The Navy is experimenting with small, unmanned boats in the Middle East. VAdm. Brad Cooper, commander 5th Fleet, talked about small motorboats and a small sailboat operating out of Bahrain and Jordan,
“The drones that we have operating at Aqaba, [Jordan,] have been at sea for 33 straight days,” he said. “They’re really redefining what persistence means in the maritime environment.” [1]
So what? Persistence without action is pointless. We already have all the persistence we need. Remember the video of Iranians attaching mines to a cargo ship? We had persistence but we refused to couple it to action. We don’t need any more persistence. We have thirty or more significant bases in the Middle East and dozens more smaller or undisclosed bases. US Central Command reports 60,000 – 70,000 troops in the region. On any given day, the Navy operates dozens of ships ranging from patrol boats to carrier groups. The Air Force operates hundreds of aircraft in the region. UAVs crowd the skies. How much more persistence do we need?
Persistence? We fart persistence!
Action? Uh … … … not so much.
When you do couple action with persistence you get positive results. Do you recall the Iraqi soldiers trying to surrender to a battleship’s UAV in Desert Storm? That’s because the UAVs presence (persistence) was directly coupled to a battleship bombardment. The Iraqis knew this and the mere presence (persistence) of the UAV was then sufficient to instill fear and induce surrender.
- Persistence without action is pointless.
- Persistence with action produces results.
We’ve opted for the former instead of the latter, to our great detriment.
 |
| 23 ft Saildrone Explorer |
 |
| Mantas Tx Family |
This small unmanned boat experiment is further evidence of putting the unmanned cart before the horse. Instead of developing specific military needs (CONOPS) and then acquiring or developing the equipment (possibly unmanned or possibly not) to meet those needs, we’re developing technology for its own sake and then trying to shoehorn it into some operational fit. Thus far, that approach has been a stunning failure (for example, see, “AFSB – Looking For Something To Do”).
We have got to stop trying to use technology as a substitute for strategy.
We have got to break this cycle of technology first and then operational requirements. The proper cycle is requirements (CONOPS) first and then equipment.
Moving on …
So what can a small unmanned boat do for us? We can mount a camera or some other small, short range sensor on it but what does that gain us? We can already see everything that’s going on in the Middle East. How will some additional small boats help? Even if we were so inclined, they’re incapable of any action. I’m missing the operational requirement for small, unmanned boats that carry a camera and don’t do anything.
On the negative side, I can see the potential for lots of trouble. Iran didn’t hesitate to seize two fully armed, manned Navy combat boats so how long do you think it will be until they seize a small, unmanned boat? Iran hasn’t hesitated to seize US UAVs so how long do you think it will be until they seize a small, unmanned boat? Iran hasn’t hesitated to blow up cargo ships while we watch so how long do you think it will be until they take target practice at one of these unmanned boats just for fun and propaganda purposes … while we watch?
We have jumped right over CONOPS and landed on unmanned. Why? No one knows since there is no validating exercise. Actually, we do know why – it’s technology for the sake of technology; it’s change for the sake of change so that some admiral can claim to have done something.
____________________________________
[1]Breaking Defense, “US 5th Fleet commander: ‘Dramatic uptick’ in Iran’s drone use ”, Valerie Insinna, 14-Jan-2022,
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/01/us-5th-fleet-commander-dramatic-uptick-in-irans-drone-use/
"...for 33 straight days,” he said. “They’re really redefining what persistence means in the maritime environment.” [1]
ReplyDeleteBesides your obvious points about CONOPS, Ill submit that the VAdm might be confused about the meaning of persistence....
From a Bremerton-area newspaper: "Feb 2021 The USS Nimitz is returning to San Diego Friday afternoon....
The crew has been deployed for 321 days. This deployment length is the longest since the Vietnam War."
Thats persistence. Of course the idiocy of an 11 month deployment is another subject but....
How many of those guys are coming back to divorce papers after an 11 month deployment?
DeleteHow many school plays and little league games were missed?
