The Navy is pursuing two unmanned vessels:
- Large Unmanned Surface Vessel (LUSV) – weapons barge
- Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV) – surveillance (ISR) vessel or [later?] electronic warfare (EW) vessel
The MUSV is loosely defined by the Navy as being 45-190 ft long and around 500 tons.(1)
On 13-Jul-2020, the Navy issued a $35M contract to L3 Harris for construction of a 195 ft MUSV with an option for eight additional vessels which would bring the contract value to $281M. The issuance of this contract has provided us with a glimpse of the appearance of the L3 Harris MUSV design. What we see is a low silhouette vessel with few stealth features. The bulk of the vessel displays a flat, open deck aft of a forward located, minimal pilot house.
 |
| MUSV Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel |
What can the ship’s appearance tell us about its suitability for its ISR mission?
Survivability – The vessel is unarmed and not stealthy. The hull sides appear to be nearly vertical, increasing the radar signature, and the superstructure has masts and antennae scattered about. The open, flat deck suggests that functional modules and equipment will be carried on it which, presumably, would consist of additional radars, sensors, antennae, communications, and data processing computer enclosures, all of which further degrade any stealth the vessel might have. Thus, we appear to have an unarmed, non-stealthy ship that is likely going to be radiating signals (both communications and sensors) thereby pinpointing its location. In combat, the vessel’s survivability will likely be measured in minutes.
Sensor Range – The very low silhouette suggests that the sensors will, perforce, be located very close to the water surface which means a very a limited sensor range (short horizon) for many of the sensors unless the payload includes tall masts which would impact stability and further decrease what little stealth the vessel might have.
Seakeeping - The short, blunt bow suggests that the forward sections will be very wet in any kind of seas and the forward antennae will encounter breaking seas on a regular basis.
How do the factors just described impact the mission?
CONOPS – From various Navy descriptions, the MUSV will be an ISR vessel operating out in front of a surface group, at a distance, to provide early warning and broad area situational awareness. If correct, this would place a defenseless, non-stealthy vessel out on its own. Defenseless, non-stealthy vessels are known as target drones. A Burke, in the main group, could provide some long range AAW support for the MUSV but only if the enemy obligingly flies aircraft and missiles very high so as to enable long range detection and targeting by the Burke.
As we noted, the MUSV will, presumably, be using active sensors for much of its surveillance activity. This will broadcast the vessels location and, coupled with the lack of defensive weapons and non-stealthy nature, likely lead to fairly short combat lives for the vessels. Worse, the radiating MUSVs surrounding the host surface group will provide the enemy with a very convenient and accurate location of the host group.
The low placement of the sensors and resultant short sensing range suggest that it will be difficult to achieve the early warning and wide area situational awareness that the Navy desires. Instead, the vessels will only be able to monitor a fairly small area and it would require many dozens of these vessels to establish any kind of useful wide area awareness … for the short time the vessels operate before being sunk.
As I’ve stated, the Navy has jumped on the unmanned path with no foundation of proven operating doctrine. Despite this utter lack of evidence of effectiveness, the Navy has already committed to completely restructuring the fleet, similar to the savaging and neutering the Marines are inflicting on themselves. The Navy seems determined to move from a fleet of the most powerful ships in the world to a fleet of individually weak, nearly defenseless, network nodes with little firepower or survivability. The Chinese have to be like kids waiting for Christmas, almost unable to contain their excitement until the moment that the Navy completes their own self-destruction and the Chinese can brush the US Navy aside as nothing more than a minor annoyance.
____________________________________
(1)Congressional Research Service, “Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress”, 25-Feb-2021
It almost makes you wonder if the guys at the top of our navy are actually working for China. I doubt that's the case, but if they were, could they hurt us any worse?
ReplyDeleteThe Navy and Marines claim to have gamed all this out and demonstrated that unmanned and small hidden units will beat China. I desperately hope they're right. However, they refused to make public and game conditions or assumptions and the past history of Navy wargaming is not encouraging as far as realism goes. I have zero confidence that the supposed wargames produced any result other than the exact result they wanted to see.
