Future ASW

[shark bait]

My point is what can we expect XLUUV’s to be able to achieve by 2040? Much more than today.

They won't be cruising around at high speed because that requires atomic levels of energy density. Drone subs will be comparable to other SSKs, slow and stealthy ambush predators.

There's potential to be very useful for territorial defense, but not so much for going on the attack. From a UK context there's an application for drone subs to patrol the GIUK gap, but they're not following a carrier group around.

[donald_of_tokyo]

My point is what can we expect XLUUV’s to be able to achieve by 2040? Much more than today.

They won't be cruising around at high speed because that requires atomic levels of energy density. Drone subs will be comparable to other SSKs, slow and stealthy ambush predators.

There's potential to be very useful for territorial defense, but not so much for going on the attack.

Any XLUUV shall be much much slower than SSK. If you just look around, you can see POWERFUL something is very very maintenance heavy. Very bad match with “unmanned and long endurance”.

It is a very commmon engineering standpoint that, if you want something that works maintenance free for months, essential is to make it as low power as possible.

[shark bait]

Please can you go into why you think this I am just trying to get my head around this

In passive mode the signal to noise ratio is very low, meaning controlling self noise is important, and increases the chance of hearing a sub.

Artificial intelligence does nothing to reduce self noise, and I'm not convinced machine learning will deliver a software fix for self noise that is better than what's available and written by humans today.

[new guy]

My point is what can we expect XLUUV’s to be able to achieve by 2040? Much more than today.

They won't be cruising around at high speed because that requires atomic levels of energy density. Drone subs will be comparable to other SSKs, slow and stealthy ambush predators.

There's potential to be very useful for territorial defense, but not so much for going on the attack.

Any XLUUV shall be much much slower than SSK. If you just look around, you can see POWERFUL something is very very maintenance heavy. Very bad match with “unmanned and long endurance”.

It is a very commmon engineering standpoint that, if you want something that works maintenance free for months, essential is to make it as low power as possible.

A lot of people hear think that because a boat, ship or plane is unmanned it will magically have new advancements in capabilities or price because of it.

The technology doesn't change.

You buy an SSK sized XLUUV,
with SSK capabilities,


You are buying a crewless SSK.
The technology doesn't change.

[shark bait]

Any XLUUV shall be much much slower than SSK

Probably, with no humans to keep alive there's no need to rush anywhere. Drone subs can slowly and silently patrol a patch of ocean without feeling any time pressures.

You are buying a crewless SSK.
The technology doesn't change

But hopefully the price does, because humans are expensive, especially when trying to keep them alive underwater.

This is why drone subs are of interest to the Royal Navy, it needs more submarines, but has no conventional means to achieve more subs.

[Poiuytrewq]

They won't be cruising around at high speed because that requires atomic levels of energy density. Drone subs will be comparable to other SSKs, slow and stealthy ambush predators.

Its way too early to be that sure. You are basing your assumptions on what is possible today.

What happens if you take a small SSK with AIP and fill the crew spaces with lithium batteries? What could a power bank of that size be truly capable of?

What is the true potential of the lithium technology when refined again and again and again. We know it’s quiet but speed, range and endurance numbers are currently improving exponentially.

In a decades time lithium and hydrogen technology will be streets ahead of where we are now. Jump two decades and who knows what’s possible.

One thing is for sure, if the UK or AUKUS funding isn’t provided to enhance, refine, improve and maximise the possibilities that the new and emerging battery technology can offer, others will.

It’s worth considering that virtually all capabilities will be autonomous eventually, it’s just a case of how quick we get there.

[donald_of_tokyo]

They won't be cruising around at high speed because that requires atomic levels of energy density. Drone subs will be comparable to other SSKs, slow and stealthy ambush predators.

Its way too early to be that sure. You are basing your assumptions on what is possible today.

What happens if you take a small SSK with AIP and fill the crew spaces with lithium batteries? What could a power bank of that size be truly capable of?

The system will stop working every seven days, and "rescue" operation will be issued frequently. AIP is a mess.

What is the true potential of the lithium technology when refined again and again and again. We know it’s quiet but speed, range and endurance numbers are currently improving exponentially.

In a decades time lithium and hydrogen technology will be streets ahead of where we are now. Jump two decades and who knows what’s possible.

New battery technologies are really encouraging. But, the motors, power electronics and shafts, if with high power, it is a nightmare if without proper maintenance. The big differences are one it static, and the other is moving mechanics. This is my point.

There is a reason MQ-9Bs are using a relatively low power resi-pro engine, not a powerful turbine. Low power is very "beautiful" in mechatronics world.

It’s worth considering that virtually all capabilities will be autonomous eventually, it’s just a case of how quick we get there.

