DEFINITELY useful for ISR platforms; some with towed arrays, maybe a few with Air Search blasting the skies at random intervals to see what's up there?
And can we mount racks so it could deploy QuickStrike over the side?
Yeah, late in World War II the Navy had to use picket destroyers dangling out there all alone to provide warning for incoming Kamikaze waves heading for the flat tops, eh?
Great concept. However. What is the risk of collision at sea if you have no OOD, JOOD, lookouts, DRT operator, CICWO, TAO or a Captain? What happens when a critical $100 part goes out and no EM3 or GSM2 is there to replace it? And no Sounding & Security patrol? I trust no Roomba at sea. Lots of what-if's before I'd like to see this new wave future. I hope they can pull it off.
I think you have it exactly right. Let’s assume they are building this vessel with digital security integrated from the hull up, doubtful but possible. The problem is that “the well proven components” were not and they assumed a human would be physically present when a weapons launch is executed. Now you are involved reengineering “legacy weapons systems”. The project just grew exponentially more complex and expensive or you ignore it and China gets a new weapons platform for nearly free.
I worked on the design of a smaller unmanned vessel some years ago. In that project, the idea was to flush the computer, as it were, if the ship were commandeered.
USN has gotten knocked by others for having too busy a bridge. Don't the Italians have it down to 2 or 3 now? All we need are radars and 360 degree EO/IR. Radio could still happen too. Sounding and security can all be internal camera and other sensors too. Isn't some of this now done on Zumwalts and LCS? I think the critical parts list would be more toward going blind in one direction or an electrical fault? The engines pretty much have this down such that your failure rate is low enough the number of prime movers cover it.
The more sets of eyeballs and ears the better, I think, Andy. Can't see how I'd get along without the OOD/JOOD (one checking the radar repeater or doing maneuvering board solutions), 2 lookouts, QMOW, Helmsman/EOT, messenger and the BMOW . 2-3 might be begging for mishap. Zero should really scare someone.
{Our FFG was steaming about 50 miles west of P.I. on a moonless night. Eyes were mostly forward or on the radar scope. The port lookout had a star scope. He yelled, "Fishing boats dead ahead...CLOSE!" I went to all stop, had the BMOW call the Captain, and I went to the port bridge wing to check the star scope myself. As soon as I spotted one, I used the Signalman's signal lamp to scan around us. There were 20 or so Bonka boats. No lights on them, but they were coming awake PDQ and yelling at us. The Captain (shirtless and barefoot) was there by this time and asked if we'd touched any. I told him, "No, Sir". Then he had me proceed slowly until we were clear. If we'd had 2-3 people instead of 8-9, we'd have likely killed someone and not known about it for weeks. That port lookout was my new favorite person. He is the man in the middle standing tall in the back row: https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/ffg9-83/024.htm}
Implied in OOD and JOOD is that they are scrupulously OODing and JOODing while on watch. I'll bet that have most retired Navy people who have stood a bridge watch have asked themselves, "What if I'd zoned out for 10-15 minutes?" That's a question most of us never asked when we were on active duty. <--- The answer, of course, is: McCain, Fitzgerald, Truman.
{True story. I was a CWO2, went up to relieve the midwatch OOD, a Lieutenant. Looked around, didn't see him. Asked the BMOW where the OOD was. The BMOW said, "Er-r...uh-h-h" followed by a loud ker-Thunk! The OOD had fallen off the foot rung of the Captain's chair where he had been asleep. I took him to the starboard bridge wing, sent the lookout inside, dogged the hatch and spoke to the guy in my best Chief's voice. Our friendship was never the same.}
I'm sorry, but I don't get it. This effort has advanced from a towed barge with misile launchers to this "Navy ship without crew". Here's the problem I have. We can't fill the current number of available missile launch tubes with Tomahawks or Standard missiles. So what does this do other than provide more empty missile tubes. And why? So a manned Navy ship can guide this unmanned ship around? Remember, this unmanned ship has no sailors to 'bust rust' or conduct routine maintenance (which as you know is a heavy burden on manned ships crews. So now these unmanned ships once they start aging, will need considerable in port contractor maintenance on quite a frequent basis. I think our PEOs have been watching too many reruns of science fiction flicks. r/Karl
Pretty sure this ship is aluminum, same as the overlord USVs. The towed barge is a whole other program. Why stick Tomahawks on the ship with the giant radar when these ships can get their strike plan downloaded, fore, and return to reload?
