Download - Royal Australian Navy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
32 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN MARCH 2003 equipment capacity would dramatically increase a warship’s capability. On the flip side, ensuring a ship could operate manned or unmanned from the one baseline, would work quite favourably for our support systems. Operations - The possibility of colocating all the ships’ “Remote Ops Room” of a task group, in the same underground bunker as that of your operations and intelligence centre has many warfare advantages. Threats - Captured / Rogue ships – When a ship is unmanned a security system would be needed to detect movement in her internal and external spaces. The detection of motion would alert command, of a possible intrusion into the unmanned vessel. The possibility of an unmanned ship going ‘rogue’ should the communications link fail, was addressed in a paragraph titled exactly that. International Regulations - Compliance with International Maritime Organisation (IMO) standards will prove challenging. CONCLUSION The Design and Concept for an Unmanned Major Surface Combatant has been shown to be a technically feasible major project, that would provide the RAN with an enormous force multiplier, and also making a Flexible Manning Policy possible. Its first step would be to ‘prove the concept’ of the Remote Network Unit. Undoubtedly the two biggest technical risks - Communications Link Failure and the need for ongoing Organisational level maintenance, dictates that Configuration B would be the far more sustainable option. Here the drone ship(s) is controlled and supported by a fully manned Command Ship. For IMO compliance, a qualified OOW could be rotated through to act as a safety number for pilotage of the ship. I urge the Senior Engineers of the RAN to take this design and concept seriously, and comment in this open forum regarding the idea, as Unmanned Warships may be more of a necessity rather than science fiction as this Operational Tempo begins to slow down. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: SBLT Nissen joined the RAN as an undergraduate in 1997, before completing his AWEEO time on HMAS ANZAC. He has since been posted to the ANZAC SPO and recently formed Combat Support Group, and is now employed as the Development Engineer within the Surface Combatant FEG. In the civilian arena he has won awards from Farnell and the Nescafe Big Break Competition for Computer Hardware / Software design. BLOHM + VOSS’S MEKO D FRIGATE DESIGN
Page 2 and 3: NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN MARCH 200

Download - Royal Australian Navy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?