RAdm.
Ronald Boxall has intimated that the ship that replaces the Ticongeroga class
cruisers won’t be a cruiser. (1)
What?!!! That’s just crazy
talk! Well, grab your bilge keel and
steady out for a moment and let’s see what he’s talking about. Here’s the actual quote,
“People are always
asking: ‘What’s the next cruiser?’ ” Boxall said. “What I’m telling you is that
it might not be a cruiser. What we are looking for is what do we need our
surface ships to do at the big level, what do we need to do at the small level
and what do we need to do with unmanned because it is a different Navy out
there.”
Um,
okay … Is it just me or does that sound
like typical Navy buzz-talk that sounds good and means nothing? Yeah, it does. Let’s go just a bit further, though, before
we write this off as typical Navy garbage.
“The hull Boxall
described incorporates the surface force’s emphasis on off-board sensors that
radiate and target with active sensors, while using passive sensors on the ship
to avoid detection.”
Okay,
now we’ve got something and, amazingly, it’s something that ComNavOps can get
on board with. The idea of off-board
sensors which allows the host ship to remain silent is excellent. Of course, the devil is always in the details
and the article presented none. However,
when has the lack of details ever stopped ComNavOps from analyzing? Since the Navy isn’t offering any details
and, indeed, likely has none, ComNavOps will offer his own so that we can
discuss the concept.
Recall
that one of the tactics of carrier E-2 Hawkeye operations is to move well off
from the carrier’s location and radiate while the carrier remains silent. Thus, the carrier gains the benefit of radar
awareness while remaining hidden. In a
very similar fashion, if a surface ship could send “mini-Hawkeyes” out to sense
the surroundings while remaining electromagnetically quiet (EMCON), that would
be a tremendous advantage.
What,
you ask, is a “mini-Hawkeye”? Well, that’s
the devil rising from the details, isn’t it?
So, a “mini-Hawkeye” would have to be some type of unmanned, small,
cheap sensor in order to effectively accomplish the task. Let’s look at the “mini-Hawkeye’s” (mini-hawk)
characteristics and see if the characteristics lead us to a description.
Size – A surface ship is
not a carrier and even the biggest have very small flight decks. So, a mini-hawk would have to be small –
small enough to operate from a surface ship and small enough to be stored in
large numbers on a ship.
Numbers – Related to size is
numbers. These sensors are likely to
have a high attrition/loss rate so each ship needs to be able to store and
operate large numbers. In fact, one
could easily imagine scenarios in which the mini-hawks are sent on intentional,
one-way missions so as to extend the sensor range.
Cost – Given what we just
said about small size and large numbers, it is obvious that the cost must be
cheap. Think of these mini-hawks as akin
to sonobuoys and you’re beginning to approach the right conceptual ballpark.
Speed – There is a
requirement for speed in order to get out to the sensing station in a useful
amount of time. A ship cannot afford to
wait for hours while an unmanned sensor slowly makes its way out. This largely rules out underwater (UUV) or
even surface (USV) drones because they just can’t get on station quickly enough
to be useful. In other words, the
mini-hawks must be aerial devices – UAVs of some sort. Now, there is a potential use for UUV
mini-hawks when the scenario allows for a more leisurely deployment of the
sensor net. Monitoring a chokepoint, for
example, or dropping some UUV mini-hawks in one’s wake to check for trailing
ships or aircraft. UUV mini-hawks would
not, however, be the main sensor. UAV
mini-hawks would be the main sensor.
While
a degree of speed is useful, excess speed is pointless. I’m thinking around 70-100 mph would be
sufficient to get on station in a timely fashion without excessively impacting
the size and cost.
Field of View – The mini-hawk must
have a useful sensor field of view (FOV) – as large a FOV, as possible, in
fact. This is elementary. Of course, it’s also contradictory with the
requirement for small size! One way the
FOV can be maximized is altitude. The
higher the sensor, the farther the range of it FOV, within the inherent limits
of resolution of the sensor. This again
argues for an aerial mini-hawk rather than a UUV or USV mini-hawk.
One
thing to keep in mind is resolution.
We’re looking to detect ships and aircraft – fairly large objects. That we can’t distinguish the number of
rivets on a ship is unimportant. Thus,
the sensor can trade resolution for sensor range and FOV.
Range – We’re not looking
for thousand mile range. Our
anti-surface weapons are limited to a range of 60 miles (Harpoon), 100 miles
(Naval Strike Missile), and, possibly, out to 200+ miles (LRASM). Thus, the mini-hawk only needs to be able to
go a maximum of 150-200 miles – less, actually, depending on the range of its
sensors.
Sensor – The obvious choice
is radar, however, any kind of sensor could be potentially useful depending on
the situation. Thus, either
interchangeable sensors are needed or, given the cheapness and numbers that
we’ve already discussed, alternate versions of mini-hawk, each with its own
type of sensor, are needed. The sensors
can include radar, IR, optical (recall our Tomcat discussion?), and any other
sensor that might prove useful.
Tactical Application. Here is how I envision the mini-hawk being
used. The host ship operates a steady
stream of mini-hawks in all directions but, presumably, concentrated and
oriented towards anticipated threat axes.
The mini-hawks would operate around 150 miles out and, typically, offset
from the host ship’s course. Multiple
mini-hawks operating at differing distances and offsets to either side of the
host ship’s course would further cloud the host ship’s location. The mini-hawk would maintain constant, real
time or reasonably semi-real time data communications. What the exact form of the communications is,
I’ll leave to the comm. experts. The
concept is that the host ship is provided with at least a semi-real time
situational awareness of its surroundings without itself having to radiate.
On
occasion, if the host ship needs a longer range “picture” the mini-hawks can be
sent on one-way missions which would double the range. One-way missions would also allow potential
real time targeting updates during engagements.
Communications - The obvious
challenge in this concept is the security and reliability of the
communications, as I’ve repeatedly harped on.
Here is where I have to leave the discussion open ended. I’m assuming some type of line-of-sight comm.
method, possibly involving a relay UAV, but if we can’t assure our
communications then the entire concept falls apart.
How,
you ask, does this differ from the comm. issues I’ve raised for the Navy’s
proposed vast all-encompassing network?
