Back to news

June 2, 2020 | International, Naval

US Navy embraces robot ships, but some unresolved issues are holding them back

By:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is banking on unmanned surface and subsurface vessels to boost its capacity in the face of a tsunami of Chinese naval spending. But before it can field the systems, it must answer some basic questions.

How will these systems deploy? How will they be supported overseas? Who will support them? Can the systems be made sufficiently reliable to operate alone and unafraid on the open ocean for weeks at a time? Will the systems be able to communicate in denied environments?

As the Navy goes all-in on its unmanned future, with billions of dollars of investments planed, how the service answers those questions will be crucial to the success or failure of its unmanned pivot.

Many of those issues fall to the Navy's program manager for unmanned maritime systems, Capt. Pete Small. As the Navy puzzles out some very basic questions, it must also ponder some big organizational changes to maximize the potential of the platforms once they arrive.

“Our infrastructure now is highly optimized around large, very capable, highly manned warships,” Small said at the C4ISRNET Conference in May. “We spend a lot of time and effort preparing them for deployment, and we deploy them overseas for months at a time. They are almost perfectly reliable: We generally send them on a mission, they do it and come back almost without fail.

“For these distributed and smaller platforms, we're going to have to shift that infrastructure — how we prepare, deploy, transit over and sustain these smaller platforms in theater.”

That question is critical because it will affect the requirements for how the systems are designed at the outset. In the case of the medium and large unmanned surface vessels under development, just how big and how rugged they need to be would depend on how the Navy plans to use them.

“All the scenarios we're discussing are far forward,” Small said. “Far from the shores of the continental United States. So there is absolutely a transit somewhere — a long transit — to get these platforms where they need to be. We've got to come through that in a range of ways.

“For the medium and large [unmanned surface vessel] USV, in setting up the specifications and establishing what the requirements should be for unmanned surface vessels, crossing an ocean is a critical part of those missions.”

Making these platforms cost-effective is almost the entire point of their development, but questions such as “Should we design the vessel to be able to make an Atlantic or Pacific crossing?” can mean a big price difference.

“With a medium USV, we're kind of on the edge of whether it's big enough to cross the ocean by itself, and we're learning, you know, how big does it need [to be],” Small said.

“You may be able to make it smaller and cheaper to get it to do the job you want it to do ultimately, but if it has to cross the ocean to get there, that might be the overall driving requirement, not the end mission requirement. If you are going to heavy-lift them and bring them over in bulk, well that's a new concept and we have to figure out how we're going to do that," he added.

“What ships are we going to use to do that? Where do we operate from overseas? There's a range of options in each case, but in general we're going to have to transition from a system more optimized around our manned fleet infrastructure to a more distributed mix of large, highly manned platforms to smaller unmanned platforms.”

Relocatable support

The introduction of entirely new platforms that operate without humans onboard mean that the Navy must think about how to support them downrange, Small said.

“We're going to need to talk about things like tenders, heavy lift ships and forward-operating bases, things like that,” he said.

The idea of an unmanned vessel tender for the medium USV, which the Navy intends to use as a far-forward distributed sensor, is likely the best solution, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a retired submarine officer.

“I think it's likely that they'll be heavy-lifted into the theater, not because they can't make it themselves but because in general it would be less wear and tear on the vessels,” he said. “You want that support to be relocatable as opposed to a group of guys working out of a building ashore. The whole purpose of them is to be flexible; and because they're small, that would, in theory, give you lots of options as to remote locations you could operate from.”

The tender could be adapted from an existing platform in the sealift fleet for now, and ultimately procured as new later, Clark said, adding that the ship would need cranes and a platform near the waterline to support the medium USV and perhaps the planned extra-large unmanned undersea vehicle as well.

Additionally, the vessels should be stationed where the Navy has long-standing relationships, like Singapore, Souda Bay, Greece, Britain and the like, as well as where they are likely to operate.

The Marine Corps' transition from a heavy force concentrated on large amphibious ships to a lighter force distributed around smaller ships and lighter amphibs may free up some platforms for porting unmanned vessels around the globe.

“As we change the deployment schemes for amphibious ships, that may afford the opportunity to have amphibs with well decks that are not full of Marines' equipment but with unmanned vessels,” he said.

Reliability

For Small, the questions that are most immediate are how to make the systems dependable.

“We plan to send these systems out to sailors who are at the forefront of the fight, and we need these systems to work every time and be reliable,” he said. “So, reliability is a fundamental issue associated with autonomous vehicles.”

Questions have been raised about things as basic as whether the Navy can get a marine diesel engine to run for days and potentially weeks without being touched by humans. But Small said that's not what he spends a lot of time worrying about.

“For me, I think there is plenty of technology there and it will get better. I'm less concerned with, ‘Will the engine run long enough?' and more concerned with the reliability of the system as a whole,” he said. “The autonomy running that vessel is a key aspect of the overall reliability of the system. So there's a code and software aspect to this, but there is also the interface between that code and the hull, mechanical and electrical systems that we have on ships.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is the human ability to detect subtle changes in the equipment they operate that is the toughest to replicate, Small said.

“It's about self-awareness and the ability to self-diagnose problems and changing conditions associated with that equipment and react to those changing conditions,” he explained. “That's either by alerting an operator or having an autonomous response that allows the mission to continue.

“A sailor would sense a vibration; a sailor would hear abnormal noise; a sailor would see something getting warmer, do the diagnostics and take actions. ... There's as strong a relationship between that and the overall reliability of those physical systems themselves.”

