Hey, let’s have a little fun today!
The Navy is obsessed with unmanned ships and aircraft, not as a means of achieving greater military effectiveness, but as a means of achieving reduced manning costs so that they can build more ships. At best, this will produce a very weak navy that has somewhat reduced costs and any savings will be consumed by the hugely increased construction costs of those few manned assets that are left.
What if, instead of going down the Navy’s path of small, weak, unmanned ships, we, instead, postulate an unmanned ship that goes the other direction: a very powerful, combat-dominating, unmanned ship? What would such a ship look like? What characteristics would it have? How would it operate? Let’s speculate and have some fun with it!
Now, what do we do before we begin designing a vessel and loading it up with every weapon system we’ve ever heard of (you know … the Navy way of designing)? That’s right! We develop a Concept of Operations (CONOPS).
CONOPS
Here’s a few unmanned characteristics that should influence our CONOPS (absent an actual strategy which is what should drive the CONOPS!):
- Unmanned vessels should be cheap since they don’t need berthing, heads, galleys, food and water storage, waste treatment, passageways (beyond a few service passages), showers, gyms, lounges, mail handling, postal services, etc. That immediately reduces the ship size and, hence, cost by half.
- Cheap unmanned vessels should be numerous.
- Unmanned vessels are ideal for high risk missions.
What do those simple, general, foundational unmanned characteristics suggest in the way of a CONOPS? They suggest – actually demand! - that the proper use for an unmanned warship is one that is not only intended to stand in harm’s way but to actively seek it out. This is the offensive ship that the Navy has been lacking for so long – the ship that will take the fight to the enemy rather than sit back and passively try to defend and survive. This ship will be used to aggressively seek out and engage (go straight at, not just try to defend against) enemy fleets, advance into the teeth of enemy port defenses and destroy those ports, and engage and destroy coastal bases and fortifications. The ship will operate in squadrons of half a dozen on up to a couple dozen or more, depending on the mission, and will be supported, as needed, by other vessels and assets that will perform ASW, long range AAW, and long range surveillance. Thus, this is NOT a do-everything ship – it is an attack ship, pure and simple.
It is also not a Terminator-like, artificial intelligence ship that is going to wander around on its own looking for targets among civilian shipping and deciding what is or isn’t a valid target. That kind of AI doesn’t exist and would cost enormous sums to develop and would never achieve operational status. Plus, that kind of candy-ass mission doesn’t call for a powerful WARship like this. Instead, this is an unmanned ship that is simply given a series of waypoints and instructed to attack anything it can, within some generalized target parameters. We already have this level of AI … it’s called cruise missiles. Thus, the AI already exists and would cost almost nothing to develop and integrate.
It is important to note, as a crucial part of the CONOPS, that the ship will NOT be required to stay at sea, wandering around aimlessly and autonomously. Instead, the ship will execute a mission and, if it survives, will return to port where needed maintenance and repairs will be performed and weapons will be reloaded. It will stay in port until the next mission.
So, with that cursory CONOPS in mind, what does the CONOPS tell us about the required ship design characteristics?
The CONOPS assures us that the ship will come under attack, will take hits, will have to absorb damage, and will have to continue fighting with only minimal degradation of its combat effectiveness due to battle damage (a complete departure from current Navy ship design practice!). Further, the ship will need massive amounts of offensive weapons because, having fought its way to a target, we have to make sure we can destroy the target or it’s all a waste of resources and effort.
What then, are the specific characteristics of this ship?
Sponge Construction – This ship will have nothing in common, structurally, with conventional ships. Instead, the ship will be built as a ‘sponge’. By this, I mean that instead of open, floodable compartments bounded by thin sheets of metal, the ‘compartment’ volume will be ‘filled’ by a metallic (or ceramic or resin or whatever material we can technologically produce in this form) ‘foam’. Like a sponge, the volume will be a closed-cell (you plastics people know what that means) metal (or whatever material) foam. Picture a giant cube of metal with lots and lots of void spaces like a sponge. Thus, there will be no compartment to flood and sink the ship. The worst case would be that an explosion takes a chunk out of the foam. This kind of foam construction would likely confer tremendous resistance to missile penetration and would absolutely contain and mitigate the effects of a missile explosion. With foam construction and only a few small service passages and compartments, the vessel would be very resistant to sinking.
The only non-foam compartments in the ship would be a few spaces that contain machinery that would need to be accessed for maintenance and repair. The bulk of the electrical and utility conduits and piping would run through the foamed volumes. As such, they would not be readily accessible and, if damaged in combat, would be bypassed until repairs could be made. This ability to bypass and reroute utilities is something that would be designed in with numerous pre-existing cross connects. In essence, this would create a spider web of electrical and utilities that can be automatically isolated and re-routed as dictated by damage.
Service Life - Hand in hand with the foam concept is a short design life span. If equipment is going to be sealed inside foamed material, it goes without saying that it can’t be easily serviced which automatically limits the life span of the ship. These ships would have 10-15 year design life spans. This also eliminates the entire idiotic future proofing and mid-life upgrades that so many people love but that never happen.