Well, for starters, the scope is far less. This requires only one-directional (from
mini-hawk back to the ship), fairly short range (200 miles or so), directional
(the ship’s location is known), line-of-sight, narrow bandwidth, burst
transmissions. With these limited
requirements, I would hope we can construct a functional comm. system that can
operate in an electromagnetically challenged environment. Contrast that to the Navy’s omni-directional,
wide (huge!) bandwidth, continuous, ocean spanning, network comm. requirements
and you instantly see that the Navy’s network comm. requirements are massively
greater which translates to massively more susceptible to disruption.
Operation - Small UAV
mini-Hawks would, ideally, be tube launched (VLS launch system?) or portable
catapult launched (like the Scan Eagle) and recovered via a flight deck net.
So,
taking all the above into consideration, we get a pretty good picture of what a
mini-hawk would be: small, cheap,
short/moderate range, easy launch/recovery.
This sounds very much like a Scan Eagle or something similar.
As
a design starting point, the Scan Eagle offers some attractive characteristics
that closely fit our requirements.
Scan Eagle Specifications (2)
|
|
Length,
ft
|
5
|
Wingspan,
ft
|
10
|
Empty
Weight, lbs
|
35
|
Endurance,
hrs
|
24+
|
Ceiling,
ft
|
19,500
|
Max
Speed, kts
|
80
|
Cruise
Speed, kts
|
50-60
|
Payload,
lbs
|
7.5
|
 |
| Scan Eagle UAV |
Before
anyone starts trying to describe why a Scan Eagle won’t work, note that I said
the Scan Eagle offers a design starting point, not a final, perfect
product. I’m not even going to entertain
comments about the Scan Eagle’s deficiencies so don’t bother.
Interestingly,
according to Wiki, the Royal Australian Navy tested a Scan Eagle with a
Sentient Vision Kestrel Maritime ViDAR high resolution digital video camera
that is claimed to be able to cover 13,000 square nautical miles over a 12-hour
mission (3). Extremely small, light
radars (NanoSAR B/C and the like) are also being developed specifically for
small UAV use. (4)
In
typical Navy fashion, they have the glimmer of a good idea – offloading sensors
– and, as we’ve seen in other posts, are going to screw it up by turning it
into a massive, ill-suited, unaffordable program of highly sophisticated,
non-existent, unmanned vessels instead of keeping the concept simple, affordable,
and based on existing technology.
Indeed, the Navy has already described a set of unmanned surface vessels
of large size and complexity so they’re already well on their way to screwing
up a simple concept!
On a closely related
note, ComNavOps’ fear is that the Navy’s idea of the next cruiser is a ‘distributed
ship’ that breaks a capital (cruiser) ship’s functions into multiple, separate
smaller vessels, both manned and unmanned.
For example, one vessel, already suggested by the Navy, would be an
unmanned sensor craft. Another would be
the shooter (small scale arsenal ship) and yet another might be a manned command
and control vessel. Of course, what this
really does is needlessly and foolishly complicate the situation and produce a
series of vessel, each almost defenseless, individually.
(1)Navy
Times website, “Navy’s cruiser replacement won’t be a cruiser, says surface
warfare chief”, David B. Larter, 9-Jan-2018,
https://www.navytimes.com/digital-show-dailies/surface-navy-association/2018/01/09/surface-warfare-director-cruiser-replacement-wont-be-a-cruiser/
(3)Wikipedia,
retrieved 20-Dec-2016,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Insitu_ScanEagle
Maritime Strike Tomahawk may have a range of up to 1,000 miles.
ReplyDeleteHowever, more importantly, the cruiser's job is to detect enemy aircraft and missiles, not to detect targets for our missiles. So any off-board system need to have robust air and missile defense sensors.
My suspicion is they're getting at a return to the old radar picket ship concept, but using USVs instead of manned vessels.
Assuming reasonable cost and numbers, this might be useful. OTOH, it's vulnerable to defeat in detail as the USVs, to keep costs down, won't have robust defenses.
"Maritime Strike Tomahawk may have a range of up to 1,000 miles."
DeleteNobody has a thousand mile sensor so that's noteworthy but irrelevant. It's the problem that China has with their so-called carrier killer missile.
"My suspicion is they're getting at a return to the old radar picket ship concept, but using USVs instead of manned vessels. … won't have robust defenses."
Interesting thought. I don't think that's what they're thinking but it's a plausible theory. If you're correct, what they're missile is that the picket ships (presumably you're referring to WWII/Okinawa scenario) were not only capable of self-defense but WERE the actual defense - a defense that could operate without giving away the location of the high value ships (though their location was pretty well known, anyway). In this concept, the pickets would be defenseless, as you noted, and would require the high value ship to reveal itself when it launched SAM missiles. All in all, a very flawed picket concept if that's what they're thinking.
So, I disagree but an interesting thought on your part, nonetheless.
Targets for Maritime Strike Tomahawk can be detected and tracked by aircraft out to the limits of their air-refueled range, or detected and tracked by other means (e.g. SSNs, satellites). They just need to provide mid-course updates of sufficient resolution and duration (up to 2 hours).
DeleteIf you're looking for targets a thousand miles in front of you, you're looking deep inside the enemy's air/water space. No aircraft is going to be survivable loitering a thousand miles inside enemy air space. That's just fantasy.
DeleteIf we're talking about China, they can possibly contest airspace out that far, but they can't own it, especially vs stealth aircraft.
DeleteMight be a good use for F-35s, since they have stealth, can defend themselves, and have robust sensors and comms.
"they can possibly contest airspace out that far"
Delete????? A thousand miles in front of our forces means a thousand miles towards the enemy. Every mile towards the enemy means more and more opposition. In the case of China, a thousand miles towards China puts us solidly inside their A2/AD zone. Contest the airspare???? THEY OWN THE AIRSPACE!!!!!
Do you have any idea what the combat radius of a combat loaded F-35 is? Here's a hint: it's not a thousand miles. Also, I don't know what fiction you've been reading about the F-35's 'robust' sensors but they're very short ranged and narrow field of view relative to this scenario.
What is your point, relative to the post, in all this?
Anon:
DeleteAs for the Tomahawk, most people under 50 years forgot or never knew the actual tactics for the maritime tomahawk. They were abandoned because the missile had range but not much else.
