Continental Defence Corvette

[oldcpu]

Except that drone warfare also encompasses underwater drones that are effectively long range torpedoes that can cruise for months, or park themselves on the bottom at levels the subs can't reach, that can follow orders or act indepently.

One must also thou ,note for the defense against torpedoes, and hence the defence against "drones that park themselves on the bottom" has never been greater in terms of defense.

ASW capable surface warships in the more technology advanced nations stream behind their ships towed arrays that are not only effective in detecting submarines, but also more effective at detecting torpedoes (and ergo underwater drones). I dare say more effective vs torpedoes and underwater drones - as those drone devices need to move fast to intercept.

This means the drones cavitate more, massively increasing the probability of their detection by warships. And the more technology advanced warships now have either dedicated launchers (or even use existing launchers such as MASS) that fire devices into the water in front of the torpedo/drone path to proximity detect said drone/torpedo and explode by such (or simply explode automatically upon water entry), disrupting/stopping the torpedo/underwater done attack. In other cases, such MASS fired devices, upon water entry, just jam the sonar of the underwater decoy/torpdoes.

Further, modern arrays towed behind warships can also jam/deceive detected cavitating drones/torpedos.

So just as there are new attack methods, so are there new defense systems. Systems which can be effective, but obviously require training, skill, and good maintenance to be effective.

As to whether such defensive systems will succeed? That is difficult to tell.

What does recent history tell us about drones/missiles in naval conflict?

Ukraine War: Everyone knows of the Russian loss of the Moskva due to a Ukrainian Neptune missile. However what was noted from that was the Moskva had major deficiencies and probably should not have been at sea..

• her CIWS guns had maintenance issues (and not functional)
• at least one of her short range SAM systems had issues
• her ESM system antiquated (likely manual tuned as opposed to automatic scan for threats)
• her radar system did not function well when her satcom operating
• her crew was inexperienced in all aspects, from operating the equipment to conducing basic firefighting. Further, my recollection from readings is the Russian philosophy is to carry a small number of dedicated firefighters and not train the entire crew in firefighting, where the western philosophy is train the entire crew
• Russian intelligence purportedly did not know the Neptune missile could be used so Moskva was not expecting that threat.
• Moskva had no frigate escorts. Western philosophy is to deploy frigates with larger class of warships to bolster AAW and ASW
• there were no Russian AWACs flying to aid Moskva in air detection.

now look at Red Sea and Gulf of Aden

For MONTHS western naval ships have been under day after day after day of attack by air drones and by sea skimming missiles and ballistic missiles. None of these warships have been hit.

Why ?

The west has training, procedures, resources, and higher maintenance on their equipment. The western forces have:

• satellite detection of short range ballistic missile launch
• carrier based AWACS coverage detecting sea skimming missiles and likely drones
• high maintenance and higher training
• multiple frigates protecting each other
• capable sensors, capable long range anti-air missiles, medium-range missiles, short range-missiles, medium calibre guns, and CIWS, all with anti-air functionality
• jammers in some cases that jammed the drone control.
• decoys to counter (chaff/IR ) .. .Nulka

Yes - merchants ships were hit , but the warships that were targeted were not hit.

So while your point made is VERY valid - and your point that drones are a REAL threat, and they must be countered, I argue that some effective defensive measures are already in place and more under development (which I won't mention in this already long post)

 

[Kirkhill]

One must also thou ,note for the defense against torpedoes, and hence the defence against "drones that park themselves on the bottom" has never been greater in terms of defense.

ASW capable surface warships in the more technology advanced nations stream behind their ships towed arrays that are not only effective in detecting submarines, but also more effective at detecting torpedoes (and ergo underwater drones). I dare say more effective vs torpedoes and underwater drones - as those drone devices need to move fast to intercept.

This means the drones caveat more, massively increasing the probability of their detection by warships. And the more technology advanced warships now have either dedicated launchers (or even use existing launchers such as MASS) that fire devices into the water in front of the torpedo/drone path to detect said drone/torpedo and explode by such (or simply explode automatically upon water entry), disrupting/stopping the torpedo/underwater done attack. In other cases, such MASS fired devices, upon water entry, just jam the sonar of the underwater decoy/torpdoes.