Weapons - With no need for internal habitability volume, the bulk of the ship’s volume would be available for a very dense weapons fit.
- Missiles – Offensive missiles are the reason this ship exists. Each ship would carry around 64 missiles in heavily armored, dispersed launch housings. I use the term ‘launch housings’ because I don’t think the Mk41 VLS is a combat resilient mechanism. We saw from the Port Royal grounding that the VLS was knocked out of alignment by the gentle nosing aground of the ship. If a VLS can be put out of alignment by something that gentle, it is unlikely to be combat resilient. We need a new type of launch housing designed for the abuses of combat.
- AAW – AAW would be limited to horizon range using ESSM missiles. Each ship would carry around 64 missiles in quad-packed, heavily armored launch housings.
- Close-In Self-Defense Weapons – CIWS/SeaRAM mounts would be numerous (several per ship) to offer the best chance of surviving the inevitable attacks.
- Guns - A ship like this is intended to sail right through enemy missile barrages and into enemy fleets and ports/bases so large caliber guns would be quite useful. I’m thinking that a heavily armored, double or triple barrel, large caliber gun mount (I’m thinking 8”) is mandatory. Nothing has the destructive power, efficiency, and cost effectiveness of a large naval gun with a magazine of hundreds of shells per gun.
Sensors – Sensors will be triple redundant, widely separated, and housed in armored ‘pop up’ mechanisms. There would be no delicate, complex Aegis/AMDR arrays. The sensors would small, simple arrays or rotating arrays (TRS-3D/4D, as an example) suitable for horizon range sensing … nothing more.
Armor – It should go without saying that this ship needs to carry the heaviest armor fit it can. Note, though, that the foam construction fills much of the armor function.
Conclusion
All right, there you have it: a conceptual unmanned WARship that embodies what it means to be a WARship and that takes maximum advantage of the benefits of an unmanned platform. This is a mean, decisive, offensive machine that would restore some attack capability to the Navy.
This would not be a cheap, $200M one-hit-sink unmanned vessel with no significant capabilities (you know, like the unmanned vessels the Navy is building today). This ship would cost on the order of $600M which is good value for something with the capabilities just described.
This conceptual exercise is an object lesson for the Navy. If you want to implement unmanned vessels, at least make them useful. Use them to attack, let them shoulder the brunt of the risk, and give them significant firepower so that they’re worth having. Keep the AI simple and direct to eliminate development costs. Maximize the benefits of unmanned and use them to their strengths.
That was fun! Now, what does your unmanned vessel look like?
I think $600M is way to cheap for a ship like this, even if we assumed the Navy remembered how to build ships the right way, although of course I'm speculating about cost.
ReplyDeleteWhich is also my problem with USVs: if they're cheap enough to be "expendable", they're useless; and if they're useful they're too expensive.
Of course this a very good example of an useful drone ships, much better than LDUSV or whatnot, but still.
Also, even if supported with other assets, a single "attack ship" would be massacred while attempting to "advance into the teeth of enemy port defenses and destroy those ports, and engage and destroy coastal bases and fortifications."
An attack squadron might be effective, but cost would grow even further and communication/coordination would be a major issue.
"a single "attack ship" would be massacred"
DeleteFrom the post:
"The ship will operate in squadrons of half a dozen on up to a couple dozen or more,"
"I think $600M is way to cheap for a ship like this"
This is the price of an LCS. Now, take away the cost of all the internal 'people' stuff, the flight deck, hangar, and all the helo related fuel storage, magazines, shops, etc. and fill those spaces/costs as described in the post and you're probably back to around $600M and an LCS size ship. No expensive radar, no expensive electronics, no flight deck, no hangar, no people accommodations, no extensive HVAC, no sonar, no towed array, no communications beyond a minimal control circuit, and so on. What about that makes you think 'expensive'?
"The ship will operate in squadrons of half a dozen on up to a couple dozen or more,"
DeleteI missed that, my bad.
Generally speaking, this is essentially a small-ish drone cruiser: eight inch guns, lots of missiles, serious armor.
You wisely avoided gold-plating it, as you point out, but I just can't see a ship with cruiser capabilities being built for so cheap.
It wouldn't cost as much as, say, a "modern Des Moines", but 600 million seems very optimistic even without factoring in the Navy's sorry status.
Then again, I might be wrong.
" this is essentially a small-ish drone cruiser"
DeleteNo. There are lots of frigates out there with 32 VLS or so and we're talking about removing all the habitability, flight, and other things that I mentioned. So, it's more like a very stripped down frigate with beefed up weapons. You may not be realizing just how much of a ship is devoted to humans and their needs. Strip all that out and half the size and cost vanish.
Of all the items, the 8" gun is the one I might delete although a 400 ft Forrest Sherman mounted an 8" gun.