With basic discrimination, enough autonomy to decide what/where/when to strike we can use the maritime Tomahawk to clear out/complicate any enemy ship between our launching ship and the end point of the gps route we've programmed.
Add in new mid course updates, video send back and basic targeting autonomy when anything is spoofed/hacked/jammed and we have a great dual targeting, swarming, don't waste any missiles method of war. In fact if the new tech works as advertised(always a big if) then you will see a new load out on many cruisers/destroyers. We're going to need more Tomahawks. LOL.
Obviously the move to missiles having more stealthy bones and ability to terminally maneuver will see a need for a Tomahawk replacement. But that is already in the works.
A UAV/USV carrier?
ReplyDeleteWasn't this what LCS what LCS was originally billed as? I remember a general vibe of "We don't need offensive weapons on the ship. Well have Firescout helos, unmanned RHIBs, and submersible mine-killer robots! all we need is a big flight deck, a big hangar deck, and a fast ship to get the gadgets where they need to go."
This sounds like an Arleigh and an LCS having a baby to me.
"A UAV/USV carrier?"
DeleteNo, this is an inherently deadly vessel using sensor swarms to find targets. The LCS had no weapons to service anything it might have found and its mobile sensors were short ranged and very few in number. Nothing similar, at all, about the two concepts.
I love your concept with the drones. I think there is also value to air launched versions.
ReplyDeleteI am conflicted about 21st centrury warship design.
Are the terms "cruiser" and "destroyer" reflective, or limiting when it comes to the 21st century? Do we expect cruisers to conduct independent operations against a peer competitor like China or Russia? Do we really build destroyers to screen a battle line (okay, the task force equivalent) against torpedo boats?
Is it time to retire these designations alongside trimaran, ship of the line, long ship, , monitor, war canoe, and other historical terms. This is not a new debate, but it is one that the Navy needs to hash out.
My sense is that the Navy needs to review its requirements and then either rename its ships in a useful fashion (e.g. Task Force Escort, Bombardment Monitor, etc.), or redefine the mission sets of existing ships so everybody else (nation, services, allies, etc.) can figure out what what it is that these ships do.
GAB
Other than academic, I have no interest in what terms we use to describe our ships. HOWEVER, the terms are important in that they indicate what the Navy thinks they're used for. For that reason, the Navy needs to 'hash out' the terms, as you say.
Delete"My sense is that the Navy needs to review its requirements"
You could not be more right! The Navy is caught in a Groundhog Day type of scenario where they keep cranking out Burkes and bigger carriers over and over without ever considering what their roles should be in future combat.
I've made some [controversial] statements about what the Navy should and should not do in future war and those statements lead directly to doctrine, operations, and tactics which, in turn, lead directly to ship design requirements. I've done this but the Navy hasn't. They desperately need to think about future operations (where's our War Plan Orange for China?) and let that guide their ship design. Instead, the Navy is focused on technology and letting that guide their warship design. Even that, as poor an approach as it is, is not being done well. Instead, they're just trying to tack on new tech to old designs instead of designing new ships that are optimized to use the tech.
If the Navy thinks lasers are the future of naval combat then they need to design a ship completely optimized for lasers instead of tacking them onto Burkes or amphibs or whatever ship is handy.
Sorry. Long winded reply but you struck at the heart of the Navy's problems (well, that and utterly incompetent leadership!).
One example of my rethinking of naval roles for the future war is carriers. I think the role of the carrier is to escort the strike assets (Burke/Tomahawks) instead of the other way around. This dictates a carrier and air wing that is different from what we've been designing and building in recent decades.
"I think there is also value to air launched versions."
Absolutely!
Okay, that's enough. Again, apologies for going off at length!
The E-2 Hawkeye's radar is a long-range wide area search radar to detect air and surface targets. The VIDAR payload you propose has a very short range in comparison.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this article from Navy Recognition, ViDAR detected "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." In the case of the frigate, your UAV was well within sensor and missile range long before it detected the frigate. This story was embedded in your third reference.
The concept is sound and you make up for the limitation to cover a wide area by using multiple platforms. But, the short detection range of the sensor is problematic. You have practically have to be on top of the target in order to detect it.
You're missing two points:
Delete1. You're leaping to the conclusion that active radar is the only sensor for these little UAVs. Not so! Passive sensors would be a very important, likely more important, sensor than active radar. If the frigate, in your story example, is using its radar to see our UAV, our UAV would have detected the frigate's radar passively many, many miles away. With mini-swarms of our UAVs scouring the area, detection of emitting sources and triangulation of their location is easy.
Passive sensing (IR, EO, 'radio (EM)' receiver) is probably the preferred approach since it keeps our UAVs undetected or less detected.
Why do people always jump to the most complex and difficult scenario? Well, partly it's because they like to criticize ideas and will use any scenario the can to do so but it's also because we, in the West, have a strong tendency to immediately jump to the high end, most complex technology versus technology scenario we can instead of thinking simpler. Remember, all we want is to achieve situational awareness (there's surface group in that area, there's a flight of fighters over there, there's some helos conducting ASW that way …). We don't need to count the rivets on every ship in the area. We can achieve situational awareness quite well using largely passive means.
2. The flaming datum is still a valid data point! The frigate that shoots down our UAV has to use radar, a fire control signal, and a missile launch. We'll see that from a long ways away. A frigate that gives away its position shooting down a dirt-cheap UAV is a win for us.
I'm pretty sure you understand all this. Just think it through operationally and tactically.
"If the frigate, in your story example, is using its radar to see our UAV, our UAV would have detected the frigate's radar passively many, many miles away."
DeleteAt the same time, the frigate would have detected the UAV too. And, this would only work if the drone had a good bearing on the radar signal and that may not always be the case. But, if the frigate detected the drone, it could take steps to spoof it, avoid it, or shoot it down either kinetically or non-kinetically.
Even if a ship took out a drone, you still don't know what what kind of ship it was or how many there were. Nor, necessarily their direction of travel. After taking out the drone, the enemy would likely change course and maybe speed too.
"At the same time, the frigate would have detected the UAV too."
DeleteYou understand that a passive receiver is going to detect an emitter at much greater range than the emitter can detect the receiver, right? Especially a small UAV.