Further, modern arrays towed behind warships can also jam/deceive detected cavitating drones/torpedos.

So just as there are new attack methods, so are there new defense systems. Systems which can be effective, but obviously require training, skill, and good maintenance to be effective.

As to whether such defensive systems will succeed? That is difficult to tell.

What does recent history tell us about drones/missiles in naval conflict?

Ukraine War: Everyone knows of the Russian loss of the Moskva due to a Ukrainian Neptune missile. However what was noted from that was the Moskva had major deficiencies and probably should not have been at sea..

• her CIWS guns had maintenance issues (and not functional)
• at least one of her short range SAM systems had issues
• her ESM system antiquated (likely manual tuned as opposed to automatic scan for threats)
• her radar system did not function well when her satcom operating
• her crew was inexperienced in all aspects, from operating the equipment to conducing basic firefighting. Further, my recollection from readings is the Russian philosophy is to carry a small number of dedicated firefighters and not train the entire crew in firefighting, where the western philosophy is train the entire crew
• Russian intelligence purportedly did not know the Neptune missile could be used so Moskva was not expecting that threat.
• Moskva had no frigate escorts. Western philosophy is to deploy frigates with larger class of warships to bolster AAW and ASW
• there were no Russian AWACs flying to aid Moskva in air detection.

now look at Red Sea and Gulf of Aden

For MONTHS western naval ships have been under day after day after day of attack by air drones and by sea skimming missiles and ballistic missiles. None of these warships have been hit.

Why ?

The west has training, procedures, resources, and higher maintenance on their equipment. The western forces have:

• satellite detection of short range ballistic missile launch
• carrier based AWACS coverage detecting sea skimming missiles and likely drones
• high maintenance and higher training
• multiple frigates protecting each other
• capable sensors, capable long range anti-air missiles, medium-range missiles, short range-missiles, medium calibre guns, and CIWS, all with anti-air functionality
• jammers in some cases that jammed the drone control.
• decoys to counter (chaff/IR ) .. .Nulka

Yes - merchants ships were hit , but the warships that were targeted were not hit.

So while your point made is VERY valid - and your point that drones are a REAL threat, and they must be countered, I argue that some effective defensive measures are already in place and more under development (which I won't mention in this already long post)

I accept your points.

But.

How fast can you build ships and subs?

How fast can I build torpedoes, drones and rockets?

 

[oldcpu]

I accept your points.

But.

How fast can you build ships and subs?

How fast can I build torpedoes, drones and rockets?

Yes. Its been that way pretty much since the invention of the torpedo re attack devices and larger warships. This is an issue going back >100 years in WW-I, but in a different form today.

Later, in WW-II we saw this with aircraft (to attack ships) where aircraft were massively less expensive than the warships they attacked, but they could sink warships.

In early part of WW-II we saw Prince of Wales sunk with Repulse, both together, by air attack.

Then ... At the end of WW-II there were suicide aircraft with people controlling them (arguably smarter than AI) and while they achieved some results, massive numbers failed and were shot down. The defense was shifting, becoming more capable.

Now I am not saying do not go for drones. My view is just the contrary for air drones (under human control). I am a big fan of UVX type warships equipped with drones. But I do note this theater of war is evolving, so the RCN needs to decide if it should be on the cutting edge of this, or if it should proceed with some caution.

Consider sea drones. All the enthusiasts massively underestimate the massive difficulty with command and control, and drone target identification (to prevent friendly fire) to ensure such do not make massive mistakes in a confusing maritime environment. I make a prediction here, the issues here will take a long time to solve for sea drone dynamic attack tasking and accuracy.

In regards to new technology, ...the RCN was on the cutting edge in the entire world, in deploying large helicopters in a small frigate (the St.Laurent and Annapolis class). That was IMHO a gamble that paid off. However today, the RCN is short warships, and further hemorrhaging the very sailors needed to man the limited number of ships.