The larger point is that this would produce a truly useful, OFFENSIVE weapon system and, as such, would be worth whatever money it cost. Even more to the point, this points the way for Navy unmanned ship development instead of the Navy's nearly useless, weak, defenseless vessels that contribute little to high end warfare.
20 Million for a feedermax at 22 knots, double that for US. production. Then 20 more million for better remote operations. Space for the missile cells.
ReplyDeleteSo base of 100 million.
Radars at 300 million.
Now you are at 400 million, then stock the missiles. And some self defense remote guns to keep pirates or Chinese from boarding.
For each new frigate, you could buy 3. But you need some sort of tender, too.
"Radars at 300 million."
DeleteAh, no. Not even in the realm. Full Aegis systems cost on the order of $100M-$200M. A small TRS-3D/4D type system costs on the order of $20M. For example, navalnews website reported a Norwegian sale of 4 TRS-3D for a total of E27M in 2019.
I'd still use unmanned to turn the naval battle into a land battle. Lots of ships with a specific role and many standard parts. Grab easily adaptable commercial hulls. Current framework isn't off track, but I'd still keep driving toward competition to use the best current sea frame. No more billions on failed NGFS. Just grab an MUSV and slap the ability to launch MLRS or mount a naval version of the Army's 155 w auto loader. Might shoot for a slightly larger seaframe. If MUSV won't work on 660 tons, grab the Harvey Express design at 900 tons. Same ship can make an ASW and ASuW version. Spend way, way less on the ship and way more on the most up to date payload. Then the larger ship is a missile truck. I want the speed a HSC can provide rather an an offshore supply vessel. It leaves some wiggle room to balance self defense with the offensive punch of the VLS magazine. Put effort on avoiding getting hit. Its job is to keep the missile next hidden, alive, and moving.
ReplyDeleteThat might be a concept that could work.
ReplyDeleteThe foam filling reminds me of what we did 50 years ago (with more primitive technology) for the MSS-1 (mine sweeper special). It was a merchant ship hull filled with foam that had five diesels shock mounted on the main deck, with outboard propellers. The CONOPS was drive it through a minefield, set off the mines, let the foam absorb the damage, and it would stay afloat. It was manned, with a bridge/control station also shock mounted.
The world's largest outboard
DeleteHow did it turn out? Would it be worth trying something like that today?
DeleteWhy use surface ships (manned or unmanned) for ASuW at all? Airpower and submarines have done it better since WWII (subs even before that). These USVs can't see over the horizon, so they're really just floating missile batteries that need to get their targeting from elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteAnd even at $600M, they're still expensive in this role. Doesn't matter how much armor or flotation they have, they'll go to the bottom under concerted attack. Just ask Yamato, Musashi, HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales.
And with no crew aboard, they can't repair themselves.
Mine would not be a dreadnaught class UV.
ReplyDeleteIt would be an underwater drone designed for one purpose: mine laying. It would be just big enough to carry 2-4 mines. These mines would be CAPTOR style mines using modified MK 48's. Too big and it risks detection. IT would not launch from insane distances but be launched piggyback from attack subs ala DSRV. They would go to pre-programmed position in a harbor, quietly release their load then rendezvous with the sub in another preprogrammed location. Pre-programming reduces the complexity to that of a "underwater tomahawk". The small weapons loadout is not as important as it would be for a surface ship. It is not fighting ship to ship. The great thing about mines is that after the first one or two ships sunk, the enemy must treat the entire area as being laden with mines making a few mines quite effective.
"drone designed for one purpose: mine laying."
DeleteWe don't need a drone for that. We have the Mk67 Submarine Launched Mobile Mine (SLMM) that is launched from a sub and travels under its own power to a pre-determined location.
The SLMM has to presently be launched from a $1.2 billion dollar submarine. Assuming a range of 5000 yards (I couldn't find an exact range) from the submarine, you are still sneaking an expensive national asset rather close to the target. A drone on the other hand, could be kept to a reasonable price and launched from the submarine giving the mother sub an additional 100 miles of stand-off to avoid detection. The drone itself could carry MK67 SLMM's as a payload thereby giving the drone some wiggle room as well. We don't and won't have enough subs for their current missions in a real war due to expense, slow build times, and the refusal for anything but high-dollar nuclear subs. Launching a drone to do this mission frees them up for hunting other subs/ships and surveillance. And don’t forget that mines also take up space for tube-launched torpedoes and missiles. Having a drone external to the sub frees up additional space for other ordinance.
DeleteThe MK67 was also first deployed in the year I graduated High School, and like myself is on the verge of obsolescence, although we’ve both been updated. A truly updated version using a MK48 or even a custom heavy warhead/torpedo would be preferred.
