• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Who needs sailors anyway?

How big a USV would it take to float one 20 ft container?


The new missile is 2.2 meters long, the body diameter is 115 mm while the wingspan is 300 mm, weight launch being 35 kg. No indication about the maximum speed was provided. Halcon proposes a 20-foot container as launcher, 60 missiles being hosted in a 6×10 cells matrix, one section of the container hosting the power supply system, the secure data-link to keep communications with the Skymaster, and the electronics to sequence fire the missiles. A Skynex battery can include up to four Oerkikon Revolver Guns and four SkyKnight launchers, a total of 240 missiles being thus available.

Each container can launch in sequence up to 20 missiles, the system being able to handle up to 80 missiles in flight at the same time. According to data provided by Halcon, the SkyKnight can cope with rotary wing aircraft and UAVs up to 10 km, against fixed wing aircraft at 8-10 km, against precision guided munitions and cruise missiles at 6 km, and against rocket-artillery-mortar threats at 4 km range.

I can't help but think a bunch of USVs with 60 SAMs in the 5 to 10 km range, would have an effect on the ability of the Houthis to dominate the Red Sea.

1716385747301.png
 
As soon as you have munitions and some kind of targetting/control system on board, which has all kinds of secret and top secret components on it, they want security onboard.

As soon as you have people there for security then you all the hotel facilities (which needs people to operate), and very quickly you get back to a normal ship setup.

I suspect it's different compared to a UAV because it's pretty straightforward to intercept a ship and board it where a UAV needs to crash. The international laws for operation of ships is also totally different, and loitering for a day in the air is very different than weeks of transits and weeks in op area, and what that does to the actual equipment which means maintainers on board to keep the equipment reliable so when you push a button for things to go something happens.
 
As soon as you have munitions and some kind of targetting/control system on board, which has all kinds of secret and top secret components on it, they want security onboard.

As soon as you have people there for security then you all the hotel facilities (which needs people to operate), and very quickly you get back to a normal ship setup.

I suspect it's different compared to a UAV because it's pretty straightforward to intercept a ship and board it where a UAV needs to crash. The international laws for operation of ships is also totally different, and loitering for a day in the air is very different than weeks of transits and weeks in op area, and what that does to the actual equipment which means maintainers on board to keep the equipment reliable so when you push a button for things to go something happens.

All of which can be mitigated by operating USVs from a mother ship - preferably with a floodable well deck.

Ellida Concept

1716392731782.png

Fearless Concept

1716393020683.png

Ellida seems to lean more towards a Bay Class or Rotterdam.
Fearless seems to lean more towards a large Absalon.

Ellida, in my opinion, would fit better as part of a Task Force, relying on escorts for protection.
Fearless seems to more suited to independent action with a small on board raiding force.

My guess is that the Fearless concept has a higher unit cost than the Ellida.
 

Where is the balance between machine automation and operator in the loop? Isn't that a question that the Navy has already answered?
Sort of. The CIWS could have automated functions but there is still a human in the loop. That’s one system - the question would be multiple (up to hundreds/thousands) of UxVs - does a human need to vet all of the potential kinetic actions? If so, that person (really, people) would quickly become task-saturated.

Or you change the policy to allow automated targeting and execution, which understandably isn’t going to be politically comfortable. If govts are ok with changing the policy then that question pretty much goes away, but I highly doubt that the current western democracies will want to do that.

When a helicopter, or a boat is launched the pilot or cox'n has limited authority. Those limits may be broad or tight depending on a variety of assumptions made by the command authority about the competence of the pilot or cox'n.

On board, commands such as "Weapons Free" or even "Carry On" imply delegation of authority.

Wouldn't managing UxVs fall within the same spectrum?
Your examples are valid but they’re 1 or 2 things at once (helo and boat) which is pretty easily managed compared to a swarm of UxVs with kinetic abilities.
 
Sort of. The CIWS could have automated functions but there is still a human in the loop. That’s one system - the question would be multiple (up to hundreds/thousands) of UxVs - does a human need to vet all of the potential kinetic actions? If so, that person (really, people) would quickly become task-saturated.

