Author Topic: Who needs sailors anyway?  (Read 21429 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Who needs sailors anyway?
« on: April 08, 2016, 14:16:37 »

Quote
The autonomous ship "Sea Hunter"docked in Portland, Oregon, after its christening ceremony CREDIT: STEVE DIPAOLA/REUTERS

Quote
US military launches self-piloting ship

 Reuters
7 APRIL 2016 • 9:21PM

The US military on Thursday christened an experimental self-piloting ship designed to hunt for enemy submarines, a major advance in robotic warfare at the core of America's strategy to counter Chinese and Russian naval investments.

The 132-foot-long unarmed prototype, dubbed Sea Hunter, is the naval equivalent of Google's self-driving car, designed to cruise on the ocean's surface for two or three months at a time - without a crew or anyone controlling it remotely.

That kind of endurance and autonomy could make it a highly efficient submarine stalker at a fraction of the cost of the Navy's manned vessels.

"This is an inflection point," Deputy US Defense Secretary Robert Work said in an interview, adding he hoped such ships might find a place in the western Pacific in as few as five years.

"This is the first time we've ever had a totally robotic, trans-oceanic-capable ship."

For Pentagon planners such as Work, the Sea Hunter fits into a strategy to incorporate unmanned drones - with increasing autonomy - into the conventional military in the air, on land and at sea.

It also comes as China's naval investments, including in its expanding submarine fleet, stoke concern in Washington about the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier battle groups and submarines that remain critical to America's military superiority in the western Pacific.

"We're not working on anti-submarine (technology) just because we think it's cool. We're working on it because we're deeply concerned about the advancements that China and Russia are making in this space," said author Peter Singer, an expert on robotic warfare at the New America Foundation think tank.

Work said he hoped the ship, once it is proven safe, could head to the US Navy's Japan-based 7th Fleet to continue testing. His goal is to have ships like the Sea Hunter operating on a range of missions, possibly even including counter-mine warfare operations.

"I would like to see unmanned flotillas operating in the western Pacific and the Persian Gulf within five years," he said.

The ship's projected $20 million price tag and its $15,000 to $20,000 daily operating cost make it relatively inexpensive for the U.S. military.

"You now have an asset at a fraction of the cost of a manned platform," said Rear Admiral Robert Girrier, the Navy's director of unmanned warfare systems.

Developed by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the ship is about to undergo two years of testing, including to verify that it can safely follow international norms for operating at sea.

First and foremost is ensuring that it can use radar and cameras to avoid other vessels. Powered by two diesel engines, the ship can reach speeds of 27 knots.

The advent of increasingly autonomous ships and aircraft is stoking concern among some experts and activists about armed robotic systems that could identify people as threats and kill them.

Work stressed that even if the United States one day decides to arm robotic naval systems such as Sea Hunter, any decision to use offensive lethal force would be made by humans.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/04/07/us-military-launches-self-piloting-ship/
 >:D
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 209,969
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,707
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2016, 14:23:20 »
More remote sensor vessel than ship to my mind.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,454
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,903
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2016, 14:31:01 »
Cannon foder with an off-board jammer role potential... I like it.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,443
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2016, 14:41:12 »
I agree, ModlrMike.

First of all, it seems to be remotely piloted, more like a drone, than self driving like the Google car mentioned*. 

Looks to me to be remotely operated replacement of the old USNS "tuna boats" of the cold war. They will drag towed array sonars and report findings for prosecution by either surface ships, air assets or submarines.

*: It is far easier to make a self driving boat than car: the lanes to follow are a lot less stringent, all you have to do is stay in the white/beige portion of the electronic nautical charts. And collision avoidance is just a set up on the radar warning system: at "x" miles, if target has CPA of less than "a", then turn/slow down as appropriate to open CPA to "b" value. Of course you will still have a few occasional screw ups, as many small things at sea don't show up on radar, but it won't be any worse than the occasional solo sailor whose sailboat has been run over by a merchant ship that didn't see him in mid-ocean.  ;D

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,728
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2016, 15:03:56 »
First of all, it seems to be remotely piloted, more like a drone, than self driving like the Google car mentioned*. 
Looks to me to be remotely operated replacement of the old USNS "tuna boats" of the cold war.

But the article says that they are completely autonomous, no one remotely controlling it.