I love this... Id hafta gather my thoughts on this a bit, but somthing did come to mind while reading this. I know you were talking about offensive platforms here, and we certainly need more focus on that. But what if... With the recent post about ships lacking close in defenses, how about cheap unmanned local defense ships, a modern unmanned Atlanta maybe?? How about somthing Fletcher sized or even smaller, with 6-8 CIWS and 5+ SeaRam. With the systems being stand-alone, the ship would only need propulsion and basic navigation radars to keep station with the group its defending. It could be cheap enough to almost be considered expendable, and might even carry radar reflectors to ENLARGE its target profile. With these ringing a CVN, you could feel a bit safer pushing the AAW escorts further out, to give a longer engagement window. Depending on overall cost and how many are built, maybe EW capability would be worth adding, maybe not. A half dozen or more of these to any surface group could make a big difference. By making it bare bones, it should be really affordable...
ReplyDelete"how about cheap unmanned local defense ships,"
DeleteIf you really mean local defense, meaning SeaRAM and CIWS, you need to bear in mind the effective ranges of those weapon systems. They're pretty short! Carriers would operate spaced around 5 miles apart, I would think, so a surface group is really spread out and a short range defense ship just can't cover much territory. That's why short range weapons are mounted on every ship. Most people don't realize just how spread out a task force in combat is because we're just used to seeing PR photos that show ships sailing within spitting distance of each other.
It's interesting to ask if 600 million unmanned warship's fleet is able to deal with enemy squadrons, ports and fortifications and is very survivable as the unthinkable ship. How many squadrons (each of 5-20-30 warships) are required for offensive campaign against China?
DeleteConception of Naval Operations is cool. As far as I understand some ships in the group may be acting as ASW platforms if needed.
After all in the conclusion what is the difference between unmanned warship and manned? I understand there are 3 criterias - cheap, risk and expendable. If such unmanned warship is difficult to sink why not to design such manned warships with small crews, besser equipment and more armament? Are unmanned warships designed for clearing the path for manned ships?
I understand a BG being spread out, I saw my CIWShip as somthing that would supplement what ships carry, with a couple, or more, fairly tethered and relatively close by to the major unit(s) of the group, like a CV or LH. They wouldnt even have to necessarily be autonomous. Their basic navigation could even be under local control, but with some waypoint-oriented potential autonomy if they need to be detatched for repairs or group mission change.
DeleteOf course we would have to find a way to automate and deepen the magazines so they will have the ability to handle multiple engagements without any human assistance but that shouldnt be very difficult.
I'm not sure what you have in mind for the size and displacement of your drone ship, but "a heavily armored, double or triple barrel, large caliber gun mount" plus the other features described, suggest a ship about 400-450 feet long, displacing about 5,500 to 6,000 tons.
ReplyDeleteFor reference, the USS Hull (DD-945) (418 feet long with a full displacement of 4,600 tons) was fitted with one single Mark 71 8"/55 Major Caliber Lightweight Gun. I just scaled up from that.
Yeah, LCS size (380 ft) to Hull size would probably be in the vicinity. The 8" gun was my nod to fun and might well not be practical although one fit on the Hull!
DeleteI'm thinking about slabs (say 50m x 50m x ? depth) of metal foam topped with harden steel plates with leggo-like attachment receptacles on each side of the slab, that
ReplyDelete1. each slab is so buoyant it can be shot full of holes and won't sink, thereby reduce the need for defense armament
2. Leggo 20 in a row, there is a new runway. If a segment is so damaged, just detach and re-attach a replacement slab.
3. Leggo couple to existing ships, like a life vest for the ship, they become unsinkable.
4. For mobility, leggo detachable propulsion units (like outboard motors) to the side.
5. In peace time, they can be in floating storage; only taken out and assembled when needed.
Cool thought Tim.
DeleteOK how about this:
ReplyDeleteBase it on the Independence Class LCS but built of steel.
Remove most of the superstructure and add armor.
Totally new propulsion system.....no damn hydrojets.
4 Phalanx (or perhaps a updated version)
4 SeaRAM box launchers. Not the units we have now. Boxes set into the superstructure with one pointed at each compass point.
Multiple new VLS units. Armored box units with 8 cells per unit. That huge flight deck and deck space cleared by removing most of the superstructure should allow for at least 8 units.
Also tube launchers for at least 24 Coyote UAS.
Multiple redundant extendable masts for radar and coms.
First ComNavOps, it never ceases to amaze me how your recommendations make so much more sense that what we get from tens of thousands of dedicated career professionals.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I don't understand why the push for unmanned is all-or-nothing. Zero-manning is helpful for high-risk, expendable roles. Reduced manning theoretically delivers reduced costs, but has tended to produce reduced reliability, reduced capability, and increased costs after the scramble to add people to offset these problems. But for the ship described here, why not a crew of ~10 to ensure some measure of human judgement (even when running under EMCON, without the ever-present, all-knowing network) and reduce the chance that a disabled ship is just stolen (as other drones have been in the past)?
If the ship is not just expendable and is planned for shorter duration missions (maintenance at a port/tender between sorties), some minimal crew seems to be worth the accommodations/cost. The choice is not 0 or 150, and even for 'unmanned' ships, there might be a role for even a crew of 3 to offset the challenges of complete automation and software-based decisions.
