I like it. Is this of a size commercial shipyards (not the usual NG / BIW) could support? Certainly helps with finding qualified seaman! OBTW, any confidence that the same systemic / NAVSEA management deficiencies that have wrecked or terminally delayed all recent major system acquisitions have been corrected? Is public excu....firing a realistic option? (mostly kidding...)
One ship building company I would look to would be Bollinger, on the Gulf Coast. They have built a lot of hulls. When I was stationed in the area, they were bulding USCG 110 ft cutters and the PC-1 class; now working on an ice breaker and the Sentinal class FRCs.
Its smaller vessls they are weak in. We have the engnes and abundanc of production in this space. If well leveraged. And I am mostly being specific to the 65 foot and under segment.
Although tbf, China has a lot of Bubbas who wouldn't mind building their post-war fishing boat on the government's dime. They could ramp up if they wanted to.
This data is of zero value from a military perspective. From the article: "Boats are defined as vessels that are used as a means of transportation and for recreational purposes. Small boats can be categorized into sailboats, powered boats, and watercraft boats. These are different from ships in varied aspects such as design, construction, size, cargo capacities, operational zones, navigation technology, and many others. These boats are particularly found on internal waterways, lakes and rivers, or protected beach areas.
The PLAN has the largest Coast Guard in the world, with various-sized vessels. It's hard to get definitive numbers on which are "small boats", but the CCG has over 500 boats/vessels. The CCG is a major military/naval force. Our entire Navy has fewer than 300 ships. Not apples-to-apples, but the scale is there. US Admiral Samuel Paparo stated in April 2025 that China was building naval combatants at a rate of 6 to 1.8 compared to the U.S. We are many decades behind China in almost all Naval respects except Aircraft Carriers, and I think it is unlikely that China will allow us time to catch up.
Just as they have in aircraft and aircraft carriers and numerous other technologies. China is no dummy. Why do all the work going from 0 to 1 when their agents in the U.S. can steal the plans?
My good friends at ChatGPT whipped me up a list of current ships that could be modified to fit the bill - Sa'ar 6 (Israel), MEKO A-200 (Germany), and SIGMA (Netherlands). Everyone here understands the iron triangel of payload, speed, and range. In this case, I suspect the tougher angle on all of that would be payload at speed in SS4. All of the classes above have range in excess of the requirement, which can be traded off for payload weight. Just a start for the conversation.
OK, I am 'old school'. Yes, I like drone technology. However, not for displacing manned destroyers and submarines. But this is what the current strategy is using to justify their development. The 'loyal' unmanned fighter attached to the manned fighter (like in Battlestar Galactica, right?). But just like the unmanned missile barge concept it misses the point. It is all about ordnance on target. If you don't have the missiles to begin with (and we don't fill up our missile tubes today) then what is the benefit of providing more shooters without ordnance? In the first Gulf War we ran out of guided bomb kits to attack to iron bombs. So what were we to do with the unguided bombs without guidance? This is a ludicrous concept because it does not match strategy to capability. Yes, build more drones to drop ordnance on the enemy like in Ukraine. But don't think it will displace the manned surface vessels and manned fighter aircraft to save a few dollars. But unfortunately that is the misguided strategy we are pursuing these days. r/Karl Bernhardt, (CAPT, USN, Ret.).
While the realities of funding and bureaucracy may end up with "either-or" choices between DDs and these drones, we really need to press ahead on these to see what we can do with them to provide an affordable option to put ordnance on target. It may end up we cannot afford more DDs and by defaults will end up with a smaller, cheaper and far less capable alternative. Absent a drone option like this our options are none at all.
Ukraine has proven that drones are a powerful force multiplier with previously unthought of uses. As long as kept affordable, they can be delivered in large numbers where swarming tactics make them even more effective.
Yeah, I'd rather have more DDs and the like, but we have to admit that is almost certain not to happen. Even a decent FF is turning out to be nearly impossible and unaffordable.
So what is wrong with deflecting budget dollars to build more missiles and warheads to fill up the existing empty launch tubes in our existing destroyers and cruisers? Why can't we fill up those tubes now? I think our budget priorities are totally screwed up (and I spent two years as an 0-6 in the Navy Secretariet for Comptroller).
Respectfully, this isn't a binary choice. Both the dearth of VLS cells and and munitions to fill them both need to be addressed. Just because we don't have enough munitions does not mean we shouldn't spend the money on making more VLS cells.
Good afternoon CDR Salamander! I have drawn my mind away from “Doris Lilly”, everlasting be her memory to your query and questions to the Fleet Commanders about the Almighty Drone.
