# Think Outside the Hull - USNI



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2017)

An interesting article.  Does it apply to Canada?


Key Elements:

What does it take to design a fleet?

"Fleet architecture consists of those activities that support the fleet design, to include:

• Presence, surge forces, and force packages

• The processes through which forces are prepared for and recover from deployment

• Bases and facilities that support or host material components of the fleet

• Material components of the fleet, such as ships, aircraft, personnel, weapons, and sensors 4"


The Missile Is the Primary Weapon

Ship Characteristics Are Not That Critical.

The Maritime Operations Center Is a Weapon System

Capabilities Other Than Ships Can Be Decisive.

The Navy’s Strategy Is Based on Factors Other Than Ships.

"Given the length of time the U.S. defense procurement system requires to field new ship types, the Navy cannot base its strategy for maintaining a technology edge on building new types of ships. Rather, it must focus on building ships in a way that they can be easily and rapidly modified to accommodate new sensors and weapons. Weapon and sensor packages must be designed so they can be mixed and matched and easily installed."




> Think Outside the Hull
> 
> 
> Thinking outside the paradigms of hull shapes and numbers of ships can lead to some interesting concepts for fleet design. First and foremost, modern naval warfare is all about missiles.
> ...



https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-06/think-outside-hull


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2017)

Part 2




> Capabilities Other Than Ships Can Be Decisive. History shows us that naval battles generally occur in the littoral and that geographic features, such as islands, often influence the battle. Moreover, land-based forces can play significant roles. This was true from the Battle of Midway to the Falkland Islands. On the other hand, what also was true was that when land-based forces, especially air forces, came into play, they often were coordinated poorly with naval forces. In future missile-based naval combat, geographic features can be useful to the side that has a fleet design and architecture that can exploit them. They can mask forces from enemy missiles, and they can be turned into threats to the enemy by placing land-launched antiship missiles or electronic deception equipment on them. The Navy has significant land-based aviation resources, such as the P-8A Poseidon and the MQ-4C Triton, and the Air Force potentially could provide long-range bombers and other assets. This is to say that future naval battles likely will not be purely ship-versus-ship engagements. Therefore, fleet design and architecture must take this into account. Unfortunately, while mentioning them tangentially, the three congressionally mandated studies essentially factor out land-based forces. This is a mistake. Fleet design and architecture should integrate them from the outset. This reflects our fourth outside-the-hull insight, which is that in future fights at sea, capabilities other than ships likely will be critical or even decisive.
> 
> The Navy’s Strategy Is Based on Factors Other Than Ships. In his “Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority,” the CNO identifies the speed of technology development as one of today’s key driving forces. This highlights the challenge of maintaining a technical lead in weapons and systems. Given that both Russia and China have robust research-and-development programs (including programs to steal and copy U.S. and allied technology), it is reasonable to think that any technological advantage the U.S. Navy attains will be temporary. This suggests that the Navy must be able to field new advances more rapidly than the opposition; in other words, it must assimilate new technology and concepts quickly.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jun 2017)

Assuming your network is going to function correctly against a peer enemy that will be targeting your network.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jun 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Assuming your network is going to function correctly against a peer enemy that will be targeting your network.



Agreed.  So how do you harden the network?  Redundancy?  Multiple nodes?  Multiple modes?  Hardwired?  Electronic? Audio? Visual? Line of sight? Broadcast? Highspeed?  Lowspeed? All of the above?

Personally I think it is all of the above.  Semaphore, Heliograph, Aldis, Laser, Radio, Cable and Fibre Optics.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jun 2017)

I suspect that an island hopping strategy using Army and Air Force assets to create safe resupply points would be the way to go. I wonder if Coastal defenses will reappear when laser and other active defenses improve?


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jun 2017)

One thing which comes to mind reading this is that speed is going to be much more important. While ships will not be able to outrace mach 6 anti ship missiles or even torpedoes coming in at over 40 Kts, the idea of being able to bring missile carriers in and out of theatre, massing forces by bringing lots of launchers into range or dispersing your forces to get the launchers out of range will still be important.

The best way to combine high speeds, long range sensors and other elements of this sort of missile drive kill web might be to take to the sky, in the form of more naval aircraft. Being high up gives you greater sensor range, and aircraft, even large cargo aircraft, are at least an order of magnitude faster than any conceivable ship. Naval task forces might be best accompanied by large UAV/UCAVs which can scan over the horizon, sprint out to provide missile coverage (or missile defense) and perform other tasks. An interesting question is if they should be career launched, land based or even amphibious (seaplanes), or even if using aerostats (blimps) would be a viable alternative.