So while I agree RCN needs to take a hard look at UVX type warsthips, I also note RCN has started drone procurement for Halifax class and hopefully that continues for Harry De-Wolf and the Supply ships/AORs. And continues further for the River Class and for the future corvettes.

The drones thou, are useless IF there is no sea going platform from which they can be launched. And the majority of naval missions, no matter how hard one tries, can not be done with drone after drone. its more complex than that.

Drones DEFINITELY have their place, but so do other systems.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes. Its been that way pretty much since the invention of the torpedo re attack devices and larger warships. This is an issue going back >100 years in WW-I, but in a different form today.

Later, in WW-II we saw this with aircraft (to attack ships) where aircraft were massively less expensive than the warships they attacked, but they could sink warships.

In early part of WW-II we saw Prince of Wales sunk with Repulse, both together, by air attack.

Then ... At the end of WW-II there were suicide aircraft with people controlling them (arguably smarter than AI) and while they achieved some results, massive numbers failed and were shot down. The defense was shifting, becoming more capable.

Now I am not saying do not go for drones. My view is just the contrary for air drones (under human control). I am a big fan of UVX type warships equipped with drones. But I do note this theater of war is evolving, so the RCN needs to decide if it should be on the cutting edge of this, or if it should proceed with some caution.

Consider sea drones. All the enthusiasts massively underestimate the massive difficulty with command and control, and drone target identification (to prevent friendly fire) to ensure such do not make massive mistakes in a confusing maritime environment. I make a prediction here, the issues here will take a long time to solve for sea drone dynamic attack tasking and accuracy.

In regards to new technology, ...the RCN was on the cutting edge in the entire world, in deploying large helicopters in a small frigate (the St.Laurent and Annapolis class). That was IMHO a gamble that paid off. However today, the RCN is short warships, and further hemorrhaging the very sailors needed to man the limited number of ships.

So while I agree RCN needs to take a hard look at UVX type warsthips, I also note RCN has started drone procurement for Halifax class and hopefully that continues for Harry De-Wolf and the Supply ships/AORs. And continues further for the River Class and for the future corvettes.

The drones thou, are useless IF there is no sea going platform from which they can be launched. And the majority of naval missions, no matter how hard one tries, can not be done with drone after drone. its more complex than that.

Drones DEFINITELY have their place, but so do other systems.

My belief is that the platforms at sea from which drones operate do not have to be crewed.

They can be anchored or they can use active positioning to hold station or they can relocate. And those are present day realities.

Oil rigs mske good launch sites. As do light ships. Why not thses cruising USVs powered by sun and wind?

 

[oldcpu]

My belief is that the platforms at sea from which drones operate do not have to be crewed.

They can be anchored or they can use active positioning to hold station or they can relocate. And those are present day realities.

Oil rigs mske good launch sites. As do light ships. Why not thses cruising USVs powered by sun and wind?

My own view is such would work in the first week or two of a conflict. Only in first week or two. Maybe less.

... but after that the Command and Control of such would fail, as they would be jammed, and their means to navigate jammed, regardless whether they use very low frequency, or HF, or satellite communications.

They would then, IMHO, no longer be useful. They would be in many respects useless.

We have a long ways to go with AI (imho) before we can do away with command and control ... and so my view is different from yours.

I believe that modern warfare has evolved such that unmanned platforms at sea are not survivable nor accurate much beyond the initial conflict start, and the command and control (and guidance) for those that do survive, will be disrupted, they will be deceived and can not tell friend from foe, and further that without command and control they can not be properly retasked.

 

[Kirkhill]

My own view is such would work in the first week or two of a conflict. Only in first week or two. Maybe less.

... but after that the Command and Control of such would fail, as they would be jammed, and their means to navigate jammed, regardless whether they use very low frequency, or HF, or satellite communications.

They would then, IMHO, no longer be useful. They would be in many respects useless.

We have a long ways to go with AI (imho) before we can do away with command and control ... and so my view is different from yours.

