We’ve frequently noted the need for a UAV carrier (see, for example, the fictional snippet, “Piece It Together”, for a description of a UAV carrier involved in an amphibious assault). What might such a carrier look like and how would it operate? Let’s speculate.
Conceptual Foundation
Here’s the major foundational assumptions underlying a UAV carrier concept:
Small UAVs - The key concept in a UAV Concept of Operations (CONOPS) is that the UAVs are not the large Predator type UAVs that would be utterly non-survivable over a modern battlefield but would, instead, be small, cheap, expendable, limited functionality UAVs somewhere in the ballpark of a slightly enhanced RQ-21 Blackjack UAV (see, “RQ-21 Blackjack”).
RQ-21 Blackjack
Swarms - Critically important is the concept that UAVs would be deployed in swarms rather than singly. Thus, a UAV carrier needs the ability to launch swarms of UAVs simultaneously.
Numbers - These small UAVs will suffer significant attrition in battle so a UAV carrier needs to carry lots of UAVs – around 500 would be a good amount.
Control - Since we don’t have ‘Terminator’ level artificial intelligence yet – nor are we likely to in the foreseeable future – we will need lots of aircraft controller stations on the carrier. Most UAVs won’t require hands on, continuous, remote piloting but all will require the ability to be controlled via waypoints and basic flight and operational instructions with occasional hands-on remote piloting.
Communications - In addition to sending instructions to UAVs, receiving return communications will be important. Swarms of UAVs will be sending brief bursts of data back to the carrier so the carrier needs a robust, two-way, UAV communications suite.
Data Assembly - The UAV data will be fragmentary, at best, so the carrier needs the ability to assemble comprehensive ‘pictures’ out of lots of individual data points. This dictates a large data synthesis center.
Design
Now that we understand the foundational requirements for a UAV carrier, what does the preceding suggest about the look and design of a UAV carrier? Well, for one thing, it won’t look much like a ‘normal’ carrier as we think of it, today.
Launch – The carrier will launch UAVs from small catapults. Thus, long runs of clear open deck, as with a conventional carrier, will not be required. The small catapults (again, see the RQ-21 Blackjack for an idea of what these catapults might resemble) will line the sides of the deck, facing out. Around 30 catapults ought to be sufficient to launch swarms of UAVs in a reasonable time frame.
Recovery – Recovery of small UAVs does not require traditional arresting gear and long, open, landing areas. Instead, a short 50 foot long x 30 foot wide section of deck with a net at the forward end will suffice to catch returning UAVs which would be manually disentangled and removed from the landing area.
Hangar – The ‘hangar’ would not be a hangar in the traditional sense. While UAVs would be brought below for repair and maintenance work, that work would occur in small workshops. The ‘hangar’ area, instead of being an open aircraft work space, would be a UAV storage area with UAVs stored in racks with enough space between the racks to allow equipment to raise/lower the UAVs and move them to elevators as needed. Alternatively, the ‘hangar’ could simply be a superstructure on the same level as the flight deck so that UAVs could be moved straight to the launch catapults rather than requiring elevators.
Dimensions – Carrier size would be something on the order of 250-300 feet long, depending on the UAV storage requirements. Something like a small cargo ship ought to serve as the design basis with the modification of some open deck space as described above.
Future
Looking slightly further into the future, a true UAV carrier would also include underwater unmanned vehicle (UUV) launch and recovery capability, as well. UUV launches would involve underwater torpedo tube type systems and recovery would be via a small well ‘tunnel’.
Summary
A UAV carrier would be very small relative to a real carrier, likely based on a fast cargo ship design, and would be intended to provide situational awareness for a group through the use of UAV sensor swarms with the swarm making up for the lack of sensor capability in the individual UAVs.
The exact design details would, as always, depend on the specific Concept of Operations (CONOPS). Though not quite spelled out, here, the CONOPS would likely emphasize operations with amphibious groups and non-carrier surface groups since a carrier’s aircraft would be able to provide all the needed sensor capability for the group.
This concept could, and should, be prototyped using an available small cargo ship with some simple modifications. Let’s see what kind of situational awareness we can generate from a small swarm of UAVs. Let’s see if we can assemble a comprehensive picture from lots of individual data points. Let’s see if we can launch, control, and recover a swarm. Let’s see how detectable a swarm of small UAVs is. Let’s see if they can survive long enough to accomplish the mission. Let’s see what this concept can do.
Also, let's have civilian hackers try to disrupt/take over the UAV swarms, I bet that'd teach the Navy lots of lessons.
