Retour aux nouvelles

14 avril 2020 | International, Naval

US Navy should turn to unmanned systems to track and destroy submarines

By: Bryan Clark

Anti-submarine warfare, or ASW, is one of a navy's most difficult missions. Sonars detect submarines with only a fraction of the range and precision possible using radars or visual sensors against ships above the water. Submarines can carry missiles able to hit targets hundreds of miles away, requiring searches to cover potentially vast areas. And the torpedoes that aircraft and surface ships use to sink submarines need to be dropped right on the submarine to have any chance of sinking it.

These challenges led the Cold War-era U.S. Navy to rely on a sequential approach for tracking enemy submarines. Electronic or visual intelligence sources would report when an opposing sub was leaving port, and it would hopefully get picked up by sound surveillance, or SOSUS — sonar arrays on the sea floor — as it entered chokepoints, like that between Iceland and the United Kingdom.

Patrol aircraft would then attempt to track the submarine using sonar-equipped buoys, or sonobuoys, and eventually turn it over to a U.S. nuclear attack submarine, or SSN, for long-term trail.

The U.S. ASW model broke down, however, in the decades following the Cold War as U.S. submarine and patrol aircraft fleets shrank, the Chinese submarine fleet grew, and Russian submarines became quieter. Today, the U.S. Navy devotes enormous effort to tracking each modern Russian submarine in the western Atlantic.

During the 2000s, the strategy of full-spectrum ASW started an essential shift in goals, from being able to sink submarines when needed to being able to defeat submarines by preventing them from accomplishing their mission.

Full-spectrum ASW and other current concepts, however, still rely on aircraft, ships and submarines for sensing, tracking and attacking enemy submarines to bottle them up near their own coasts or sink them in the open ocean. Although SOSUS has improved since the Cold War and is joined by a family of new deployable seabed arrays, the next link in the U.S. ASW chain is still a P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, or a U.S. SSN. These platforms are in short supply around the world, cost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to buy and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to operate.

With defense budgets flattening and likely to decrease in a post-COVID-19 environment, the U.S. Navy cannot afford to continue playing “little kid soccer” in ASW, with multiple aircraft or ships converging to track and destroy submarines before they can get within missile range of targets like aircraft carriers or bases ashore.

The Navy should instead increase the use of unmanned systems in ASW across the board, which cost a fraction to buy and operate compared to their manned counterparts. Unmanned aircraft could deploy sonobuoys or stationary sonar arrays, and unmanned undersea or surface vehicles could tow passive sonar arrays. Unmanned surface vehicles could also deploy low-frequency active sonars like those carried by U.S. undersea surveillance ships that can detect or drive off submarines from dozens of miles away.

Although autonomous platforms will not have the onboard operators of a destroyer or patrol aircraft, improved processing is enabling small autonomous sensors to rapidly identify contacts of interest. Line-of-sight or satellite communications can connect unmanned vehicles and sensors with operators ashore or on manned ASW platforms.

A significant shortfall of today's ASW concepts is “closing the kill chain” by attacking enemy submarines. Air- or surface-launched weapons have short ranges and small warheads that reduce their ability to sink a submarine, but their cost and size prevents them from being purchased and fielded in large numbers.

Unmanned systems could address this shortfall in concert with a new approach to ASW that suppresses enemy submarines rather than destroying them. During World War II and the Cold War, allied navies largely kept submarines at bay through aggressive tracking and harassing attacks, or by forcing opposing SSNs to protect ballistic missile submarines.

The modern version of submarine suppression would include overt sensing operations combined with frequent torpedo or depth-bomb attacks. Although unmanned vehicles frequently launch lethal weapons today under human supervision, the small weapons that would be most useful for submarine suppression could be carried in operationally relevant numbers by medium-altitude, long-endurance UAVs or medium unmanned surface vessels. Moreover, the large number and long endurance of unmanned vehicles would enable the tracking and suppressing of many submarines over a wide area at lower risk than using patrol aircraft or destroyers.

Today the U.S. Navy uses unmanned systems in ASW primarily to detect submarines. To affordably conduct peacetime surveillance and effectively defeat submarines in wartime, the Navy should increase the role of unmanned systems. Using manned platforms to conduct command and control, and unmanned vehicles to track, deter and engage submarines, could significantly reduce the costs of ASW operations and enable the Navy to scale its ASW efforts to match the growing threat posed by submarine fleets.

Bryan Clark is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He is an expert in naval operations, electronic warfare, autonomous systems, military competitions and war gaming.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/13/us-navy-should-turn-to-unmanned-systems-to-track-and-destroy-submarines/