I have to ask, do you really not understand this or are you just looking to argue? If you don't understand, I'll gladly explain it to you. If you're just looking to argue, this is not the blog for you.
I'm not an expert, but I do know that ships don't continuously run their radars and that they are randomly turned on and off to avoid detection by the enemy. Also, the duration and the energy they emit also varies. Again, as means to avoid detection by the enemy.
DeleteThe RPS 42 radar that detected the Iranian drone, according to the manufacturer, has a maximum range of 30 km and an average emitting power of 60 watts per panel. Such a system could be mounted on a surface ship providing an alternate means to detect a drone. Range-wise, this radar outranges the ViDAR system.
But, in the previous post about the downing of the Iranian drone, you wrote "this is yet another example of the inherent fragility and lack of survivability of drones in combat."
How does this concept solve the problems of "inherent fragility and lack of survivability" of drones in combat?
I get the idea that they are cheap and expendable, but how expendable is expendable? You don't want a ship to quickly run out of drones in combat.
"Range-wise, this radar outranges the ViDAR system."
DeleteFirst, manuf's max range claims are based on detecting large targets under ideal conditions and are never met in reality. That aside, do you understand the flashlight analogy? It's the entire basis for passive sensing. If you don't understand it, ask and I'll explain it. If you do understand it then you know how and why passive sensing works and defeats active sensing.
"I get the idea that they are cheap and expendable, but how expendable is expendable? You don't want a ship to quickly run out of drones in combat."
Do you understand how ships operate and fight in combat? I've posted on this. You seem to be viewing this as a one-on-one battle between a single ship and the entire enemy military! Ships operate in groups. Ships engage in a single missile/battle and then return to base. Thus, they don't need to carry enough food, water, fuel, ammo, UAVs, etc. to last the entire war - just one mission/battle.
Because ships operate in groups, there would be plenty of UAVs in the group's inventory. A single ship would carry, perhaps, 40 UAVs, as I envision it. A group, even a small one of 4 ships, would have a group inventory of 160 UAVs for their single mission/battle. Seems like plenty!
As far as costs, the Scan Eagle reportedly costs around $3M for a system which consists of 4 UAVs, ground control station, catapult and recovery, spares, etc. The individual UAVs reportedly cost less than $100k each. Purchased in the kind of quantities we're talking about, the cost would likely be on the order of $20k each - practically free by military spending standards.
ViDAR's range is dependent on atmospheric conditions. On a cloudy, foggy, or rainy day, it will be significantly reduced. The density of aircraft needed for seamless coverage would go up commensurately.
Delete"1. [Passive sensors would be a more] important sensor than active radar. If [a frigate is] using its radar to see our UAV, our UAV would detect the frigate's radar passively many, many miles away [beyond their radar range]. With mini-swarms of our UAVs scouring the area, detection [and triangulation] of emitting sources is easy."
Delete100% percent spot on, as usual from CNOps. FightingIrish's first comment ignores the whole concept that the drone's ability to transmit sensor data through EW before a missile can kinetically kill it renders the drone itself moot if you have the coverage to triangulate and fire. Frigate for 1-4 "cheap drones" is fine, multiples of the same for multiple destroyers, cruisers, CVs, and/or BBs is great.
"2. [Even in the unlikely case of being engaged by surface vessel SAMs at extreme range without getting data from the drone, the "cheap drone" is worth less than the information the rest of our sensor network gains from the target's targeting emissions]"
I like the CONOPS. If a platform can be made that performs as intended at such a low cost, it would be quite transformative. The passive sensor package wouldn't be much larger than scan eagle, but it and the airframe would be larger. The electronic equipment this demands exists and isn't bank-breaking, but it is EW/jamming resistant comms and navigation/operation. Autonomous flight programs for harsh EW environments require a lot of egg head man hours ($$), and then there's the electronics themselves. Even so, if we make a big fleet because the CONOPS and tech are sound, they'll have attritable unit costs, they just won't be truly cheap.
To get the desired swarms simultaneously and sustain depth of magazine through attrition, we want aviation facilities. It doesn't fit in the stern of a Tico, and splitting a functional swarm between three to eight next-gen cruisers that we make 20-40 of is worse than making 7-12 drone carriers. As CNOps says, ships work in groups. Since we already have Burkes and Ticos, we just need enough drone carriers that neither they nor the surface combatants have to operate alone. Oh, and to for everyone to call their congressmen and demand they pay to maintain the Ticos.
You are going to need some ability to work in a hostile EM environment.
ReplyDeleteThat implies a reasonable amount of power in an active system, which implies bigger and heavier.
You will likely require some type of frequency hopping/agility to overcome jamming, which implies expensive.
The better you do the above, the greater your EFFECTIVE range will be. If you don't do it well, you may have no range at all because your system can't operate.
Its a great idea. But I'm a little concerned the platform is going to get big, heavy and expensive pretty quickly.
No, no, no! The idea is to create situational awareness with these UAV sensors, NOT TO DUPLICATE AN AWACS AIRCRAFT! We don't need these little UAVs to try to go toe-to-toe electronically with enemy land and ship based sensors, jammers, and ECM. All we need them to do is sense where the enemy is so that we can assemble a coherent situational understanding. If the enemy is conducting the kind of massive, wide area, broad band ECM and jamming that you seem to be imagining (why would they, by the way, if our ships are nowhere near them?) then they'll be loudly (electronically loudly) broadcasting their own position. Since we'll have multiple little UAVs scouring the area, we'll have no trouble passively sensing the signal sources and triangulating their positions - ALL PASSIVELY!!!!
DeleteThe whole idea is to keep the little UAVs simple (KISS) and cheap. We're so wrapped up in the very highest end of technology (toe-to-toe electronic battles, for example) that we forget we can accomplish our objectives simply, with very low end passive receivers! Anything powerful enough to jam our sensors is giving away its own position.
Do you understand?
That is what anti-radiation missiles are for. First one to scream...
Delete"...work in a hostile em environment."
DeleteIMHO, as a task force gets deeper into hostile waters, more powerful assets, like the E2C will be needed to manage the increasingly difficult environment. Until then, the E2C could be used in a passive role and as a relay for the UAV's.