Or you change the policy to allow automated targeting and execution, which understandably isn’t going to be politically comfortable. If govts are ok with changing the policy then that question pretty much goes away, but I highly doubt that the current western democracies will want to do that.


Your examples are valid but they’re 1 or 2 things at once (helo and boat) which is pretty easily managed compared to a swarm of UxVs with kinetic abilities.

Interesting.

How many UxVs can you put on a single kill switch? Do they all RTB? Or what happens if they all fall out of the sky at the same time?
 
Interesting.

How many UxVs can you put on a single kill switch? Do they all RTB? Or what happens if they all fall out of the sky at the same time?
That would completely depend on the company but I doubt anyone would talk about it in an unclassified forum.
 
How big a USV would it take to float one 20 ft container?
I am sure these guys can help you

LYNXMPEGB02X2.JPG
 

An option for enhancing recruitment: housing support, same issue in Australia as here.
Arguably worse there bc most of their bases are near their big cities, so housing costs are higher
 

WASHINGTON — The US Navy is seeking information from industry about imminently available medium unmanned surface vessels it can use for test and evaluation of certain payloads within a year of a contract being awarded, the service said in a June 17 solicitation.

The Navy’s unmanned maritime systems program office “is contemplating an accelerated approach with industry to leverage existing, manned or unmanned surface ship designs that can be modified to enable rapid delivery of an unmanned or optionally unmanned surface ship capability,” according to the notice.

The service defines “medium” USVs as between 45 and 200 feet in length and under 500 tons in displacement. The vessels also must be capable of carrying specific government furnished payloads. (The characteristics of the payloads for the new solicitation are not publicly available.) The June 17 solicitation states the Navy wants vendors capable of providing up to seven MUSVs if requested.

Responses are due by June 28.

Solicitation on June 17
Response by June 28
7 vessels within a year.
Government furnished payloads

<500 tons
45 to 200 feet.


Swiftships with Anduril or Leidos software?

 
The Netherlands is looking to potentially deploy ASW USVs from their new Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigates. May be equipped with either VDS or a dipping sonar and will be deployable from the Frigate's Mission Bay.


This type of technology along with UUV's and UAV's with ASW capabilities are ways that I think the RCN could significantly expand our domain awareness/ASW capabilities despite our manning challenges. These platforms could be deployed not only from the River-Class Destroyers but also from the AOPS and (hopefully) from the MCDV replacements.
 
I think a number of you will find this interesting. If we are going to build up a RCFA to man the support ships, here are two examples of things to avoid doing.

 

The Navy should pivot to focusing on "offensive" rather than "defensive" tactics and do so my mixing in more robots, a naval warfare scholar said Sept. 26.

Jeffrey Kline, professor of the practice of military operations research and director of the Naval Postgraduate School’s Naval Warfare Studies Institute, said the Navy should reconsider its force design and “move it more to a hybrid fleet, to fully embrace and capitalize the technologies that are available.”

He calls this concept: "sea denial, sea control."

“We’re really entering into the robotics age of warfare,” he said in a presentation at the National Defense Industrial Association’s Future Force Capabilities Conference and Exhibition. “Now, we feel that our current fleet is somewhere between the aircraft and the missile age." He proposed a "bimodal" fleet, "which still leverages that missile age construct, but now starts to introduce uncrewed and crewed systems in a way [that] provides us the advantage of both offense and numbers.”
 
That sounds awesome from the viewpoint of someone with no requirement to repair or maintain things. That's generally where uncrewed ship capabilities fall apart.

Judging from news reports conventional navies are having difficulty keeping their Cold War hulls from falling apart in any case. And replacements are too expensive for any national budget.

Plan B is required.
 
Judging from news reports conventional navies are having difficulty keeping their Cold War hulls from falling apart in any case. And replacements are too expensive for any national budget.

Plan B is required.
Plan A isn't working because we aren't putting aside the money and time to do repairs, or planning ahead to replace them before we need 1M+ hours of DWP work.

Adding more complex ships isn't a Plan B, it's doubling down on Plan A, but with LEDs.

Addressing the maintenance deficit and ops tempo that doesn't allow repairs is needed for that to actually work, regardless of whether you have crewed, reduced crewed, optionally crewed or autonomous ships.
 
Back
Top