DeleteHere's another point I don't recall hearing much (although maybe I'm just not paying enough attention). The major technological advance in the unmanned ships is in the artificial intelligence based navigation. But the rest of the systems (propulsion and whatnot) are the same as what we've been using all along. But given how much trouble we've had with keeping our recent ship designs reliable at sea, even with the presence of a crew (albeit reduced) for ongoing maintenance and dealing with emergent problems, what makes us think that a ship with no crew whatever can be reliable at sea for extended periods?
ReplyDeleteAs I documented in a post, the much hyped unmanned voyage from California to Pearl Harbor was anything but unmanned. It required several boardings by maintenance crews to fix breakdowns. I fully expect the same to occur when unmanned vessels join the fleet. As you ask, why would it be any different?
DeleteThis is a commercial design. Plenty of videos on it to check out. The engine controls will take over from the human user when the human user doesn't listen to what the engine needs. Gensets and engines are Cummins so no one can complain the manual is in German.
DeleteMUSV is not ACTUV. One had to work for a living.
DeleteWhat on earth are those people thinking? Or maybe more to the point, are those people thinking?
ReplyDeleteAnd are there any plans to reality check this stuff to see if any of it works? Or are we just going to go into battle assuming it works, and be disappointed when we get our rear ends handed to us?
The Navy does not really believe that a peer war will happen anytime soon, so they're fine with untested concept like the new USVs.
DeleteOr maybe they know more about what's really possible with our own technology and want the edge before we lose it. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39913/multiple-destroyers-were-swarmed-by-mysterious-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights
Delete"Or maybe they know more about what's really possible with our own technology and want the edge before we lose it."
Delete?????? Completely lost me. What is it you think is possible that we need to have before we lost it?
An edge in AI.
DeleteAh, okay. Setting aside the highly debatable proposition that we actually have an edge in AI, what do you see the level of AI that we have, doing for us in terms of the MUSV and combat? What will the level of AI that we have do that our existing manned platforms can't do as well or better?
DeleteAnd, in the interests of balance, what are the drawbacks to using whatever level of AI you feel we have?
I'm not arguing your position (yet!), just exploring your thinking on it.
If you sub hunt with a P-8 and 4 hours on station time, MH-60R with 1.5 hours on station, and rely on MFTAs off 2 billion dollar destroyers or 3 billion dollar SSNs; that is a lot of gas, manpower, and multi use platforms having to be pulled down the sub hunt rabbit hole. You yourself are an advocate for specialized, limited life platforms. MUSV can speed between points like the helo yet stay at it longer. Plus carry all the gear needed to finish the job when ready. Once they get over that imagined hurdle, long since past for anything that flies this can be an effective, affordable tool.
DeleteASW is among the last jobs I'd give to AI, personally.
Delete"If you sub hunt"
DeleteWhat do you see the 'AI edge' doing in all this?
Not getting tired
DeleteIf and it's a huge IF: USN had said we are buying 1 of these, we agree with the contractor that let's play around with radar, sensors, electronics,etc and we not worried about the platform, we have an option for another MUSV in 2 years, after testing, we will work on developing a platform with somewhat of a "definitive" sensor suite that we are comfortable with going forward with so this second platform, we will work on the structure and LO, engines, maintenance, etc.... and hopefully after these 2 prototypes, USN said it will reassess and decide if it wants to buy more, maybe up to 8 to try out how a "squadron" of these could work together or go back to the contractor drawing board, I could have lived with that but instead, let's face it, this is starting to look like LCS all over again!!! It's almost like USN is ready to jump into serial production and we have no clue how these things will operate or whatever they do,"do they even work?", who cares,let's just buy them!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm also very skeptical of the 16 knots cruising speed and 4500 nm range, all by itself? It does mention some sort of capability to refuel, so I'm guessing maybe maintenance will be done at the same time, so is it a dedicated mother ship also LO or it doesn't matter whom or whoever will refuel or do maintenance on the MUSV? Is USN even worried about this?!? Have they thought about it? Did they war game it? LOL!