I understand that being on active duty involves enormous personal sacrifices, I've been there.
But how many of those guys are excited to re-enlist for another 4 years?
I'm all in on CNO's idea of home porting and short, mission-oriented deployments.
Lutefisk
Heh. Thank you! I have been following brouhaha over the successes of Unmanned Surface Vessels......... but no one seems to know what they are for. And if you just read the headlines you would think these are large combatants, but most are of a size to be trailerable behind an SUV.
ReplyDeleteThe entire US Military seems to be making much ado over trivial items.
Remember a few months back when an Adm. stated that the USS Gabrielle Giffords, "pretty much owned the southern South China Sea" during operations last year, he said.
"She kept out there pounding away, blowing up every Chinese operation in the South China Sea. It was pretty impressive work," Merz said.
What does that even mean?????
What is this, a high school dance off?
Or how about this headline: "More than Two Dozen Naval F-35s Now Underway in the Western Pacific"
Oh boy! 24 out of a planned 273. (Well I guess 23 now)
Sorry, I had to rant.
"Sorry, I had to rant."
DeleteNo problem. I do it all the time only I call it a blog! :)
"the USS Gabrielle Giffords, "pretty much owned the southern South China Sea" during operations last year, he said.
Delete"She kept out there pounding away, blowing up every Chinese operation in the South China Sea. It was pretty impressive work," Merz said."
Tryhard language isn't going to win wars or even impress anyone over 12, Merz.
One ship won't own anything. For the cost of the cheapest LCS you could buy 14 of the most expensive MUSV. Let's say the GFE doubles the cost to make an MUSV useful, that's still 7 ships. To make it less about manning, call it 7 Fast Response Cutters.
DeleteI still say we take one of these unmanned surface vehicles, fill it with high explosives, let the Iranians pick it up, and then kaboom! One less Iranian ship/boat/whatever.
ReplyDeleteHmm … bloodthirsty?
DeleteYou know, my non-lawyer reading of maritime salvage laws suggest that an unmanned vessel, lacking a crew, is, by legal definition, not seaworthy and therefore salvageable. Something to think about ...
My lawyer reading of the same laws produces the same result.
DeleteThis suggests that we would have no legitimate grievance and no legal basis to even protest if our unmanned vessels are seized.
DeleteA foreign country might go a step further and declare an unmanned vessel a hazard to navigation and seize/sink it.
I wonder if the Navy has thought this through? The documentation of this blog would suggest not.
Even if they made up the reason... What would the Navy do about that, Strongly Worded Protest Letters aside?
DeleteNobody is going to start a war over a stolen drone, and Iran knows it.
Maybe not a war, but the occasional Preying Mantis wouldn't be a bad thing...
Delete(CNOs previous post probably approves of this message)
"I still say we take one of these unmanned surface vehicles, fill it with high explosives, let the Iranians pick it up, and then kaboom! One less Iranian ship/boat/whatever."
DeleteOn a related note, when the Iranians show up and taunt our ships in the Gulf, I'd be very happy to see the Navy blow one of them out of the water.
That would dampen the Iranians' enthusiasm.
Would Iran go to war over that boat?
Who cares.
Lutefisk
Unrelated/related thought about "presence":
ReplyDeleteI used to do a lot of OSINT and GEOINT sat pics before Google Earth went to crap, there's been pretty "persistent" presence of a GLOBAL HAWK over UKRAINE now for years, we follow it's track almost daily, with this post about persistence, am I only one wondering will Russia take it down? YES, NO? First day of offense take down or maybe later? Leave it alone? Any thoughts?
Iran shot one down so no problem for Russians to take it down, so no technical issues here, it will be a military option to "deny" USA intel "presence" and/or a political message to USA to leave them alone....could also be if later in the conflict to escalate?
IMO, leaning towards shot down, first day.
I think that they are pointless because they are Navy. Flying drones do make sense but small surface drones don't.
ReplyDeleteThey are Navy thus whatever must be ships.
