Download - Royal Australian Navy

NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN MARCH 2003
31
level. Furthermore the RAN, has
been operating drone ships for
quite some time in the form of
Mine Hunters.
If we the RAN are continuing to
find that manpower is a problem,
in an operational tempo of high
threat surveillance roles, then
maybe this TM-187
(CCP/ANZSPO/00470/2002)
might just be the solution. Should
it be approved for further
investigation, its number one
hurdle would not be technical,
financial or manpower in nature,
but cultural.
However this technological step
should not be viewed as the end
of sea-faring days, but as a force
mutliplier that allows a mediumsized
navy much greater flexibility
in the manning of her deployed
ships.
• Communications Link Failure
Technically, the concept’s
vulnerability undoubtedly lies in
maintaining a quick and reliable
high bandwidth data channel
continuously. At this point I see
two options should the
communications link fail for
whatever reason:
a. In peace time, the ship would
sail at best speed to the
nearest homeport; or
b. In times of war, the ship would
revert to a Full ADC mode, and
continue to actively prosecute
anything that does not return
the correct IFF Mode 4
response.
Support and Maintenance
philosophy
Condition fault codes from all
networked systems with a Built-In
Test, would communicate these
codes over the RNU, for MOTUs
and FIMAs to diagnose and
correct when the ship was
alongside again.
Unfortunately due to the need for
onboard technicians to perform
Planned Maintenance routines on
their equipment, ships could only
spend a week at sea. As fitted
equipment becomes more
reliable and self-sufficient, the
maximum period of time a vessel
could operate unmanned would
increase.
• The roles of an unmanned ship
An unmanned warship would still
need to be piloted in and out of
harbour, through high traffic
straits and environmentally
sensitive areas. Furthermore an
unmanned warship is incapable
of performing functions such as
boarding operations. For these
reasons, an unmanned warship
would primarily be used for
surveillance and patrol
(Configuration A), and form part
of a larger manned taskgroup in
blue water areas (Configuration
B).
• SWOT Analysis
Strengths –
Efficiency - The savings in
operational costs in the lifetime
of just one unmanned warship,
could fund many other projects.
Capability - The RAN could plan
and implement for taskgroups,
that have far greater mission
capablility than a single ship,
more frequently.
Weaknesses –
Real-time Control - Software
integration is the number one risk
here. Real time controls over a
sophisticated communications
system, will introduce a time
delay of at least a few seconds in
what is a closed loop system.
Opportunities –
Manning - A Flexible Manning
Policy could be introduced, to suit
the operational requirements of
the day. A ship fitted with a
Remote Network Unit, could still
be operated as a traditionally
fully manned warship, with the
combat system booted up in
‘local control’.
Ship Design and Supportability -
Utilising manned spaces, for
greater fuel, ammunition and
FIGURE 3 – COLLABERATED C2 OF A TASK GROUP