Check the specs on the link I posted. It will make 3350 @ 24.5. This is keeping a hot assembly line alive before the domestic offshore market folds or converts to wind power support. This basic model has been on the water since 2015. Its partially about keeping a hot production line hot so they don't lose the savings of already knowing how its built.
DeleteA 500-TON vehicle is TOO EXPENSIVE to be considered "expendable," and if it breaks down, where can it dock for repairs? It's too big to fit in an amphibious assault ship's well deck, which means it'll take days for it to sail to the nearest friendly harbor- assuming it doesn't require another ship to tow it, further diminishing available forces- and more days for it to sail back to the theater.
ReplyDeleteAgain, penny wise and pound foolish.
You just need a yard with a syncro-lift to get it out of the water. If they turned an ESD into a lift ship it could carry a squadron.
DeleteWhy do you think it will be sensing surface or air targets? They tested the VDS/MFTA tow for LCS on a fast supply vessel. 356 dead weight tons before they remove that 5th engine down to 4. Built in LA and made its own way to now work in the gulf (sister ship). They ought to figure what all it can do as a crewed vessel too. Launch CUSVs or 11 M RHIBs. Fit canister launchers or ADLs. I'm working on specking a manned variant as my catamaran corvette stabilized. All the details on the original FSV for ghost fleet is here. Best out there. https://seacormarine.com/wp-content/themes/wpgrid-child/pdfs/ava-j-mccall.pdf
ReplyDeleteIn the absence of lookouts manning a crow's nest, the ship needs onboard sensors to watch out for obstructions and navigational hazards- reefs, wrecks, driftwood, snorkelers or scuba divers- and for combat vessels, antiship missiles and other incoming threats.
DeleteI built a robot that could do obstacle avoidance in a kids robotics class at community college in the 90s. My Subaru does the same thing. You don't think commercial ships aren't already doing this? Why does SEWIP, NULKA or a search radar need a person, it just gives people an FYI already. Same with telecom networks now and many other things.
DeleteWas your robot sailing on roiling seas that alternately cover and uncover obstacles, while waves plunge it up and down? Does your Subaru sail on roiling seas? Are the commercial ships concerned about enemy electronic warfare degrading their sensors?
DeleteYou forget technological devices can and will fail- especially when enemies are trying to make them fail, as is the case in combat.
@AndyM. How big is the crew? Looked at spec PDF you provided, cool stats but what size is the crew, talked about cabins and passengers as far as I could tell....
DeleteOnly 3 positions in the pilot house. Here is a good read on the ship. https://www.professionalmariner.com/liam-j-mccall/
Delete@ANDYM. Good read,thanks. Sounds like a nice little ship but is a great USV platform for surveillance? I don't know, I still would like USN to try it out some more before deciding....
DeleteOne reason why I think they should be working on manned and unmanned versions. If people understand the ship at that level the whole manned unmanned teaming will work better in my mind. MQ-8C is basically the aircraft the MH-60 pilots trained on. Plus having real hands on knowledge with the types of ships available will better inform the future and curb the conference room obsession with wiz bang solutions. The world created and needs FSVs for a reason. Composite hull yachts for a reason. When militaries select similar hulls they did so for a reason. Learn and use as best as experience can inform your future decisions.
Delete"If people understand the ship at that level"
DeleteOkay, so what are the missions that you see for a SEACOR Marine FSV and what qualities of the vessel lend themselves to that mission?
Well, if I had the budget of 1 LCS
Delete- I could have 1 ship trail the VDS and all the gear an H-60 could carry on board to deploy from the ship. Sure the helo is great, but this would have the speed and staying power for the same money.