The USS Ford can't be fixed!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2022-01-25/gerald-r-ford-carrier-anti-ship-missiles-other-threats-4414027.html
This should be headline news, and your next post. Two built, two under construction, and none work.
"It also said that during 8,157 takeoffs and recoveries through last year, the carrier’s new electromagnetic catapult system made by General Atomics demonstrated a reliability of 272 launches “between operational mission failure,” or “well below” its required 4,166. Similarly, its system to snag landing aircraft demonstrated a 41-landing reliability rate “well below the requirement of 16,500,” the testing office said."
Our Navy is so corrupt, I predict nothing will be done. The Ford will still deploy in September (four years late). It will be limited to a couple launches a day. Admirals will explain this is normal for a new class during its first deployment.
This is, presumably, referencing a draft version of the Ford section of the DOT&E annual report which is released every January. The actual report has not yet been released, as far as I can tell. When it is, I often do several posts on the various issues raised.
DeleteThe snippet about EMALS is ambiguous but not unexpected. From the 2020 annual report,
"During the 3,975 catapult launches conducted post PSA
through ISE 11, EMALS demonstrated an achieved
reliability of 181 mean cycles between operational mission
failure (MCBOMF), … "
It is unclear whether the new number of 8,157 launches represents the cumulative lifetime total which would include old data and would skew the results or whether the 8,157 represents just the 2021 launches which would be new data and, therefore, stunningly bad.
As you undoubtedly know, the larger issue regarding EMALS is that the entire catapult system must be shut down to conduct repairs on any one catapult. A single catapult cannot be isolated. This is a catastrophic design flaw for a combat ship. I would hope that this has been corrected in the succeeding Fords, however, I have yet to read anything confirming that.
The AAG system has a similar story, as noted.
I will likely do a post on the subject when the actual report is released. Note that DOT&E has previously announced that only a reduced information report will be publicly released. It will be interesting to see whether the report retains any value.
"the larger issue regarding EMALS is that the entire catapult system must be shut down to conduct repairs on any one catapult."
DeleteThere's one thing I'm unsure of with the catapult thing. I understand that you can't REPAIR a catapult without shutting down all four. But it isn't clear to me whether it's possible to "gracefully degrade". That is, if one catapult fails, can they just stop using it and continue to use the other 3? Or is it an all or nothing thing? Either all 4 catapults work or none do?
"if one catapult fails, can they just stop using it "
DeleteI'm sure that's the case since that is the usual operating case - one cat fires while the others sit idle. Only if the failure were something that impacted the common electrical supply system would that not be the case.
2021 DOTE report is out. Ford launch/recovery very, very unreliable,four elevators still not certified, problems from the shock test. The three other carriers in this class use the same systems, so they don't work either. They aren't "broke" they just don't work as hoped.
Deletehttps://www.dote.osd.mil/Publications/Annual-Reports/2021-Annual-Report/
Note USNI News finds this not newsworthy.
Well, as a devil's advocate, I can think of one possible reason this might not be a horrible idea. Remember, the new thing about autonomous boats isn't the boats. We know how to make boats, and have for many years. The new thing is the autonomy software, and maybe some sensors. So if the Navy chose to take some existing, proven, commercial boats off the shelf and stuff autonomy software into them in order to allow them to test the capabilities of the autonomy software without also having to debug a new boat design, that would be smart and cost effective. It's how I'd do it. If we did all our new technology development that way, we'd have had a lot fewer problems with the F35, Zumwalt, LCS, and Ford.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, that approach doesn't require you do deploy a fleet's worth of them in a potential war zone, so I don't really understand that.
" It's how I'd do it."
DeleteAs would I and that would be a very responsible and reasonable approach. HOWEVER, I would not do that in the middle east. I'd do it at some US test facility/port. The fact that this testing is taking place in the middle east suggests that testing out the software is NOT the purpose and I think that's what you're referring to in your last sentence.
