You may recall that we recently noted and expressed
disbelief about a Navy announcement related to the Large Unmanned Surface
Vessel (LUSV). Supposedly, the
manufacturer/Navy completed a 30 day, uninterrupted run of the diesel engines
as a demonstration of reliability. ComNavOps
expressed doubt.[1]
Well, here’s a bit of related news from Captain Scot
Searles, the program manager of the Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office,
which starts the process of backtracking and qualifying the previous
announcement:
As it turns out, potential engine vendors don’t actually
have to be tested by the Navy.
So, to sum up, the engines don’t actually have to run
non-stop for 30 days and manufacturers can test their own equipment. Hmm …
“It [the test engine] doesn’t have to be on for 30 days. It can start and stop, but nobody can touch it”[2]My interpretation of that statement is that the vendor failed the test and the Navy opted for verbal gymnastics to turn it into a success.
… vendors don’t necessarily have to stick to equipment tested by the government. They can also do their own 30-day testing on various pieces of equipment. However they must inform the program office ahead of testing and coordinate the testing with them.[2]So, a manufacturer can test their own equipment. I can’t see anything suspicious about that. In fact, I’m going to make a daring and bold prediction (don’t try this at home; I’m a trained analyst and predictor). Every piece of manufacturer tested equipment will … … … wait for it … … PASS!
 |
| LUSV Concept Image |
It is telling that the Navy’s history of being
veracity-challenged is so severe that my default position is disbelief about
anything they say. Sad, but that’s the
position the Navy has earned for itself.
___________________________
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sna-2024/2024/01/second-vendor-clears-u-s-navy-lusv-milestone/
I'd want a few engine tests: 1. Yes, a 30-day endurance test - non-stop running. 2. Another test over 30-days, stopping randomly and then restarting successfully 100 percent of the time. 3. Final test, fill the tanks and run the engine continuously without stopping until they're dry, at different RPM's that might simulate a real mission.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget to test till failure on both the continuous as well as the intermittant tests. It's important to know how long you have till failure as well as likely failure modes. This gives equipment users the need information of how far you can push things if push comes to shove and what you'll have to deal with afterward.
DeleteAbsolutely!! Test-to-failure is super important. And I was actually suprised to find that there wasnt somthing exotic!! The engines are just pretty standard Caterpillar Marine diesels- and should already have a pretty well established maintenance requirements history.
DeleteAnd now figure the odds of it failing twice more so you no longer have a genset running, although those engines will be continuous speed, right? Main propulsion? 4 more failures before you are out of engines. At least for Overlord/MUSV.
Delete"And now figure the odds of it failing twice more so you no longer have a genset running,"
DeleteI have no idea what point you're trying to make. Try again.
Just the chance of a failure of all the primes is exponentially less with each additional engine.
Delete"Just the chance of a failure of all the primes is exponentially less with each additional engine."
DeleteAh ... sure. A ship with twenty or thirty engines would be less likely to suffer a complete breakdown of every engine at the same time. Again, what's your point?
8.48% chance of failure in 14000 running hours. Figure the chance of multiple failures is exponentially less. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25725084.2021.1968663#:~:text=The%20results%20of%20reliability%20analysis,8.48%25%20for%20the%20diesel%20engines.
DeleteDon't forget to add, the tests should be conducted on a moving, tilting platform to simulate the environment at sea.
Delete"Figure the chance of multiple failures"
DeleteI still have no idea what point, if any, you're trying to make. Unless you can make your point clear, I'm going to cut this line of discussion off.
Do we have any idea yet what the CONOPS of these unmanned ships will be?
ReplyDeleteNot that I've heard.
DeleteIn the article CNO cited, it was mentioned that the USN envisioned the LUSV as a missile magazine, and Ive seen that elsewhere a few times now. So... remote control arsenal ship(???)
DeleteAlthough the likely reality is that there's no CONOP, at least not a proper, detailed and serious one. Sadly I think what the Navy has now is "cool boats without people- we'll figure the rest out later".
@Jj. Caught that too, sounds like some kind of unmanned arsenal ship. There's so many things wrong here, it's not even funny.....
DeleteThey have kind of blended some of the description between MUSV and LUSV over time. Primarily MUSV would haul sensors for ISR and ECM including towed sonar. LUSV has been described as an adjunct missile magazine allowing the manned ship to stay on station longer without going Winchester.
DeleteSo just put 10s or 100s of millions of dollars worth of hard to replace missiles on an unmanned ship and send it to sea? What could possibly go wrong???