Sur le même sujet

  • The next few months are ‘critical’ for the Army’s new helicopter engine

    11 juin 2020 | International, Terrestre

    The next few months are ‘critical’ for the Army’s new helicopter engine

    By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The Army's Improved Turbine Engine Program is facing a “critical” stretch which will determine whether testing on the engine will occur on time or be delayed, thanks to challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, a pair of Army officials said Wednesday. Patrick Mason, the program executive officer for Army aviation, and Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen, the director for future vertical lift inside Army Futures Command, said that the service has finished its component critical design review (CDR) process, and has moved on to its full program CDR, a key milestone before moving into testing. However, “given COVID and all of the factors that have gone on with COVID,” the plan to have the full CDR done during second quarter has been pushed to third quarter, Mason said at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation. ITEP is “the number one watch item we've had across the future vertical lift portfolio for COVID impacts,” Mason said, because “hardware needs to be coming in the latter part of this year so we can test at the component level, assemble into the engine, and then go to first engine test.” “So that's going to be critical over the next month to two months, to see where we stand on hardware deliveries with that, and then whether or not we will reach first engine test at the time that we had originally stated,” he said, noting the plan is for engine tests to proceed in 2021. Mason also noted that the delay is less dramatic than it may seem, because the original plan for ITEP called for the full CDR to be completed in the fourth quarter of this year; the Army felt it was ahead of schedule enough to shift that target to second quarter, until COVID caused the delay. In other words, CDR being completed in Q3 still means the program is ahead of its original baseline. General Electric Aviation won the $517 million award for the engineering, manufacturing and development phase in February 2019. The requirements included developing a 3,000 shaft horsepower engine that reduces fuel consumption by 25 percent and increases service life by 20 percent compared to the legacy T700 currently used in the Army's AH-64 Apache and UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters. In addition to replacing the engines on those two leacy platforms, ITEP is expected to power the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, or FARA design. For the heavier future rotorcraft known as the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, or FLRAA, the Army is looking at a heavier engine design, although the companies competing for the design will have the ability to pick their own engine designs as part of their pitches. “We really think the efficiencies there with a two engines strategy across all of Army aviation's tactical fleet would be a powerful way to go at both readiness and affordability concerns,” said Rugen. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/06/10/the-next-few-months-are-critical-for-the-armys-new-helicopter-engine/

  • Belarusian-Ukrainian Hacker Extradited to U.S. for Ransomware and Cybercrime Charges

    14 août 2024 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Belarusian-Ukrainian Hacker Extradited to U.S. for Ransomware and Cybercrime Charges

    Elite cybercriminal behind ransomware and exploit kits extradited to US. Faces charges for global hacking schemes and fraud worth millions.

  • Défense : les industriels veulent une relance

    27 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Défense : les industriels veulent une relance

    Tous alignés pour mener la charge. Les présidents des organisations patronales de l'aéronautique, du naval militaire et de l'armement terrestre plaident d'une seule voix afin que l'industrie de défense fasse partie des plans de relance en France, mais aussi en Europe. « C'est absolument fondamental », ont-ils affirmé, lors d'une audition devant la commission de la défense de l'Assemblée nationale. L'objectif est de préserver la Base industrielle et technologique de défense (BITD) avec ses dizaines de milliers d'emplois hautement qualifiés, répartis sur tout le territoire et le long du littoral. À elles seules, les 400 entreprises aéronautiques membres du Groupement des industries françaises aéronautique et spatiale (Gifas) emploient 200 000 personnes. La filière navale fait travailler 40 000 personnes et les acteurs du terrestre, 20 000. Sans oublier les salariés des milliers de PME et TPE, dont beaucoup de pépites technologiques. Il s'agit aussi d'assurer aux armées, sursollicitées à l'intérieur et à l'extérieur des frontières nationales, le meilleur niveau d'équipements. Cela, en restant compétitifs face à la concurrence internationale et en pérennisant l'indépendance stratégique militaire du pays. Face à la crise du Covid-19 qui affecte les industriels de l'armement, « nous proposons un plan de relance pour soutenir la défense, sur le modèle de celui mis en place après la crise financière de 2008 », déclare Stéphane Meyer, président du Gicat (armement terrestre) et PDG du constructeur de blindés Nexter. Le volet défense du plan de relance de 2008 représentait 2,4 milliards d'euros sur un total de 34 milliards. Compte tenu de la profondeur inédite de la crise économique attendue, il faut aller plus loin. « Il est nécessaire d'augmenter les crédits afin d'amplifier la relance de l'industrie de défense, ce qui passe par la hausse de son budget dans la loi de finance 2021 et une révision de la loi de programmation militaire 2019-2025 avec prise en compte des montants absolus et pas du pourcentage du PIB, qui s'est contracté. Cela en affermissant des commandes qui sont encore optionnelles », précise-t-il. « La commande publique est le meilleur outil pour relancer l'économie », insiste Hervé Guillou, président du Groupement des industries navales (Gican). « Avant de parler de relocalisations, rappelons que l'industrie de défense est déjà localisée en France, et qu'un euro dans le budget français va directement dans l'emploi en France », relève Éric Trappier, président du Gifas et PDG de Dassault Aviation *, constructeur de l'avion de combat Rafale. À court terme, les entreprises qui tournent avec 20 % à 30 % en moyenne des effectifs ont pour « priorité absolue » la maintenance des matériels, la dissuasion et la défense aérienne. Les grands industriels ont aussi, en liaison avec le ministère des Armées, organisé la solidarité interfilière, afin de repérer les PME les plus en difficultés, dont la défaillance « peut affecter toute l'industrie ». L'autre combat se déroule sur le front européen. Les États-Unis ont placé l'aéronautique et la défense au premier rang des industries stratégiques dans leur plan de relance. « Est-ce que l'Europe a un plan pour ces industries stratégiques ? Nous discutons avec Thierry Breton (commissaire au Marché intérieur, notamment en charge de la défense, NDLR) afin que le budget de 13 milliards destiné au fonds européen de défense ne soit pas réduit dans le prochain budget de la Commission », souligne Éric Trappier. Le président du Gifas appelle aussi à la reprise et à la réussite des coopérations européennes et à l'instauration - enfin - d'une préférence européenne en matière d'achat de matériels militaires. « Ce n'est pas le moment de baisser la garde en Europe », martèle Hervé Guillou. « Il faut espérer que la situation fera réfléchir la Direction de la concurrence sur la consolidation européenne, qui est un moyen de créer des champions capables de se défendre contre leurs concurrents étrangers et de se protéger des OPA hostiles », conclut le président du Gican. Véronique GUILLERMARD Le Figaro https://www.asafrance.fr/item/defense-les-industriels-veulent-une-relance.html

Toutes les nouvelles