I believe that modern warfare has evolved such that unmanned platforms at sea are not survivable nor accurate much beyond the initial conflict start, and the command and control (and guidance) for those that do survive, will be disrupted, they will be deceived and can not tell friend from foe, and further that without command and control they can not be properly retasked.

I believe that miniaturization is turning all munitions beyond 30 mm in calibre into brilliant munitions and loitering munitions.

And jamming seems to be simpler to achieve on the local scale than on a broad scale.

 

[Kirkhill]

WW2 torpedo engagements were at ranges of 3 to 5 km.

Bismark and Hood guns had a range of 40 km but an effective range of 20 km.

Our current standoff distances have progressed a lot further than that. We don't need to close. We can stand off, observe, wait and act over long distances in a timely manner.

 

[oldcpu]

WW2 torpedo engagements were at ranges of 3 to 5 km.

Bismark and Hood guns had a range of 40 km but an effective range of 20 km.

Our current standoff distances have progressed a lot further than that. We don't need to close. We can stand off, observe, wait and act over long distances in a timely manner.

I agree.

What you note was seen with the attacks in Operation ASPIDE and Operation Enduring Freedom, where as I noted, warships were under continual attack from launch locations that were located far away. It is a testament to the layered defense and readiness of the western naval forces that they demonstrated they could succeed (in self defence), where the Moskva did not.

The issue with drone's thou, is they need to be controlled. If their link to their controlling station is broken, they typically become far less effective - as AI is not up to the stage where it can fully take over.

... with regard to stand off, observe, wait ... that was present in WW-II in carrier action from the start of the war (using aircraft) ... and even some battleships carried aircraft. ... Today, even corvettes and smaller can carry drones.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree.

What you note was seen with the attacks in Operation ASPIDE and Operation Enduring Freedom, where as I noted, warships were under continual attack from launch locations that were located far away. It is a testament to the layered defense and readiness of the western naval forces that they demonstrated they could succeed (in self defence), where the Moskva did not.

The issue with drone's thou, is they need to be controlled. If their link to their controlling station is broken, they typically become far less effective - as AI is not up to the stage where it can fully take over.

... with regard to stand off, observe, wait ... that was present in WW-II in carrier action from the start of the war (using aircraft) ... and even some battleships carried aircraft. ... Today, even corvettes and smaller can carry drones.

We're getting closer.

I think the difference between you and I is the perception of the rate of change and the impact on the threat.

I agree that there are limits to current technology.

But I also think that many of limits are being pushed daily by the application of existing solutions in novel applications.

The shore can send more things farther and faster with more intelligent internal guidance systems.

On the other hand ships at sea have two primary constraints: their speed and their steel hulls. You can only jam so much stuff in there.

Thus, I believe, the attraction of intelligent barges that will play follow the leader.

Western armies and air forces have stated they have been caught flat footed by technologies they thought were on the 10 year planning horizon showing up on the battlefield yesterday.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here is a drone that does not need a human in the loop or a radio link.

Both things are possible but not necessary. Once launched into the hunting area it searches for a target and matches the image its camera sees to the pictures in its memory and attacks those it has been authorised to attack. That is a 10 kg class warhead in the 20 to 50 km range bracket

BRIMSTONE

Combat aircraft armed with the BRIMSTONE weapon offer flexibility, precision and the ability to engage multiple targets with a single mission load. When used from a fixed wing platform, BRIMSTONE provides a rapid response for close air support and counter insurgency that is not possible from...

www.mbda-systems.com

The PrSM missile being fielded to address ships from HIMARS launchers sends a 90 kg class warhead 500 to 1000 km in under 15 minutes and doesn't have the magazine limitations.

2-4 MUSD apiece.

 

[Lumber]

I find this reminiscent of the 10 year plans of the 1920s and 30s with their battleship build plans and debates about aircraft, aircraft carriers and whether aircraft could defeat battleships.

Then 1939.
Then 6 years later the world had changed completely.

We are confronting a similar rate of change.

