Who needs sailors anyway?

[GR66]

The crewing does not change as much as you would like to think. What changes is where they are when doing operational stuff. Also consider any USV, even if large mostly expendable, as there will be minimal chance to do Damage Control.

How does the crewing not change much? From the article:

Additional attributes include USVs built to commercial construction standards , automatic RF control with respect to EMCON mission requirements, interior space for additional hardware and up to 8 personnel, autonomous operation and high speeds at Sea State 4-5, software that allows for multiple USVs controlled simultaneously, and compliance with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to enable foreign military sales.

It's important to keep in mind that these are not replacements for crewed warships. They are single task vessels meant to augment the crewed fleet in a conflict...either to provide additional missiles or to be an additional point in the sensor web. They are to be used in mass and are meant to be attritable...damage control is not a priority.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think that is easy to say for a vessel that is 10m and under, acceptable losses up to 30m, after that, people will be in shock when they lose a bigger vessel to something that was otherwise salvageable.

 

[Kirkhill]

The crewing does not change as much as you would like to think. What changes is where they are when doing operational stuff. Also consider any USV, even if large mostly expendable, as there will be minimal chance to do Damage Control.

They are looking at Offshore Supply Vessels with a crew of 8 that they can take the crew off and have the vessel continue mission.

The vessel is a civilian vessel. Typically those particular boats would be used very hard in the civilian world. I doubt that civilian operators would operate much of a Fleet Maintenance Facility. If it got beaten up too much it would replaced.

And the Modules are 40 and 20 ft ISO Sea Cans with their own very separate maintenance needs.

They are available for something like 10 to 30 million and are available used for as little 1 or 2 million after a few years of service.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You have top tier civy companies, they operate the vessels to a certain standard and get rid of them when they reach a certain age, then they get picked up by a 2nd tier company that keeps all the necessary stuff working in good order and occasional deals with the other stuff, then it's sold again to the bottom feeders, who only fix something because the Inspector has detained the vessel.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think that is easy to say for a vessel that is 10m and under, acceptable losses up to 30m, after that, people will be in shock when they lose a bigger vessel to something that was otherwise salvageable.

It's really the sticker price that is important; you can need a fair bit of shockingly expensive stuff to properly fire something on target, and really doesn't take very long before someone stops looking at an uncrewed vessel as not a writeoff.

Also, as soon as it has weapons, and associated comms and crypto onboard with some kind of sensor package, physical security is a very real consideration. Last time I was supporting discussion of a uncrewed ship with weapons it very quickly went from uncrewed, to uncrewed with security, to uncrewed with security, with DC and support for the security... to fully crewed.

 

[GR66]

It's really the sticker price that is important; you can need a fair bit of shockingly expensive stuff to properly fire something on target, and really doesn't take very long before someone stops looking at an uncrewed vessel as not a writeoff.

Also, as soon as it has weapons, and associated comms and crypto onboard with some kind of sensor package, physical security is a very real consideration. Last time I was supporting discussion of a uncrewed ship with weapons it very quickly went from uncrewed, to uncrewed with security, to uncrewed with security, with DC and support for the security... to fully crewed.

I think the key to successfully using Medium/Large USV's is to approach them as a single-purpose adjunct to crewed vessels not as unmanned warships in their own right. I don't think the technology is there yet. A "loyal wingman" at most but likely much more like a trailer towed (wirelessly) behind a crewed warship and acting simply as an extended magazine for the parent vessel. Weapon direction would come from the parent vessel.

You'd only be deploying these when there is a real expectation that conflict is imminent rather than having these deploying autonomously during peacetime so security would be the Task Group that the USV is deployed with.

Small USV's would either be treated more like a munition (like the Ukrainians have been using against the Russians in the Black Sea) or acting as additional sensor nodes. For uncrewed sensor nodes though I think my preference would be for UUV's over USV's because they are more difficult to detect/intercept making security less of an issue.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think the key to successfully using Medium/Large USV's is to approach them as a single-purpose adjunct to crewed vessels not as unmanned warships in their own right. I don't think the technology is there yet. A "loyal wingman" at most but likely much more like a trailer towed (wirelessly) behind a crewed warship and acting simply as an extended magazine for the parent vessel. Weapon direction would come from the parent vessel.

