• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

ASW options for small ships and vessels

Silly question, but rather then getting a sub into our harbour, wouldn't it make more sense to stand off somewhere and simply launch a few ICBMs or other long range missiles from said sub at the city in question?  Seems like the naval equivalent of putting down your high calibre rifle to go poke a bear with a stick instead.
 
Granted that is more of a threat now, but if you don't have the defences, then people might be tempted to try and I suspect there are not as many cruise missiles in anyone stocks for all of the targets. Not to mention a delayed action mine or explosives planted and then having the sub slip away provides some unaccountability, such as the games NK plays. The target may not even be a big sub, but a smaller sub delivered into the area by a disguised merchant ship. 
 
Colin P said:
Granted that is more of a threat now, but if you don't have the defences, then people might be tempted to try and I suspect there are not as many cruise missiles in anyone stocks for all of the targets. Not to mention a delayed action mine or explosives planted and then having the sub slip away provides some unaccountability, such as the games NK plays. The target may not even be a big sub, but a smaller sub delivered into the area by a disguised merchant ship.
Some years back an RCN officer wrote an article for ........Broadsides I think about using seaborne IEDs to close a port.Using old hot water heaters as a shell.
It strikes me that a rogue state such as North Korea would be such as a user of this method.
 
Weren't the Germans running operations from an interned freighter in Spain against the British held Gibraltar?
 
Colin P said:
Weren't the Germans running operations from an interned freighter in Spain against the British held Gibraltar?
[/quote
  There was  one vessel acting as a intel post in the former Portuguese colony of Goa as mentioned by James Leasor in his book Boarding Party . I believe the Italians  had a similar operation against Malta .
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_commando_frogmen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_torpedo

300px-Aa_mk1chariot_2UBAs.jpg


Judging from accounts the assaults weren't particularly successful and had a high loss rate among the assaulters.

These days I am guessing that gliding UUV-mines capable of sitting on the bottom would be a better bet.
 
It seems to make more sense to break the problem down into two parts: detecting the enemy sub and then prosecuting it.

Several "packaged" sonar systems have been demonstrated to operate in a modular fashion off ships and platforms as varied as the "Sea Slice" (a form of SWATH ship) to versions of the Littoral Combat Ship, so putting a compact and self contained sensor package on a ship (or boat, for that matter) does not seem to be a problem. Since we ideally want to have lots of sensors in a picket line to make it hard for the sub to approach, I would think a series of robotic ships or boats that can carry and deploy the systems under control of a larger vessel (or even a shore station if conditions permit) would make sense. Once the submarine has been identified and an alert given, then whatever ship, aircraft or helicopter that is best placed can be given the coordinates and the job.

Harbour defense is a lot harder, since the distances are so close and the timelines are far shorter. OTOH, I doubt the submarine wants to get too close in anyway (think of the Soviet sub stranded off the coast of Sweden many years ago when it ran aground). Even if it is dropping off a SEAL team or Spetsnaz swimmers, it can stand off some distance while they approach using underwater sleds, mini subs or whatever special forces shiny kit is being used now.


 
I believe late war that hydrophones were set up off of Prince Rupert. Certainly fairly easy to do, must be mind numbing to sit in a shack hour upon hour listening to seal farts.
 
Colin P said:
I believe late war that hydrophones were set up off of Prince Rupert. Certainly fairly easy to do, must be mind numbing to sit in a shack hour upon hour listening to seal farts.

That's why computers why computers were built just for those pointless mind numbing near useless jobs......well that and 2nd Lieutenants.  ;)
 
Do they not already have a few solutions for running a series of sonar arrays along the sea floor?  It should be easy enough to do, and give you the option of passive/active.  I think the also have unmanned underwater sonar drones they can drop in anywhere with a variety of programs, that will come up to the surface and transmit if they get a target.
 
Small remote warships come closer to reality. Small ships like this could be patrolling around a harbour mouth or a task force at sea deploying sensors and acting as small weapons platforms to confront a large array of threats at a distance from the target:

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/navy-self-driving-swarmboats/

The Navy’s Developing Little Autonomous Boats to Defend Its Ships
BY JORDAN GOLSON  10.06.14  |  6:30 AM  |  PERMALINK

An unmanned 27-foot harbor security boat from Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock operates autonomously during an Office of Naval Research (ONR)-sponsored demonstration of swarmboat technology held on the James River in Newport News, Va.
An unmanned 27-foot harbor security boat from Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock operates autonomously during an Office of Naval Research (ONR)-sponsored demonstration of swarmboat technology held on the James River in Newport News, Va.  John F. Williams/U.S. Navy

Navy ships are at their most vulnerable when they’re resupplying in port or navigating narrow straits or rivers because they’re tricky to maneuver in tight quarters and vulnerable to attack. The attack 14 years ago on the USS Cole as it refueled while berthed in Yemen, an attack that killed 17 American sailors and reiterated the need to protect warships in port.