ReplyDelete"Control - Since we don’t have ‘Terminator’ level artificial intelligence yet – nor are we likely to in the foreseeable future – we will need lots of aircraft controller stations on the carrier. Most UAVs won’t require hands on, continuous, remote piloting but all will require the ability to be controlled via waypoints and basic flight and operational instructions with occasional hands-on remote piloting."
ReplyDeleteA simpler scheme to try in the mean time is to just have it fly waypoints. At a certain, preprogrammed point in its flight start transmitting data from the drone (video, radar, ELINT, etc..). Before it starts coming back to the ship program it to stop transmitting. No fancy AI needed. This scheme allows for EMCON and should also keep the transmitting drones from highlighting the ship.
When you get drones with the AI working the way you like you use them. This method of command and control should be useable as a fall back though.
"waypoints"
DeleteAbsolutely! That would constitute the vast majority of the 'control'.
Hopefully we'd have good AI soon to replace it, but you do what you got to do.
Delete"Launch – The carrier will launch UAVs from small catapults. Thus, long runs of clear open deck, as with a conventional carrier, will not be required. The small catapults (again, see the RQ-21 Blackjack for an idea of what these catapults might resemble) will line the sides of the deck, facing out. Around 30 catapults ought to be sufficient to launch swarms of UAVs in a reasonable time frame."
ReplyDeleteIdeally the launch mechanism would be in the ship. This protects the equipment and sailors from inclement weather. It's also kind of nice to have armor between you and folks shooting at you.
"Looking slightly further into the future, a true UAV carrier would also include underwater unmanned vehicle (UUV) launch and recovery capability, as well. UUV launches would involve underwater torpedo tube type systems and recovery would be via a small well ‘tunnel’."
ReplyDeleteI would strongly advise against combining UAV/ UUV functions on a single ship. Just like the Burkes with AAW and ASW functions one will be the redheaded step child and ignored. The exception to that should be after you have enough UAV and UUV carriers to build some combo jobs for independent duty.
Overspecialization can be a problem but in the Navy underspecialization is far more likely.
What do you see as being so different between UAVs and UUVs as to preclude being able to operate both well? I understand that a Burke, trying to do both ASW and AAW will only be able to do one well but that's because the two functions are radically different and having nothing in common. For UAVs and UUVs, however, they're identical in function, control, operations, etc. They differ only in the medium they operate in. The analogy would be a carrier operating two different aircraft types and we do that not only without a problem but with a great deal of synergy and efficiency in terms of sharing similar maintenance and support.
DeleteCommunication issues are different between the two, dramatically different tempo due to differences in speed. Relocating to be in position to best use air assets may put you out of position to best use subsurface assets. Then add in the too many eggs in one basket.
Delete"Relocating to be in position to best use air assets may put you out of position to best use subsurface assets."
DeleteHmm … I'm dubious about that but I'll have to give it some thought.
" too many eggs in one basket."
Ah, but that's the beauty of cheap unmanned assets. Even if you lose the entire bunch (sunk ship) you haven't lost much because they don't cost that much relative to typical ships, aircraft, and weapons.
For example, a Blackjack type UAV would cost around $200K. Compare that to a single $100M aircraft or a single $1B+ ship. UxVs are almost free! If we lose the basket, it doesn't matter!
I would second the point regarding the positioning of UAV carriers versus UUV mother ships. The CONOPS of a ship operating UAVs differs from that of UUVs significantly, and their optimal positioning within a group does not overlap.
DeleteUUVs are slow, relatively short ranged, and are predominantly used in small numbers to prosecute underwater threats including naval mines and submarines which were previously detected by other means. They are typically deployed by minesweepers and small ASW ships on the leading edge of a battle group. In general, I'm not sure that there's a need for a dedicated UUV carrier for either role, but a modern minesweeper might have an outsized number of UUVs in addition to other minesweeping equipment.
The UAV carrier we typically discuss on this blog is focused on surface ISR. The UAVs it operates aren't supersonic by a long shot, but their speed and operational range dwarfs that of UUVs. Whatever the dollar cost of the UAVs and the carrier itself, it provides the same essential ISR services that carrier-based aircraft provided in the interwar period before naval aviation also became the primary striking power of the fleet, and it is as indispensable as those early carriers and catapult-launched spotting planes were.
It's worthwhile to put VLS-launched one-time-use UAVs on a variety of surface ships that will be on the picket line - using them only when necessary in combat - but the big UAV carrier that regularly sorties reusable UAVs to provide ISR to the fleet should be treated like a WW2 fleet carrier more than a DE. That platform should not be on the picket line, and it should not launch UUVs.
