While many of the lessons of war are timeless, tactics do change as technology changes. Consider
the following observations and logic chain.
- With the existence of hundred/thousand mile cruise missiles,
multi-thousand mile ballistic missiles, supersonic aircraft and missiles, 50
mile torpedoes, SSGNs, etc., any ship that is spotted can be killed and fairly
quickly, from a distance.
- Given SIGINT, radar warning receivers, direction finders,
and all manner of electromagnetic sensing devices, any ship that emits,
intentionally or unintentionally, can be spotted.
- Hence, to be spotted is to be sunk.
- The obvious conclusion is don’t get spotted!
- The obvious way to reduce the chance of being spotted is to
emit nothing. No active radar. No unshielded electronic devices. No signals.
Emit nothing for an enemy to pick up.
Of course, with today’s ship designs, emitting nothing is,
potentially, another definition of being blind and a ship that is blind is
going to stumble into trouble.
The job of a naval force is to find the enemy. How can that be accomplished without active
emissions?
This is where we begin to see that we need a paradigm shift
away from active detection systems and toward passive systems. This doesn’t mean tacking a single
electro-optical (EO) sensor on the superstructure somewhere and glancing at it
occasionally, as is done today. Instead,
it means designing an entire ship around passive sensing as its main sensor
system. We need a passive warship
design. Let’s look a bit closer at this concept.
The Passive
Warship
The passive warship begins with a maximum stealth design
which includes not just radar stealth but infrared, acoustic, optical, electromagnetic,
and wake stealth. Once we have a ship
that is as stealthy as possible we can begin designing its sensing system. We want a maximum stealth ship design
combined with primarily passive sensing – a ship that can’t be seen but can see
all around itself. The enemy can’t see
it but it can see the enemy.
Electro-optical – The F-14 Tomcat (and other aircraft
– no need to list them) had optical systems that were reportedly capable of
detecting bomber size aircraft out to a hundred miles or so. We have optical telescopes that can see
distant galaxies. Of course, those
telescopes are far too large to mount on a warship but with something in
between the F-14’s tiny camera and a giant observatory telescope we should be
able to easily see fighter size aircraft at hundreds of miles. Place several (not just one!) of these EO
sensors around the ship to provide 360 degree coverage with a huge amount of
overlap and redundancy to allow for battle damage and we have 360 degree, long
range, passive sensing that matches or exceeds what radar can provide. Remember that one major advantage of optical
systems is that they can easily detect stealth aircraft.
What makes this approach viable is accompanying software
that can monitor the optical images continuously and detect the faintest of
possible targets – something that a human would fail to do simply due to visual
fatigue.
Of course, optical sensing is vulnerable to interference and
degradation from weather, smoke, and other effects. Thus, we need additional passive sensing to
supplement and complement optical sensing.
Infrared – Take the preceding EO concept and
duplicate it with IR sensors. Picture
aircraft infrared search and track (IRST) pods, scaled up for much greater
sensitivity and range, placed all around the ship to, again, provide 360 degree
coverage with overlap and redundancy. IR
sensing nicely supplements and complements optical sensing.
SIGINT – Signal intercept sensors provide passive
detection of enemy electronic signals and communications. These
signals might be fire control comms, voice comms, data communications traffic,
missile networking comms, helicopter traffic control comms, or any other type
of signal. Given the ability of many
signal types to travel beyond the horizon – and thus be detected over the
horizon – SIGINT can provide very long range detection.
UAVs – Not only do we want our passive warship to
have the preceding capabilities but we need to extend the ship’s sensor
reach/range using small, cheap reconnaissance UAVs equipped with passive
sensors. These UAVs can be employed
continuously for area recon, specifically for target confirmation or intense
monitoring of a specific area, or sporadically so as not give even a hint of
the host ship’s presence.
Fire Control – The final step is to tie the passive
sensor systems into the ship’s fire control.