Quote
US military launches self-piloting ship

 Reuters
7 APRIL 2016 • 9:21PM

The US military on Thursday christened an experimental self-piloting ship designed to hunt for enemy submarines, a major advance in robotic warfare at the core of America's strategy to counter Chinese and Russian naval investments.

The 132-foot-long unarmed prototype, dubbed Sea Hunter, is the naval equivalent of Google's self-driving car, designed to cruise on the ocean's surface for two or three months at a time - without a crew or anyone controlling it remotely.

That kind of endurance and autonomy could make it a highly efficient submarine stalker at a fraction of the cost of the Navy's manned vessels.

"This is an inflection point," Deputy US Defense Secretary Robert Work said in an interview, adding he hoped such ships might find a place in the western Pacific in as few as five years.

"This is the first time we've ever had a totally robotic, trans-oceanic-capable ship."

For Pentagon planners such as Work, the Sea Hunter fits into a strategy to incorporate unmanned drones - with increasing autonomy - into the conventional military in the air, on land and at sea.

Not entirely sure that the world needs more sailors with more free time on their hands. I think I'd rather have Donald Trump as President. >:D
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 15:06:29 by cupper »
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2016, 15:06:36 »
Same way I read it cupper.

CTF 2030

Huitfeldt
Absolon
6x Sea Hunter.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,443
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2016, 15:33:12 »
I was thinking more about the anti-submarine detection portion of the job when I put it in the remotely piloted category.

The cruising around can be completely autonomous, once you assigned the "drone" ship a particular area to go and patrol, but ASW detection, classification and tracking will need the human touch for the foreseeable future. There is just too much intuition still required in order to figure out where to go andwhat to do next to best foil the efforts of a submarine, and the on board computer could not begin to do detection and recognition as fast as good sonar man. Even onboard ship's a nd submarines, the good ones can distinguish things on their headphones faster than the sonar equipment can classify and detect  ;D.

Finally, I wonder what happens if it gets pursued, then boarded and taken as prize by the ocean's equivalent of the Ferengi!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2016, 15:40:53 »
I was thinking more about the anti-submarine detection portion of the job when I put it in the remotely piloted category.

The cruising around can be completely autonomous, once you assigned the "drone" ship a particular area to go and patrol, but ASW detection, classification and tracking will need the human touch for the foreseeable future. There is just too much intuition still required in order to figure out where to go andwhat to do next to best foil the efforts of a submarine, and the on board computer could not begin to do detection and recognition as fast as good sonar man. Even onboard ship's a nd submarines, the good ones can distinguish things on their headphones faster than the sonar equipment can classify and detect  ;D.

Radio comms.

Finally, I wonder what happens if it gets pursued, then boarded and taken as prize by the ocean's equivalent of the Ferengi!

Sink the bugger!  It's only a ship.   [:D
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 201,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,314
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2016, 16:50:16 »
I agree, ModlrMike.

First of all, it seems to be remotely piloted, more like a drone, than self driving like the Google car mentioned*. 


Technically speaking, something that is remotely piloted isn't a drone.  Drone means 'pre-programmed', fire and forget...despite the misuse of the term drone nowadays thanks to...the media. 
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2016, 17:16:23 »
Technically speaking, something that is remotely piloted isn't a drone.  Drone means 'pre-programmed', fire and forget...despite the misuse of the term drone nowadays thanks to...the media.

My understanding of the terms goes something like this:

A drone follows a pre-planned course, going from way-point to way-point, and if an unforeseen obstacle crosses its path it crashes.

A remotely piloted vehicle flies where the pilot wants it to go, second by second, and if an unforeseen obstacle crosses its path the pilot has the opportunity to manoeuvre around it.

An autonomous vehicle follows a pre-planned course, that can be remotely updated, going from way-point to way-point, and if an unforeseen obstacle crosses its path it has sufficient situational awareness to take evasive action on its own prior to returning to its previously scheduled course.

My understanding of these vessels are that they are autonomous and do not require a man-in-the-loop.  If they were armed then presumably the armaments would require a man-in-the-loop at some point in the decision cycle - even if just to declare "weapons free".
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2016, 19:28:56 »
Further to this story:

Autonomous, 27 knots.

Quote
During the testing phase, the ship will have human operators as a safety net, but once it proves to be reliable, the autonomous surface vessel will manoeuvre itself — able to go out at sea for months at a time.