"UAV carriers versus UUV mother ships."
DeleteYou're missing the key point about this in the post and that is that it's a future capability. From the post,
"Looking slightly further into the future, a true UAV carrier would also include underwater unmanned vehicle (UUV) launch and recovery capability, as well."
To be fair, I didn't emphasize the UUV aspect so it may well not have been clear enough.
You're looking at CURRENT UUV usage whereas I'm looking at future UUV usage which is much more robust. I've got a fictional post coming about a UAV/UUV carrier that will illustrate the future applications and why a combined carrier may make sense. Wait for it. You'll enjoy it!
"You're looking at CURRENT UUV usage whereas I'm looking at future UUV usage which is much more robust."
DeleteYou're certainly right about that. I am interested to see your take on future UUV developments. I certainly see them being more common in the future, but you'll be providing a real insight if you describe how long-range UUVs will be operationally useful if deployed from a combined UxV carrier positioned towards the center of the battle group.
At the risk of seeming trite, I would also remind you of your own opinions on developing warships that rely on future technological developments.
"if you describe how long-range UUVs will be operationally useful"
DeleteAh, but I didn't say 'long range'!!! *tantalizing hint!*
"I would also remind you of your own opinions on developing warships that rely on future technological developments."
100% correct, IF THIS WAS A REAL SHIP. However, I'm going to offer a FICTIONAL story so any semi-realistic technology is perfectly acceptable!
I think you'll find the story fascinating. It is a 'future' story so that addresses the technological development. As with most of my fiction, the purpose will be to illustrate potential developments in unmanned assets that would be more combat-useful than what the Navy is trying to develop.
"This concept could, and should, be prototyped using an available small cargo ship with some simple modifications. Let’s see what kind of situational awareness we can generate from a small swarm of UAVs. Let’s see if we can assemble a comprehensive picture from lots of individual data points. Let’s see if we can launch, control, and recover a swarm. Let’s see how detectable a swarm of small UAVs is. Let’s see if they can survive long enough to accomplish the mission. Let’s see what this concept can do."
ReplyDeleteI would advise making a building first to get the layout, LSS-2. It's cheaper and easier to recofigure till you get the baseline design right.
You understand that by 'prototype' I mean take an existing, used cargo ship and make a few small modifications to try out the concept. It certainly won't be the final, preferred layout but it will tell you a LOT about the concept and what would make a good, ultimate design.
DeleteI was hoping that on land it would be quicker and cheaper to work out some kinks before throwing it on a cargo ship. As a jarhead I spent more time on land than feet wet. The bias shows. I'm generally in favor of proving every tech and design that can validated on land there first if possible.
DeleteHey, I have no problem mocking up things on land but sometimes you can throw something together for real and start to learn without waiting. If we were talking a billion dollar prototype then, sure, we'd want to approach it carefully but I'm thinking a used cargo ship (nearly for free) plus $100k of modifications and we're off and learning!
DeleteRemember the first carrier aviation experiments (well, I guess you're probably not old enough to actually remember them!) where we built simple 'decks' on top of cruisers and battleships? Nothing fancy but it gave us some initial real world experience. That's what I'm thinking.
Take a cargo ship and instead of 30 catapults, maybe just install two or four and try out the concept. Quick, simple, cheap … experience!
This sounds like a job a modified APA could also do. I loved your idea of bringing them back (and having a reserve/fast production capability in case of a big war)
ReplyDeleteTBF if we are expecting the UAV to be anything more than a suicide drone like the Harpy in terms of attack capabilities it would be much heavier then the Blackjack. So a net might not be feasible.
ReplyDeleteThe Blackjack has a range of 100km, which is within range of every single shipborn ASM worth mentioning.
"if we are expecting the UAV to be anything more than a suicide drone like the Harpy in terms of attack capabilities "
Delete?????? Where did you get that? This is purely about surveillance. We do not yet have UAVs with any viable anti-ship capability. Well … we do but they're called missiles. You appear to have completely misunderstood the function/purpose of the UAV carrier.
Suicide UAV does have the benefit of retargeting and being retrieved if there is no available targets.
DeleteBut even if the UAV is purely for surveillance, a range of just 100km is still too close for comfort. Especially if the UAV carrier is loaded with expensive equipment like catapults and communication equipment for the UAVs, losing a few UAVs is one thing but losing the carrier is a whole other thing altogether.