I can agree here. The first we need is a good robot which can replace human to do all the maintenance works. Of course, it does not need to look like a human. I think it will take a few decades for this technology to come. But, eventually, I agree, it will come.

On the other hand, current technology for unmanned systems is stepping forward, low-power but long endurance. I think it is a very healthy way of technology development, at least for coming two decades or so.

In short I think any XLUUV must not be considered as "unmanned SSK". XLUUV is a different beast, which can do the task in different way SSKs are doing. For example;

1: Information gathering is of course the top ranked tasks. Sneeking, ambushing for months, and if the issue is important, "report" by Satcom. No SSK nor SSN can do this. They are just too large and has not enough endurance.

2: pretending a SSK or SSN or even SSBN. Many of the enemy sub, XVUUV, ASW escorts and aircrafts will be "pulled out" of the area, making a free way for our SSK/SSN/SSBN. This can be done by SSK or SSN. But, by its tasks' nature, meaningless if we do so. SSK/SSN is so costy and precious these days.

3: "Attack" is something not easy. I think we still need "a man in the loop" when firing something against human. This is a very unconvenient restriction for XLUUV. But, without this, we might eventually be distributing hundreds of "terminators" underwater all over the world.

4: Other tasks?

[shark bait]

Its way too early to be that sure. You are basing your assumptions on what is possible today.

The assumptions are based on physics. The energy required to sustain 20+ knots in water is huge, so much that no ship can do that for more than a couple of days. A battery would have to be comically huge to make this happen, that's why there are no proposals for battery ships.

Batteries will definitely get better, so drone subs will be able to either last longer, or go a little faster than the 3 knots they do today. Exceeding 20 knots for more than a day will be approaching atomic levels of energy density, which far exceeds the theoretical maximum of chemical batteries, and out of reach for XLUUV.

[shark bait]

4: Other tasks?

As Donald points out, intelligence and decoys are the primary roles for the first couple of drone sub generations.

I'd add a few 'special missions' to the list, for example delivering equipment for special forces, minelaying, or working with undersea infrastructure, but these are more secondary tasks.

[Poiuytrewq]

The assumptions are based on physics. The energy required to sustain 20+ knots in water is huge, so much that no ship can do that for more than a couple of days. A battery would have to be comically huge to make this happen, that's why there are no proposals for battery ships.

Batteries will definitely get better, so drone subs will be able to either last longer, or go a little faster than the 3 knots they do today. Exceeding 20 knots for more than a day will be approaching atomic levels of energy density, which far exceeds the theoretical maximum of chemical batteries, and out of reach for XLUUV.

I really don’t see the problem.

Conventional propulsion for transit, battery whilst submerged.

Apart from a combination of autonomous control and advanced AI to provide the operation and problem solving/maintenance the technology is very similar to what is in use today.

[Poiuytrewq]

In short I think any XLUUV must not be considered as "unmanned SSK". XLUUV is a different beast, which can do the task in different way SSKs are doing.

IMO the decision has to be taken whether one more generation of manned vessel is required before going fully autonomous. A minimally crewed SSK would still have lots of advantages.

How low could this crew allocation go? Is less than 6 possible?

How much time could these crossover SSK’s save whilst the autonomous technology matures? One or two decades perhaps?

A class of highly automated and minimally crewed SSK with most of the crew replaced by advanced AI may be required to bridge the gap as autonomous technology matures which could be decades unless AI opens doors that were previously thought impossible.

That is why the sub 25m XLUUV is a different consideration to the larger unmanned SSK. Both will happen eventually but the smaller XLUUV should be well adavanced by 2040.

The decision then needs to be made whether the sub 25m XLUUV’s should be armed or at least be capable of launching autonomous munitions that can then be guided to the target.

The only barrier to almost endless capability enhancement will be funding.

[shark bait]

It voids the concept as soon as conventional propulsion is added.

Engineering a small battery powered sub is trivial, it allows engineers to concentrate on the real value adding features, the software and the sensors. Adding another propulsion train adds cost and complexity while removing payload, so should be strictly avoided. The only way these things happen is if they are cheap, with the first generation being little more than a self propelled and reusable sonobuoy.

[Poiuytrewq]

It voids the concept as soon as conventional propulsion is added.

Which concept?

XLUUV’s run on diesel generators whilst surfaced.

[shark bait]

A class of highly automated and minimally crewed SSK with most of the crew replaced by advanced AI may be required to bridge the gap

This voids the concept even more than my last post.

Humans are expensive, and they are eye-wateringly expensive to keep alive under the sea. Weather its 6 or 30 people, the cost is very high, you need a shit load of extra equipotent, and way higher design tolerances as soon as one person steps on board. 100% avoid.

XLUUV’s run on diesel generators whilst surfaced.

The Royal Navy demonstrators, and many others do not. Neither should they because it is so much extra cost, while adding no tactical value.