Program manager Scott Littlefield said there will be no “remote-controlled driving of the vessel,” instead it will be given its mission-level commands telling it where to go and what to accomplish and then software will enable it to drive itself safely.

The military initially built the diesel-powered ship to detect stealthy electric submarines, but developers say they believe it has the capability to go beyond that, including doing mine sweeps. There are no plans at this point to arm it.

“There are a lot of advantages that we’re still trying to learn about,” Littlefield said.

Among them is the possibility that the full-size prototype could pave the way to developing crewless cargo vessels for the commercial shipping industry someday, he added.


The ship was built off the Oregon coast, and moved on a barge to San Diego’s coastline to begin testing. The prototype can travel at a speed of up to 27 knots per hour, and is equipped with a variety of sensors and an advanced optical system to detect other ships, Littlefield said.

The program to develop the ship cost $120 million, though Littlefield said the vessels can now be produced for about $20 million.

There are video links at the link below.


Quote
U.S. military tests the ‘Sea Hunter’ — a 40-metre unmanned ship designed to cross oceans without a crew

Julie Watson, The Associated Press | May 2, 2016 5:08 PM ET

SAN DIEGO — The U.S. military is launching tests on the world’s largest unmanned surface vessel — a self-driving, 40-metre ship designed to travel thousands of kilometres out at sea without a single crew member on board.

The so-called “Sea Hunter” has the potential to revolutionize not only the military’s maritime service but commercial shipping — marking the first step toward sending unmanned cargo vessels between countries, according to military officials, who showed off the ship in San Diego on Monday before it was put in the water.

The Pentagon’s research arm, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, developed the ship along with Virginia-based Leidos. DARPA will test it in conjunction with the Navy over the next two years off California’s coast. The tests will largely focus on its ability to react on its own to avoid collisions with seafaring traffic.

During the testing phase, the ship will have human operators as a safety net, but once it proves to be reliable, the autonomous surface vessel will manoeuvre itself — able to go out at sea for months at a time.

Program manager Scott Littlefield said there will be no “remote-controlled driving of the vessel,” instead it will be given its mission-level commands telling it where to go and what to accomplish and then software will enable it to drive itself safely.

The military initially built the diesel-powered ship to detect stealthy electric submarines, but developers say they believe it has the capability to go beyond that, including doing mine sweeps. There are no plans at this point to arm it.

“There are a lot of advantages that we’re still trying to learn about,” Littlefield said.

Among them is the possibility that the full-size prototype could pave the way to developing crewless cargo vessels for the commercial shipping industry someday, he added.


The ship was built off the Oregon coast, and moved on a barge to San Diego’s coastline to begin testing. The prototype can travel at a speed of up to 27 knots per hour, and is equipped with a variety of sensors and an advanced optical system to detect other ships, Littlefield said.

The program to develop the ship cost $120 million, though Littlefield said the vessels can now be produced for about $20 million.

During the collision tests, the ship will be programmed to follow international traffic rules for boats of its size, Littlefield said. There are no standards for unmanned ships yet, but he believes that could change if vessels like this one make it out of the experimental stage.

The Navy over the years has experimented with a number of unmanned systems — from drone helicopters to small, remotely controlled boats launched from ships. The Pentagon’s budget over the next five years calls for investing in more high-end Naval ships, including $600 million to be invested in unmanned undersea vehicles.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/u-s-military-tests-the-sea-hunter-a-40-metre-unmanned-ship-designed-to-cross-oceans-without-a-crew?preview_id=1090081

I also think that this relates to the discussion on the F35 and the 6th Gen Fighter _

Quote
Beyond the Fighter Jet: The Air Force of 2030

In its quest to dominate the air battlefield of the future, the US Air Force may look to replace the traditional fighter jet with a network of integrated systems disaggregated across multiple platforms.

The Air Force on Thursday [April 14] rolled out the initial findings of a team tasked last year to explore options for maintaining air superiority in the future battle space. The group, the Air Superiority 2030 Enterprise Capability Collaboration Team, found that the best path forward is developing a “family of systems” to address the range of threats in a highly contested environment.

As near-peer adversaries like Russia and China continue to close the capability gap, building long-range missiles, anti-satellite and anti-aircraft weapons designed to foil US forces’ ability to penetrate, the Air Force must find new ways to dominate the air.