The cheap UAV's will be sacrificed so the more expensive manned assets can get deeper into enemy territory before they are detected.
I think you're partially right.
DeleteThere is probably room for a mix. Really small stuff that is passive only, recognizing that good passive is not necessarily particularly small.
Then something a little closer to an unmanned AWACS.
I'm not convinced that a normal AWACS is survivable at ranges they are going to need to operate at to get good data. I guess that's what the F-35 is supposed to make up for. A great deal depends on what newer missile technology actually achieves in the field and too little is known currently.
There are (at least) three scenarios regarding EMCON.
First is you stay quiet as a mouse and hope nothing gives you away. Like for instance an EMALS launch.
Then there is the tactic where you make as much noise as you can, in the hopes of confusing the opposition about what is really out there. Sure, you can get a rough bearing, but range and elevation are difficult.
The next variant is make as much noise as you can, but offset the source well away from the main group and see if you can sucker the enemy.
Except for the UAV's and their control and launch systems the Navy doesn't need much to test and validate your system. They don't even have to design or make a new ship.
ReplyDeleteJust as a comment, the Spanish Navy has made extensive use of the Scan Eagle onboard his ships in the Horn of Africa.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/buquesaeronaves/prefLang-en/03flotilla-aeronaves-aeronaves-no-tripuladas
Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of the Spanish Navy UAV use.
DeleteThis kind of peacetime surveillance is a bit different from the combat scenario in the post in terms of range (the 50 mile limit is a somewhat artificial one due to the type of control comm., as I understand it) and type of sensors but the underlying concept is similar.
Could it be possible that this is just a ploy on the Navy's part to early retire the Ticons? Hype up a potential replacement then not deliver, like the Iowas' class retirement to make room for the Zumwalts?
ReplyDeleteWhat is it that you think they might be making room for?
DeleteLCS Mark 2
DeleteIf you follow the sonobouy concept would it be possible to formulate a missile styled uav that could be programmed to fly at save top height on a predetermined course to avoid giving away the ships position that could then pop-up and deploy a parachute or a balloon type package to allow the onboard sensor a bit more time on station at it transmits the data back to the ship. This would allow a rapid deployment as well as a high level of EMCON. The sensor wouldnt have to be terribly powerful as you could launch several in a specific search pattern to provide cover for a unit or units.
ReplyDeleteInteresting concept. The challenge would be communications. A sonobuoy, to use the analogy, has a very limited comm range. Trying to get a very small, very lightweight balloon package to be able to transmit a couple hundred miles would be the trick. Still, an interesting thought.
DeleteI mentioned this to my friend who's working with lasercomms. He was very coy on the details, what with NDAs, but he said that using satellites as lasercomm relays is the way forward. Reading between the lines the implication was that was what his company was working on; in terms of the physics it's already possible to make a laser that can reach to a satellite in orbit, and the satellite would then act as a relay and bounce the laser "signal" back to the receiving asset. The challenge, as I understand it, is working up towards getting the technology to be as reliable and mature as directional radio transmissions.
DeleteIt'll be a gamechanger once it gets to that state, but we're not there yet - and getting there will just push other people to pursue the same tech, so the advantage won't be there forever.
A sonobouy also has to transmit in a different medium. And if communications were transmitted in bursts instead of a long continuous signal maybe the the strength woukd be easier to achieve and maintain in such a small package. We can currently control UAVS of various sizes and capability as well as receive the intelligence they produce. The need for true two way communication wouldn't really be a priority as a disposable asset parachuting or floating temporarily would only need to be able to transmit. It is also possible that they could transmit false data to be intercepted by the enemy.
ReplyDelete"A sonobouy also has to transmit in a different medium."
Delete???? It transmits in air. The sonobuoy releases a float with the transmitter that sends the data.
The comm issue with a balloon sensor package, in this application, is that it would have to transmit two hundred miles or so, well beyond any line of sight and requiring some moderately significant power source. That's asking a lot from a tiny balloon package.
The Achilles heel with ultra-small UAVs is their limited payload and speed. If radar remains the primary sensor for wide area search, you're not going to get much capability out of something Scan Eagle sized. Simply not enough size, power-generation or room for aperture.
ReplyDeleteSpeed is similar problem. Something the size of a Scan Eagle isn't going to have much of a powerplant which severely constraints your search rate.
Numbers can only help to some extent. As a professor of mine put it - if you were fielding a basketball team would you want to have five players that are 10-feet tall or ten players that are 5-feet tall?
In my opinion the sweet-spot for a ship-based UAV is something about 1/2 the size of an MH-60. Small enough to be substituted out 2:1 for helo but big enough to carry a decent payload and fast enough to cover a lot of water.
"If radar remains the primary sensor for wide area search"
DeleteIt is not. Read the other comments about passive sensing.
"Speed is similar problem."
No, it is not. Operationally, speed is almost irrelevant. The speed of even a small, mediocre UAV is still 2-4x that of the host ship. All the UAV is required to do is get out in front of the ship and cover some section of the surveillance area. A speed of 60-100 kts is more than adequate for that.
"would you want to have five players that are 10-feet tall or ten players that are 5-feet tall?"
Depends what you want them to do. If you want them to get all the loose balls then you'd rather have ten players. If you want to close off every driving lane to the basket then you'd want ten players. If you want to be able to play defense with nine players and leave one all the way at the other offensive end so you'd have an uncontested fast break layup on every change of possession then you'd want ten. I can do this all day!
For UAVs, if you want moderate sensor coverage in a small package that is far less likely to be detected and is dirt cheap to buy so that you can afford unlimited numbers then you'd want the less capable UAV.
You oddly seem to think the speed advantage over a ship is somehow important. Why? It is not a footrace!
DeleteI contend what matters in a UAS is search rate. Search rate is directly proportional to speed, endurance and sensor range. All of which favor a larger UAV, not a smaller one.
"You oddly seem to think the speed advantage over a ship is somehow important. Why?"
DeleteYou oddly seem not to understand the role of speed of the UAV relative to the host ship. The 2-4x speed advantage of the UAV over the ship guarantees that the UAV can maintain a rate of [search] advance equal to, or greater than, the rate of advance of the host ship. Very important! Otherwise the ship's advance would exceed the searching UAV's rate of advance - not good!