Ships themselves may have to be "disposable" since armouring and protecting a ship against a mach six antiship missile might be too complex, a series of "Liberty ships" with the sort of deck space for air delivered missile "boxes" might be a useful way of thinking of a surface warship in the future. Once again there will have to be an analysis of size, speed and costs of these ships; do we want "Corvettes" with one or two containers on deck, or larger ships with a dozen missile containers?

Finally, the analysis seems to be silent on submarines. New classes like the USS Virginia and the Indian Arrant class demonstrate that smaller boats of 6-7000 tons displacement (essentially large attack submarines) can carry a large and versatile missile battery as well. If the RCN had 9 Arrant equivalent submarines, we could have one off each coast at all times, a considerable improvement over the current situation.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2017)

Thinking about this even more, if you can deliver ISO containers full of missiles via helicopter, why not deliver "everything" by container. Shipping by ISO container revolutionized transportation around the world, but modern navies haven't fully embraced that yet. This would also have lots of benefits ashore as well, including being able to use port facilities almost anywhere, being able to easily ship things across Canada from coast to coast if needed, and support of land forces using containerized freight would also be easy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jun 2017)

The original containers were much smaller, focusing mostly on 10', 20' containers may be the way to go for the Navy. I suspect the economic impact of losing a VLCS to war would be sobering. I suspect the navy fears to many eggs in one basket and with good reason. I could see a "Harbour defense vessel" Basically a freighter with good cranes and small well deck & helicopter deck. It would arrive at the resupply harbour, deploy anti-torpedo defenses (nets, hydrophones) , anti ship missile defense, patrol craft, both manned and unmanned. Also Underwater Autonomous Vehicles for patrol the entrances. The mothership would have some defensive armament to help bolster those defenses. So your mobile armada support would consist of one of these ships, a docking ship to provide mobile dock, a submersible ship to act as a drydock, Munition ship designed to quickly reload missiles and ammunition to warships and can handle reloading 2 ships at once. A landing ship to deliver ground forces to secure the harbour from the land side and deliver more land based defenses. This "harbour" would be the transition point for civilian ships to deliver supplies and the AOR's to resupply. Air cover would have to be from a CV unless there is a airfield to hold the fighters and other aircraft.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jun 2017)

Thinking about this a little bit more, I suspect the biggest sticking point of all would be finding a suitable helicopter that can carry containers full of missiles, supplies or other things that would also work in a naval environment. For picking things up and carrying them around, the "Skycrane", suitably updated and navalized would seem to be ideal, at least in carrying things from the shore to the ships and back again. The KMax might be a suitable contender for the shipboard support helicopter, especially the robotic version experimented with by the USMC (although it does not seem suitable to be used for other roles like ASW), and the ARES concept *might* be suitable as well, depending on the size and weight it can be scaled up to carry.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jun 2017)

Israel Just Launched A Containerized Ballistic Missile From The Deck Of A Ship
Long-range weapons the size and shape of shipping containers can turn almost any ship quickly into an impromptu missile boat.

BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK JUNE 21, 2017

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11723/israel-just-launched-a-containerized-ballistic-missile-from-the-deck-of-a-ship



> According to IAI, a notional complete containerized LORA battery would include a command and fire control container and four launchers, each with four missiles, plus four reload vehicles. On land, trucks would carry these components, giving them additional mobility and the ability to escape a first strike. At sea, the self-contained nature of the system means a customer could easily load it onto any vessel with the appropriate space, quickly turning it into a stand-off weapon platform. Since the command section has all the equipment necessary to launch the missiles, no other modifications to the ship are necessary.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Jun 2017)

I don't know if I would trust high-tech weapons system from a company that manages to make three spelling mistakes on a single slide that only has ten words on it in total.  [


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jun 2017)

Silly bugger lawyers.  Always assuming words mean something.   ;D

Meanwhile IAI hires mathematicians, physicists, engineers and rocket scientists - none of whom can write a complete sentence in their own language - but strangely enough their missiles can knock speeding bullets out of the sky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jul 2017)

Tomahawk6 on the Japanese XASM-3 got me to thinking again - sorry.

Ohio Class SSBN - armed with up to 24 Trident missiles in individual silos
Ohio Class SSGN - 22 of 24 silos converted to take a Vertical Launch System for 7 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles

LA Class SSN - armed with a mix of torpedoes, Harpoons and Tomahawks launched from 21" torpedo tubes
Virginia Class SSN Blocks I to IV - armed with 21" torpedo tubes for torpedoes, Harpoons and Tomahawks and 2x Virginia Payload Tubes each capable of launching 7x Tomahawks.
Virginia Class SSN Block V - enhanced with the Virginia Payload Module to carry an additional 4x Virginia Payload Tubes each capable of launching 7x Tomahawks.