Ask the men and women serving on the Ships at Sea, “What would work best?”
These men and women are Mission Oriented.
If delivering a payload or reconnaissance to assess, ask, assign a Drone, permission given to deploy and… evaluate the result!
One must be cautious however if unmanned surface ships are produced without a viable CONOPS. That risks another LCS debacle if the surface navy hets a tool it does not know how to use.
Agree on the need for CONOPS, disagree that the surface fleet might need to work on learning and adapting to new things a little faster and with an open mind. I think meeting in the middle of the road happens when the actual people in the field and other outside expertise get a say in the design. You can see some of that in the requirements here. LCS is designed for the 20' containers to weigh loaded no more than 7500kg. They upped that to 24000kg for the smallest vessel in this RFI.
The problem with LCS is it had plenty of CONOPS…it had CONOPS out the wazoo…but they were all wrong. If we had listened to everyone except for those who wrote the CONOPS for LCS, we would be in a much better place today.
As long as all those containerized payloads don’t follow the path of the “Modular Mission Module” or whatever the plug-and-play things supposedly to equip the LCS were called. At least they have the Mk 70 Expeditionary Yeet Module mostly complete.
And for use as logistics assets keeping all the expeditionary penny packets of Marines fed and armed, unless there’s something I missed in the posted requirements about cargo handling equipment, maybe something in a container that could help expeditiously shift expeditionary containers full of MREs and bullets onto slightly improved expeditionary shoresides on penny packet islands in the dark of night.
Of course feeding that last idea into the Good Idea Fairy-infected design side of the Pentagon would result in a billion dollar self-unloading nuclear powered CONEX container, of which we could afford three, rather than some sort of winch lash up assembled from jeep winches orderable from Amazon along the lines of what the Marines would come up with on their own.
The same ships the Dutch are showing for their unmanned ship is also designed for a fairly strong crane in Yacht Support form. eats some space and weight, but potentially worth it on at least a subclass of the larger ship.
let's just get rid of that "surface" and "unmanned" part, and think.....an aircraft, one with unlimited range, VTOL. no need for a runway, crew of two-three, roll on-roll off container capable, 100 tons as a goal. oh, and that 25kts? pooh, let's up that to 100-150kts.
Time to set aside long-lead funding for some of them thar' PDS VLS systems and the stuff that fills them. (Make sure a stabilized hull is part of the SOW.)
Short legs. Either needs underway replenishment or visits to ESBs or well decks. Still, even a short-leg version would be useful from bases in the Phillipines, Ryukyus, and Korea.
Build some short leg versions, learn a lot, then worry about longer legged and more sophisticated versions. Start with the Jeep, not the MRAP.
Keep in kind Overlord was doing stints of over 5000 @ 8 and MDUSVs were designed for 10,000@10. One of the Overlord ships did relief for the Hurricane. Not the article on that I was looking for, but this describes the boat with some trial data. 30 knots carrying 250 long ton on deck. https://professionalmariner.com/liam-j-mccall/
They have already tested a refueling system on the Overlord ships designed for the NOMARS ship. That covers 2 of the 3 size groups described here assuming they were successful. Also keep in mind they want room for 14 aboard the big one.
I like smaller and a lot faster. Think of the Ukrainian successes. You can afford to lose them delivering a torp or drive it into them at upwards of 90 kts at night. Don’t bet too much on those bigger platforms arriving at the speed needed. Hot line in the us used by many friendly countries.
Don't worry, one or more buffoons and clowns posing as a 1-, 2-, 3-, or 4-Star Admiral will find a way to force the 'attributes' of the Zumwalts or LCSs into the required characteristics to 'make it better'.
I like it. Is this of a size commercial shipyards (not the usual NG / BIW) could support? Certainly helps with finding qualified seaman! OBTW, any confidence that the same systemic / NAVSEA management deficiencies that have wrecked or terminally delayed all recent major system acquisitions have been corrected? Is public excu....firing a realistic option? (mostly kidding...)
One ship building company I would look to would be Bollinger, on the Gulf Coast. They have built a lot of hulls. When I was stationed in the area, they were bulding USCG 110 ft cutters and the PC-1 class; now working on an ice breaker and the Sentinal class FRCs.
My worry?
The PLAN will sit back and watch us iterate and develop, then steal the plans for the best version and out produce us by a factor of 20
Its smaller vessls they are weak in. We have the engnes and abundanc of production in this space. If well leveraged. And I am mostly being specific to the 65 foot and under segment.
Although tbf, China has a lot of Bubbas who wouldn't mind building their post-war fishing boat on the government's dime. They could ramp up if they wanted to.