"for the ship described here, why not a crew of ~10"
DeleteBecause then you need to add berthing, heads, showers, a galley, food storage, water storage, waste storage/disposal, more passageways, a bridge of some sort, and so on. You double the cost (figuratively, not literally … though you might well) for very little gain in function.
You may be missing the CONOPS for this. It is NOT a ship that will be required to make 'judgements'. It will simply see targets and if they match a pre-determined list, it shoots. This is not a peacetime vessel where human judgement is required. This is the semi-suicide mission - which also suggests you do not want a crew of any size.
Hey, don't give up on your idea. Go with your thought. Think about it and tell me what mission set(s) a very minimally manned vessel would be a good choice for as opposed to an unmanned or fully manned ship. Bear in mind that even very minimally manned will double the cost! Let me know what you come up with. The Navy is wrestling with this very notion about how to use unmanned vessels. Maybe you can come up with another alternative approach that makes sense!
" it never ceases to amaze me how your recommendations make so much more sense that what we get from tens of thousands of dedicated career professionals."
DeleteIt's not a mystery. I'm focused on combat effectiveness, pure and simple. Nothing else.
Those tens of thousands of professionals are focused on their daily lives, jobs, career, organization, budgets, mandatory sensitivity meetings, pensions … almost everything except combat.
There are three major drawbacks to drones, two of which are related:
Delete- Without a network connection to other ships (a human), their decisions are limited to their algorithms (which can be confused, fooled or hacked). This is a real problem. People have already found numerous ways to confuse self-driving cars and our enemies would be equally creative in finding ways to confuse our self-driving ships. In addition, a terminator warship would rightfully make people nervous about it attacking the wrong things out of confusion.
- Network connections are susceptible to interference (jamming) and compromise EMCON capabilities.
- Without humans on board, drones are vulnerable to even the most basic mechanical failures, which can result in them being stolen (with impunity somehow...)
The question is if there is a way to mitigate these drawbacks by adding a minimal crew without unacceptable cost increases. It's a judgement question, but so are most design questions.
Again, crews are not all-or-nothing propositions. First, what is the minimal crew that would mitigate the drawbacks above? Three. Assuming 6 hours on, 12 hour off watches, a crew of three could at least make decisions without an outside connection. If you want to ensure at least 2 people are on watch, and add a little redundancy, the crew gets closer to ten. If we are willing to provide spartan accommodations, the investment in facilities would be way less expensive than doubling the ship cost. Think more of a 87 foot Coast Guard cutter (with some extra food/water storage), not LCS or Burke facilities. Maintenance challenges would prevent prolonged deployments anyway.
And what you get for this minimal manning is human judgment, some maintenance/DC ability, and reduced likelihood of theft.
I agree it's a different Conops - no suicide mission. But if your goal is bang-for-the-buck air/surface warfare in the spirit of WW2 mission driven sorties from port (vs. deployment cruises), this concept could deliver.
"There are three major drawbacks to drones,"
DeleteYou're missing the key concept, at least with my concept of drone WARships and that is that they are W A R ships not peacetime globe trotting ships. So, what does that mean as regards your three noted problems?
1. As described in the CONOPS, these ships are NOT, repeat NOT, making judgements or conducting world spanning voyages. They are given a few waypoints, they navigate to those waypoints, and along the way or at the final waypoint, they destroy everything that meets their definition of a target. This is just cruise missile guidance technology applied to a ship instead of a missile. There's not really anything for an enemy to 'fool'.
As far as a rogue Terminator scenario, this is again invalidated by the WAR setting. Unless one of these ships turns and sails straight towards mainland America, any 'run amok' scenario is acceptable because EVERYTHING will be a valid target. If, for example, the ship were to mistake a city for a ship, the city is still a Chinese city and a valid target - just not the preferred one. In a real war - meaning total war - EVERYTHING is a target. We covered this misguided notion of 'civilians' in earlier posts. Again, we already turn cruise missiles loose on targets that are literally right next door to peacetime civilians and are comfortable that the missiles will correctly terminate on the proper targets. This ship is just a floating version of a cruise missile.
2. Network connections are NOT, repeat NOT, used in these operations. They are given their waypoints and that's the end of the communications. NO networks for an enemy to interfere with. Outside of military PR stunts, we don't actually communicate with cruise missiles after they're launched. These ships would operate the same way: 'launch' 'em and leave 'em - no further communications.
3. Mechanical failures are not an issue. These ships are designed to 'absorb' failures gracefully with extensive, automatic cross-connections and they operate in groups so even if one catastrophically fails (stops running) the rest carry on with the mission. The odds on enough ships failing all at the same time to abort the mission is infinitesimally remote.
I think you're envisioning some kind of low end, peacetime or near peacetime operation where these ships have to conduct complex maneuvers, make complex judgements, and operate in and around civilians. This is NOT, repeat NOT, the CONOPS. These ships would sit pierside until a real war occurs. They would, for example, have no place in a low end, war on terror type conflict.