I wonder if the Virginia Payload Tube could be containerized and dropped into the sea by air or by ship?

A submersible container with 7 missiles (potentially Ramjet Tomahawks?) that could be dropped into contested waters or anywhere in the high seas within range of the targets of interest.  Kind of like a strategic Captor mine.

The effect without the need for a vessel and crew.

















http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NUWC-Newport/What-We-Do/Detachments/Virginia-Payload-Tube-Facility/

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NUWC_Newport/VPTF/VPTF_external_trifold.pdf


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jul 2017)

That is a lot of land attack there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2017)

The days of manned subs may be numbered, take away crew and the sub becomes smaller and quieter. Finding ways for the sub to passively listen and correctly interpret noise will be the main challenge.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2017)

A future navy will be a very 3D force, more so than even today. Submarines, surface ships, aircraft (including high altitude, long duration UAV and UCAV vehicles) and even elements based in space will all nave to be networked together to find and prosecute targets. Thinking back to the late stages of the SDI ("Star Wars") program of the 1980's, there was a conceptual proposal to orbit a thousand or more "brilliant pebbles" kinetic energy interceptors so there would always be a large number in view of the Soviet missile fields. It turned out that there was no real or conceptual "centralized" command and control architecture capable of running the system during wartime, so the small interceptors would have been programmed to communicate with each other to coordinate autonomous and independent attacks against ICBM's and SLBMs.

This suggests that the Navy may have to ensure that they have some similar sort of methodology to keep all the interconnected pieces communicating and coordinating without recourse to centralized command and control nodes. This may be especially important with robotic subs, surface ships and UAV's, and especially with robotic weapons like the putative missile launching robot Chris suggested upthread.

So it isn't "just" about how future warships are going to be designed and built, but also how they are going to work together to get the job done.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jul 2017)

Interesting if true.....

The Chinese seem to be claiming that they have real-time, instantaneous, under-water communications over long ranges (hundreds of miles anyway).




> China is looking to guard its territorial claims in the Asia-Pacific from what it considers U.S. aggression, and Beijing's latest maritime tool could catch the Pentagon's submarines faster than ever.
> 
> China claims it released 12 unmanned drones, known as gliders, into the depths of the South China Sea to collect environmental data, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported Sunday. The outlet described the high-tech glider, known as Haiyi (meaning "sea wings" in Mandarin Chinese"), as *an underwater robot* that was more efficient, more durable and used less energy than its predecessors, all while *instantly relaying data underwater*, a feat not even the U.S. has mastered. The scientific devices were not weaponized but could be used to instantly detect U.S. submarines traveling in waters China claims as its own.
> 
> *"The data is being transmitted back to a land-based laboratory in real time," the expedition's chief scientist, Yu Jiancheng, told the Xinhua News Agency, according to an article published Wednesday by the South China Morning Post. The piece quoted Yin Jingwei, dean of the college of underwater acoustic engineering at Harbin Engineering University, as saying the project's success, if true, "is definitely a breakthrough."*




Interesting that even the prof at Harbin is cautious in his assessment.


http://www.newsweek.com/china-military-leave-us-navy-dead-water-new-sea-drones-642436


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2017)

For most Canadian needs, we could go to a "cut down" version of the dedicated car carrier hull. The large internal volume can be purposed for many different roles (and indeed a design capable of receiving containerized freight or weapons via helicopter can be reconfigured on the fly, so to speak).

I can see this being used as the hull for the AOR replacement(s), and "magazine" ships to support naval task forces, with missile load outs for whatever the main mission/threat is, but guidance etc delivered from other ships or platforms. With the missile pods taken out, the ship could be used to transport troops and equipment, or deliver humanitarian aid.

A flexible hull like that could be used by the naval reserve, to add "surge" capabilities to the RCN and be the 80% solution to many of our needs (specialized ships are still needed for things like patrolling the arctic waters and ASW warfare, for example).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Jul 2017)

Do you have any idea how poorly those car carriers sea keep, or what they look like on radar?

No.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jul 2017)

They do suffer from severe top hamper, a cutdown version would reduce that effect, but the radar image would still be significant. With the advent of unmanned refueling UAV, I wonder if we will eventually see smaller refueling carriers, that fly only drones and helicopters. They would provide refueling services and possibly communications and surveillance UAV's for a fleet or region. I suppose the takeoff and landing characteristics of a refueling UAV would be the deciding factor.