DeleteConsider your cost per ton to move a missile on a destroyer vs on a cheap adjunct wingman ship. Pays for itself. Plus your cost risk isn't as bad if you use them for your Tomahawk hauler and leave AAW missiles on the AAW ship.
Delete"Consider your cost per ton to move a missile on a destroyer vs on a cheap adjunct wingman ship. "
DeleteAh, excellent! You have some data for us to consider. What is the cost per ton to move a missile? Share your data with us!
"Plus your cost risk isn't as bad if you use them for your Tomahawk hauler and leave AAW missiles on the AAW ship."
Delete*cringes at consequences of "eggs in one basket", as well as a defanged DDG...
The problem is even if the ship is cheap, the weapons aren't cheap and USA has low volume production and stock. Just because the ship is cheap means it's a good idea......we can afford to lose the ship but not the weapons!
DeleteThis just seems like it could be solved in the way CNO talked about having single purpose ships, and how you'd send whatever the mission calls for. Even with the multiroles we have, if say, a task force was going on a strike mission, some of the ships would load heavy on TLAMS, and some would be ESSM/SM heavy for group defense. Dragging around a potentially problematic unmanned vessel because you cant plan a proper weapons loadout, and muster enough ships to do the job, just sounds like more Navy mismanagement. Unmanneds seem like the answer to a question nobody should even be asking...
DeleteAnd yes..I caught the flaw in that which goes back to the "eggs in basket" again. The aforementioned Task Force could also be comprised of however many ships it takes to ensure adequate AAW defense AND the required number of TLAMS- evenly spread throughout all the ships...
Delete( didnt want to get hung with my own rope LOL )
Rough estimate: Burke 96 cells for 2 billion about 21 million a cell. MUSV 16 cells for 30-35 million for about 2. million per cell. I'm not going to go through the fuel burn but that's advantageous along with the whole no or less crew thing.
DeleteOne basket - We already have 3 baskets and 4th on the way for about the same cost of the overhaul to Pickney that also added SEWIP III. Look at he DDGX proposal. 13,500 ton for the same Mk 41 loadout and it will have less Mk 41 when they put in the hypersonic module. Why reveal the DDGs location for a Tomahawk strike? Keep the Tomahawk on the DDG if you want, the MUSV can carry the SM-6 too.
Low missile stock - You don't think we might afford more missiles if we had more cheap shooters?
Unmanned not needed - or less manning through automation. Either is imperative. If every American were eager and qualified for military service, the number of young ones available is going to be relatively small vs the demand for manning the entire economy. Japan, Korea and Europe already have this problem and are addressing it. We are relatively well off, but its a problem we will face all the same. "Reality"
"MUSV 16 cells for 30-35 million for about 2. million per cell."
DeleteThis is factually incorrect. First, the ship under discussion is the LARGE unmanned vessel (LUSV) not the MUSV and the cost, according to Navy budget docs as reported in CRS reports will be $250M-$315M. Of course, those are Navy estimates which are ALWAYS ridiculously low. Thus, the LUSV 'missile hauling cost' is $15.6M-$19.7M per cell for the 16 cell version and $7.8M-$9.8M for the 32-cell version.
"Why reveal the DDGs location for a Tomahawk strike?"
The LUSV will operate ONLY in close conjunction with a manned ship, presumably a Burke. Thus, anyone backtracking a LUSV launch will find the Burke right next to it. The LUSV is not an independent vessel.
Your comment had several inaccuracies. I'll likely delete it shortly, after you've had a chance to read this and recognize your mistakes.
If you watch the tracks from the ships when they were out on their exercise, they weren't always very close together.
DeleteThe Navy for some reason has started referring to the OUSVs as LUSVs so maybe be patient and see what happens. Reality is these ships have fired an SM-6 at this point and these ships exist. The larger concept LUSV doesn't.
"watch the tracks from the ships when they were out on their exercise"
DeleteI'm guessing you're referring to the Pacific 'deployment' but I'm not sure and it doesn't matter. The Navy doesn't conduct combat exercises and certainly not realistic combat exercises so wherever any ships were or were not has nothing to do with combat utilization.
"these ships have fired an SM-6 at this point and these ships exist"
No. Other than a couple prototypes, there is no formal OUSV. They do not exist. Any tests they may have done are just publicity stunts much like the so-called firing of a Naval Strike Missile from the deck of an LCS a few years ago. It wasn't integrated into any fire control system and demonstrated nothing.