As potentially useful as this type of thing can be, the one thing that seems largely glossed over is the all important communications needed control these things. EMCON is every bit an issue as it was decades ago. More so as the surveillance platforms in space do it now too.
And then there's jamming. We say encrypted, digital, frequency hopping works. And it seems to be better. But how reliable is it really?
That said, all that is an issue for every platform out there manned or no. Though I suppose you could simply go Skynet and let the Terminators loose.
I can see a future where Terminators are battling Terminators at Skynyet Oceania's and Skynet Eastasia's behest. I'll be out there on the picket lines chanting, "Not our War!" "Hey, hey, ho, ho...Blackrock has gotta go!"
For UAV's in UKR, both sides have adapted by returning to wire guidance (really fiber optic guidance becasue cheap & light). Everything old is new again. Fields are now covered in spaghetti from expended drones. From a week ago, see the UAVs in use at the 11:35 point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDRjughhXMg
I would think that anyone finding a fiberoptic cable on the ground should simply cut it just in case it's active. Though knowing friend from foe is problematic and at some point there's going to be so much that it will be effectively unremarkable and thus simply ignored.
Implies Arty is not nearly as useful as drones...a refrain I seem to hear a lot. Add that to the stories of a large portion of the Russian gun tubes being worn out and there's a little credence there.
It may be unique to the circumstances found locally there. The real question is that set of circumstances a one off or is it the harbinger of things to come like airplanes and tanks were in WWI?
I would not look forward to that day. As it is game AI is clearly able to provide challenges to novices and veterans alike. I can only assume that tweaked to the max that it will move at speeds unmatchable by our neural networks.
Comments below show these types of vessels are not suitable for peacetime missions when ROE won't allow the sinking of "civilian" vessels trying to board and seize them. Heck, both American and British small combatants were boarded and seized by Iranians some years ago in the Persian Gulf. And those captured boats had human crews!
But in a sea control war--if there are enough missiles for the conventional manned ships--having a lot of networked expendable ships to send into harm's way seems like it has ... potential.
But I'll freely admit I'm not even sure if I know all the things I don't know to seriously evaluate this.
Americans on a 2 engine with alternators speedboat with the instructions in Swedish. They lost power and drifted, right? This thing is big enough to swerve t avoid a large ship or swerve and knock over a small ship. Helos might be a tougher nut to crack.
A long time ago when I was a youngster (1960s, very early 1970s), I saw a commercial where two world leaders met in an open field and commenced to fighting with the winner taking whatever was at stake (for those of you who are 50 or younger - holy sh*t am I getting old - this time was filled with anti-war sentiment and the nightly body count featured on the nightly news)....fast forward and this brave new world we are looking at could feature our robots meeting their robots to duke it out (Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots).....
Tonnage wise, people are a tremendous burden on a ship design, so gettng rid of them is a naval architect's dream come true. Less tonnage means less propulsion power required, means less fuel required, etc. The only other cogent remark I can probably add is that if/when real constructon contracts are written, the design needs to embody the KISS principle. Otherwise, this just becomes another LCS.
Well, lots of negatives in the comments so far, but count me in with ol’ Sal when he says this, “If you don’t find this exciting and ripe with possibility, I’m not sure what I can do for you.” Ditto, Sal. Ditto.
If I was a SURFACE warfare Naval person, I'd be looking at this very positively. But I'm not a SURFACE vessel guy....I'm an AIR (SHIP) guy. so, negate all concerns about boarding, or hacking, or mines, or reefs, or shorelines, or ice....etc, etc, ets......and build ships that ARE NOT IN THE WATER! Navy's 1950's ZPG-3 blimps with a crew of a dozen, could fly over a week on station, be ISR, carry torpedoes, mines, depth charges, hover and dip sonar..........that that with stupid blimps (we HATE blimps!)
but.....modern fully rigid hulled, fast, stealthy airships.......that could be a thing. build a test craft, see what we can do with it......