"The threat environment will continue to proliferate over the next 15 to 20 years, and we will face them in places and in spaces on this globe and above this globe that we don’t even anticipate right now," said Air Superiority 2030 lead Col. Alex Grynkewich on Thursday during an event hosted by the Air Force Association.

This family of systems, or “system of systems,” approach is the Air Force’s answer to the idea the US military is losing its advantage. The new strategy will include both stand-off capability and penetrating forces, with increased dependence on space and cyber to infiltrate enemy defenses and defend our own networks, Grynkewich said.

“What the adversary has done is built a whole bunch of different systems that are networked together . . . we learned over the years it takes a network to fight a network,” Grynkewich said. “It takes a network and an integrated system of systems or a family of systems in order to handle that highly contested environment in the future.”

The Air Force set aside money in its fiscal year 2017 budget request for experimentation and prototyping in the area of air superiority, Lt. Gen. James “Mike” Holmes, deputy chief of staff for plans and requirements, said during the event. The team will use this funding to explore concepts like the arsenal plane, hypersonic weapons, directed energy, autonomy, and electronic attack, the officials said.

But will the family of systems include a traditional fighter jet? Grynkewich seems to think not [emphasis added]...

The Air Force had planned to begin working on a joint analysis of alternatives with the Navy to explore a follow-on fighter jet solution, an F-X for the Air Force and an FA-XX for the Navy. But while the Navy went ahead with its AOA this year, the Air Force opted to delay the F-X effort, the service told reporters in February...
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/08/beyond-fighter-jet-air-force-2030/82767356/

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22809.msg1433232.html#msg1433232

If the Air Force can contemplate networking a swarm of unmanned air vehicles moving at 500 knot then surely the Navy can manage a swarm at 25 knots (and they don't "sink" as easily).

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,742
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2016, 10:38:16 »
logs, fishing gear, sailboats, containers, kayakers, what could go wrong......

I suspect the electronic signature of the vessel is going to be strong, which might not be a bad thing, knowing they are there can act as a deterrence and the apparent gap in the screen could be filled by a listening sub waiting for someone to try to slide through the gap. Also wondering how they would prevent the boarding and seizure of one of these? Can't use it in a littoral area without a risk of capture.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,454
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,903
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #12 on: May 03, 2016, 11:09:28 »
Also wondering how they would prevent the boarding and seizure of one of these? Can't use it in a littoral area without a risk of capture.

Web-cams to monitor the upper decks;
Electrified outer hull;
Tear-Gas extruders;
Temporary submerge ability (basically, the boat takes a quick and shallow "dive" into the water at high speed, just deep enough to submerge the upper decks, clearing it of boarders, before popping back up out of the water again);
Attack Sea-Gulls.

Lots of options.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #13 on: May 03, 2016, 11:35:19 »
logs, fishing gear, sailboats, containers, kayakers, what could go wrong......

I suspect the electronic signature of the vessel is going to be strong, which might not be a bad thing, knowing they are there can act as a deterrence and the apparent gap in the screen could be filled by a listening sub waiting for someone to try to slide through the gap. Also wondering how they would prevent the boarding and seizure of one of these? Can't use it in a littoral area without a risk of capture.

To add to Lumber's thoughts, on the detection front:

Some squawking loud, some operating at "normal" levels, some quiet.

Some drifting.  Some sprinting.  Some cruising.

The presence of the force may be known but the area of operations, its strength and its capabilities may still all be fuzzy.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 12,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,242
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #14 on: May 03, 2016, 11:47:28 »
Even onboard ship's a nd submarines, the good ones can distinguish things on their headphones faster than the sonar equipment can classify and detect  ;D.

A sonar operator needs the computer to classify.  Classification can't be performed solely on aural. 




Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,742
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #15 on: May 03, 2016, 11:53:17 »
To add to Lumber's thoughts, on the detection front:

Some squawking loud, some operating at "normal" levels, some quiet.

Some drifting.  Some sprinting.  Some cruising.

The presence of the force may be known but the area of operations, its strength and its capabilities may still all be fuzzy.

You will need some pretty good optical systems and algorithms to deal with the stuff you meet at sea. On the hovercraft we had a bit of a game going to see who would spot something first the radar operator or the lookout, kept us on the ball which is good when doing 30+ kts. It is amazing how much stuff will not show up on radar and if you do have radar on, then you are broadcasting.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,443
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2016, 10:46:57 »
You gents should stop getting a hard-on every time DARPA or NAVSEA comes up with one more of its cockamamy ideas and trials some research project.