I think he means losing the UAV "carrier", not an actual CVN.
DeleteAh, that makes more sense. I'll repost.
Delete"a range of just 100km"
DeleteWho wrote that a UAV with a range of 100 km is adequate for this type of surveillance mission? Let me know so that I can correct him.
By the way, as noted in the linked RQ-21 Blackjack post, which you surely perused, the theoretical, one-way range of a Blackjack is 800 nm (10 hr endurance at a cruising speed of 80 kts). The operating range is the limit of the current radio control, not the limit of the UAV flying range.
I assume you also noted the comment in the post about an 'enhanced RQ-21 Blackjack UAV'? Again, no one has suggested using a Blackjack. I've stated that something in that ballpark would be a good beginning design point.
" losing a few UAVs is one thing but losing the carrier is a whole other thing altogether."
Now that you understand the UAVs will have much greater range, you'll have no concerns about losing the host carrier.
TBF you use the words "slightly enhanced RQ-21" which suggests the new drone is not radically much capable then the baseline version. That's in your first paragraph as so quoted :
Delete" somewhere in the ballpark of a slightly enhanced RQ-21 Blackjack UAV"
Also if you also agree that the new UAV will need to have a much greater range then you will also have to agree that it will have to have much greater dimensions and weight than the baseline Blackjack, in which case for retrieval ops a mere net will not suffice as the mere weight of the UAV will pose a danger to itself, thus we would need to look into more traditional arresting wires to retrieve them safely.
"if you also agree that the new UAV will need to have a much greater range "
DeleteI don't agree. The Blackjack range, as I pointed out and you seem to have ignored, is 800 nm. What it needs is enhanced comms range which just means choosing a different communications package.
Other enhancements might include some stealth shaping, redesign to increase the fuel fraction, and enhancements to the payload sensor packages which are getting smaller, lighter, and more capable every day.
Now that is interesting because, I have beeing looking up the specs of the RQ-21 Blackjack and even most sources I found stated that it's operational range is 100km.
DeleteSo is there a new variant that has that kind of range and at the original weight ?https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/10/08/marine-special-operators-fly-new-surveillance-drone-in-iraq.html?ERSC=todayinmil.sm
The Blackjack, made by Boeing subsidiary Insitu, weighs about 80 pounds unloaded and has a range of about 50 nautical miles, with the ability to fly for 16 hours at a stretch.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? As I explained, the stated 'range' is the limit of the current communications/control range. The actual flight range is much, much greater. Do the math. Multiply the endurance by the cruise speed and you get the actual flight range. Simply changing the comm system would enable the full flight range.
DeleteDon't make me repeat this again!
Alright if you want to increase the range by way of improving the current communications and control ranges, then you have to consider the fact that better equipment= higher weight. Which then leads back to the original issue of how to safely retrieve it. It also increase the price tag as well, which brings up the issue of how disposable it would be. The most straight up option to increase it's range would be Satcomm, second would be over the horizon type of long range comms.
DeleteAnd this is before we go into the issue how how to make them jam proof at that kind of weight that would allow it to be safely retrieved by a net.
DeleteNow you're just making stuff up.
DeleteHow am I making stuff up? You cannot expect the current RQ-21 to have a greatly extended range and reliable jam proof communication with it's current set up. And if you do, you cannot expect the new iteration to be used in the same manner as the original.
DeleteUnless you're a military communications expert, you haven't got the slightest idea what size and weight a suitable comm system would have. As a general statement, electronics are getting steadily smaller and lighter so it's just as likely, or more so, that a new comm system would weigh less and take up less space.
DeleteYou also appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing since no one has stated that an exact duplicate of the Blackjack is ideal UAV. From the post,
"somewhere in the ballpark of a slightly enhanced RQ-21 Blackjack UAV"
This kind of pedantic line of discussion you're taking is unproductive and is exactly the kind of comments that I have no use for. See the comment policy page.
If you'd like to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, move on. I'll not entertain any further discussion of this nature.
(Don McCollor)...I still like the concept (my apologies for my UAV ASW comment of a week or so ago - I was thinking of larger aircraft).
ReplyDeleteSome questions:
Could the small UAVs just be launched with JATO-type bottles instead of catapults?
Could a UAV be used circling as a radio repeater to extend the operating range?
Would there be any advantage of separating the function of the aircraft and sensors except for basic power and communications. The interchangeable pod(s) could have different sensor capacities, instead of trying to pack everything into one package.