As for underwater comms, I worked with SFU Underwater Research Lab in the 90's while they were trying to develop autonomous underwater vehicles. It is incredibly hard to send data through the ocean, even for a short distance. I suspect any underwater comms the Chinese have is limited to very simple information and the rest will be dumped through a surface antenna on occasional pop ups.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Jul 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> They do suffer from severe top hamper, a cutdown version would reduce that effect, but the radar image would still be significant. With the advent of unmanned refueling UAV, I wonder if we will eventually see smaller refueling carriers, that fly only drones and helicopters. They would provide refueling services and possibly communications and surveillance UAV's for a fleet or region. I suppose the takeoff and landing characteristics of a refueling UAV would be the deciding factor.
> 
> As for underwater comms, I worked with SFU Underwater Research Lab in the 90's while they were trying to develop autonomous underwater vehicles. It is incredibly hard to send data through the ocean, even for a short distance. I suspect any underwater comms the Chinese have is limited to very simple information and the rest will be dumped through a surface antenna on occasional pop ups.



That is my guess, too. I suspect the Chinese have worked out a ULF method of cueing UUAVs to come to the surface to get/dump traffic. If that is not the case, I cannot figure out how they have bent/broken the laws of physics.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jul 2017)

Do the Chinese use VLF comms for their subs?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Jul 2017)

:dunno:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jul 2017)

We used to use the USN VLF signals for mining exploration, you take instruments to measure the signal and about 2 months later the USN would release details on the signal strength and directions as I recall. From there you would have to adjust your readings and then any variations would be potential ore bodies.


According to this site they have 2 sites and looking at them on google they are/where active https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VLF-transmitters


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jul 2017)

Curiousity.

Does an antenna need to stand proud of the ocean surface (perpendicular and supported by a buoy) or can a floating wire on the surface send and receive signals?  And how difficult/easy would that be to detect?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Jul 2017)

VLF antennas are very long. They trail behind their vehicles. I am unaware that the antennae orientation does much of anything, but I have no practical experience with that band of radio waves.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Jul 2017)

If the Chinese found a way to use VLF signal, there is no way the Americans don't know about it. You just can't hide a VLF signal.

The US VLF Subnet used to operate with such power level that no one on earth was unaffected  ;D. The submarines needed to reel out at least 2 Km of antenna behind them to get any signal, and even then, the antenna had to be "floated" to within 100 feet of the surface, because below that, the signal was unreliable, and the speed of transmission was so slow that very short coded instructions were all that could reliably be passed on. If they are using sound - well, it doesn't travel that fast underwater and again, the amount of power that would have to be put behind the signal is incredible. There's a reason we mostly use tethered vehicles for underwater work.

If the Chinese have found a "real-time" way of relaying unmanned underwater vehicle mass data, they have discovered some new rules of physics that has eluded the rest of mankind so far.

I seriously have my doubts.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jul 2017)

Thanks to both.  My education continues.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Aug 2017)

With modern computing power, I suspect the "gliders" passively listen, if they hear a noise that fits a certain profile like a sub, they monitor it for a bit, pop to the surface and transmit their data, they likely also pop up now and again to reset their navigational fix, tell home their alive and accept minor updates.

One option is that you could have bottom laid torpedoes that sit quietly, then the underwater drone, patrols the area, if it gets a target, it might go to the surface, transmit information, if given the go ahead it sends out a signal to the nearest torpedo that wakes up and goes into a predetermined hunt pattern for the target.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Aug 2017)

A more 3 Dimensional Navy will have a much greater airpower component. While this example uses USAF assets, there is no particular reason that any Navy can't develop or purchase air assets for similar roles. The large Japanese and Russian seaplanes are one way of going about this, but land based aircraft like the Poseidon or the Aurora can also fulfill many of these roles as well. In the future large UCAV's capable of staying aloft for many days might also fulfil some of these roles as well:

https://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/B-1B-Rules-The-High-Seas-10-15-2011.asp



> *B-1B Rules The High Seas*
> by James Dunnigan
> October 15, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Aug 2017)

https://youtu.be/FC9EJhs0pc0

https://www.expouav.com/news/latest/meet-naviator-drone-can-fly-just-easily-can-swim/







A "Drone" (RPS) that can fly and can swim.

And - perhaps just as curiously - can be controlled by radio both in the air and underwater - that long trailing wire seen in the you tube video at the top probably offers a clue.  It is not a tether.  It is free at the distal end.




> October 25, 2016
> 
> Meet the Naviator – A Drone that Can Fly Just as Easily as it Can Swim
> 
> ...



How fast could a swarm of "drones", operating as a multi-nodal network, transmit a message across the entire swarm, and, how far could that network spread the message?


----------