Do you have a source about the Chinese being weak in small vessels?
This is my real quick grab. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/small-boats-market-103622#:~:text=2023%20Value:%20USD%2031.93%20billion,China%2C%20India%2C%20and%20Australia.
This data is of zero value from a military perspective. From the article: "Boats are defined as vessels that are used as a means of transportation and for recreational purposes. Small boats can be categorized into sailboats, powered boats, and watercraft boats. These are different from ships in varied aspects such as design, construction, size, cargo capacities, operational zones, navigation technology, and many others. These boats are particularly found on internal waterways, lakes and rivers, or protected beach areas.
Source: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/small-boats-market-103622"
The PLAN has the largest Coast Guard in the world, with various-sized vessels. It's hard to get definitive numbers on which are "small boats", but the CCG has over 500 boats/vessels. The CCG is a major military/naval force. Our entire Navy has fewer than 300 ships. Not apples-to-apples, but the scale is there. US Admiral Samuel Paparo stated in April 2025 that China was building naval combatants at a rate of 6 to 1.8 compared to the U.S. We are many decades behind China in almost all Naval respects except Aircraft Carriers, and I think it is unlikely that China will allow us time to catch up.
Just as they have in aircraft and aircraft carriers and numerous other technologies. China is no dummy. Why do all the work going from 0 to 1 when their agents in the U.S. can steal the plans?
NAVSEA products are generally crap. We would be lucky if PLA copied them.
Prrtty sure none of our notable USVs to date have been steel hulled. I assume the UUVs are.
My good friends at ChatGPT whipped me up a list of current ships that could be modified to fit the bill - Sa'ar 6 (Israel), MEKO A-200 (Germany), and SIGMA (Netherlands). Everyone here understands the iron triangel of payload, speed, and range. In this case, I suspect the tougher angle on all of that would be payload at speed in SS4. All of the classes above have range in excess of the requirement, which can be traded off for payload weight. Just a start for the conversation.
You are way overcomlicating it. The overlord ships already in service can meet the requirement.
Sorry. I must have missed that reference in my education.
Seacor fast supply vessels. Incat crowther designed.
I should have thought of that. I spent enough time around them.
Second reply: Especially since Sal started off this blog entry with a picture of what looks like one. Brain cells must be slipping early……
Beer, reinvigorate them with some beer.
I'd look at those as Constellation replacements, if the Navy can't salvage that program.
Unfortunately, that would take decisive thinking.
OK, I am 'old school'. Yes, I like drone technology. However, not for displacing manned destroyers and submarines. But this is what the current strategy is using to justify their development. The 'loyal' unmanned fighter attached to the manned fighter (like in Battlestar Galactica, right?). But just like the unmanned missile barge concept it misses the point. It is all about ordnance on target. If you don't have the missiles to begin with (and we don't fill up our missile tubes today) then what is the benefit of providing more shooters without ordnance? In the first Gulf War we ran out of guided bomb kits to attack to iron bombs. So what were we to do with the unguided bombs without guidance? This is a ludicrous concept because it does not match strategy to capability. Yes, build more drones to drop ordnance on the enemy like in Ukraine. But don't think it will displace the manned surface vessels and manned fighter aircraft to save a few dollars. But unfortunately that is the misguided strategy we are pursuing these days. r/Karl Bernhardt, (CAPT, USN, Ret.).
While the realities of funding and bureaucracy may end up with "either-or" choices between DDs and these drones, we really need to press ahead on these to see what we can do with them to provide an affordable option to put ordnance on target. It may end up we cannot afford more DDs and by defaults will end up with a smaller, cheaper and far less capable alternative. Absent a drone option like this our options are none at all.
Ukraine has proven that drones are a powerful force multiplier with previously unthought of uses. As long as kept affordable, they can be delivered in large numbers where swarming tactics make them even more effective.
Yeah, I'd rather have more DDs and the like, but we have to admit that is almost certain not to happen. Even a decent FF is turning out to be nearly impossible and unaffordable.
So what is wrong with deflecting budget dollars to build more missiles and warheads to fill up the existing empty launch tubes in our existing destroyers and cruisers? Why can't we fill up those tubes now? I think our budget priorities are totally screwed up (and I spent two years as an 0-6 in the Navy Secretariet for Comptroller).
Respectfully, this isn't a binary choice. Both the dearth of VLS cells and and munitions to fill them both need to be addressed. Just because we don't have enough munitions does not mean we shouldn't spend the money on making more VLS cells.