Incidentally, probably the smallest aircraft carrier in WW2 was an LST with a Brodie Rig. It could launch and recover Piper Cub observation planes with no effect on its primary mission...
"Could the small UAVs just be launched with JATO-type bottles instead of catapults?"
DeleteSure, I guess. Why not?
"Could a UAV be used circling as a radio repeater to extend the operating range?"
I guess but I would assume we have better, longer range comm systems available. But if not ...
I think that the UAV carrier with a large number of inexpensive drones that scout passively and send micro-bursts of intel pieces back to the carrier is a fantastic idea.
ReplyDeleteThe design is an interesting puzzle. It's too bad it couldn't have a round flight deck, like a 300 ft manhole cover. That would give maximum flexibility for launching and recovering.
But since ships aren't shaped that way, a more traditional carrier is probably necessary.
The hardest thing for me to estimate is the size of the ship needed.
How much space is needed for storage of the UAV's, repair areas, fuel tanks, work stations for the UAV controllers, etc.?
I had been thinking that it should be built on a Des Moines hull, but after reading the posting that seems like it's likely a little big.
But there are some characteristics that I would like to keep.
I think the UAV carrier has to have speed comparable to the ships it's supporting.
I also think that the UAV carrier needs to have a fair amount of armor so that it can go into harms way along with the rest of the battle group.
So I'm looking at a light carrier that is more like the Independence class rather than the Casablanca class.
Maybe the same Cleveland class hull that was used for the Independence would work for the UAV carrier.
I would be building AAW cruisers on that hull, so it would be available.
My layout would look like a traditional aircraft carrier with an angled flight deck and an island superstructure.
The starboard side of the ship would have the island and elevators.
The 'up' elevators would be forward of the island and would feed the catapults.
The 10 or so catapults would be at the bow and down the port side about half-way down the flight deck.
Since everything that flies takes off and lands into the wind, they would be oriented similarly to the angled deck and toss UAV's into the wind that would be placed off the port bow.
The 'down' elevators would be on the starboard side back by the angled deck to take landed UAV's down to the hangar deck to be serviced.
Lutefisk
"My layout would look like a traditional aircraft carrier with an angled flight deck and an island superstructure."
DeleteI fear I may have mislead you by using the term 'catapult'. You should take a look at some YouTube videos of Blackjack launch/recovery. The 'catapult' requires around 6 ft of space to launch and the recovery can be by flying into a net or vertically hanging rope. You could operate Blackjacks from your canoe, almost. I think your concept for a UAV carrier is vastly over enhanced!
Secondary aspects like ship speed or armor are legitimate options though, again, possibly overdone. Think of the UAV carrier as a merchant ship being escorted. Merchant ships aren't armored. If you have sufficient missiles coming at you that they'll get by the escort defenses then you're just in for a bad day. WWII escort carriers, for example, were lightly (if at all) armored. A few CIWS/SeaRAM are probably a good idea but not much more than that.
This is similar to the people who want to put anti-ship missiles on amphibs just in case the enemy appears on the horizon. If the enemy has eliminated all the escorts and has appeared on the horizon, you've lost that battle and a few bolt-on Harpoons aren't going to change anything. Not every ship needs to be a stand alone, single-handed, war-winning ship. Even if we could build such a ship, we couldn't afford it.
If we don't build the UAV carrier on a cruiser-type armored hull with, presumably, an armored flight deck and if we don't load it up with anti-ship missiles, 5" guns, lots of CIWS/SeaRAM, and 35kt speed, sure, we might lose a ship that could have saved itself but, on the other hand, we could build/convert five simpler carriers for the cost of one enhanced ship. I'll take greater numbers over a more expensive ship, given its role.
As I understand it, wind is not needed for launch. Point 'em in any direction and shoot 'em off the deck.
The design is much less a 'carrier' and much more a transport. Sorry if I confused you.
Certainly any cargo ship-based design would afford lots of volume for drone storage, workshops, and control stations. Converting somthing to use for a prototype test bed would be relatively cheap and simple. Moving into new construction, using a design like the Lewis and Clark supply ship would add the benefit of a minimized deckhouse and an uncluttered deck profile for adding any launching and "flight deck" structures. These are fairly large ships though, and not fast enough to constantly operate with battle groups, if thats an operational requirement(?). If a military spec hull is required, maybe an escort carrier-esque take on a Perry(??), or if larger is needed, a Spruance? A current non-combatant ship with the internal volume to be viable might be the EPF (although higher sea state instability could preclude its use). Many great options available, but zeroing in on the actual drones and sizes, numbers, and CONOP would actually inform what platform is best...