To counter asymmetric attacks—the 505-foot Cole was attacked by a small craft packed with explosives that ripped 40-foot gash in the destroyer—the Navy uses small patrol craft for close-quarters defense. And that means placing sailors in the line of fire. That got the Office of Naval Research into developing autonomous technology for small “swarmboats” that could be used for risky jobs.

These vessels would, much like the autonomous minesweepers the Army is testing, act as a force multiplier, allowing one sailor to do the work of several, from a safe location.

The technology, called Control Architecture for Robotic Agent Command and Sensing (CARACaS), is essentially an autopilot on steroids that can be installed on nearly any boat. During a test in August on the James River in Newport News, Virginia, Navy researchers used 13 rigid-hulled inflatable boats equipped with the technology to escort a “high-value” ship and swarm an “enemy” vessel. The boats decide on their own where to go, when to steer, and when to apply the throttle. A human operator, who can be in another ship, a helicopter, or well away from the action, uses a laptop to tell the swarmboats which craft are to be protected and which are to be attacked. Think of it as an officer giving his (robotic) sailors a mission—protect this guy, attack that one—and letting them determine how best to fulfill it.

The Navy wouldn’t say much about how the technology works, but it appears similar to what is used in other autonomous vehicles, including passenger cars. Hardware turns the wheel, adjusts the throttle, and so forth, while computers and radar detect other boats and decide where to go and what to do.

The ships in August’s test didn’t open fire, but the Navy is getting there, though it says robots will not decide when or whom to attack. “If there is any kind of designation, any kind of targeting,” says Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, Chief of Naval Research, “there is always a human in the loop.” If a boat loses communication with its human captain, who may be halfway around the world, it goes dead in the water.

The autonomous technology could be applied to any number of boats for a wide variety of situations. A swarmboat could deploy SEALs on a beach, then return to sea and await further instructions, avoiding the need to leave a sailor with the ship or risk having it discovered. The tech also could control larger ships that don’t necessarily need on-board oversight, like resupply or patrol vessels.

The Navy didn’t reveal the costs of the CARACaS system, nor when it might be deployed. The Pentagon certainly is excited by its possibilities, however. “While the attack on Cole was not the only motivation for developing autonomous swarm capability, it certainly is front and center in our minds, and hearts.” says Klunder. “If Cole had been supported by autonomous USVs, they could have stopped that attack long before it got close to our brave men and women on board.”
 
Coming at the problem from the air, DARPA is working on options for small ships to carry and utilize UCAVs. While they will initially be sensor platforms, there is nothing to stop them from being used to drop sonar bouys, utilize very small, lightweight dipping sonars or even prosecute a target with a small hedgehog type charge (while a Hedgehog might not damage or kill the sub, it certainly will change any calculations by the sub's crew about the mission):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/darpa-progress-to-small-ships-with.html

DARPA progress to small ships each with UAV air forces
air force, darpa, drones, navy, robotics, ships, technology, UAV

DARPA has chosen two performers to work on new systems that would cost-effectively provide capabilities on par with land-based systems.

DARPA has awarded prime contracts for Phase 2 of Tern, a joint program between DARPA and the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research (ONR). The goal of Tern is to give forward-deployed small ships the ability to serve as mobile launch and recovery sites for medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial systems (UAS). These systems could provide long-range intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and other capabilities over greater distances and time periods than is possible with current assets, including manned and unmanned helicopters. Further, a capacity to launch and retrieve aircraft on small ships would reduce the need for ground-based airstrips, which require significant dedicated infrastructure and resources. The two prime contractors selected by DARPA are AeroVironment, Inc., and Northrop Grumman Corp.

Tern, a joint program between DARPA and the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research (ONR), seeks to enable forward-deployed small ships to serve as mobile launch and recovery sites for medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial systems (UAS). In an important step toward that goal, DARPA has awarded prime contracts for Phase 2 of Tern to two companies: AeroVironment, Inc. and Northrop Grumman Corp.

“To offer the equivalent of land-based UAS capabilities from small-deck ships, our Phase 2 performers are each designing a new unmanned air system intended to enable two previously unavailable capabilities: one, the ability for a UAS to take off and land from very confined spaces in elevated sea states and two, the ability for such a UAS to transition to efficient long-duration cruise missions,” said Dan Patt, DARPA program manager. “Tern’s goal is to develop breakthrough technologies that the Navy could realistically integrate into the future fleet and make it much easier, quicker and less expensive for the Defense Department to deploy persistent ISR and strike capabilities almost anywhere in the world.”

The first two phases of the Tern program focus on preliminary design and risk reduction. In Phase 3, one performer will be selected to build a full-scale demonstrator Tern system for initial ground-based testing. That testing would lead to a full-scale, at-sea demonstration of a prototype UAS on an at-sea platform with deck size similar to that of a destroyer or other surface combat vessel.
 
Back
Top