You have to understand how a search would be carried out. Once the UAVs arrive on station, they would simply search in a forward motion with a bit of side to side. The width of the search pattern would be determined by the number of UAVs applied. Thus, 'search rate' is, to some extent, unimportant as long as it's above a minimum threshold. Consider: suppose a UAV had a magic, instantaneous search rate over its assigned search area - it could accomplish its entire search in one second. So what? What does that gain us? Nothing. Certainly, there is a minimum threshold that is required but anything above that doesn't really gain us anything.
Therefore, we want the SMALLEST UAV that is capable of meeting the minimum search threshold. Anything larger (and more expensive!) is unnecessary and a waste of money.
Educate yourself on search theory and you will quickly see why your concept doesn't really work.
DeleteIn order to cover the limiting lines of approach of an advancing ship, you either need a very capable sensor or an order of magnitude speed advantage.
Your concept provides neither. Which kind of explains why Big Navy really doesn't care much about Scan Eagle. It simply cannot do much tactically.
Note: it's a pretty simple spreadsheet problem. Happy to share if interested.
*sigh* Well, I tried.
DeleteAnonymous has a point. Textron's Aerosonde uses an IMSAR NPS-3 synthetic aperture radar that can scan for a yacht sized target at 1315 sq km an hour. RQ-21 uses the larger NPS-5 covering 6240 sq km an hour. I don't have a stat on the MQ-8C Osprey SAR but it seems to be proportionately larger. I think if we are looking at a sensor drone with no payload to shoot you could probably get an effective SAR,imaging pod and a real data link like link 16 into something the size of say the Northrop Grumman BAT, PAE ISR Resolute Eagle, or Arcturus T-20. The Bat might be low observable while the other 2 can be catapult launched or launched with a vertical launch kit. Use relay between UAVs so as not to rely on satcom. Then have a truly long range spotting asset like TERN that could be used to provide targets at Tomahawk distance.
DeleteFor the Air and Missile Defense (AMD) mission, there are some challenges to using small UAVs, especially with passive only sensors.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, EO/IR sensor ranges are heavily dependent on weather conditions.
Secondly, the size and capability of sensors you can fit in a 7.5lb payload is obviously quite limited.
If we assume ViDAR is a representative wide area search system that fits on this UAV, it can detect an aircraft-sized target at 3.5 miles. To get full 360 degree coverage, with no overlap, at 100 miles would require around 180 UAVs (~2 degrees per UAV). Now if there is persistent cloud cover, you may need a ring of UAVs above the clouds as well as below, which would double the number required. If you wanted more overlap overlap, obviously more still.
Increasing the range to 150 miles ups the minimum number per ring to around 270 (1.34 degrees per UAV).
Detecting smaller targets (missiles) reduces the detection range, also driving up numbers needed.
Additionally, unlike large radars such as the one on the Hawkeye or on traditional surface combatants, these UAVs would only form a perimeter, a thin shell, if you will. Where the radar can search the entire volume, the UAVs can only search a 7 mile deep zone. Once any missile or aircraft passes through the zone, they will lose tracking.
Obviously you could have concentric rings of UAVs, but that requires even more aircraft.
Or you can use these aircraft in a limited zone, rather than 360 degree coverage, but that limits their value.
Who suggested trying to duplicate the entire spectrum of E-2 Hawkeye capabilities with UAVs? I know it wasn't me. As I've made clear in many of the comments, what we're looking to achieve is situational awareness. This is not even remotely the same as all-seeing, all-knowing, Aegis/Hawkeye type radar coverage. Instead, what we want is to know what kind of forces are in our area of concern. Is there a surface group and, if so, generally, where? Is there a strike flight headed our way? If so, from what direction and how much time do we have to prepare. This is not the same as tracking every asset in real time. The post even acknowledges that comms might only be semi-real time. Having established our awareness, we can then allocate additional resources (UAVs, P-8s, Hawkeyes, AWACS, aircraft, whatever) to providing better tracking, if warranted. We can also turn on our ship's radar to deal with a detected incoming strike, for example.
DeleteYou've taken a simple, basic situational awareness concept and tried to turn it into a total E-2/AWACS replacement. I don't think you can do that with just small UAVs although you're welcome to try if you can figure out how to package the requisite sensors and capabilities into a limited airframe.
Since the original post was about the "Next Cruiser", and AMD is the primary cruiser mission, I focused on using small UAVs to offload the AMD sensor mission from the warship itself.
DeleteSurface warfare is not a primary cruiser mission. Nor is wide-area maritime ISR. Both are obviously still valuable missions, but not necessarily in the context of a cruiser replacement.
Looking at your idea, the Scan Eagle seems like a good starting point. At 15k feet it would have a 150 mile horizon, so in roughly two hours flight time it could "see" 300 miles in front of its parent ship, and still have LOS communication. Thats a huge extension of battlespace awareness!! Being linked to another aircraft (E-2??) could significantly increase that. They have plenty of speed to stay "out front", and enough loiter time to not need more than a few per ship to maintain a constant sensor presence, and their size allows a half dozen to be carried without significantly impacting shipboard space. Maybe a passive variant for outer range initial detection, and an active variant for targeting-grade information (a larger, heavier, shorter flight duration variant that trades loiter time for active sensor capability) would be ideal? I envision the active radar version being paired with the passive, trailing behind, possibly at lower altitude, and only being sent forward and activated after the passive systems have a reasonably triangulated target(???)
ReplyDeleteSo while the payload weight is limited, it seems like a relatively cheap no-brainer to have these deployed en masse in at least a passive sensor configuration. As this is relatively mature, Im wondering why the Navy hasn't jumped on this wholeheartedly??
" Im wondering why the Navy hasn't jumped on this wholeheartedly??"
DeleteWhy hasn't the Navy jumped on gun support, mine warfare, mine countermeasures, logistics, larger air wings, all-steel ships, ASW, SSKs … I think you get my point. The Navy fails to embrace lots of good ideas for no discernible reason other than their overwhelming fixation on building new hulls, regardless of usefulness.
As reference, the Russians have a Scan Eagle-like UAV called the Orlan-10. According to Wiki, "The drone is usually used in a group of two or three, where the first one is used for reconnaissance in a height of 1-1.5 km, the second one for electronic warfare and the third one as a transponder that transmits intelligence information to the control center."