Thus, passive sensors become the primary fire control and the ship never
needs to radiate, even while defending against an attack. Of course, if the ship is being attacked,
it’s already been spotted and it’s no longer necessary to remain passive. Active radar can be used at that point
although it would still be preferable to avoid active systems thereby
eliminating the enemy’s use of radar homing targeting.
There are already purely passive fire control systems throughout the world's militaries so this isn't something radically new.
An alternative fire control scheme might be a mixed passive/active scheme which coordinates passive
and active sensing so that tracking is passive and, at the last moment, active
sensors (radar) activate for weapon guidance. This would not, however, be the preferred approach.
Discussion
From the preceding, we can envision a passive warship at the
center of a 360 degree spherical ‘eye’ made up of dozens of optical, infrared, and
signal sensors. The sphere would extend
from the horizon to hundreds of miles for elevated targets. UAVs would further extend the monitored area.
The complementary systems would mitigate the negative
effects of weather and whatnot. What one
system fails to detect, another will.
Of particular note is the ability of passive systems to
detect stealth aircraft with ease. A
properly designed passive system almost renders radar stealth useless.
As noted, a passive fire control eliminates the enemy’s ability
to use radar homing weapons.
We see, then, that a purely passive warship system has a lot
going for it.
Radar would still be provided on our passive warship as
there may be occasions to use it but there would be no need for high end, Aegis
type systems. A simple TRS-4D type radar
for horizon ranges would be sufficient.
While the passive system is a rock solid concept, there are
some unknowns that would need to be tested.
For example, can passive sensors provide sufficient weapon
guidance? What size sensors do we need?
We need to set up a passive test ship and determine whether
we can detect, track, and fire control purely passively with sufficient
effectiveness. If we can’t, we need to
find out where the limitations are and work to eliminate them. We need to find out what the practical
detection ranges are for various size/shape targets and flight profiles. And so on.
Technology has changed and that demands a change in
tactics. Unfortunately, the Navy is
anchored in the past. We’re producing
Burkes that are based on technology and tactics that are several decades out of
date and hopelessly obsolete. Our latest
combat ship, the Constellation class, was obsolete before the first one was
even laid down. We are mired in the
past. It’s long past time for a paradigm
shift in warship design.
". . . but with something in between the F-14’s tiny camera and a giant observatory telescope we should be able to easily see fighter size aircraft at hundreds of miles."
ReplyDeleteHow do you plan get around clouds, storms, and other atmospheric disturbances?
Did you read the post?
Delete"Radar would still be provided on our passive warship as there may be occasions to use it . . ."
DeleteOccasions? Okay.
On a clear day, what do you do about the Sun blinding your sensors? Which will be a good chunk of the sky. I doubt binders would be very effective.
Aside from the problem of determining bearing and speed of an aircraft, how would such a system fair against detecting a high-speed anti-ship missile coming over the horizon?
Are you looking to discuss and learn or just argue?
DeleteThoughts on skirmishing ships.
Delete1. The radar frequency of C-RAM land systems are especially attenuated by the atmosphere. Therefore they cannot be detected very far away. If you scan 10 km. You are still invisible at 20 km.
2. Most fire control systems use a laser rangefinder that can be used to track. You only emit when engaging the target.
3. BAE 127mm gun can shoot the Kingfisher round. This is a depth charge or sonar bouy round. Giving a ship rapid way of engaging subs to 40 km.
"Kingfisher"
DeleteI like this concept for anti-torpedo use, however, it seems unlikely to be effective in the anti-submarine role as the explosive is far too small (3 kg) to be lethal or even seriously damaging even with a direct skin-to-skin explosive contact. In comparison, a Mk7 WWII depth charge had an explosive weight of 600 lb (272 kg). Direct explosive contact seems nearly impossible for a non-guided, free-sinking depth charge. This was amply demonstrated in WWII.
In the anti-torpedo role, the idea of dropping a pattern of charges in the path of the incoming torpedo to knock it off target seems quite reasonable and likely to be successful. This is the exact theory behind the Russian/Soviet RBU launchers that I like, only longer ranged!
The rest of the Kingfisher cargo loads seem rather fanciful and contrived - marketing gloss rather than anything practical.
