The Navy (Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific (NIWC
Pacific) has contracted with Elbit Systems of America to develop an autonomous,
unmanned boat to track maritime targets clandestinely.
Why are they useless?
Consider this Elbit drone which appears to be based on the 12 meter Elbit
Seagull unmanned surface vessel with an EO/IR sensor atop the cockpit and a
towed array or VDS.
Elbit Systems of America (Elbit America) has been awarded a prime contract by the Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific (NIWC Pacific) to develop and demonstrate an autonomous maritime target tracking capability as part of the United States Navy’s Information Warfare Research Project (IWRP).
Elbit America’s autonomy prototype will extend the reach of those forces by leveraging attritable systems to covertly find, fix and track maritime targets … [1]I keep reading about the Navy’s pursuit of systems like this (Sea Hunter, Saildrone, Mantas, etc.) and they all have a few common characteristics: they’re small and they’re useless for the claimed task of persistent, survivable surveillance.
 |
| Elbit Seagull |
Now, consider what that means in terms of sensing capability. The EO/IR sensor sits, perhaps, 8 ft above the
water which gives the sensor a horizon of around 10 miles. That’s the limit of the sensing capability – 10
miles. That’s not exactly broad area
maritime surveillance, is it? Similarly,
the array/VDS is a low power (on a 12 meter unmanned boat it’s probably running
off a battery of some sort) sensor with limited range and little or no
sophisticated analysis computing. That’s
not going to find much! This is the
epitome of the looking through the soda straw analogy. You just can’t see much. The sensor just won’t see much of an
area. Given that the mission is area
surveillance, it’s an automatic failure!
Consider further, a 12 meter boat is going to have endurance
measured in hours and no open ocean sailing capability. How will that allow for broad area maritime
tracking?
To be fair, this boat could have some use in a small area,
harbor defense scenario but that’s for the Coast Guard not the Navy.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/elbit-america-selected-for-u-s-navy-information-warfare-research-project/
Laughing face emoji x1000. Absolutely pathetic what the military leadership has become.
ReplyDeleteThe sonars are a towed line and/or? a dipping sonar. It might be they are seeking something with a bit more oomph in hopes it might usefully be deployed from an LCS or other mothership platform of opportunity like ESB.
ReplyDelete"might usefully be deployed from an LCS or other mothership"
DeleteDeployed where? The problem is that the boat has, for practical purposes, no useful range. Thus, the host/mother ship would have to drop the boat almost right on top of the area to be monitored and if the area has enemy forces (which is why you want to monitor, right?) then wouldn't the defenseless mothership be quickly sunk?
Of course, the mothership could stay hundreds/thousands of miles back from the operating area but then the boats couldn't get to the operating area.
This is a problem I don't see a solution for.
Submarine surveillance seems to be an alternative.
DeleteHowever, it seems that we do not have enough deployed subs, as some are being refitted with reactors being refueled, and the Los Angeles class will be retired. How do we step up sub production ?
PB
"Submarine surveillance seems to be an alternative."
DeleteNO! Subs have very limited sensor capabilities relative to the task of broad area maritime surveillance and no aerial sensing capability, at all.
We also have far better tasks for the subs than surveilling 99% empty ocean.
Seems like another case of combining too many features. Cameras make much more sense on a small, low signature airborne drone.
ReplyDeleteIf you had sonar alone then it'd be on a bigger vessel.
Instead they put both sensor types on it and made it small and underpowered in an attempt to hold costs in check.
If there were 30 abreast about 9 miles apart traveling perpendicularly to the line of drones then you'd get some decent coverage. At least if it was scaled up to have more range.
ReplyDeleteAnd how would these 30 small boats get to the operating area undetected? How will they be refueled? Who will control them and from where? How will the control signals be hidden so as not to give away the controller's location?
Delete"To be fair, this boat could have some use in a small area, harbor defense scenario but that’s for the Coast Guard not the Navy."
ReplyDeleteWhy wouldn't you use a SOSUS type of array instead? That way you have 24/7 persistence and subs won't notice pesky propeller sounds to alert them to their doom.
"Why wouldn't you use a SOSUS type of array instead?"
DeleteNo reason not to use an array, as well. This boat, with the EO/IR could also spot aerial objects such as quadcopters or floating/drifting objects or objects too quiet for the array.
