglers/
I guess that's better than what the LCS is doing now which is nothing. Without functional modules, there's really nothing the LCS can do.
DeletePretty much the LCS is a glorified OPV
DeleteLooks like a curtain Yeoman in the US navy went wild with the Government credit card. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26395/the-navy-has-dozens-more-mh-60r-helicopters-than-it-needs-due-to-lcs-debacle
ReplyDeleteWell, this tells me the Navy has literally learned NOTHING from the last 10 yrs of worthless ship building.
ReplyDeleteThat's a succinct summation!
DeleteAre you going to ever do an article on the flaws of the F-35? I have a hard time trying to narrow down the flaws.
ReplyDeleteSeriously?? I've done many, many posts on the F-35. Check out the keyword list and you'll see 59 posts listed under 'F-35' and very few of them are complimentary!
DeleteI suspect now that 2 services have declared IOS and performed "active combat missions", the Pentagon is just going to pretend it's working fine and not talk about it unless they have to. They want to move onto the their new strategic bomber, next gen fighter and new nukes.
Delete"Nothing to see here folks. F-35 is great and doing all we expect it to. But we'd really like to remind everyone that the bomber guys haven't had a shiny new plane in like decades so so we really need one of those."
Just today, on F35 news:
Deletehttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-08/lockheed-gets-boost-when-pentagon-labels-late-f-35s-as-on-time
Looks like LMT screwed up putting on corrosion primer! on some jets, how do you screw that up?!?! They are working on LOT 10,11, or 12 I don't know which one anymore, come on, how do you screw that up? Well, from what one insider has said in the past, LMT has hired people that have little to no experience working on jets doing production work...but still, primer application done
wrong?!?
This proposal strikes me as some one in the U.S. Navy not caring for the approach of using a drone mother ship, similar to the British Black Swan sloop proposal, and more wanting to create a half robotic fleet.
ReplyDeleteEven if we can create secure enough datalinks, and smart enough automation routines for such robotic warships to function smoothly during a high EW environment, the whole scenario is going to encourage foes to develop electromagnetic pulse weapons. Even if such weapons are not drive by nuclear devices, a set of solid EMPs over such a fleet would turn the whole situation into a defeat right from the start.
You bring up a great point about EMP weapons. The US has an EMP missile (CHAMP) that is supposedly in the active inventory and China claims to have one as well. Once upon a time (as all good fairy tales begin), the Navy required EMP hardening from all electronics but that requirement appears to have dropped by the wayside over the last few decades. We need to reinstate the requirement or we'll find ourselves with entire fleets dead in the water.
Delete