You'd only be deploying these when there is a real expectation that conflict is imminent rather than having these deploying autonomously during peacetime so security would be the Task Group that the USV is deployed with.

Small USV's would either be treated more like a munition (like the Ukrainians have been using against the Russians in the Black Sea) or acting as additional sensor nodes. For uncrewed sensor nodes though I think my preference would be for UUV's over USV's because they are more difficult to detect/intercept making security less of an issue.

I agree, and think for a number of reasons, small, less capable drones with a crewed mothership is a lot more practical then 'optionally crewed' warships. Instead of relying on one or two big hits for a mission kill, which there are existing countermeasures for, a big swarm of smaller munitions, which would overwhelm existing defences may do the same thing. No one is going to get too spun up about something like a hammerhead with explosives the Ukranians are using (or a half dozen of them) running up against a target, but putting a warship close enough to use anti ship missiles is a big difference.

And for a lot of it, you don't even necessarily need to do much to restrict access to that area for things like supply tankers, or get people to respond by using a lot more assets for the same job (tying them up) to protect high value assets. Mining an area can have a similar area denial, but impacts all sides, so having some kind of more mobile, temporary option may be a lot more feasible.

 

[GR66]

I'd be quite happy if I never heard the term "optionally crewed warship" again. It makes the good idea fairies of the world want to take what could be a technically feasible and cost-effective technology (relatively simple USV as an emergency "magazine extension" or attritable sensor node) and turn it into an unaffordable, technically fragile uncrewed multi-mission corvette-type monstrosity.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'd be quite happy if I never heard the term "optionally crewed warship" again. It makes the good idea fairies of the world want to take what could be a technically feasible and cost-effective technology (relatively simple USV as an emergency "magazine extension" or attritable sensor node) and turn it into an unaffordable, technically fragile uncrewed multi-mission corvette-type monstrosity.

It's such a stupid idea; the only things that maybe makes sense if having a bridge available for people to bring it in and out of harbour. I think that's what they are doing for some of the electric cargo ships, that run designated routes with remote monitoring/control (in coastal areas where they can have comms to talk to ships in the vicinity).

If you don't have people on board for extended periods, a lot of things that take up space and need maintenance go right out the window, and you only need enough HVAC capacity to keep equipment from overheating/freezing. on a DC side you can do things like run spaces in a hypoxic atmosphere so even if your electrical shorts and blows out or similar nothing will burn (unless you get a hole punched in the side). Means you would need some kind of procedure to ventilate things prior to doing work as they are a confined space, but if you know that and plan around it it's not a big deal.

 

[OldSolduer]

OK so if there are no sailors on ships so not visits to foreign ports. What are all those ladies gonna do?

 

[GR66]

OK so if there are no sailors on ships so not visits to foreign ports. What are all those ladies gonna do?

Breath a sigh of relief?

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd be quite happy if I never heard the term "optionally crewed warship" again. It makes the good idea fairies of the world want to take what could be a technically feasible and cost-effective technology (relatively simple USV as an emergency "magazine extension" or attritable sensor node) and turn it into an unaffordable, technically fragile uncrewed multi-mission corvette-type monstrosity.

Your wish is the USN's command

“We definitely want unmanned. Period. I mean, it’s that simple,” Miller said.

Navy Moving Away from ‘Optionally Manned’ Vessels as Service Mulls Unmanned Future - USNI News

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The Navy is placing less weight on optionally manned surface vehicles as it refines requirements for a new type of vessel that will support the surface fleet, officials said this week. Speaking at an event at the U.S. Naval Institute on Thursday, three service officials...

news.usni.org

The Navy is placing less weight on optionally manned surface vehicles as it refines requirements for a new type of vessel that will support the surface fleet, officials said this week.