The other major problem is that every round dedicated to some type of specialized Kingfisher round is one less round available in the general magazine for the gun. One does not want to risk getting caught in a gun battle and winding up with a depleted inventory of shells carrying sonobuoys!
It is also noteworthy that none of the more fanciful payloads yet exist and probably never will given the engineering challenges involved in shock hardening delicate electronics in sonobuoys, comm relay nodes, etc. to withstand the g-force of firing from a gun and subsequent impact with the water.
We talk about visual and IR sensing. I wonder if there are other wavelengths (not the communication related wavelengths) that might also be valuable.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great question! We scan the universe at all frequencies to collect a wide range of useful information. I would assume that we could use other frequencies for detection.
DeleteI've read about LIDAR and microwave 'radars'.
Here's a simple, two page summary of military use of the electromagnetic spectrum: Spectrum
Lidar, if it acts like it does to produce topographic maps for instance, could in real time provide range, travel direction and speed. That seems useful.
DeleteThe focus on IR and visual is because you can detect objects without either emitting - the sun is doing the emitting for you! The suns light wavelengths are too small to go through clouds, rain, etc. though.
DeleteFor most of the others one side has to be emitting and the resolution is low if the wavelength is too big.
LIDAR is usually pretty limited in range and would be an active source the enemy can home on. Many self driving car applications can actually ditch lidar because stereo cameras are accurate enough.
I was thinking further about LIDAR and it isn't truly passive that's correct.
DeleteThe UAVs need to be low observable too, although I might focus on mimicking birds more than traditional stealth. The next trick becomes how to be useful on offense. Directed energy is emitting and can be tracked too. Even a stealthy missile is probably least stealthy at launch. It pretty much cuts out the embarked helo. I have heard the Zumwalt guys talking about that already.
ReplyDelete"The UAVs need to be low observable too"
DeleteGoes without saying!
"although I might focus on mimicking birds more than traditional stealth."
The only way to mimic a bird is to have a speed of 20 mph, or whatever birds fly at, and an erratic, inconsistent flight path which do not make for a tactically useful flight profile.
"embarked helo"
Helos are useful only for ASW and only in permissive environment.
Pigeons fly at 90 km/h. In WW2 the Royal Australian Corp of Pigeon Signals had a strength of 60,000 birds.
DeleteIf your ship was sinking to send a radio distress call would have Japanese bombers answering. Pigeons were used. They cannot be intercepted.
There has been speculation about the Ford EMALS system being very noisy electromagnetically. I wonder if this is a valid criticism, and if the Chinese DC EMALS system fitted to the Fujian would behave in the same way?
ReplyDelete"EMALS"
DeleteA few years ago, former CNO Greenert stated that EMALS was unshielded and acted as an electromagnetic beacon.
Whether the Chinese version is shielded or not is unknown.
Might be wise to capture some Sigint once Fujian gets an air wing on board. If you could correlate emissions with aircraft launches it might give you some good ideas for a tailored sensor, or even a specially tuned missile seeker. Fits in nicely with the passive concept.
DeleteI know if I was on the Chinese side I would definitely be doing that to the Ford to see if there was an opportunity to develop something sneaky.
Seems like this would be a good use of the Zumwalts as test ships. They're already stealthy (as goes in our Navy), have lots of room for equipment ( get rid of the hanger) and plenty of power for various new test systems.
ReplyDeleteMy instincts are skeptical on the feasibility this one, but I like the concept and see absolutely no reason to at least design a prototype, although it's not entirely clear what role this ship would have, maybe AAW?
ReplyDeleteWere I King of the Navy, I'd say give it a shot.
"My instincts are skeptical on the feasibility"
DeleteFair enough. What aspect troubles you?
All the individual 'pieces' of the puzzle already exist. It remains only to package the whole thing together. The potential benefits of being able to detect stealth aircraft and missiles at long range and the ability to deny the enemy the use of anti-radiation missiles would seem well worth the attempt.
What are your concerns?
Performance, essentially.