I'm skeptical, but willing to see what can be learned.
No one knew what submarines or aeroplanes could do, or how to use them when the first ones were procured. We seem to have figured those out pretty well over time. Let's play with one of these for a while and let a couple of "outside the box" junior officers use their imaginations. They might surprise us old shellbacks.
Regarding the problem of having missile tubes with no missiles, that is a problem. But it is a problem half solved as at least you have launchers, and can work on the missile shortage knowing there is an end user out there ready to use some.
Not having traditional watch standers doing traditional maritime functions is a scary thought. As was the idea of building ships without masts and sails, or switching from coal to black oil., or jet engines instead of trusty old boilers.
This well thought out experiment has far greater chances of success than the Little Crappy Ships where everyone got their "good ideas" incorporated and billions of dollars wasted on serial production without testing.
100 of those would be a MAJOR Westpac deterrent.
imagine 100, submerged, each with 6 torps or maybe 8 mines.
I like both ideas.
DEFINITELY useful for ISR platforms; some with towed arrays, maybe a few with Air Search blasting the skies at random intervals to see what's up there?
And can we mount racks so it could deploy QuickStrike over the side?
Yeah, late in World War II the Navy had to use picket destroyers dangling out there all alone to provide warning for incoming Kamikaze waves heading for the flat tops, eh?
LoyalMissilelyMcCanoe
SERCO is a Brit firm. Hampshire. Did they get to pick the name? If so, I'm channeling Alex Guinness: "Damn the Defiant"
Great concept. However. What is the risk of collision at sea if you have no OOD, JOOD, lookouts, DRT operator, CICWO, TAO or a Captain? What happens when a critical $100 part goes out and no EM3 or GSM2 is there to replace it? And no Sounding & Security patrol? I trust no Roomba at sea. Lots of what-if's before I'd like to see this new wave future. I hope they can pull it off.
Of getting boarded and stolen by a bunch of Somali's in a bum boat, or a peaceful China fishing boat?
Gad! I thought being boarded was bad enough. Now squatters?
But they could self-scuttle. Detect a boarding? Blow the seacocks!
The Chinese would love us to do it so they can quick grab it with their salvage capacity. I'd rather let it burn.
They'll just run the remote self-scuttle command.
Captain Nemo had an innovative technological approach to dealing with the problem of hostile boarders:
https://youtu.be/tvW9HKgZGmQ
Can DARPA figure out a practical way of making Captain Nemo's method work for their unmanned USS Thingy?
I think you have it exactly right. Let’s assume they are building this vessel with digital security integrated from the hull up, doubtful but possible. The problem is that “the well proven components” were not and they assumed a human would be physically present when a weapons launch is executed. Now you are involved reengineering “legacy weapons systems”. The project just grew exponentially more complex and expensive or you ignore it and China gets a new weapons platform for nearly free.
I worked on the design of a smaller unmanned vessel some years ago. In that project, the idea was to flush the computer, as it were, if the ship were commandeered.
USN has gotten knocked by others for having too busy a bridge. Don't the Italians have it down to 2 or 3 now? All we need are radars and 360 degree EO/IR. Radio could still happen too. Sounding and security can all be internal camera and other sensors too. Isn't some of this now done on Zumwalts and LCS? I think the critical parts list would be more toward going blind in one direction or an electrical fault? The engines pretty much have this down such that your failure rate is low enough the number of prime movers cover it.
The more sets of eyeballs and ears the better, I think, Andy. Can't see how I'd get along without the OOD/JOOD (one checking the radar repeater or doing maneuvering board solutions), 2 lookouts, QMOW, Helmsman/EOT, messenger and the BMOW . 2-3 might be begging for mishap. Zero should really scare someone.