Good afternoon CDR Salamander! I have drawn my mind away from “Doris Lilly”, everlasting be her memory to your query and questions to the Fleet Commanders about the Almighty Drone.
Ask the men and women serving on the Ships at Sea, “What would work best?”
These men and women are Mission Oriented.
If delivering a payload or reconnaissance to assess, ask, assign a Drone, permission given to deploy and… evaluate the result!
Nurse Jane is practical! Good luck!
Build a little, test a little, learn a lot…. Repeat.
This is the way.
One must be cautious however if unmanned surface ships are produced without a viable CONOPS. That risks another LCS debacle if the surface navy hets a tool it does not know how to use.
Agree on the need for CONOPS, disagree that the surface fleet might need to work on learning and adapting to new things a little faster and with an open mind. I think meeting in the middle of the road happens when the actual people in the field and other outside expertise get a say in the design. You can see some of that in the requirements here. LCS is designed for the 20' containers to weigh loaded no more than 7500kg. They upped that to 24000kg for the smallest vessel in this RFI.
The problem with LCS is it had plenty of CONOPS…it had CONOPS out the wazoo…but they were all wrong. If we had listened to everyone except for those who wrote the CONOPS for LCS, we would be in a much better place today.
It needed to be about 150 smaller ships. That's boiling it way down.
Carrier-based drones that you can stack like Pringles. Great idea!
As long as all those containerized payloads don’t follow the path of the “Modular Mission Module” or whatever the plug-and-play things supposedly to equip the LCS were called. At least they have the Mk 70 Expeditionary Yeet Module mostly complete.
And for use as logistics assets keeping all the expeditionary penny packets of Marines fed and armed, unless there’s something I missed in the posted requirements about cargo handling equipment, maybe something in a container that could help expeditiously shift expeditionary containers full of MREs and bullets onto slightly improved expeditionary shoresides on penny packet islands in the dark of night.
Of course feeding that last idea into the Good Idea Fairy-infected design side of the Pentagon would result in a billion dollar self-unloading nuclear powered CONEX container, of which we could afford three, rather than some sort of winch lash up assembled from jeep winches orderable from Amazon along the lines of what the Marines would come up with on their own.
The same ships the Dutch are showing for their unmanned ship is also designed for a fairly strong crane in Yacht Support form. eats some space and weight, but potentially worth it on at least a subclass of the larger ship.
Who is going to deal with the rust……?
Ed: Autonomous Rust Removers.
Those would be ARRs.
Fitting for what is likely going to operate like a pirate navy.
(ahem) still here.
let's just get rid of that "surface" and "unmanned" part, and think.....an aircraft, one with unlimited range, VTOL. no need for a runway, crew of two-three, roll on-roll off container capable, 100 tons as a goal. oh, and that 25kts? pooh, let's up that to 100-150kts.
Time to set aside long-lead funding for some of them thar' PDS VLS systems and the stuff that fills them. (Make sure a stabilized hull is part of the SOW.)
I didn't see refueling at sea listed. Oversight or no plan to do it?
Short legs. Either needs underway replenishment or visits to ESBs or well decks. Still, even a short-leg version would be useful from bases in the Phillipines, Ryukyus, and Korea.
Build some short leg versions, learn a lot, then worry about longer legged and more sophisticated versions. Start with the Jeep, not the MRAP.
Keep in kind Overlord was doing stints of over 5000 @ 8 and MDUSVs were designed for 10,000@10. One of the Overlord ships did relief for the Hurricane. Not the article on that I was looking for, but this describes the boat with some trial data. 30 knots carrying 250 long ton on deck. https://professionalmariner.com/liam-j-mccall/
They have already tested a refueling system on the Overlord ships designed for the NOMARS ship. That covers 2 of the 3 size groups described here assuming they were successful. Also keep in mind they want room for 14 aboard the big one.
Make one, or part of one, container fuel.
I like smaller and a lot faster. Think of the Ukrainian successes. You can afford to lose them delivering a torp or drive it into them at upwards of 90 kts at night. Don’t bet too much on those bigger platforms arriving at the speed needed. Hot line in the us used by many friendly countries.
We need USVs that can shoot as much if not more than the one and done type. A little bigger, longer lasting and a clear deterrent in being that works relatively well with our vast amount of small boat production and can fit our existing logistics. This article does a good job of diving into it. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2024/november/stand-force-has-maneuver?check_logged_in=1
Don't worry, one or more buffoons and clowns posing as a 1-, 2-, 3-, or 4-Star Admiral will find a way to force the 'attributes' of the Zumwalts or LCSs into the required characteristics to 'make it better'.