- 1 ship could carry the hellfire missile module, NSMs and at least a single 11m RIB. The gun would need to be smaller and non deck penetrating. It could still be a 30mm Typhoon and use the amo we already have. May not be an LCS but it covers the Mk VI Cyclone gap and takes the notch above FRCs.
- It could still carry a CUSV for MCM if needed. along with Knifefish etc.
- In other roles, its deck could carry tactical length ADLs.
- The 11 round RAM launcher isn't out of the realm of possibility while allowing for those other capabilities. SEWIP Lite, Nulka, and probably a Sea Giraffe could be fitted (pretty sure its lighter than TRS-3/4D.
- There would be some real compromises for sure, but in the world of what's available, where we can't trust the system to make a good hull from the ground up, I'll take it. The usable volume is almost exactly the same as an FRC unless you add on to the deck house.
"I could have 1 ship trail the VDS and all the gear an H-60"
DeleteThe use of such a vessel for ASW offers some possibilities but the major drawback is that the vessel would be extremely noisy. An effective ASW vessel should be as quiet as possible which comes from acoustically isolated (rafted) machinery throughout the ship, specifically selected engines and generators for quiet operation, optimal hull form for minimizing turbulence and self-noise, and active noise suppression and anti-cavitation, none of which the base vessel offers. Of course, it could be modified (not the hull form, of course) but then the cost skyrockets.
On the other hand, several such vessels operating as a squadron could be effective at scaring off submarines even if they can't detect and engage them. Scaring off is a mission kill against the sub and counts as a win.
"missile module … NSMs … RIB … gun … CUSV … Knifefish … RAM … SEWIP Lite … Nulka … Sea Giraffe"
That's a LOT of equipment on a small vessel! You may be overestimating the equipment load. In addition to simply fitting the equipment, you need area and volume for all the associated computer and display consoles to operate the equipment. Facilities for the operators. Berthing for the operators. Etc. You also need appropriate clearances for each item so that they don't interfere with each other. RAM, for example, needs a clear zone around it to allow for the missile exhaust on firing. And so on.
You're asking an awful lot of a small vessel! Still, some interesting thoughts.
At the risk of being labeled a Luddite, I find the use of any kind of unmanned combat vessel, aircraft, or weapon system is the ultimate folly.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
Well, to be fair and offer some perspective, a Tomahawk missile is an unmanned aircraft. The difference between a Tomahawk and a UAV is just the degree of control exercised over it and the UAV is reusable. The same applies to a torpedo and a UUV.
DeleteFair point.
DeleteLutefisk
I was worried about this exact same problem when I saw the earlier renders. Here's a picture of the old render: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/musv-image01.jpg
ReplyDeleteIt looks like an unmanned version of the LCS with substantially weaker abilities. The more odd thing is the Navy's insistence that a small (stealthy??) vessel without any support could survive in a peer-defended area and even perform screening for carrier fleets.
Although, to be fair, the Navy seems to follow through with their logic, by dropping carrier fleets altogether and emphasize on individual vessels combat (as they believe that single ships could defeat China).
Everything the navy and marine senior flag officers and SESes are doing makes sense, if you assume the leaders are being paid off by China to lose the upcoming war.
ReplyDelete"Everything the navy and marine senior flag officers and SESes are doing makes sense, if you assume the leaders are being paid off by China to lose the upcoming war."
DeleteOuch
If you live a good life long enough you start to know a couple of those flag officers and that's not reality. They often struggle and suffer on how to get anything done with the constraints built by those who came before or those now who don't know enough to care and hold the strings even at that high a level. Blaming the enemy is the worst thing possible when its us in the here and now that have the opportunity to change.
Delete"Blaming the enemy is the worst thing possible"
DeleteNo one is doing that. If you're referencing the preceding comments, they were being sarcastic … and yet accurate in their description of the apparent behavior of the Navy leadership. Leadership IS behaving in almost the exact opposite fashion from what they should be doing and exactly what China would have them do if they could.