{Our FFG was steaming about 50 miles west of P.I. on a moonless night. Eyes were mostly forward or on the radar scope. The port lookout had a star scope. He yelled, "Fishing boats dead ahead...CLOSE!" I went to all stop, had the BMOW call the Captain, and I went to the port bridge wing to check the star scope myself. As soon as I spotted one, I used the Signalman's signal lamp to scan around us. There were 20 or so Bonka boats. No lights on them, but they were coming awake PDQ and yelling at us. The Captain (shirtless and barefoot) was there by this time and asked if we'd touched any. I told him, "No, Sir". Then he had me proceed slowly until we were clear. If we'd had 2-3 people instead of 8-9, we'd have likely killed someone and not known about it for weeks. That port lookout was my new favorite person. He is the man in the middle standing tall in the back row: https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/ffg9-83/024.htm}
"What is the risk of collision at sea if you have no OOD, JOOD"
(Checks McCain, Fitzgerald, Truman)
Even?
Implied in OOD and JOOD is that they are scrupulously OODing and JOODing while on watch. I'll bet that have most retired Navy people who have stood a bridge watch have asked themselves, "What if I'd zoned out for 10-15 minutes?" That's a question most of us never asked when we were on active duty. <--- The answer, of course, is: McCain, Fitzgerald, Truman.
{True story. I was a CWO2, went up to relieve the midwatch OOD, a Lieutenant. Looked around, didn't see him. Asked the BMOW where the OOD was. The BMOW said, "Er-r...uh-h-h" followed by a loud ker-Thunk! The OOD had fallen off the foot rung of the Captain's chair where he had been asleep. I took him to the starboard bridge wing, sent the lookout inside, dogged the hatch and spoke to the guy in my best Chief's voice. Our friendship was never the same.}
I'm sorry, but I don't get it. This effort has advanced from a towed barge with misile launchers to this "Navy ship without crew". Here's the problem I have. We can't fill the current number of available missile launch tubes with Tomahawks or Standard missiles. So what does this do other than provide more empty missile tubes. And why? So a manned Navy ship can guide this unmanned ship around? Remember, this unmanned ship has no sailors to 'bust rust' or conduct routine maintenance (which as you know is a heavy burden on manned ships crews. So now these unmanned ships once they start aging, will need considerable in port contractor maintenance on quite a frequent basis. I think our PEOs have been watching too many reruns of science fiction flicks. r/Karl
Pretty sure this ship is aluminum, same as the overlord USVs. The towed barge is a whole other program. Why stick Tomahawks on the ship with the giant radar when these ships can get their strike plan downloaded, fore, and return to reload?
You are spot on.
As potentially useful as this type of thing can be, the one thing that seems largely glossed over is the all important communications needed control these things. EMCON is every bit an issue as it was decades ago. More so as the surveillance platforms in space do it now too.
And then there's jamming. We say encrypted, digital, frequency hopping works. And it seems to be better. But how reliable is it really?
That said, all that is an issue for every platform out there manned or no. Though I suppose you could simply go Skynet and let the Terminators loose.
I can see a future where Terminators are battling Terminators at Skynyet Oceania's and Skynet Eastasia's behest. I'll be out there on the picket lines chanting, "Not our War!" "Hey, hey, ho, ho...Blackrock has gotta go!"
For UAV's in UKR, both sides have adapted by returning to wire guidance (really fiber optic guidance becasue cheap & light). Everything old is new again. Fields are now covered in spaghetti from expended drones. From a week ago, see the UAVs in use at the 11:35 point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDRjughhXMg
I would think that anyone finding a fiberoptic cable on the ground should simply cut it just in case it's active. Though knowing friend from foe is problematic and at some point there's going to be so much that it will be effectively unremarkable and thus simply ignored.
After artillery shelling, I am guessing much of the spaghetti is busted up!
True that.
Interestingly though, there doesn't seem to be much out there these days about arty. The coverage has largely turned to the drones.
My general impression arty is still there and still working though.
They call arty the King of the Battlefield for good reason
That is so. But there seems to be an anomaly in Ukraine.