DeleteThe current approach to warship design is quite dumb (euphemism of the day here) so trying to figure out a Better Way To Do Things is important, but active sensors are very good nowadays, and I worry whether a fully passive warship wouldn't end up having suboptimal performance, since as you know in battle suboptimal is just another word for sunk.
That said, this is what prototypes are for.
"Performance, essentially. ... That said, this is what prototypes are for."
DeleteWe already know what the capabilities and limitations of the existing sensors are. What we don't know is how far we can extend those capabilities by building large versions. The F-14 optical system could detect a bomber at a hundred miles. If we build an optical system, say, ten times bigger with ten times the resolution, how far does that extend our detection capabilities? That's what testing and prototyping is for. That aside, I'm sure that engineers could easily calculate the performance gains for any type and size sensor.
The only real unknown is how to package and integrate the systems and to determine what the overall system limitations are - weather effects, in particular.
And, remember, debilitating effects such as weather work both ways. If you can't see through that storm, neither can the enemy see you. If the enemy want's to use, say, radar to see through that storm then you know exactly where they are without having to radiate yourself.
This honestly seems as near zero risk as I can imagine. The system will work. The only question is just how well it will work.
"The only question is just how well it will work."
DeleteAnd that's exactly my question!
(Not expecting you or anyone else here to have the answer, of course.)
As an example, if you fired a sea-skimming missile at a ship like this and one at a Burke, would the difference be significant? What if you fired two at the same time?
Of course it would be expensive to do and would depend on the type of missile, distance, etc., but at least we'd learn something useful.
" if you fired a sea-skimming missile at a ship like this and one at a Burke, would the difference be significant?"
DeleteWhat difference would you expect to see? I don't think anyone would think we couldn't see a missile at 15-20 miles (the horizon limit), perfectly well with optical sensors so what kind of a difference would you expect? WWII naval gun optical rangefinders worked perfectly well at those ranges so today's electrically aided optics ought to be even better.
I'm at a loss to understand what your concern is other than just a vague, "what if" kind of concern. Give some specific concern you think might be an issue. As I said, all the individual components already exist and have been thoroughly tested and understood. There's not much that's unknown.
ComNavOps, a very good idea/concept! I have always been leery of active radar and radio communications (like waving a light and shouting "here I am, shoot me!"). With optical scopes, note that CORONA in the 1960s managed to fit a scope lightweight and small enough to fit into a satellite with excellent resolving power at 100 miles or so. Another unexplored passive option might be sound detection warning (nondirectional) if the incoming hostile is subsonic.
ReplyDelete"sound detection"
DeleteThat's fascinating although even high subsonic aircraft are absolutely silent. The noise of the jet engine is projected out the back and the aircraft arrives before the sound. I've experienced it and it's an absolutely eerie sensation. The aircraft flies by in total silence and then several moments later, the noise 'flies' by after the aircraft is gone.
Still, for aircraft flying at angles or for UAVs or helos, sound would be a possible detection method. You can hear helos coming miles away. The -53's, for example, literally shake the ground as they approach. Even the -60s are easy to hear coming.
It would be interesting to see how far away aircraft could be acoustically detected with very sensitive receivers.
The speed of sound in water is 1500 m/s. Five times that of air. Therefore sonar should detect it earlier for anything near the ocean.
DeleteA passive ship can launch emitter drones that put out radar signals to be collected by the ship.
ReplyDelete"The F-14 Tomcat (and other aircraft – no need to list them) had optical systems that were reportedly capable of detecting bomber size aircraft out to a hundred miles or so. "
ReplyDeleteAn IR sensor's range is weather dependent. Sun also affects IR detection greatly.
After F-14, US basically gave up IRST in fighter jets while Soviet system still keeps it even today, for instance, SU-27 has integrated IRST. China has adopted this Soviet tech path thus J-10, J-16, and J-20 all have integrated IRST. Among US fighters, only F-35 has integrated IRST.