Yes, the world built dreadnoughts. Canada didn't. Then the world built aircraft carriers. Canada didn't. Then the world built nuclear attack submarines and boomers. Canada didn't.

Canada has never been at the cutting edge of game changing evolutions in naval warfare. We lack the both the economic capacity and the need. Big players like the US and China (and Russia, to a lesser extend) have both the economic capacity and the need because of their interest in world-spanning influence. Smaller countries as in Europe and South Asia have need because they are so close to their "foes" that every possible threat is something they have to be prepared for.

Canada, on the other hand, gets to chose (to some extend) what threats we will chose to face. Don't want to deal with shore based drones and CDCM sites? Stay away from the coast. Don't want to deal with mines? Avoid choke points and the continental shelf. We have the capacity to dictate on our own terms exactly what our support can and will be to our allies.

So, instead of wasting time, effort, money, and the few hulls we do have on experimental technologies on the chance it turns out to be the next major game changer, we should focus our limited capacity on known capabilities and become reliable experts in that.

 

[Lumber]

Except that drone warfare also encompasses underwater drones that are effectively long range torpedoes that can cruise for months, or park themselves on the bottom at levels the subs can't reach, that can follow orders or act indepently.

You can't follow orders when sitting at the bottom of the ocean or transiting at beyond sub-crush depths because you can't receive orders at that depth.

It also includes operating in a permanently refreshing field of sonobuoys that can relocate themselves to targets of interest.

Sonobuoys that can relocate themselves? A sonobuoy is expensive enough as it is and they only last a few hours. Now you're talking about a sonobuoys that not only have a propulsion system, but enough endurance to merit relocating? We already have something that does this; it's called submarines. Besides, sonobuoy ranges aren't that great. You want some kind of cueing before you deploy a field. Putting enough sonobuoys out to blanket the approaches to NA would bankrupt a small nation.

Now, this may have been misleadingly worried and what you really meant was an autonomous sonobuoy layer, and I would counter that similarly. The ranges of sonobuoys is poor, and surface vessels are slow. If you want to sow a field because you've been cued to the presence of a possible enemy submarine, well that's what we have MPAs for.

And now there is an effort to scatter uncrewed radars across the Atlantic to give the same kind of coverage that sonar seems to promise.

All I see are stationary and undefended targets.

 

[GR66]

Yes, the world built dreadnoughts. Canada didn't. Then the world built aircraft carriers. Canada didn't. Then the world built nuclear attack submarines and boomers. Canada didn't.

Canada has never been at the cutting edge of game changing evolutions in naval warfare. We lack the both the economic capacity and the need. Big players like the US and China (and Russia, to a lesser extend) have both the economic capacity and the need because of their interest in world-spanning influence. Smaller countries as in Europe and South Asia have need because they are so close to their "foes" that every possible threat is something they have to be prepared for.

Canada, on the other hand, gets to chose (to some extend) what threats we will chose to face. Don't want to deal with shore based drones and CDCM sites? Stay away from the coast. Don't want to deal with mines? Avoid choke points and the continental shelf. We have the capacity to dictate on our own terms exactly what our support can and will be to our allies.

So, instead of wasting time, effort, money, and the few hulls we do have on experimental technologies on the chance it turns out to be the next major game changer, we should focus our limited capacity on known capabilities and become reliable experts in that.

You're right. There are all kinds of new technologies and types of autonomous systems being developed to fulfil an almost endless number of roles in emerging warfare. We can't afford to try and be cutting edge on all of them.

But ignoring emerging technologies all together in favour of known capabilities risks leaving you behind the curve and unprepared to take advantage of these technologies when you need them. Like it or not uncrewed systems are going to be a significant part of warfare going forward. If we don't start learning how to develop, employ and integrate these systems now then we risk being outclassed in their use in time of war.

It's similar to what happened when the Army abandoned the air defence role. Now when we want to re-establish that capability we're virtually starting from scrap due to the loss of institutional knowledge of the skills required to fulfil that role. It's not just a case of purchasing new kit when you want a new capability. There is a whole ecosystem from logistics, maintenance, concepts of operation, TTPs, coordination with allied forces, etc. that all have to be learned and practiced in order to be proficient.