Delete"Russians have a Scan Eagle-like UAV called the Orlan-10. "
DeleteThe Orlan is used in land combat rather than at sea although there's nothing to prevent that. I note this only to remind all that land use dictates a different operating concept.
What I like is not the UAV itself - it seems a straightforward, pedestrian airframe - but the concept of operations. The Russians have deployed it as a system with electronic warfare integrated in. That's outstanding (well, not for us if we have to face them)! The Russians are solidly committed to the combination of EW and firepower which I wholeheartedly agree with. I wish we would emulate them.
The downside to this kind of small UAV being operated closely over a battlefield is that you'll lose a lot of them, as I've been harping on. The same Wiki article you cite also gives a list of losses in combat and I'm sure it's only a very partial list! There's nothing wrong with combat losses as long as the airframe is cheap enough to buy and deploy in quantity (another one of my 'harps'!).
The combat loss rate would, presumably, be many times greater against a peer like the US or China. There comes a point in attrition where, even if you have the replacements in inventory, you can't get them into the fight and operating quickly enough or keep them operating long enough to actually be effective. I wonder if that would be the case in peer warfare? Think about it, would we allow Russia or China to operate UAVs over us, collecting data and sending it back? Of course not! We've got lots of Stingers, lasers, jammers, guns, etc. The lifespan of UAVs over a peer battlefield will be extremely short. Too short to be effective? That's the question and, if the answer is too short, why are we pursuing UAVs so obsessively? Answer me that (I say that rhetorically although feel free to offer a thought if you have one)!
*facepalm
ReplyDeleteOf course... Its disturbing how many truly rhetorical questions this blog evokes. While its not likely, Im dreaming that the new potential CNO might inject a whit of common sense somewhere, since he at least has been a combatant commander for much of his career...
I try to offer answers and solutions, not just pose questions!
DeleteWhile I, too, hope the new CNO brings something positive, I see no indications of any potential. He was not, to the best of my knowledge, a Combatant Commander. You may be using the term generically to signify command of combatant ships, I suspect?
Regardless, he has been part of the problem throughout his career. He has seen, and been part of, the many bad decisions. He has, undoubtedly, witnessed waivers of certification, undermanned watches, and the hundreds of other failures of the Navy culture. I am unaware of him ever speaking out against any of that. That makes him part of the problem. So, no positive indications going into this but we'll hope for the best.
I agree for once. The current nominee Gilday doesn't impress me. He has got a cyber (10th Fleet) background so expect more network over platform nonsense.
DeleteThe guy who was going to be CNO (Moran) would've been a mich better choice. He was an insider but in a good way.
"expect more network over platform nonsense."
DeleteYou exactly hit at the core of my fear about him. An astute supposition on your part.
Great article. Very thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteYour mini-hawk sounds an awful lot like an MQ-8C with it's Osprey radar(200NM max) and an RFP for the new EW suite?
I like the idea of mixing a Helo UAV with a Blackjack UAV. I think we can see a great deal of growth in the ViDAR if we change the optics over time. It has potential.
"Your mini-hawk sounds an awful lot like an MQ-8C"
DeleteEmphatically, NO! The Fire Scout requires a hangar a ship can only carry a few of them. In this role, attrition will be high so we need LOTS of UAVs. Also, passive sensing is likely to be the main sensing mode. The cost of a Fire Scout is way too high for sufficient numbers.
You've got a completely different vision. To be viable, you'll need to explain how a large (relative the Scan Eagle size I'm envisioning), non-stealthy UAV will survive long enough to do its job and how we'll deal with the attrition and numbers/cost issue.
I'm also talking about 'flooding' the area around a ship with UAVs for sensor coverage. That's 360 deg coverage with an emphasis on the expected threat axes. How will this be achieved with just a couple of Fire Scouts that have limited aloft time before they have to sit for maintenance?
I see where you're coming from now. The Navy has actually done a lot of the math on the SWaP you're talking about here. It's a physics problem that once solved leads us in the chattering class to go, "Oh, well I guess that won't work. It makes sense why they are doing what they are doing."
DeleteFrom my experience in the E-2C community I think you are underestimating cost, size and weight of the EW and radar. It is similar in size to current small radar modules on the market that simply cannot fit on a RQ-21 even if we double it in size.
Once you upsize a hand carried RQ-21 to hold even one radar or EW module it is hard to move with humans and hard to launch with compressed air. At that point we also need at least two in the air at any one time because, we just don't know when we will need the radar vs passive EW. Circumstances and the enemy influence that.
One thing to remember with attrition isn't just having enough, it's having enough with sensors long enough ranged to overcome common enemy sensors and weapons. If not long enough it will be ineffective, no matter the number. At that point we in the military call that, "Target practice".
That last point is most important. You mentioned the desired SAR on the RQ-21. Sure for Marine applications over land after SAM suppression. That in no way has the power and sensitivity for missions at sea. We, even as Americans, cannot defy the laws of physics. Just ask the Army FCS folks or the Navy LCS folks.
To make what you are talking about fly we would not have the sensor coverage to actually stop the mother ship from being found and attacked. If you do make it large enough to fly and have the needed sensor coverage, well you end up with something like an MUX or MQ-8C.
To make anything larger than a tennis ball survivable to the common enemy ship sensor and SAM's we would need? An E-2D. So your point about survival is important but making something so small it is militarily ineffective for all missions is a waste of money. Anything smaller is at risk that can only be mitigated with Tactics.
I fear you are completely missing the concept! Let me try again.
DeleteThe basic concept is to establish situational awareness. THAT DOES NOT MEAN E-2 HAWKEYE TYPE COVERAGE!!!! It means, having an idea of what's in your area that is of interest. IT DOES NOT MEAN MAINTAINING A CONTINUOUS, REAL TIME TRACK OF EVERY OBJECT. Situation awareness just means that you know approximately where enemy forces are and, hopefully, where they're going. That's all. With that awareness, you can then refine your own actions: run away, allocate more sensor resources, refine your targeting to get launch quality data, simply monitor, or whatever.