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/06/01/us-navy-embraces-robot-ships-but-some-unresolved-issues-are-holding-them-back/

On the same subject

  • AM General unseats Oshkosh to build Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

    February 9, 2023 | International, Land

    AM General unseats Oshkosh to build Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

    The Army has chosen to oust incumbent Oshkosh in favor of AM General to build Joint Light Tactical Vehicles.

  • Réfléchir à l’Europe de la défense de demain

    May 22, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

    Réfléchir à l’Europe de la défense de demain

    (B2) L'Europe doit-elle s'occuper de défense et de diplomatie ? Comment peut-elle le faire ? Observateur patenté des institutions européennes, B2 vous propose quelques pistes de réflexion... On ne peut pas se réjouir simplement que la coopération structurée permanente ait été mise en place ou qu'un Fonds européen de défense soit en train de naitre. L'Europe ne fait ainsi que rattraper un retard à l'allumage. Tous ces projets ont été conçus il y a dix ou vingt ans. Ce qui à l'échelle de l'évolution du monde est quasiment un siècle. Les mettre en place maintenant est indispensable. Mais la donne stratégique évolue. Il importe de continuer à avancer vite, pour rattraper le retard et combler toutes les lacunes. Se reposer sur les 'lauriers' serait une erreur tragique. La doctrine européenne : sans illusion, La réalité inscrite dans les Traités européens actuels est la politique (européenne) de sécurité et de défense commune (PeSDC), alias l'Europe de la défense. Elle n'est pas comparable à ce qui se définit au plan national comme une politique de défense. Il est primordial d'avoir une vue ‘honnête' et ‘objective' de la situation actuelle. Ce qu'est l'Europe de la défense. Ce qu'elle n'est pas Mini QG militaire, Fonds européen de la défense, coopération structurée permanente... Ce n'est pas le grand soir annoncé par certains. Mais c'est une étape intéressante permettant à différents projets mis sur la table depuis un ou deux ans de progresser. Union européenne de défense : ce qui avance, ce qui bloque B'tir des structures institutionnelles Les dernières options travaillées au sein de la Commission européenne semblent favoriser une nouvelle direction générale au mandat élargi regroupant la Défense et la Sécurité, selon nos informations. Une DG défense et sécurité d'ici la fin de l'année ?* L'idée d'avoir une commission de plein exercice consacrée aux questions de défense dans le futur Parlement européen est sur la table. Sera-t-elle acceptée ? En route vers une commission Défense au Parlement européen ?* A force de parler d'armée européenne, il faudrait examiner ce que cela imposerait. Ne tentons pas de dire que cette idée est bonne ou mauvaise. Essayons de voir ce que cela supposerait. Imaginons un moment un consensus politique pour créer cette armée. Imaginons des moyens pragmatiques pour la mettre en œuvre. Et si l'armée européenne était un projet d'avenir ? Dynamiser la diplomatie européenne Pour avoir une diplomatie européenne plus réactive, pourquoi ne pas désigner un envoyé ou un représentant spécial pour une zone de crise, ou confier à une troïka ou un duo de pays membres le soin de mener les négociations. Deux outils oubliés de la diplomatie européenne de gestion de crises à ressusciter Berlin insiste régulièrement sur un point souvent oublié dans la rhétorique sur l'armée européenne : la mise en place d'un « Conseil de sécurité de l'UE ». Un point qui mérite un peu d'attention. Mettre en place un Conseil de sécurité européen ? Une idée à travailler. L'Union européenne dispose de représentants spéciaux en Asie centrale, au Moyen-Orient au Sahel, etc. Leur présence est-elle nécessaire aujourd'hui ? Huit représentants spéciaux de l'UE enkystés dans le paysage. Efficacité ? Refonder la gestion de crises Malgré de grands effets de manche, l'Union européenne a perdu en fait son ambition de maintien de la paix qui sur laquelle reposait sa politique de sécurité et de défense. Et cependant, il ne manque pas de raisons et de possibilités d'agir. Que pourrait-elle faire ? Les missions et opérations de sécurité et de défense communes sont aujourd'hui un peu les enfants délaissés de la politique extérieure de l'Union européenne (PESC). Elles ne suscitent que très peu d'attention des responsables européens. Certaines missions et opérations n'ont plus d'efficacité ou sont arrivées à leur terme. Il est temps d'en tirer la leçon ! Opération Sophia, EUBAM Rafah et Libya... l'UE doit apprendre à fermer des missions devenues inutiles Le concept des battlegroups est bon mais il est dépassé aujourd'hui. Cela reste un joujou d'exercice, impossible à mettre en pratique. Pour le rendre déployable trois éléments essentiels peuvent être travaillés : une autorisation politique préalable, des financements préalables, des éléments modulaires. Revoir le concept des battlegroups : une nécessité Développer l'autonomie industrielle Malgré des efforts certains, la plupart des pays européens n'ont pas le réflexe d'acheter chez leur voisin quand ils ne peuvent s'équiper en national. Et ils préfèrent acheter américain. L'achat d'un équipement militaire ne peut se résoudre à une question technique, il y a tout un accompagnement politique, logistique à prévoir que seuls les États-Unis aujourd'hui fournissent. Pourquoi les Européens n'arrivent pas à convaincre lors de l'achat d'équipements militaires ? (article publié jeudi) A suivre... (Nicolas Gros-Verheyde) https://club.bruxelles2.eu/2019/05/reflechir-a-leurope-de-la-defense-demain/

  • Raytheon Technologies Awards CAES $172M Multi-Year Contract

    July 9, 2024 | International, C4ISR

    Raytheon Technologies Awards CAES $172M Multi-Year Contract

    CAES is a critical subsystem provider to the missiles and munitions market on almost all key platforms covering a broad range of advanced electronic capabilities

All news