Of course we should focus our efforts on those applications that are key to Canadian requirements. Do short range kamikaze USV's fit with our requirements? No. However I'd argue that ASW has always been and will continue to be a key capability for the RCN. We already have skill there and the "known capabilities" required to fulfil that role, but the area we need to protect is huge and can't possibly be covered by the number of traditional assets that we have available. That is where I think the RCN should focus its efforts in autonomous systems...UUV's and possibly USV's that act as additional sensor nodes to support our traditional platforms.

It's not like these technologies are exotic and unknown entities. In fact we have Canadian companies like Cellula that have been developing these capabilities for years and are providing products to our allies already.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One must also thou ,note for the defense against torpedoes, and hence the defence against "drones that park themselves on the bottom" has never been greater in terms of defense.

ASW capable surface warships in the more technology advanced nations stream behind their ships towed arrays that are not only effective in detecting submarines, but also more effective at detecting torpedoes (and ergo underwater drones). I dare say more effective vs torpedoes and underwater drones - as those drone devices need to move fast to intercept.

This means the drones cavitate more, massively increasing the probability of their detection by warships. And the more technology advanced warships now have either dedicated launchers (or even use existing launchers such as MASS) that fire devices into the water in front of the torpedo/drone path to proximity detect said drone/torpedo and explode by such (or simply explode automatically upon water entry), disrupting/stopping the torpedo/underwater done attack. In other cases, such MASS fired devices, upon water entry, just jam the sonar of the underwater decoy/torpdoes.

Further, modern arrays towed behind warships can also jam/deceive detected cavitating drones/torpedos.

So just as there are new attack methods, so are there new defense systems. Systems which can be effective, but obviously require training, skill, and good maintenance to be effective.

As to whether such defensive systems will succeed? That is difficult to tell.

What does recent history tell us about drones/missiles in naval conflict?

Ukraine War: Everyone knows of the Russian loss of the Moskva due to a Ukrainian Neptune missile. However what was noted from that was the Moskva had major deficiencies and probably should not have been at sea..

• her CIWS guns had maintenance issues (and not functional)
• at least one of her short range SAM systems had issues
• her ESM system antiquated (likely manual tuned as opposed to automatic scan for threats)
• her radar system did not function well when her satcom operating
• her crew was inexperienced in all aspects, from operating the equipment to conducing basic firefighting. Further, my recollection from readings is the Russian philosophy is to carry a small number of dedicated firefighters and not train the entire crew in firefighting, where the western philosophy is train the entire crew
• Russian intelligence purportedly did not know the Neptune missile could be used so Moskva was not expecting that threat.
• Moskva had no frigate escorts. Western philosophy is to deploy frigates with larger class of warships to bolster AAW and ASW
• there were no Russian AWACs flying to aid Moskva in air detection.

now look at Red Sea and Gulf of Aden

For MONTHS western naval ships have been under day after day after day of attack by air drones and by sea skimming missiles and ballistic missiles. None of these warships have been hit.

Why ?

The west has training, procedures, resources, and higher maintenance on their equipment. The western forces have:

• satellite detection of short range ballistic missile launch
• carrier based AWACS coverage detecting sea skimming missiles and likely drones
• high maintenance and higher training
• multiple frigates protecting each other
• capable sensors, capable long range anti-air missiles, medium-range missiles, short range-missiles, medium calibre guns, and CIWS, all with anti-air functionality
• jammers in some cases that jammed the drone control.
• decoys to counter (chaff/IR ) .. .Nulka

Yes - merchants ships were hit , but the warships that were targeted were not hit.

So while your point made is VERY valid - and your point that drones are a REAL threat, and they must be countered, I argue that some effective defensive measures are already in place and more under development (which I won't mention in this already long post)

I can see the day where the Mk 54 torpedo tubes on the RCD are launching fast counter measure/hunter killer drone/torpedo hybrids