Unlike F-35 and J-20, both have integrated IRST and EODAS, F-22 have neither. This means while facing J-20, especially in good weather, it will be spotted first by J-20. F-35's problem of facing J-20 is that it cannot fly high and fast. From top down, F-35 is not as stealth as looking straight forward.
Maybe I'm a bit slow and missing something, but all those sensors on the vessel will be limited by the horizon. Which is what 4.8km at sea level at 7.5 metres still under 11km, far to close for meaning full defense. So you would have to have UAV's to extend your range which need to be controlled, send and receive signals.
ReplyDelete"and missing something"
DeleteYes, you are missing a fundamental understanding of sensors and their targets.
Any sensor that is not over-the-horizon capable has a horizon range that is a function of sensor height. For a ship, the sensors are typically placed high on the superstructure, on the order of 60 to 100 feet or so. This places the horizon limit out to 12 to 20 miles or so.
The target's height also extends the nominal horizon range. Even a sea skimming missile flies at an altitude of 10-30 meters. Combined with the ship's elevated sensor height, the horizon range can, again, be out to 20+ miles.
You're also missing the fact that horizon range is a limit ONLY for horizontal sensing. If the sensor looks "up" a bit, which is where most targets of interest are, the range extends from the curvature of the earth to infinity. An enemy aircraft flying at, say, 30000 ft would be detectable at hundreds of miles. So, that sensor that has a horizon range limit when looking parallel to the sea has a huge potential range when looking slightly up. In that case, the range is limited only by the sensors ability to discriminate the target from the background.
Aegis radars, for example, are horizon limited but can detect and track targets at altitude out to hundreds of miles.
"We are mired in the past. It’s long past time for a paradigm shift in warship design."
ReplyDeleteIf we are going that far outside the box, then maybe we consider surface ships of the future as 'second rate', or follow-on forces only to be used in a more permissive environment. Should the 'battle line' of the future consist of submarines? The oceans ARE becoming more transparent as technology progresses, but subsurface craft have and will continue to hold advantages for the forseeable future. They are the ultimate passive platforms. Maybe SSGNs are the future. We talk about the surface ships, not the carriers as being the shooters today. So what if all those VLS cells filled with strike weapons were submerged tomorrow? Needing large numbers of these vessels, maybe the pattern isnt the behemoth SSGNs of today, but smaller, say 75-100 cell versions. Maybe nuclear powerplants arent even required. We know that the magical data networks arent somthing to be relied upon, so maybe (disposable??) surface craft or buoys with those passive sensors could be included to help them enlarge their veiw beyond their acoustic capabilities.
Im not one to join in with those saying that carriers and surface ships are obsolete. Not at all. But I can see where shifting to more of a subsurface focus holds potential advantages...
"If we are going that far outside the box"
DeleteThat far outside the box????? You recall that ships from the beginning of time have used 100% passive, optical systems (eyeballs and, later, telescopes) with 360 degree coverage, right? This is not new technology!
We abandoned optical (eyeball) systems when radar appeared but we have paid a price in doing so. The McCain and Fitzgerald collisions could have been avoided with the use of lookouts!
Outside the box? What I'm proposing is solidly inside the box at the very center of the box! The only difference is using mechanical-electrical aids instead of just eyeballs!
"Should the 'battle line' of the future consist of submarines?"
DeleteSubmarines are hugely important and powerful but they do have significant limitations. You can't launch aircraft from them, they can't escort a convoy, they can't provide anti-aircraft/missile defense, they can't provide ballistic missile defense, they can't board a ship during blockade actions, they can't provide naval gunfire support, they offer no visible presence (to the extent you believe 'presence' is effective), etc.
They also have a severe sensor range limitation. Surface ships mount sensors 50-100 feet up their superstructure for greatly extended range. A sub's sensor is one foot above the sea and often limited in range by waves and swells.
I want more subs and many more SSGNs but they don't replace surface ships.
If we could develop and effectively deploy this technology and build an ‘invisible warship’ it would immediately render all the world’s navies - including our own - obsolete - much as the Royal Navy’s HMS Dreadnought did when it was launched in 1906.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thought…..