See this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2025/02/27/russian-infantry-develop-new-rapid-attack-drone-assault-tactic/
Implies Arty is not nearly as useful as drones...a refrain I seem to hear a lot. Add that to the stories of a large portion of the Russian gun tubes being worn out and there's a little credence there.
It may be unique to the circumstances found locally there. The real question is that set of circumstances a one off or is it the harbinger of things to come like airplanes and tanks were in WWI?
Remember that more and more they will make decisions on their own when out of contact.
No doubt.
I would not look forward to that day. As it is game AI is clearly able to provide challenges to novices and veterans alike. I can only assume that tweaked to the max that it will move at speeds unmatchable by our neural networks.
Comments below show these types of vessels are not suitable for peacetime missions when ROE won't allow the sinking of "civilian" vessels trying to board and seize them. Heck, both American and British small combatants were boarded and seized by Iranians some years ago in the Persian Gulf. And those captured boats had human crews!
But in a sea control war--if there are enough missiles for the conventional manned ships--having a lot of networked expendable ships to send into harm's way seems like it has ... potential.
But I'll freely admit I'm not even sure if I know all the things I don't know to seriously evaluate this.
Americans on a 2 engine with alternators speedboat with the instructions in Swedish. They lost power and drifted, right? This thing is big enough to swerve t avoid a large ship or swerve and knock over a small ship. Helos might be a tougher nut to crack.
A long time ago when I was a youngster (1960s, very early 1970s), I saw a commercial where two world leaders met in an open field and commenced to fighting with the winner taking whatever was at stake (for those of you who are 50 or younger - holy sh*t am I getting old - this time was filled with anti-war sentiment and the nightly body count featured on the nightly news)....fast forward and this brave new world we are looking at could feature our robots meeting their robots to duke it out (Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots).....
I agree.. “crewless” sounds like a college cut their rowing team…
Oh…And thanks for the USNI link…I’ve forgotten to update my membership…
Yes...you are not a subscriber to my Substack. You make me sad.
Tonnage wise, people are a tremendous burden on a ship design, so gettng rid of them is a naval architect's dream come true. Less tonnage means less propulsion power required, means less fuel required, etc. The only other cogent remark I can probably add is that if/when real constructon contracts are written, the design needs to embody the KISS principle. Otherwise, this just becomes another LCS.
Well, lots of negatives in the comments so far, but count me in with ol’ Sal when he says this, “If you don’t find this exciting and ripe with possibility, I’m not sure what I can do for you.” Ditto, Sal. Ditto.
If I was a SURFACE warfare Naval person, I'd be looking at this very positively. But I'm not a SURFACE vessel guy....I'm an AIR (SHIP) guy. so, negate all concerns about boarding, or hacking, or mines, or reefs, or shorelines, or ice....etc, etc, ets......and build ships that ARE NOT IN THE WATER! Navy's 1950's ZPG-3 blimps with a crew of a dozen, could fly over a week on station, be ISR, carry torpedoes, mines, depth charges, hover and dip sonar..........that that with stupid blimps (we HATE blimps!)
but.....modern fully rigid hulled, fast, stealthy airships.......that could be a thing. build a test craft, see what we can do with it......
It raises questions, but? You're right CDR, it raises possibilities and does so incrementally.
(At least a container can be swapped at sea. That appears to fix one problem if we can fill them. )
I'm skeptical, but willing to see what can be learned.
No one knew what submarines or aeroplanes could do, or how to use them when the first ones were procured. We seem to have figured those out pretty well over time. Let's play with one of these for a while and let a couple of "outside the box" junior officers use their imaginations. They might surprise us old shellbacks.
Regarding the problem of having missile tubes with no missiles, that is a problem. But it is a problem half solved as at least you have launchers, and can work on the missile shortage knowing there is an end user out there ready to use some.
Not having traditional watch standers doing traditional maritime functions is a scary thought. As was the idea of building ships without masts and sails, or switching from coal to black oil., or jet engines instead of trusty old boilers.
This well thought out experiment has far greater chances of success than the Little Crappy Ships where everyone got their "good ideas" incorporated and billions of dollars wasted on serial production without testing.