"if your goal is bang-for-the-buck air/surface warfare"
IT'S NOT!!!!!! And you noted this. This is emphatically NOT the type of ship to sail around for months on end waiting and searching for a possible surface encounter. This ship is intended to be held until a viable, very high risk, very high value target is chosen and then the ship is pointed at that target and turned loose (like a cruise missile). It is probably that most of the valid targets would land based (ports, coastal defenses, factories, air bases, etc.) rather than surface ships. Even in WWII, actual naval battles were relatively rare compared to land targets.
Now, if you want to postulate some kind of cruising around, anti-surface, lightly manned ship, that's fine but that's a completely different concept and would have next to nothing in common with the ship or CONOPS in this post. That kind of ship would also be orders of magnitude more complex, more expensive, more difficult to design and build, and more susceptible to operational failures - to the point that I would question whether one could actually justify its existence.
I'm raining on your parade but what do you think of those points?
I don't feel that you're raining on my parade. I appreciate the engagement!
DeleteAnd I agree that the proposal is for a warship in a peer-level confrontation, not a police action or war on terror engagement. Not flag-waiving cruise ships, but a port-launched salvo of death ships. The difference I see is that even in that scenario, there are significant limitations to robots and advantages to humans. At $600M a pop, groups of 6 - 24 represent a significant $3.6B to $14.4B in assets. I'm not saying they can't be risked, but they aren't cruise missiles (or at least they are a hefty 2,400 to 9,600 cruise missiles). We're potentially talking a Ford! And without people or networking, robot ships can't react to the (inevitable) unexpected things in combat.
These ships are going to have to identify threats/targets, prioritize them, and assign weapons/make decisions. They are absolutely susceptible to being fooled! What if they stumble into a minefield? Keep steaming ahead or rethink the plan? What if they meet a submarine or two that start picking them off? Do they react to the exploding ships around them (without networking) or blindly continue on their way? Even in a peer war there may be times when it's better not to shoot the human shield the enemy offers up. Maybe it's not a human shield, but a decoy/diversion that a crew would recognize but not a computer. I listed four examples off the top of my head, but I would hope that we can at least agree that combat is full of the unexpected and unpredictable (including mechanical issues). "No plan survives first contact with the enemy." A human can react to new information in ways a computer can't.
All I'm suggesting is that the ships you describe would be far more capable with even a minimal crew, and that a minimal crew could be achieved at a relatively small cost. How small and how relative? I'd suggest less than $30M per ship. For comparison, an entire 154ft Sentinel cutter with a crew of 24 costs $65M. I understand adding anything to a ship means a bigger hull, engine, fuel tanks, etc, but I'd wager adding half of the crew facilities of an entire ship would cost less than 1/2 of the total ship cost ($30M vs. $65M). Again, it's a judgement call, but I'd say a 5% cost increase to the proposal would be worth the capabilities added. I'd even say a 10% cost increase would be worth it.
Which brings me back to my original question/point: Why is ship manning viewed as all-or-nothing? It seems like if we got better at defining missions and Conops, some of the proposed unmanned vessels would be much more (cost) effective with crews > 0. Maybe reduced manning works in a limited role, without constant deployments? I'll stop here.
"What if they stumble into a minefield? … What if they … "
DeleteYou recall the part of the post about support? Here's the relevant quote:
"The ship will operate in squadrons of half a dozen on up to a couple dozen or more, depending on the mission, and will be supported, as needed, by other vessels and assets that will perform ASW, long range AAW, and long range surveillance."
That pretty much addresses your concerns. The mission would be carefully planned, scouted, and supported as any good combat operation is. Yes, there could always be something completely unanticipated and, in that case, you just program in a 'screw it, turn around and RTB' option in the control software. However, if our professional warrior-planners do their jobs, there are unlikely to be unanticipated scenarios. This is not a reckless, suicide charge mission. It's a carefully planned and supported one. Yes, I know no plan survives contact but the key, here, is to construct the mission with MINIMAL complexity on the part of the unmanned vessels. Their part is as simple and direct as possible. The supporting, manned assets will deal with the unplanned stuff. Again, if it all goes to hell and the plan just can't succeed then you issue a simple abort/RTB command. The plans that best survive contact are the simplest ones. Also, bear in mind that most plans that fall apart do so because the price to be paid becomes higher than we're willing to accept in terms of casualties. The entire point of this kind of unmanned vessel is that they can operate with risk and attrition that we would consider unacceptable if they were manned (an argument against your minimal manning concept!).
Also, I think you're misunderstanding another aspect. The unmanned vessels wouldn't sail from port, on their own, all the way across the Pacific and into Chinese waters. They would, instead, be part of a group of escorts (the supporting assets) who would shepherd them as far as possible before turning them loose - just like we'd do with cruise missiles. This would eliminate a lot of the potential problems you're concerned with.