Remember that a harbor is a very noisy place. There's all the ship and near shore machinery noises plus the flow noises of channels and rivers/estuaries that feed the harbor. Most harbors have extensive underwater wrecks, rocks, debris, etc. that all generate background flow noise. In other words, the ambient noise level in the water is very high. A quiet drone might well not rise above the ambient noise and would be undetectable. Having a roving EO/IR sensor would be quite helpful. If an array detected a noise source, it would still be necessary to ID it and the boat's optical sensor would do that.
We (all of us) have a constant tendency to make everything a 'one or the other' exclusive choice instead of the almost always preferred 'both'.
So your question shouldn't be, why wouldn't we use an array, instead? The question should be why wouldn't we use a boat AND an array and the answer is we would prefer to use both.
A FAR more useful system, will be an AESA radar array and AWACS command center shoehorned into the SH-60 helicopter, to provide surveillance and targeting data for small ships like the Constellation class frigate. IIRC, the Soviet and Russian Navies' Kamov Ka-31 heliborne AWACS do just that for their ships.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Wiki Ka-31 article,
Delete"Due to its relatively small size, the Ka-31 doesn't have the capability to process the information collected by its radar. Instead, it transfers the information to nearby ships for them to do so."
Just out of curiosity, how would this SH-60 miracle helo get close enough to a target to detect it without being detected and destroyed, itself?
"Just out of curiosity, how would this SH-60 miracle helo get close enough to a target to detect it without being detected and destroyed, itself?"
DeleteYou can ask the same of the E-2 Hawkeye, and use some of the same answers (a small ship obviously can't launch high-performance fighters to escort an AWACS variant of the SH-60). I'm assuming these answers are to have the AWACS's onboard sensors provide warning when enemy fire control radar target it, (hopefully) giving the aircraft time to take evasive action and return to the mother ship, the latter of which may either retaliate (i.e., shoot the enemy unit targeting the AWACS) or retreat.
"You can ask the same of the E-2 Hawkeye"
DeleteNo, you can't. The E-2 is NOT an ocean scout/surveillance platform. It is an airborne battle management platform. It is NOT risked in forward scouting because it is not survivable.
Your comment suggests a marked lack of understanding about E-2's. You need to research E-2 operations to understand how they are used and what their capabilities are and are not.
Way too many times, perhaps has become norm --- Pentagon and/or defense industry claim developing a new weapon which can do this/that, many people believe they will be deployed tomorrow but a few years later, we learn it has failed, failed miserably.
ReplyDeleteThe nation's R&D capability need a real boost.
"The nation's R&D capability need a real boost."
DeleteIt might seem that way but I would suggest that it's not the R&D that is failing us, it's the Pentagon leadership. Industry dutifully develops anything the Pentagon asks for (they're the customer so industry provides whatever the customer is willing to pay for). Our problems are:
-Incredibly poor requirements (no CONOPS)
-The inability to stick with a design (constant change orders)
-Constant churning of objectives
Arguably, the Pentagon's biggest failing is the inability to stick with one project and perfect it. We've come out with a hundred different unmanned systems and perfected none of them. How many missile systems have we started and then dropped? The Navy told us the Zumwalt was the key to the future of naval warfare and a few months later we didn't need any.
We need to pick some basic capabilities (driven by strategic requirements and then CONOPS), develop them, and perfect them.
Industry no sooner starts a project than it's superseded by the next great idea. Nothing gets finished. Even individual ships aren't finished. They're delivered incomplete so that the next ship can start. I'd rather have one finished, perfectly functioning ship than ten incomplete, almost non-functional ships.
Why doesn't the Navy purchase the RQ-180 and adapt it to a maritime role. It might already have a maritime role. I think the US way behind on unmanned surface vessels as compared to aircraft. I believe the LUSV can carry 8 VLS equivalent cells in containers. Is there a cost or technical issue why they cannot build a larger LUSV which can help to replace the loss of VLS cells with the retirement of the Ticos?
ReplyDeleteYou're describing, essentially, the arsenal ship. There is no technical reason why not, however, there are pros and cons to the concept. Research the arsenal ship and you'll get a good idea of the benefits and drawbacks.
DeleteThere isn’t a shortage of VLS tubes unless the Navy buys about 10x more missiles. Previous posts on this blog have covered why if you have hundreds of air defense missiles on a ship then they are likely to be wasted because they can’t fire fast enough. And right now we only have a few thousand land attack missiles.