The USN/Boeing Orca has diesel generators, and it is very expensive for little to no extra performance. In all cases bigger batteries are preferable to generators, fuel tanks and ancillary equipotent needed to recharge at sea. This is especially true for Royal Navy subs that do not need to transit anywhere, with bases in Scotland affording direct access to the GIUK gap where they will be most useful.

[Poiuytrewq]

Great timing!

https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-ce ... ext-xluuv/

As expected not Frigate capable.

[Poiuytrewq]

Not a lot of detail here but great to see continued progress and investment.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ead-trials

Much more detail here.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... rine-edge/

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting read.

https://www.navylookout.com/hunting-sub ... th-drones/

More proof that large hangers or multipurpose mission areas with direct access to hanger/flight deck is going to be very important going forward.

A combination of unmanned aircraft and surface/sub-surface craft could provide potent ASW within a decade or two.

The T31 should have had the Absalon twin Merlin capable hanger and at least one 15m boat house with HD davits. If the stern ramp is achievable in the A140 MNP then it should have been added to T31 to allow the use of XLUUVs.

IMG_1441.jpeg

As expected, the T26 also has major design flaws, particularly in regard to launching and recovering XLUUV’s. Many current Frigate designs could become obsolescent much faster than originally anticipated if the autonomous systems continue to get bigger and more capable.

[Repulse]

As expected, the T26 also has major design flaws, particularly in regard to launching and recovering XLUUV’s.

Where do I read this in the article you posted?

[Poiuytrewq]

As expected, the T26 also has major design flaws, particularly in regard to launching and recovering XLUUV’s.

Where do I read this in the article you posted?

Why would something I wrote be in the article?

[new guy]

As expected, the T26 also has major design flaws, particularly in regard to launching and recovering XLUUV’s.

Interesting how so?

Also, I believe stern launch on AH140 is a dead end, not enough space.

[Repulse]

As expected, the T26 also has major design flaws, particularly in regard to launching and recovering XLUUV’s.

Where do I read this in the article you posted?

Why would something I wrote be in the article?

You’ve stated that the T26 has design flaws referencing the article. Where does it say it has design flaws or is that your opinion independent of the article?

[Poiuytrewq]

You’ve stated that the T26 has design flaws referencing the article. Where does it say it has design flaws or is that your opinion independent of the article?

The design flaws are regarding the utilisation of the new and emerging ASW unmanned systems.

The T26 cannot and will not be able to deploy a XLUUV. If that’s of critical importance within 15yrs from now then barely commissioned T26’s will already be obsolescent. It’s hardly surprising when each one takes a decade from steel cutting to commissioning. This is one of the main reasons why leisurely peace time procurement schedules need to get ditched asap.

A deck crane would solve the problem on the T26, as would a redesigned mission bay handling system. https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... ystem.aspx

The T26 UAV/UCV capacity is much more generous as the hanger and mission area are linked but with a Merlin embarked, most of the hanger space is filled.

The next-gen Frigate is looking more and more like a Damen Crossover with a LOA of around 175m including a twin spot flight deck and stern ramp. Alternatively, a fixed TAS could be retained in the stern and the XLUUVs could be deployed from side hatches like the Crossover design.

IMG_1442.jpeg

If the money was available, the T32 would migrate eventually into this ballpark IMO.

If the T26’s design is fixed and a clean sheet design is unaffordable for the T32 then the only option RN has left is with the MRSS and LSV programs.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The T26 cannot and will not be able to deploy a XLUUV. If that’s of critical importance within 15yrs from now then barely commissioned T26’s will already be obsolescent.

…

If the T26’s design is fixed and a clean sheet design is unaffordable for the T32 then the only option RN has left is with the MRSS and LSV programs.

Operating XLUUVs from frigates seems a low priority requirement as they can either be operated from land or from a larger auxiliary, which seems much more appropriate for a long range craft. Any UUV up to 10t and less than 15m , which is a hell of a lot, can be operated.

If it was a requirement, it’s not a massive enhancement, just extend the mission bay and add a larger lift capability. Not justification for a new design in itself IMO.

[shark bait]

I struggle to see how a Frigate and XLUUV would make an effective pairing. With drone subs expected to be very slow (<5kts), they'll never be able to keep pace with a Frigate or Carrier Group.

[new guy]

I struggle to see how a Frigate and XLUUV would make an effective pairing. With drone subs expected to be very slow (<5kts), they'll never be able to keep pace with a Frigate or Carrier Group.

Depends on the mission. CSG; No.
Deployment is location crucial places via frigate, e.g TAPS, GIUK, or situations where the frigate manages multiple XLUUV to increase the efficacy of a patrol. That is one of the main points of Unmanned systems; A greater presence, spread and efficacy, e.g in MCM.