Think of this concept as a carefully planned and supported charge at an enemy target but the last hundred feet (not literal) are done by the unmanned vessels rather than manned assets. Or, it's like running up to the enemy an throwing a spear where the unmanned ships are the spear. You don't ask the spear to stealthily make its way across enemy territory, hiding in forests, dodging patrols, and working its way into throwing range. You carry the spear while you, the 'manned' unit, do all that and then you toss the spear at the end. The unmanned ships accompany the escorts until they reach spear throwing distance and then they're 'thrown' at the enemy.
"Why is ship manning viewed as all-or-nothing?"
DeleteBecause there's not much productive that just a few men can accomplish. The only real benefit is to apply some human judgement but, if that's what you need, that can be performed and applied remotely. As noted in the post, unmanned assets have certain inherent characteristics that make them useful - risk being one of them. As soon as you put men, however few, on an 'unmanned' ship, you have to take risk into account which negates one of the major benefits.
"That was fun! Now, what does your unmanned vessel look like?"
ReplyDeleteConsidering the fun I had yrs back doing the Cleveland-armored Burke, I got out a pen and a napkin and continued on the close in capital ship defense L(M?)USV...
Basic Specs:
285ft x 30ft
8-Goalkeeper CIWS
4-SeaRam
2-LM2500
Basic Costs:
CIWS- $102M
SeaRam- $100M
Engines- $25M
Hull- $55M (40% of Fletcher,
adjusted)
TOTAL- $282M
I envision 4 Goalkeepers forward and 4 aft, with the 4 SeaRam amidships, split into two pairs by the single funnel/intake. The ship would have an unusual profile. Flush decked, with a first deck running 2/3 the length amipships, but with a gradual rise from forecastle to the beginning of that first deck to allow superfiring of the CIWS end-on. Their greatest efficiency of course would be to turn broadside to the threat, but making everything superfiring is a design element to have maximum battery unmasking at any time. A mirrored slope aft would serve the same purpose. The SeaRams would be elevated to second deck to improve their sensor range. I considered a tumblehome hull design for stability and detection purposes ala Zumwalt but wave-piercing and main deck level, unprotected weapons/electronics arent a good match. The overall sizing is based on a length/beam ratio roughly equivalent to a Fletcher for its speed qualities, and a beam size that will accommodate the LM2500s. The single vs twin screw question is one Im not sure of, as it needs to be fast enough to keep up with a CV, and may not be able to with only one (??) So it may be a twin screw design. The engines/generators should have no problem with power demands as the weapons are all 440V, and even in tracking mode wouldnt consume anything like an AEGIS system. For increased seakeeping and targeting stability Id add bilge keels and/or full keel as needed.
I chose Goalkeeper over Phalanx for its larger caliber, slightly improved range, and its below-deck enlarged magazine design, which I would increase even further. Note that this ship would be in the Edsall to Buckley size range, and that the weight of its weapons and engines combined is under 340 tons, which is about the weight of just the boilers in the old ships, so the size/weight is very possible and realistic.
I included a small basic pilothouse for manual operations in port or comms/system failures. For control, Id envision a combination of waypoint autonomy and local line of sight control while attatched to a capital ship. To avoid the control channel breaking EMCON, Id look into using a laser system for local control. A small mast appears on it for the basic control communications antennae and nav radars. A second, identical redundant mast is attached to the stack/intake, since in combat some fragmemt damage to the upperworks is likely. The only non-existent system it would need is somthing linking all weapons so that they each fire on different targets, and that seems fairly simple to do. In trying to stick to the KISS principle, I didnt add any EW, although that might be worthwhile. Chaff launchers are a reasonable addition though.
Although not "armored" per se, the ship would be built to a Fletcher-esque standard, with that 1/2 to 3/4 in plating used throughout.
Now being in the $300M a copy zone, I hesitate to call it expendable, but with two of these flanking a carrier for $600M, they are certainly a better and more useful expenditure than an LCS. And what is the value/cost ratio of ensuring a CV or LH platform is significantly more secure?? Putting an additional 56000 rounds per minute (using the older, lower mod1 rpm) into the air for local defense is significant. Of course the basic idea is scalable, and if you cut the armament by half, you could have a smaller, cheaper, and possibly expendable ship, although at some point I have concerns about size vs stability/accuracy depending on sea state, so thats somthing to consider...
Okay, have some fun!
DeleteYou realize that you have to deploy them two per escorted ship, right, since they can't fire across the escorted ship. Thus, you need one on each side of the escorted ship. You also realize that the escorted ship cannot fire CIWS type weapons in its own defense since, again, they'd be firing across the CIWS ship?
"I didnt add any EW, although that might be worthwhile"
Absolutely! In fact, it would be mandatory. All the data we have shows that soft kill is far more effective than hard kill.
"laser system for local control."
And hope you don't encounter a storm!
Yup that was what I envisioned... "with two of these flanking a carrier" Also, since it seems that the Navy is gravitating towards SeaRam, the ones on the capital ships could still be potentially useable. Obviously some specific tactical placement of the CIWShips would be necessary to optimize the concept as well as using the capital ships organic defenses...