Speaking at an event at the U.S. Naval Institute on Thursday, three service officials responsible for crafting requirements for unmanned vehicles, developing new vessels and operating the current fleet of experimental craft said their preference was to keep sailors off the next generation of unmanned vessels.

“When you introduce that capability to operate with people on board, it creates a lot of other requirements and cost and complications,” Capt. Matt Lewis, program manager for unmanned maritime systems told USNI News on Thursday. “The solicitation that went out for industry… it was open, and we are eager to get proposals as we review them, to look at the proposals that don’t have people on board.”

Comments from Miller and Lewis follow the July release of a notice to industry for a fast unmanned craft that could keep pace with the Navy’s manned surface ships.

The pre-solicitation notice for a Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) calls for a vessel that would carry up to two 40-foot shipping containers and cruise at a sailing speed of 25 knots for up to 2,500 nautical miles in sea state four, according to the posting. The Navy and Army have experimented with the MK 70 Typhon launcher that’s capable of fielding up to four Standard Missile 6s in the space of a 40-foot container. In the past year, the Navy has consolidated its requirements for medium and large unmanned surface vessels into a single-sized concept.

Overall, the sea service has been developing its new unmanned surface systems for the last few years in two tracks — small unmanned vehicles in the near-term and a longer term goal of developing platforms like MASC that would serve as adjunct magazines or offboard sensors for manned surface ships.

On the larger end, the Navy has been experimenting with a few surface craft that were developed for larger Defense Department but has suffered from stops and starts while refining the larger scope of the program. The early concepts for the large and medium surface USVs were to base the craft on offshore oil and gas production vessels that were optionally manned. For the majority of the time, the craft would be crewed but when the circumstances demanded, sailors would be removed and the craft would maneuver and fire at the direction of a manned combatant.

On the smaller end, the Navy has been developing concepts parallel to a larger Pentagon effort to create swarms of air and sea drones to deter opponents as part of the so-called Replicator initiative to blunt an amphibious invasion of Taiwan by the People’s Liberation Army.

The unmanned surface vessel (USV) Ranger from Unmanned Surface Vessel Division One (USVDIV-1) returns to its homeport, Naval Base Ventura County, in Port Hueneme, California, concluding Integrated Battle Problem (IBP) 23.2, Jan. 15, 2024. US Navy Photo

Two Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Crafts (GARC), from Unmanned Surface Vessel Squadron 3 (USVRON 3), operate near Naval Amphibious Base Coronado May 15, 2024. US Navy Image
Last year, the Navy stood up “Hell Hounds” of Unmanned Surface Vessel Squadron 3 armed with Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft to be the first unit to field an unmanned surface vehicle capability.

Looking ahead, the surface force is planning out an overall vision for unmanned, and the Navy will deploy a carrier strike group next year with an unmanned vessel assigned to the strike group.

Coinciding with the hardware developments, the Navy created an enlisted robotics rating to operate and maintain the new generation of unmanned craft.

The first cohort of robotics sailors went through “A” school at Carnegie Mellon University, while the Navy is developing its own school house, Rear Adm. Derek Trinque, the Navy’s surface warfare director (OPNAV N96) said Thursday.

“They’re developing new schools for them,” Trinque said. “The idea is they’re going to be able to operate and maintain robotic and autonomous systems for the fleet.”

At the same time, the Navy is developing an unmanned career path for surface warfare officers.

“It’s going to be very similar to our nuke pipeline. So instead of SWO-[Nuclear], it’ll be SWO-Unmanned,” Trinque said.

The notion is for the unmanned SWOs to alternate between conventional and unmanned assignments in a similar pattern to the SWO nukes.

“This has to be mainstream. It can’t be weird,” he said. We have to grow these people and establish a career path that goes up to major command. It’s the right way to go.”https://news.usni.org/2023/09/21/2-...edposts_origin=117571&relatedposts_position=0