Sweden claims to have done part of this with the Visby's radar stealth. We just need to add the other stealth aspects and the passive sensing.
Delete‘Just’ - Do you know to what extent do these technologies actually exist or are they still ‘aspirational’ as people say these days?
DeleteAs you know from your own research while trying to answer your own question, almost all of the technologies currently exist and are fielded. For example, almost every modern warship has optical and IR sensors, just not mounted in the numbers or distribution required for 360 degree, continuous search and track. Acoustic stealth technologies such as isolation and rafting, Prairie/Masker, etc. were installed on Perrys and Burkes. Optical fire control systems have long existed such as the Mk110 gun fire control on the LCS or the optical fire control on every WWII ship. And so on.
DeleteBut you know all this from your own research. Is there a specific technology you have a question about?
I'd like to see the Navy produce a full scale 'testbed' vessel, much as the clever Swedes did before committing to series production of the Visbys, but incorporating the 25 years of advances in holistic low-visibility technology since the first of the Visby class was laid down.
DeleteThe Visbys of course are very small coastal protection vessels, so much of the technology - eg the composite sandwich hull construction - may not be directly transferable or scalable to a frigate-size warship, but I'd like to see some work done on a tumblehome hull form using a combination of timber laminates and titanium. A ship built from these materials would be fast, light and highly corrosion resistant, so no more need for chipping and painting, which the Navy seems not to prioritize anyway.
Separately, it's unclear to me why we don't make more use of titanium in naval shipbuilding (I mean other than for pipework) - eg protecting exposed gun mounts against shell splinters etc. where the additional weight would be inconsequential, and the additional cost would be minimal.
"I'd like to see some work done on a tumblehome hull form using a combination of timber laminates and titanium."
DeleteWhy a tumblehome hull? The Navy's Zumwalt has demonstrated that tumblehome hulls have some significant seakeeping problems. The Navy has issued sailing limitations on Zumwalt in certain seas and states.
Why titanium? What properties make it suitable for hull construction? What is titanium's resistance to explosive shock and penetration from missiles, shells, and shrapnel? The generic statement that titanium is "strong" does not mean that it has properties desirable for combat hull construction where explosions are anticipated. The Wiki article about titanium points out both the strengths and weaknesses of titanium and the weaknesses make me doubt its use in surface ship hulls but I'm not a metallurgist so I can't be sure. I'm assuming there's valid reasons why it's not used in surface ships.
"titanium"
DeleteA couple of reasons why titanium may not be used routinely on surface ships:
"Titanium is generally 20-40 times more expensive than steel per unit weight.
Titanium's scarcity and complex extraction processes contribute to its higher price."
This was the same concept Pierre Sprey had for the next gen of fighter aircraft instead of the F-35. Fast transients with REAL stealth by concentrating on passive sensing.
ReplyDeleteYou can make the plane out of all the stealth materials you want but once you start radiating, it's over.
Of all CNO's posts, this is the most important.
ReplyDeleteThis is the game-changing technology that the US Navy needs to adopt.
Lutefisk
Here is an idea : a totally passive sensor suite for subs .passive sonar in the depths ( active sparingly used ) and passive systems above : (radar sparingly used ) but with IRST, secure communications, sensors as described above . The sub would do reconnaissance and possibly it's only function.
ReplyDeleteThe navy should consider a protype sub if this concept is worthwhile and a CONOPS.
Delete"passive systems above"
DeleteGiven the foot or so that a periscope/sensor mast sticks above the water, what would you think the sensor range is?
If a sub did gather some information, how would you think it would transmit that information somewhere useful?
The design of the sub should involve research for new a new & redesigned sub and sensor suites.
DeleteA sub could launch UAVs for transmitting and recon ? As "BA1959" mentions in his post about other wave lengths in the electro magnetic spectrum should be considered ,but what about for secure communications ? Of course CONOPS should be followed. Just thinking about future sub designs and this may not be feasable.
The range of the UAV signal transmitted would be limited ?
Delete"new & redesigned sub and sensor suites."