You seem to be reading way too much into way too little.
I've got a better idea. Forget about unmanned platforms except small ones for surveillance, intel, targeting, damage assessment, and possible one-shot weapons launch, and then you don't need diesels that run for 30 days.
ReplyDeleteThats a better idea in my book!!
DeletePer the 2021 NDAA, Sec 122(b)
ReplyDelete"The qualification required in subsection (a)(1) shall include a landbased operational demonstration of the systems concerned in the vessel-representative form, fit, and function for not less than 720 continuous hours without preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance, emergent repair, or any other form of repair or maintenance."
So there's not a continuous power requirement. The definition of the test depends on whatever the program office has decided is the designed "function" of the M/LUSV. I assume this would include a large amount of steady power, a number of on-off cycles, and some short-term high power sprints.
I'll take a stab at a CONOPS to criticize. Say duplicate more or less a Trident sub in carrying capacity of missiles, with surface ships. (First question - is that valid?). Use a Burke for protection and then four LUSV's carrying 32 missiles each. They're sailing 20 miles from the Burke, with tall masks so as to communicate with lasers. After launch, the area for this five ship mission is over 1200 square miles, not insignificant. The LUSV's would also carry anti-missile protection measures and perhaps they should mimic a Burke in what they emit as a target. Cost seems to be perhaps half the sub?
ReplyDelete"CONOPS"
DeleteThat's not a CONOPS. That's a vague notion but I'll set that quibble aside.
"duplicate more or less a Trident sub"
The Ohio SSGNs carry 154 cruise missiles so that would require five LUSVs carrying 32 missiles each for a total of 160 missile to approximately equal the payload of an SSGN.
"sailing 20 miles from the Burke,"
Twenty miles, in naval terms, IS close! A subsonic anti-ship missile, such as a Chinese C-801 for example, would cover 20 miles in around 1.8 minutes.
"tall [masts]"
From an engineering perspective, this isn't feasible, depending on what you envision 'tall' being. The stress moment on a tall mast mounted to a small vessel would be enormous! Take a look at the size of the support structures of ship masts that are only twenty to fifty feet tall.
"The LUSV's would also carry anti-missile protection measures"
Like what? Every weapon and sensor added to this concept vessel increases the size of the vessel and the cost, rendering it less and less disposable.
"mimic a Burke"
To what end? Without significant anti-air defenses they can't survive being located and emitting just hands the enemy a free location fix.
I have yet to hear of a viable, effective combat concept of operations for unmanned vessels.
DeleteI wrote the comment you're responding to. I'm no expert here at all and while I could expand on my thinking I don't think that's valuable now, but I now think it would be great for you to write a piece on exactly what a CONOPS is.
Delete"exactly what a CONOPS is"
DeleteIt's not worth a post but I'll gladly describe it for you. A Concept of Operations (CONOPS) describes, in great detail, EXACTLY how a ship (or aircraft or whatever) will fit into the fleet, how it will function, what role it will fill, how it will be used, how it will be logistically supported, how it will be protected, how it will be manned, what other assets it will operate with, what combat support it needs from other assets, and so on.
A CONOPS completely describes the asset, leaving no mystery about what it will do and how it will do it. With that in mind, you can see just how warped and deficient the Navy's philosophy of 'get it into the hands of sailors and they'll figure out how to use it' is. The Navy has abandoned CONOPS and, as a result, is producing ships like the LCS, Zumwalt, MLP, JHSV, etc. that turn out to have no useful function and are being retired years early due to lack of relevant roles.
In your example, a true CONOPS would describe the exact combat role(s), how it will execute those roles, how it will be controlled in a contested electromagnetic environment, who will control it, who/how it will be maintained and repaired, how it will be defended, how it will be resupplied (how do you resupply an unmanned ship at sea???), how many people will be needed to control/maintain the vessel, how it will communicate with the controlling platform without broadcasting its location, whether it will use active or passive sensors and under what conditions, and a thousand other concerns.
Obviously, we can't write a CONOPS in the space of a paragraph or two, and no one expects that, but we can address a few of the larger CONOPS concerns.
A proper CONOPS is generated BEFORE the asset is designed because the CONOPS is what tells you what the asset needs to do its job. In idiotic contrast, the Navy built the LCS, Zumwalt, MLP, JHSV, etc. first and then tried to come up with a CONOPS after the fact. Since they had no CONOPS to tell them what to build, it's not surprising that what they built had no relevant capabilities or use.
Delete