"If you live a good life long enough you start to know a couple of those flag officers and that's not reality."
ReplyDeleteSo what is the real problem? Because there clearly is one (or several). From an organizational standpoint, I see a couple of things.
One, we suffer from the normal peacetime malady (and although between Korea, Vietnam, and the Mideast we haven't really been at peace, we haven't really fought a war to win since WWII) where the warriors give way in the promotion process to the paper-shufflers, and it takes a (hopefully) short period of screw-ups at the start of a real war to shake out the incompetents. Unfortunately, I don't think a peer war with either China or Russia would afford us that luxury. If anything, the process has been complicated because we have been focusing on politically-motivated no-win "limited" wars for longer than any of the current senior officers have been serving, and thus have gotten a totally false perspective on what it takes to win a war. I don't have much in the way of a solution except maybe to start doing something like the Fleet Problems of the interregnum between WWI and WWII to get more of the feel of what actually happens in a war, and to reality check our current war plans (if we have any). Split our forces up between Blue (good guys) and Orange (OPFOR) and see what happens. If we actually try to get out and fight with things like USVs in a full-blown war scenario, maybe that will alter thinking at the top.
Two, too much of the attention has been focused on what we can get through the budget process instead of what we need. I think we need to define what we need to win a "two and a half war" scenario (peer wars on 2 fronts plus dealing with a rogue nation/terrorist threat) and then go about building, maintaining, and training the force we need to get that done. We can do it. ComNavOps has criticized what he calls my spreadsheet approach for leading from the cost/business perspective, but what I see it doing is actually figuring out to fit what we need into what Congress is apt to let us have. When I do it, I keep coming back to 12 CVBGs/6 CTFs (12 CVNs, 12 CVs), 8 SAG/HUK groups (8 BBs, 8 CVHs), 20 CortRons (20 cruisers, 40 AAW destroyers, 60 GP escorts, 80 ASW frigates), 12 ABM/BMD ships, 92 submarines, 10 PhibRons/ARGs (60 amphibs), 120 coastal/littoral ships, and 76 auxiliaries, 600 ships all told, and a way to build them for an annual expenditure that I think could be sold to Congress. It can be done, but it’s a tight fit that doesn’t leave any room for any more mistakes like the Fords or Zumwalts or LCSs, for one thing, so there have to be negative consequences for screw-ups even approaching that scale.
One part of any answer that I can see is that we cut way back on administrative overhead--admirals/generals and staffs, consultants, and the like--and put that money back into operational units--combat and combat support. We don't need as many admirals as we have ships, and I'm fairly certain the other branches are equally top-heavy. And on the Navy side, at least, the fascination with unmanned vehicles needs to be stifled. I am pretty sure that a Fleet Problem or two would prove the need to do so, if only the brass could learn the lesson.
"what we need into what Congress is apt to let us have"
DeleteThis is your mistake in a nutshell. It's the tail wagging the dog. You don't fit your military into whatever budget Congress offers; you size the budget to fit whatever military needs exist (true needs, not the crap we try to pass off as needs today).
When you do that, you'll 'keep coming back' to having everything you need to fight whatever scenarios you've defined.
It's not the job of the military to fit the budget. It's the job of Congress to fit the budget to the military.
That's as basic and fundamental as it gets.
"It's not the job of the military to fit the budget. It's the job of Congress to fit the budget to the military."
DeleteMaybe should be, but operating without budgetary constraints is not what we are going to get in today's political environment.
"not what we are going to get in today's political environment."
DeleteYou're not going to get your 2-1/2 wars requirement or your fleet structure, either! Since you're operating in an imaginary ideal world when you discuss your fleet, why not go all the way and extend that ideal world to Congress, as well? That way, you won't have to worry about spreadsheet budget constraints because Congress will provide the necessary funding, as they should.
You said it yourself, "too much of the attention has been focused on what we can get through the budget process instead of what we need."