DeleteYou need to do some serious research about sensors, field of view, packaging, submarine ops, and communications.
Submarines are effective because they STAY HIDDEN. Sticking sensor masts up all the time, launching UAVs, and frequently transmitting is how a sub will be quickly found and destroyed.
A submarine sensor mast is very small. You simply can't fit a decent size sensor in it.
A sensor mast horizon is about the distance to the next wave. The sensor range is quite limited unless you're just looking up.
I like that you're exploring ideas but you need to put some fundamental thought into this.
Before you build a prototype warship, this idea needs a land-based proof-of-concept. The problem with telescopes is that they have quite narrow fields of view, and if you're using them as primary detection, being clever about where you point them is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think you need a hierarchy of them. You start with a "fish-eye" that stares at the whole upper hemisphere. Its job is to keep track of the sun, the moon and the "practical horizon" - the actual horizon, and other things that enemies can hide behind but can't come through, such as land masses. Most of your interesting targets will appear at the practical horizon, so you want to watch it thoroughly.
Then there are clouds, which targets can appear through. Using IR helps with that, but you still need to watch them. Appearing out of the sun will be effective, so you need to watch that area, and avoid the random motions of the ship pointing your sensitive optics into the sun, which will damage them.
You watch the areas that need it with intermediate telescopes, and you have a bunch of high-magnification scopes with narrow fields of view for identifying targets. You want humans for checking identification, but you need software to do the coarse stuff.
Putting together the proof of concept probably needs a mixture of engineers, from astronomers to fire-control experts. It's a somewhat new field of engineering as far as I know, so there's more of a need for ingenuity and different perspectives than lots of money, at the start.
"problem with telescopes is that they have quite narrow fields of view,"
DeleteA conventional, hand-held telescope, yes. However, we have wide angle optical devices that can image a hemisphere or half the universe in a single image! I suspect that resolution suffers with that kind of field of view but I would envision a handful of wide-view optics doing scanning and then narrow-view optics for tracking just as is done with radars.
"Appearing out of the sun will be effective"
Not really. We have routine optics/filters that allow us to take detailed images of the sun so scanning for a possible target simply requires the proper filter and frequencies.
"It's a somewhat new field of engineering as far as I know,"
Yes and no, not really. For example, the LCS Mk110 gun uses purely optical fire control so we already know how to do that.
In industry, it's common practice to use robotics that use optical imaging to identify "targets", like a piece of steel, to be picked up. In QA/QC, optical scanning looks for imperfections in a surface which is no different, in concept, than looking for an airplane or missile which is just an "imperfection" in the background sky.
As I've said, all the individual components and technologies already exist. It's just a matter of scaling, fine tuning for this specific application, and then integrating them into a coherent whole. Yes, it will take some work but there's nothing really new. We could have test sensors installed on an old cargo ship within a month, if we wanted to, and begin testing. Float a modified cargo ship at sea and send various targets at it under various conditions and see where the weaknesses are. Within six months we could have a very good idea of how it all works.
Ah yes, the good ole AN/AXX-1 Television Camera System (TCS), a bonified "Peeping Tom." I am quite certain that we can improve the TCS capability much in the same manner that the James Webb Space telescope was improvement on the venerable Hubble. If I recall, the detail that was displayed on the TCS was pretty detailed for the time. (Identification Friend or Foe (IFF), Brilliant Weapon [Automatic
ReplyDeleteTarget Aquisition], Continuous Tracking Capability [Visual].
I'm sure the good folks at NASA could help develop a robust optical tracking system.
What are the limitations of passive sensors and how do you overcome them e.g. they will not give range unless using several widely separated to enable triangulation.
ReplyDelete"unless using several widely separated to enable triangulation"
DeleteNot all that much separation. As you know, the WWII Iowa class battleship 16" mounts used optical rangefinders on their 'ears' which were separated only by 50 ft or so and they worked perfectly fine. Similarly, the Mk38 main directors used optics which were separated by a similar distance. Other USN rangefinders had even less separation.
Alternatively, an optical tracker could be paired with a laser rangefinder.