DeleteComNavOps (at the risk of a drubbing), I would propose an alternative to Seagull. A "picket line" of free-floating sensors like sonobuoys but somewhat larger, capable of being airdropped. Expendable with a working life of a week or two. Saltwater battery providing main power. GPS positioning with a sat link communications. Passive sonar, with processing limited to matching against hostile sound "templates". Similarly, a radar detector matching templates (what signal does a cruise missile transmit to maintain altitude [of course, it would have to be close]. Daily position reports and conditions, and a 'tripwire' report if it suspects something.
ReplyDeleteTechnical issues aside, that approach would only be applicable to a very, very, very, very small area relative to the ocean. It might be useful in a navigational chokepoint, harbor entrance, or some kind of restricted area. For broad area, open ocean searching, it would just be covering a pinprick of area.
DeleteOur very best sonars use extensive computer analysis as well as human interpretation. Asking a sensor 'somewhat larger' than a sonobuoy to accomplish feats of acoustic analysis that our largest, most powerful, most highly computerized/human analytics struggle with is asking for a miracle.
"alternative to Seagull."
The alternative to a surface drone is a stealthy UAV. It has the speed and endurance to cover wide areas which compensates for the limited sensor range and field of view.
On a related note, have you considered the cyber aspect of this? If the enemy were to get hold such a sensor buoy that would give them a direct access to our communications data links and, ultimately, our networks. All they'd have to do is inject a virus/hack into the buoy's normal comm signal and it would be dutifully (and automated!) loaded into the receiving comm system and data network.
Cyber vulnerabilities are an aspect that almost none of us consider as we discuss our various systems and scenarios. Something to think about!
"A "picket line" of free-floating sensors"
DeleteInterestingly, this is very similar to what the original LCS ASW module was intended to do. The LCS would deploy a network of sensors using unmanned surface/sub-surface drones and then wait for the contacts. The Navy deemed it unworkable and abandoned the original ASW module concept.
Thanks CNO. As to your comments. (1) The proposed would only be deployed in 'areas of interest', not the whole Pacific Ocean. (Seagull could do no more). (2) The concept is like face or voice recognition (this is the signature of what a Chinese or Russian sub sounds like) without the extensive analysis. (4) I would question just how much further a "stealthy UAV' would get. (5) Cybersecurity is well on my mind. The concept is it would report irregularly to a Com satellite. Other than that, it is on its own. DOD downlinks would be limited to (coded) Shut up or to sink yourself. As for sound profiles, the other side probably has there's better than they could recover.
DeleteI think this type of R&D project is aimed at obtaining critical tracking and classification data on quiet diesel subs operating in sensitive choke points, straits, etc that host critical shipping and US Naval activities.
ReplyDeleteThe Elbit propaganda cites automation and artificial intelligence. I'd guess that these capabilities will be onboard and will gate when acoustic towed array data streams are sent via satellite link to land- or sea-based analysis centers - to save xmit power consumption.
The idea of "attritable systems" employing towed arrays must be attractive to Navy bean counters. Towed arrays are a very capable asset for ASW and the more units that are out there the better the chances of detection, tracking, classification and localization for attack.
Agree with you that its limited Optical/IR capabilities will only serve to identify what foreign asset is just about to sink it.
CNO asks:
ReplyDelete"Why are we pursing a small, limited endurance, low power, short sensor range boat? Other than pursing unmanned technology for its own sake, there’s no use for such a boat. Bafflingly, we continue to throw money at concepts that have no practical combat application. If it doesn’t benefit our naval combat capability we shouldn’t be wasting time, money, and resources on it. Everything we do should have to pass through the filter of, ‘how does this enhance our combat capability?’. If it can’t pass the filter, we shouldn’t pursue it. This doesn’t pass."
a. This appears to be doing something. So the careerists can punch their "thinking outside the box" tickets for promotion.
b. This is cheap so doesn't require a major program approval, especially no CONOPS that would showcase the uselessness.
c. Because it is cheap it can easily and quickly be given to a congressional district without a lengthy proposal process or possible protests.
d. It is round up error size in the Defense Budget so it gets minimal review.
e. The average tour length is 2 years so these quick combat useless efforts are all we get from the careerists.