DeleteHere's my approach:
Delete1) Define what we need (and I don't think 2-1/2 wars is unreasonable)
2) Then figure out how to push as much as possible trough the budgetary process
3) And a major part of doing 2) is almost certainly cutting back on non-productive or counter-productive administrative overhead.
I'm not operating in an imaginary or ideal world. I'm saying, here is everything we need, now figure out how to get it. And a big part of how to get it is not spending money for things we don't really need--280 admirals for 290 ships, Fords, Zumwalts, LCSs, multi-purpose airplanes. If we had back what we've wasted on those, and could spend it on things we need, we'd be a lot closer to where we need to be.
OK, maybe I am being idealistic about what we need, and realistic about costs and budgets. But tat's kind of how you have to be. What do need in an unconstrained world, and what do you ave to give up to get it?
Where that approach comes into play is say I want 6 CTFs with 4 carriers each--2 for WestPac, 2 for Europe, 1 for the Mideast, and 1 at home in surge mode (actually two 2-carrier CVBGs, one on each coast). That's 24 carriers. They can't all be Fords or we run out of money (actually none of them can because they don't work, but that's another story). If I can build 12 Nimitzes and 12 conventional CVs for about the cost of 12 Fords, that can work. I have to come up with the money for more aircraft somewhere, but if I'm not trying to overspec and overbuild multi-mission F-35s, that problem gets less difficult. Same with subs. If instead of the Virginia replacement that CBO prices over $5B each, I can build a mix something cheaper like $3B Virginia VPMs and French Barracudas (the French contract was a turnkey for 6 boats for US$10.2B, or $1.7B/ship, with a much longer production run we should be able to get them at or near that price), we should be able to get a lot more in a budget. And yes, I'm looking to build some AIP SSKs that can do the choke point stuff that, yes, an SSN ca also do, but using an SSK frees up an SSN for other stuff.
DeleteSo I'm defining needs based on 2-1/2 wars, and then figuring out how to fit that into a number that could be sold to congress, helped by offsetting cuts to admin/overhead budgets.
"You're not going to get your 2-1/2 wars requirement or your fleet structure, either! Since you're operating in an imaginary ideal world when you discuss your fleet, why not go all the way and extend that ideal world to Congress, as well? That way, you won't have to worry about spreadsheet budget constraints because Congress will provide the necessary funding, as they should."
DeleteBecause Congress won't, and we know that. But you don't start from what Congress will provide, and you sure don't start with something just because Congress will pay for it. You start from what you need, and you get Congress to provide as close to that as you can. And you don't have room for stupid stuff like Fords and Zumwalts and LCSs and large surface drones. In the end, we agree on that, so I don't quite understand why you are so insistent on arguing.
At the end of the day, I think my approach makes a lot more sense than insisting that Congress will do whatever we need or that we can build a super carrier, even a conventional one, for $2B. Maybe those things ought to happen, and quite frankly I'm inclined to believe that they should. And maybe we should be doing more to try to force the world to come around to our liking. But they're not going to, not in our lifetimes. If we can build what we need without them, we have to. And it's kind of fun to try to figure out how we can.
In peace time, they are fine to perform surveillances.
ReplyDeleteDuring war with weak opponents, they tend to perform well and reduce casualties.
While face another superpower in conflict, they are very questionable. We have no way to know the whole system (include manned control units) perform under high intensity electronic warfare. For instance, can radar, communications, ... still functions? or only partial functions? drastically reduced communication range?
In a sense, we do have answers to all of that. We have plenty of evidence of unknown drones deployment hovering around our top of the line ships, destroyers colliding with other ships and etc etc... We face the same limitations (weather, technology reliability+ability) we faced for hundreds of years, just in an updated way with current hardware.
DeleteIs the RNs approach a better one? According to UKDJ the L3 Harris vessel known as Madfox appears to being used to see the art of the possible BEFORE spending vast amounts of money on something that doesn't work
ReplyDelete