Optical systems really don't have the limitations that people often believe. We're just not used to considering them as main sensors.
Without building a new ship, this boils down to extreme EMCON. Why not test it in Fleet exercises?
ReplyDelete"boils down to extreme EMCON."
DeleteWell, that's part of it but the objective is to produce a ship that encompasses TOTAL stealth (not just EMCON) AND can detect enemy targets while remaining undetected.
"Why not test it in Fleet exercises?"
Absolutely! A mock up ship definitely ought to be tested in exercises! There are many weapons, sensors, doctrine, and tactics that ought to be tested in exercises but the Navy refuses to conduct even slightly realistic testing.
True the physical portions of stealth require a new ship. However, just having a battlegroup commander issue orders that he cannot modify or get immediate feedback from will be a challenge. And getting a CO and ships crew that can operate totally in the blind will really be a challenge. So let's crawl (issue good orders), walk (independent crew), and lastly try to run.
DeleteAlso I have not heard of anyway to hide a 78 (DDG-1000) Mega Watt heat source contrasted against a realtively cool ocean surface temp. I think even a passive ship will need a combined arms approach that takes out large area infrared surveillance systems.
Tactics, tactics, tactics!
"commander issue orders that he cannot modify or get immediate feedback from will be a challenge."
DeleteI assume you're referring to the extreme EMCON requirement? That's what doctrine and pre-mission planning is for. You don't need to communicate. We've become accustomed to the verbal diarrhea of modern command and control but it's not needed. If some extreme, unforeseen change of circumstance absolutely requires communication then a commander can still broadcast. The receiving ship gives away nothing by receiving the communication. If two-way comm is absolutely required then you do it and hope for the best. This has always been the way of combat.
"getting a CO and ships crew that can operate totally in the blind will really be a challenge."
During the Cold War, we trained to launch entire carrier air strikes without a single transmission. We've forgotten what we were once capable of and have come to believe that it's no longer possible.
"I have not heard of anyway to hide a 78 (DDG-1000) Mega Watt heat source contrasted against a realtively cool ocean surface temp."
I have wondered about this but have been unable to verify that it's actually a problem. Do you have any data documenting that this is even a problem?
As far as mitigating one's heat signature, the NBC water washdown system is excellent for that.
I am sorry I do not see the present Navy personnel able to act on their own and know how to do things or even figure them out.
DeleteThis is the Navy that didn't realize that constant bearing with decreasing range could be a problem. Who didn't even call the Captain to the Bridge when the range decreased.
Not to mention the other ship that had helmsmen that could not correct configure their control stations in the world's busiest channel. And whose Captain couldn't follow established bridge command flow.
Lastly helmsman on the RIB craft that disobed a direct order to leave and then the CO surrenduring his patrol craft without a fight to the Iranians.
I don't see these personnel, or the organization that developed them, being able to issue high level goal orders and then keeping their hands off. Nor do I see their subordinates being able to think on their own without calling for CYA of their proposed actions.
How about passive sonar for surface targets? It works for submarines. How about a towed sonar for surface ships, to detect surface targets as well as submarines?
ReplyDelete"How about passive sonar for surface targets?"
DeleteAny passive sensor that works!
For air surveillance I think your UAV model is the way to go to go truly passive with respect to the warship; Satcomm links can feed data from those long endurance UAV's to the warships; If the aircraft get within a certain radius bubble time to light it up and go active. The Air Force is testing 80+ hour endurance UAV's now with 400+ lb. payloads (cost measured in millions, not tens or hundreds per). Navy has shown no problem adopting prior airforce UAV's, like the insanely priced Global Hawks, so a smarter priced long endurance UAV, perhaps with some smaller ones that are ship launched for non-Carriers could build a very large and effective bubble radius that could use many forms of active and non-active so long as the ships themselves don't radiate (and you can't make the pattern bubble with any active emitters on uav's predictable that oh yes, triangulate those 4 uav's and we have a flotilla in the middle). that takes care of surface at least.
ReplyDelete