Delete"Sorry if I confused you."
DeleteCNO, thanks for your gracious response.
The problem is that with my lack of naval experience I'm having a hard time envisioning some of these ship-centric concepts in play here.
I really don't have a good feel for how much space is needed to store the UAV's and maintain/service them.
Looking at it, it definitely seems like I'd be overbuilding this.
But also I'd be concerned to have this on a commercial hull.
My concept of how this would be used would be something like this;
In a general war with China, a surface task force is dispatched to destroy a Chinese facility on an island in the South China Sea.
The group consists of 3 Des Moines cruisers, 2 AAW cruisers, 4 Burkes, 5 ASW frigates, and a UAV carrier for situational awareness.
The UAV carrier would have to keep up with the group so it would need to have comparable speed.
I also would think that it would be just as likely to attract an anti-ship missile as any of the other ships, so I'd want it to be survivable.
That would lead towards armor and anti-missile weapons (probably just CIWS).
Is my concept of operations reasonable?
Thanks for taking the time for your responses, and thanks for hosting this great blog.
Lutefisk
"I'm having a hard time envisioning some of these ship-centric concepts"
DeleteThe closest analogy to the UAV carrier might be the WWII escort/ASW carrier. As an example, the Bogue class carriers were converted from merchant ships (later escort carriers were purpose built) and were rated at 18 kts.
Speed was not an issue as they were not intended to sail with fleet carrier groups. Instead, they sailed in their own groups or with amphib groups. You noted in the post that I called for a design 'based on a fast cargo ship' which would mean 20+ kts. On a practical basis, the difference between 20+ kts and 30+ kts is almost immaterial. Certainly, an incoming anti-ship missile at 600 kts or more doesn't care about the 10 kt difference in speed. Speed, while always nice to have, is vastly overrated, tactically. The LCS was built for very high speed (which has been downgraded to around 35-37 kts!) for which no one has yet found a tactical use.
As far as armor and defenses, if an enemy has overwhelmed the surrounding escorts and their defenses, well ... a little armor isn't going to matter. With an unlimited budget, sure, armor up and add radars and VLS but the reality is that it's better to have several vulnerable UAV carriers with good escorts than one UAV carrier with its own armor and defenses and good escorts. This is kind of the same reasoning behind why our Nimitiz/Ford don't have any defenses beyond point defense. If an enemy can overwhelm a carrier group's entire defense then a few more missiles on the carrier won't matter.
"I'm having a hard time envisioning some of these ship-centric concepts"
DeleteOne good way to visualize and grasp the concepts is to look for historical (generally WWII) analogs. I do this all the time and find it quite helpful.
I've gone back to sailing ships to study frigate requirements and concepts! You might want to read, "The Star Captains", about England's top frigate captains. A bit dry writing but utterly fascinating material.
CNO, thanks for the response and the book recommendation.
DeleteI read "Blind Man's Bluff", as per your suggestion and it was excellent.
Two of my favorite naval books are "Six Frigates" and "Fresh Water Submarines".
If you haven't read either of those, they are worth the time spent.
Lutefisk
How about utilizing the new LHA that the Navy nor the Marine Corps really wants and turning it into a UAV/UUV carrier? Huge flight deck, huge berthing areas under the flightdeck forward that could easily be turned into maintenance facilities or 3-D printer rooms for spare parts. Not to mention a cavernous well deck that could carry and launch dozens of UUV's.
ReplyDeleteA vessel the size and operating cost of a LHA would make a terrible UAV carrier as it is massively oversize for the job. As a very, very short term prototype for testing, it would be okay. Alternatively and preferably, a small cargo ship for prototype testing could be obtained and modified for free (by Navy standards) and would quite adequately demonstrate the concept. Bear in mind that we don't have hundreds of small UAVs available for a UAV carrier, at the moment, so dedicating a large LHA to carry perhaps a dozen UAVs would be an enormous waste of money.
DeleteOnce a prototype proves out the concept, then a dedicated vessel could be built or obtained and modified while we purchase UAVs.
Remember, we currently have no doctrine or CONOPS for a UAV carrier which is why we need a prototype. We need to develop doctrine/CONOPS BEFORE we start obtaining UAV carriers. The Navy way, of course, is to obtain a gold-plated ship first and then try to figure out what to do with it.
As always, the primary philosophy should be K.I.S.S. … … … so, a free, modified cargo ship rather than an LHA with massive operating costs.
You bring valid arguments that i had not considered.
Delete