Anybody remembers "Short-N-Fat", "Harrier Sky Hook", "Sea Knife", "SWAT", etc.?

Testing a new system by no means signifies that it will ever develop into something of import or will ever join the fleet.

Just look at the various problems Colin mentioned. They relate to safe navigation only and they already represent a formidable obstacle. That is the problem they are working on right now. And that is just the first of many problems to deal with. Now, add to that a suite of sensors to integrate (including the complexity of the tactical aspects of such expert system: In a submarine chase, some moves are actually made on a "hunch" of the captain - based on experience and in his getting inside the head of the sub driver) and ultimately some completely automated weapons systems (otherwise, what's the point of detecting).

And listen to your ideas for "self-protection" against boardings: submerging, electrified hulls, etc. What do you think these types of things would do to all your surface sensor suite? And how much more complexity of the onboard systems controlling all this will such defensive measures add?

And BTW, that DARPA dugout canoe (Long, thin and with two outriggers for stability), built the way it is specifically for speed and economy of available electrical energy may not scale up too easily, which would greatly limit both sensor suite and capacity to carry weapons. Scaling up may make it impossible to use mere electrical motors and batteries, but any other type of system would need some engineers as the reliability for continuous use is nowhere near.

Just sayin'.

In my opinion, this will only lead, in the end, to more onboard automation and better expert systems.

Oh! And Dolphin_Hunter: There may not be too many people left about from my days, but we used to do detection and classification of sonar contacts before the days of computers.  ;)  It wasn't as detailed and sophisticated as currently possible, but a good sonar man could tell you if you were going against a single screw, or double screw, nuclear or classic, and generally tell you the rough size of your contact - and some times a damn good guesstimate of range. It may be a lost art, but it used to be done.
 

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2016, 10:57:46 »
A carriage with no horse?

A ship with no sails?

How cockamamie can you get?   >:D
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,443
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2016, 11:28:12 »
A carriage with no horse?

A ship with no sails?

How cockamamie can you get?   >:D

Neither DARPA, nor NAVSEA came up with either of these ideas. [:p

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,526
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2016, 13:27:32 »
A carriage with no horse?

A ship with no sails?

How cockamamie can you get?   >:D
They must have gotten the idea from the "hospital with no patients" episode of "Yes, Minister" - oh, wait, the hospital DID have bosses ... ;D
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2016, 13:28:39 »
And DARPA is behind the curve on the development of Autonomous Vehicles as well.  The civilian world is driving that train.

DARPA has routinely gone to the civilian world to find out how to manage "robots".

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/darpa-robotics-challenge-amazing-moments-lessons-learned-whats-next
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_(2005)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge

Here are some civilian views on unmanned, robot ships - for containers.

https://www.hapag-lloyd.com/en/press_and_media/insight_page_42532.html
http://www.hrzone.com/perform/people/unmanned-ships-could-soon-be-a-reality-says-rolls-royce


And while I have your attention -  [:D

On the Shipbuilding Strategy thread you mentioned that all general purpose ships need all systems.  I question that.  If you are sailing in Task Groups, and you already have a division of labour between the AAWs and the GPs/ASWs (not to mention Cruisers, Carriers and Subs) why not plan on having ships sail in company with smaller ships, distributed systems and smaller crews.

Consider, for example, a Huitfeldt AAW sailing in company with an Absalon C&S together with a screen of 20,000,000 USD SeaHunters with on-board missiles and torpedoes.  The Absolon could be the home of a boarding team and a black-gang to maintain and operate the SeaHunters.  (And before you say it, I know missiles and torpedoes don't come cheap).

The point is that while sailors will always be necessary, the number of sailors that the RCN has available now, in my opinion, can be made more "productive", (able to do more things in more places) with better use of technology.  The other thing I believe such decentralization would result in would be more targets with fewer sailors on board that would be cheaper to operate.  That would diminish the pressure to "save the ship" at all costs.  And save lives.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2016, 13:32:57 »
PS -

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-05/06/self-driving-freight-trucks

Quote
Self-driving freight trucks have been given the go ahead to drive on Nevada's roads.

 [:)
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,443
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #22 on: May 04, 2016, 14:31:28 »
On the Shipbuilding Strategy thread you mentioned that all general purpose ships need all systems.  I question that. 

