Counting Unmanned Vessels As Ships

Should unmanned surface vessels (USV) count as ships of the fleet?

 

Regardless of whatever policy the Navy may eventually settle on for counting unmanned vessels as ships of the fleet – or not - it is clear that the Navy already considers unmanned vessels to be fully qualified ships of the fleet.  Every recent fleet size proposal consists of regular ships plus unmanned ships with no functional distinction made between them despite there being a universe of functional difference.  Actually, I stand corrected.  The Navy does see a distinction between manned and unmanned vessels.  The Navy believes that unmanned vessels possess some kind of mystical, super-capabilities derived from their very ‘unmannedness’.  Every statement by every Navy spokesman about unmanned vessels claims that they will enhance our combat capabilities.

 

The problem with these kinds of claims is the failure to recognize that USVs are not ships.  They’re adjuncts, at best.

 

When carefully examined, recent fleet size proposals all call for increased total numbers and yet tend to result in smaller combat forces!  The increased total numbers are provided by unmanned and non-combat vessels (MUSV, LUSV, Light Amphibious Warfare transport, etc.).  Thus, actual warships are being replaced by non-warships which clearly demonstrates the Navy’s misguided view of the equality between manned and unmanned vessels.

 

 

Definitions and Distinctions

 

What is a ship from a practical, combat perspective?  It’s a vessel that is capable of independent behavior, action, judgment, and possesses a range of capabilities.

 

In comparison, what is an unmanned vessel?  It’s a vessel that has a single, very restricted function, has no ability to act independently, and cannot exercise judgment.  It’s the very antithesis of the definition of a combat ship.

 

When a task force goes into combat and ships are damaged or sunk, other ships – and ship commanders – will take their place.  Command will devolve, if necessary, so that someone is always in charge.  If a ship drops out of formation, another will take its place to the extent that numbers allow.  In addition, individual ship commanders will, in extremis, exercise initiative and take individual action which has, historically, often been key to victory.  What happens when the ‘next ship up’ is an unmanned vessel?  There won’t be any initiative.  There won’t be any independent action.  There won’t be any victory.  The ‘depth’ of our fleet will be diminished with every USV procured.

 

When that control link to the LUSV missile barge is severed – either by enemy electronic warfare or by damage/destruction of the controlling ship – that missile barge becomes simply a barge;  an inert, inoperable, nautical paperweight and hazard to navigation.  On a real WARship, the crew is the ‘local’ backup, able to take over and continue fighting in the event that command/control from higher authority is lost.  A USV with a severed command/control link is just a floating barge.  Does anyone realistically think we’ll be able to retain complete, unaffected communication links to an unmanned vessel?  I can’t maintain cell phone connections!

 

There is more to a ship than just the number of VLS cells it carries;  a ship – an effective WARship, that is – includes a commander, a crew, and a host of potentialities that an unmanned ship utterly lacks.  In other words, a WARship is more than just a missile launching barge (which is exactly what the LUSV is!).

 

Damage control by a manned ship can save a ship in circumstances that would sink an unmanned ship due to the absence of damage control capability.  Lacking the capacity for damage control, unmanned ships are one-hit kills;  not just mission kills but actual sinkings.  Do we really want a fleet that includes a significant number of one-hit kill vessels?

 

Today’s supposed combat ships are built very weak and with no armor other than, perhaps, a sprinkling of Kevlar shrapnel protection in a few spots.  The Burkes, for example, had to have additional strengthening strakes added just to withstand the stress of normal sailing![1]  Given the physical weakness of our front line warships, does anyone think we’re going to build unmanned vessels to a higher standard or even the same standard?  Of course not.  They’ll be built to a reduced standard which, again, makes them even easier one-hit kills.

 

Beyond survivability, we all recognize the old adage that no plan survives contact with the enemy.  With human crews and the clear pre-battle conveyance of commander’s intent, the task force can still function despite the disintegration of the battle plan.  Unmanned vessels have no capacity to adapt.  They’ll execute their instructions no matter how little sense those instructions may make after contact with the enemy.

This is NOT a WARship ! 

 

Conclusion

 

Is this discussion just about the issue of whether to count unmanned vessels as part of the fleet ship count?  Of course not!  That would just be a matter of definitions with no real world importance.  The real issue is that by counting unmanned vessels as fleet ships, we’re deluding ourselves into believing we have capability that we do not.  It’s human nature and it’s inevitable that, at some point, people will begin to believe that unmanned vessels are the equivalent of manned ships (we’re already seeing this) and this will lead to fatally flawed planning and doctrine.  It is vital that we clearly maintain the distinction between a WARship and an unmanned barge so that we can accurately and wisely factor them into our planning.

 

 

 

 

_________________________________

 

[1]Network World, “US Navy warships suffer serious structural defects”, Michael Cooney, 15-Oct-2007,

https://www.networkworld.com/article/2349234/us-navy-warships-suffer-serious-structural-defects.html