To accomplish this situational awareness, passive (not EW!) sensors (an RF frequency receiver, for example - very small, very light) are the first and preferred mode of sensing. You do not reveal yourself but with enough UAV sensors in the area you can assemble a pretty decent awareness of what's around you. Active UAVs with SMALL radars (VIDAR, for example) or EO sensors can be used to further refine the awareness, if warranted.
Sensor coverage is achieved through NUMBERS! Each individual UAV has a relatively small field of view (although passive sensing has a very good range! - the flashlight analogy) but dozens of them in the air provide the needed coverage.
Survivability of the individual UAVs is a non-issue. In fact, the UAVs would actually act as bait, in a sense. If an enemy ship or plane wants to radiate in order to find and destroy a UAV then we get a good location data point on them for the mere cost of a dirt cheap UAV. An excellent trade for us!
No EW. No radar that a Scan Eagle size UAV couldn't carry. Mostly passive receivers and EO.
The land combat analogy would be sending out foot patrols to see what's in front of you. They'll tell you whether you're facing an armored division, an infantry company, or just a forward observation post. They won't be able to tell you every piece information about the enemy, exact numbers, how many are left-handed, or what the serial numbers on their equipment is but you'll have a general situational awareness that you can formulate your own plans on.
This is NOT an attempt to duplicate an E-2 Hawkeye!
Do you understand the concept, now?
I apologize. I realized that I just kept saying EW, thus mixing passive and active.
DeleteThere is very little reason for a passive only EW on a drone. The ship EW is perfectly fine for detection without the weight limitations. For a drone EW needs to be active to stay alive long enough for the ships weapons to finish the kill chain and/or for the drone to leave the area(runaway, er I mean tactically retreat).
"I like the idea of mixing a Helo UAV with a Blackjack UAV. I think we can see a great deal of growth in the ViDAR if we change the optics over time. It has potential."
DeleteMy original thought suggests I'm not opposed to a combination of sensors and platforms. So we are not in total disagreement there.
As I said in my follow up, you like saying things such as small and light on a passive EW system. No offense but that small and light isn't going on a Scan Eagle or any derivative. You've underestimated the weight needed. This isn't a TACAN or Missile warning reciever. It'a high end antenna and reciever that cannot distortion the signal in order to distinguish between what's out there among all the rf bouncing around the atmosphere(those nasty side lobes make for not so small and light). And that's for the passive EW. But of course as I said, there is little reason to put that on a drone unless one decides to get a range(think using passive just like in ASW). To get localized what's out there info, the ship's passive EW is fine. Yes, line of sight bounces all over the place making a real muck of things.
Then we get into what weapon would we use for that sensed target if we wish to attack. Time of flight and it's terminal sensing capability determines what targeting drone we might need.
As for you contention of, "Flooding" I explained why that would be ineffective and end up costing more during a war. If it's during peace time the answer is usually, FIDO.
"There is very little reason for a passive only EW on a drone."
DeleteI think you're still not quite getting the concept. While passive detection can occur at great distances, having a spread of UAVs two hundred miles out in front of you greatly increases your chance of detection and enhances your situational awareness. Also, passive detection often can't identify the specific target type (many ships share the same navigational radars, for example). A UAV with EO can provide the definitive ID. Multiple passive UAVs can also provide better triangulation as opposed to the ship which can only obtain a bearing (yes, triangulation can occur over time but the UAVs provide it semi-real time). UAVs operating 200 miles out have a better chance of picking up low energy signal emissions that the ship would miss. And so on. There are many reasons to have passive UAVs!
"No offense but that small and light isn't going on a Scan Eagle or any derivative. You've underestimated the weight needed. "
DeleteYou may not be aware of the advances in small, lightweight ESM, EO, IR type equipment. For example, take a look at the Elta ELL-8385 system for UAVs. It's a full featured ESM/ELINT package that is more than what is needed for this application. A small subset of capabilities would suffice for this.
Scan Eagle/Blackjack UAVs have already carried EO, IR, VIDAR, SAR, etc. payloads. The required equipment can be carried on the kind of small UAVs envisioned here.
You might want to check out the family of IAI UAVs and payloads to get a feel for what can be done.
Well, we can certainly agree to disagree. That's perfectly acceptable. But you keep saying I don't get what you mean. I and more importantly the Navy understands full well what you mean. We simply understand a few simple facts.
DeleteSensor weight and ability go hand in hand. Sensor platforms speed, capacity and size go hand in hand.
Both platform and sensors ability to cover an area are directly related to the speed of the enemy we are trying to find. Even in the dark ages of the 80's we had very little worry of coming across a surface ship unless we were close to shore. Our common operating picture has only gotten better since then.
The need for persistent surveillance is for aircraft and subs. When close to shore any airborne asset that can detect aircraft at range can easily detect surface craft. So that problem takes care of itself.
So you seem to want to search using something like a Scan Eagle. In peace time what happens is either we receive an incoming request from another asset and send an airborne asset to look at it or it caught us by surprise because no one saw the bomber coming.
It's a math problem. Even a large Scan Eagle type UAV cannot cover enough ground to see the bomber coming to kill us. Or to cover the area you need dozens of Scan Eagles which then sees the bomber but cannot do much of anything else. But the cost of all those UAV's is way more than any other alternative.
Once the actual math, coverage studies are done you don't buy dozens of Scan Eagles for your ISR. You buy a few to go out after the surface craft is detected to look at it. The USCG is doing this as we speak.
What we do is buy one or two Helo sized UAV's. Thus the Navy and Marines wanting MQ-8C and MUX. Anything else is a waste of money that doesn't actually provide what you want it to provide. Again, it's a physics problem. There is a far better and cheaper way. I'm not sure I would have gone with the MQ-8C but it is a viable way of doing it with a proven platform.
"Well, we can certainly agree to disagree."
DeleteHey, you what? That's fine. I use this blog to throw out better ideas and new ways of operating. It would be unreasonable to expect total and instantaneous agreement. Billy Mitchell probably experienced some slight disagreement. All new ideas, good or bad, are resisted. That's normal.
Is this concept a good one or a bad one. Of course it's good! However, until someone decides to build a prototype UAV such as I described and try it out in an exercise, we have no proof so we'll just have leave it at that. Again, though, I urge you to look at the Elta ELL-8385 system as an example of what can be done.