Well, I am right. If they don't have all the various systems (not the highest  end system for any category, but the level that affords them self-protection in all categories of fighting, with slight emphasis on one or two categories) then they are not general-purpose ships, are they?

Consider, for example, a Huitfeldt AAW sailing in company with an Absalon C&S together with a screen of 20,000,000 USD SeaHunters with on-board missiles and torpedoes.  The Absolon could be the home of a boarding team and a black-gang to maintain and operate the SeaHunters.  (And before you say it, I know missiles and torpedoes don't come cheap).

Disregarding your pathological fixation on the Iver Huitfled/Absalon  ;D , and dealing with the underlying argument only, it is true as a general rule that distributed systems are more resilient than concentrated ones (Or, as Scotty once put it: "The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to plug the drain"). However, here are a few points to keep in mind:

First (and foremost?), in your example, your SeaHunters will not cost you only $ 20M each (and I am not counting the cost of missiles and torpedoes) but much, much more. Why: simply put, the one DARPA just built for that price is a dinky toy and incapable of carrying anything. The small hull you see is entirely dedicated to housing the electric motor and all the electric batteries needed for the motor. It has little to no sensor systems on board - one civilian low power navigation radar, possibly a depth sounder, one  navigation GPS, one GPS "compass" system, one personal computer or its equivalent and probably one small electric helm motor and auto helm - and therefore, requires very little of the electrical power for the operation of he vessel. A military vessel would have much larger power requirements for all the sensors, computerized systems and combat systems associated with the weapons carried on board. Moreover, the very weapons you wish to put onboard would, in and of themselves, mean that you would need a much larger vessel so that there is space onboard for them. That means, again, more power, thus more batteries, thus more volume again, and so on. In a modern submarine, almost 50% of the interior volume of the sub is dedicated to the motors and batteries, and you would be hard pressed even at loitering speed to go for much more than 96 hours between snorkelling to recharge.

Just consider that many things have been predicated on improvement of batteries in our modern world, but that improvements in battery capacity, even with huge investment, as been the factor that has been the slowest to increase and there is no foreseeable breakthrough in sight.

Second: I think your scenario is off on the human factor: Your ships in the group would not only need their current engineers (and I mean both the marine systems and the weapons system ones) - so no reduction in numbers - but also have to carry the extra ones making the "boarding team/black gang for the SeaHunters (and no, you cannot use the "regular" engineering complement of the ship for that purpose: we already work them anywhere between 14 to 18 hours a day, six and half days a week when at sea - they are not taking another task on while steaming). And you would have to move those people about the various SeaHunters at sea, in say the mid-Atlantic in winter during a storm, etc. How do you do that safely? It would certainly require some form of inter-ship transport, either boats (need seamen) or helicopter (need airmen) that would require some permanent presence onboard the various SeaHunters.

Finally, your concept seems to consider that the "group" works together, which is fine. However, at that point, it means that the SeaHunters are no longer totally autonomous, sensing threats and dealing with it on their own, but rather need to "report" their findings to someone, and then wait to be delegated a task to carry out. That is one more level of complexity in their operating system.

When all this is taken into consideration, I am not sure there is any savings to be gotten.

   

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 12,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,242
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #23 on: May 04, 2016, 14:55:45 »
Oh! And Dolphin_Hunter: There may not be too many people left about from my days, but we used to do detection and classification of sonar contacts before the days of computers.  ;)  It wasn't as detailed and sophisticated as currently possible, but a good sonar man could tell you if you were going against a single screw, or double screw, nuclear or classic, and generally tell you the rough size of your contact - and some times a damn good guesstimate of range. It may be a lost art, but it used to be done.

We can still do that.  I can tell you if I have a single screw 7 bladed submerged contact, or a dual screw 5 bladed contact, etc. But I can't tell you with 100% certainty what the contact is.   We need passive information to classify.

I can also give you a range estimate based on aural contact, but I would require multiple sonobuoys in the water.   

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Who needs sailors anyway?
« Reply #24 on: May 04, 2016, 14:56:11 »
Well, I am right. .....
When all this is taken into consideration, I am not sure there is any savings to be gotten.

Well, I am.  [:D

Disregarding your pathological fixation on the Iver Huitfled/Absalon  ;D

How did you pronounce FREMM again?   With an Italian accent?

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"