"HOWEVER, I would not do that in the middle east"
DeleteI tend to agree. The only thing I can think of that might make a difference is that artificial intelligence software needs to be trained, which requires that it see a huge number of different examples. Perhaps operating in the Middle East provides examples that wouldn't be available in a US port. I don't know the details of how this works, so I have no idea whether this is actually what is happening, but it's the only excuse I can think of.
I think the problem starts with leadership who don't have a clue what the next war is apt to look like, because that's not what they spend their time and effort on. If I were in charge, I'd tell the joint chiefs, "A week from today, I want your best estimates of what our next war will be, and how we plan to prosecute it, including how your manning, equipment, logistics, and training are designed to prepare us for that war."
ReplyDeleteMilitary forces exist to fight and win wars. They do that by killing bad guys and breaking their toys. That's what our military and naval leadership need to be thinking about.
Here's a potential CONOPS for small autonomous boats. Not sensors, but DECOYS. Possibly for the battle fleet, and certainly for merchant convoys in an actual war.
ReplyDeleteConsider the merchant convoy, for example. In much of the Pacific, the major threat is submarines. The major sensor for a submarine (at least at relatively long range) is passive sonar. It ought to be possible to spoof a passive sonar by putting a bunch of inexpensive drones in the general vicinity of the merchant ships and simply broadcasting the sound of a larger ship into the water. Some forms of radar could possibly be spoofed by having something like the Air Force's MALD device on the drone, to make the drone look like a merchant ship. May not fool all types of radar, but it would certainly work for some.
Imaging sensors might be more difficult to spoof, but every little bit helps.
Obviously some thought would need to be given to whether it's better to focus on smaller drones, which would be less expensive but probably require a mother ship to refuel them frequently, vs. larger drones which would be more expensive but have a similar range to the cargo ships they're escorting. Not sure yet where to come down on that analysis.
A recent article directly referred to USN pilots as "winged Luddites," and quoted a US Army cavalry officer who opposed tank development in 1938- see https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/winged-luddites-aviators-are-the-biggest-threat-to-carrier-aviation/ whose authors claimed to be F/A-18 pilots.
ReplyDeleteI can only sigh at the level of self-deception inherent in the article. UCAVs may replace manned fighters one day, but the technology is still years away from reaching the necessary level of maturity. The authors seem to believe we're already there, that UCAVs have already been sufficiently tested, that we won't need to develop a next generation fighter with accomodations for a human pilot... Doesn't this sound familiar to you, as someone who watched the Navy prematurely retire many ships and shutdown production lines producing replacement parts necessary to maintain others in service, in favor of the "new hotness" that was the LCS and the Zumwalt class destroyer?
The Navy's Medium Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (MUUV) RFP was released in May 2020 with no CONOPS and some of the specifications were draft. Proposals were submitted in August 2020 with a projected award date of Jan 2021. The Navy has been evaluating and discussing the submissions ever since WITHOUT issuing final specifications, a CONOPS, nor even a Maintenance Strategy. This shows that the Navy has no idea what they want, or how to use it, or even how to go about getting it. Hopefully because Surface vehicles can't be so well hidden, they are doing better than this.
ReplyDeleteRemember Kelley Johnson's (leader of the Skunk Works) verbal 15th rule: "Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy."
You have missed the obvious tactical use of the sailing drone. It is so we have an environmentally friendly way of flying a white surrender flag.
ReplyDeleteWith the sheet incompetence the Pentagon REPEATEDLY demonstrated over the past two DECADES, I fear if we get into another war, we won't have anyone alive to fix the white flag to the drone.
DeleteIn a recent article, found this snippet:
ReplyDelete"A 15-foot (5 m) wing provides wind power for forwarding propulsion and solar panels power onboard science and navigation instruments. Saildrones can be equipped with an acoustic payload for specific mission requirements: a single-beam or multibeam sonar for bathymetry, an echo sounder for fisheries surveys, or an ADCP for current measurements."
So, this amazing widget can determine water depth, find fish, and notice currents. Thats an incredibly useful set of skills that will advance our offensive and defensive capabilities beyond measure!!!
* sarcasm off.