DeleteAs far as my laser comms, sure thats just somthing that popped into my head LOL, but since Im so far "outta the box" already, how about a passive sonar, coupled with the local laser and some waypoint memory for use in station keeping?? Sorry, my minds relatively fertile today LOL...
"I chose Goalkeeper over Phalanx for its larger caliber"
DeleteIs it really a larger caliber? My vague understanding is that it uses a sabot munition and that the actual projectile is only 21 mm. Is that correct?
Yes...its 30mm. With the sabot theres no real projectile size difference but it does add some effective range. That and the guns significantly larger under-deck magazine design (which I would enlarge further) were the selling points for me!!
DeleteAlthough as a footnote, there are five different rounds listed for it, and Im clueless what the acronyms mean, so there could be some actual 30mm, but for what, im not sure.
DeleteIF costs effectiveness is the main consideration build cheap fiberglass hull 3000 - 4000 mile endurance small attack craft for deep water with sensors and NSM in the 4-6 pack category.
ReplyDeleteRunning these at odd times towards a Chinese coast would disrupt almost everything out there for little costs
Aluminum would be even cheaper by the looks of recent procurement.
DeleteThis is small unmanned ship is an example, it is for export:
Deletehttps://www.maritime-executive.com/article/china-s-unmanned-mini-destroyer-out-on-sea-trials
I would also use such a ship to screen a carrier or surface action group. Except, I would include a small number of Standard Missiles, ASROCs, and Tomahawks. And, electronics to enable to the ship to present itself as a destroyer or a cruiser. Stealth is another feature these ships should have.
ReplyDeleteThree to four such unmanned ships, positioned 50 to 100 miles out, would enable the main force to attack an enemy that much sooner and from a direction that might surprise an enemy. They could also be used en masse to launch a diversionary strike or execute an ambush.
Your concept does not match the capabilities of the ship. A screening ship needs to be able to do two things: ASW and area AAW. This ship does neither.
DeleteIf you add Standard missiles, you also need to add the Aegis system to make use of the missiles which means large, expensive radar and complex, expensive software control suites. $$$$$
The same goes for ASW. $$$$$
Then add stealth. $$$$$
By the time you're done modifying the ship to be able to be a good screen vessel, you've created a Burke at a billion dollar cost which negates one of the major justifications for unmanned vessels.
These are not ships intended to attack from a distance. We already have plenty of ships, missiles, and aircraft that can attack from a distance. This ship is designed to attack down the throat, at spitting distance, ultimately.
Adding Standards and Tomahawks to a screening USV seems excessive. ASROC may make sense for a quick reaction ASW capability. A modest radar suite, staring IR, ESM and towed array/VDS/hull mount sonar would round out the sensor suite.
DeleteDefenses would be handled by low signature, point missile defenses, ECM, and perhaps some form of anti-boarding capability. Essentially don't make it an easy target.
The job would be to push out radar and sonar search to another layer beyond the primary escorts, and to form sensor nodes in distributed SAGs.
Speed needs to be 10-20% faster than the ships they're screening, to allow them to reposition or maintain relative position as the task force maneuvers.
I think I'd keep them within LOS (~20-25 miles) of manned escorts for communications and support. This is far enough to screen the escorts against torpedoes, and give them early warning for inbound cruise missiles.
If there were enough, small SAGs consisting of a couple manned escorts and 6 or more USVs could operate further away from CVBGs, but still under its air umbrella.
The perfect drone: A robotic AI with a 10,000 mile range, jetpack and arms. It detects stupid, harebrained ideas about to be implement by admirals, captures them and then flies them to a deserted spot in Antarctica where they can do no harm to the USN.
ReplyDeleteMy design for an unmanned attack ship would be based upon a fast cargo freight ship designed by Nigel Gee and associates to compete with air freight.
ReplyDeleteThe design is a pentamaran (slender hull with two sponsons that are always in the water near the aft of the ship and two sponsons that only are in the water if the ship is heeling).
The ship is designed to allow transport of 40 foot shipping containers. I would retain that capability with a modification that would allow 40 foot long x nearly beam width super modules to be fixed to the ship in a semi-permanent fashion. The super modules would be self contained weapons modules (guns, missiles,CIWS). The super modules would be foam filled for increased survivability. Super modules could be changed in dry dock with a crane if CONOPS changes and a new weapons fit is needed.
The design would retain the commercial crew quarters and bridge (20 crew members) so the ship would be an optionally manned vessel. The design could be used for transport of freight after retirement.
The design has multiple water jet propulsion (3 to 5 engines) with no combining gear (so a lot of redundancy and simplicity in the engine room).
Pentamaran design for fast sealift and freight.
Pentamaran for fast sealift
High speed pentamaran design vs other fast ship design. Page 29 shows the cost of the pentamaran design to be $75 million (2004 dollars)
Nigel Gee high speed pentamaran