US plans crewless automated ghost-frigates Those splendid brainboxes at DARPA - the Pentagon's in-house bazaar of the bizarre - have outdone themselves this time. They now plan an entirely uncrewed, automated ghost frigate able to cruise the oceans of the world for months or years on end without human input. The new project is called Anti-submarine warfare Continuous …
I hope someone at DARPA has, otherwise the first time a Robo-ship meets it's swift demise under a freak wave, the USA will nuke some 'minor' country, such as Australia or Sweden, who both run diesel subs. Unless, of course, that's THE PLAN.
I think it's a great idea for the next Tom Clancy novel, not so good for that pesky real-life thing we have to deal with.
If active sonar becomes the thing to use, you could actively confuse it. There are several easy ways to do this (one nice trick is to launch a small torpedo-like object which generates false echos (actively) while the real sub goes and sits under some merchant vessel). Once the robofrigate has lost contact it is fairly useless
...but once a country has realised that the US is sneakily following its submarines, all they have to do is sneak a couple of guys with large amounts of explosives very near the 'ghost-ship'. The country can claim to have nothing to do with the resulting explosion. Even better if the ghost-ship is destroyed inside that countrys waters - then they can claim it was an act of agression from the US that was only prevented by a chance terrorist activity...
The sub itself has to do nothing. After this has happened five or six times, the US will rethink this idea.
This is actually what the Americans are now implimenting for mine hunting (amongst other missions):
http://www.gdlcs.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Independence_%28LCS-2%29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPufnytAMUk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1uZfwws2WI
This was the rather embarassingly implemented and ugly concept attempt by the Royal Navy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RV_Triton
As the LCS is a snip at $208 M each, we do seem to have rather managed to forget our Naval history lessons, perhaps we need to hire another Samuel Pepys.
So this is going to be in accordance with the rules as described in the article? Good Luck, rule 5 says "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." With intermittent communication back to base how exactly are they keeping a look-out by sight and hearing???
Of course this being the US they'll probably ingonore the inconvenient bits and say they comply...
Bit sick of this "cyberwar robot masturbation frenzy".
Starting to think that the citiens of their own countries ought to be able to attack and sink and shoot down all of the robo-killer madness machines and the people and factories that make them.
Speaking of idiots and arseholes, I look forward to the day these shitheads sail their junk past Somalia. Megamillion Roboship vs, thieving pricks in a rubber dingy.
Should be fun.
I hope they post the video of them smashing it's computer brain in with a rifle butt on Youtube.
Would be really cool. Fire control could be automated, so the ship would automatically fight back if threatened or attacked. No crew to risk, no chance of anyone taken hostage. No need for food or water or bunks, so more room for fuel, ammunition, armor, and so on. In addition to hunting subs, ships like this could be used to constantly monitor suspected pirate bases, terror camps located near the coast, and so on. In a way this would be a very good way to save on limited manpower. Since they could stay at sea in large numbers they could also act as a blockade force (off the Somalian coast perhaps?) as required.
All in all, a very good idea.
With more than a little experience in the matters here, I agree with a lot of the faults mentioned.
However, unmentioned and probably most important, is the difficulty of initial acquisition. The vision presumes the ghost-tracker already has it, but a noisy (pinging) surface ASW sonar is one of the easiest things for a submarine (even a slow one) to avoid as its passive sonar hears the pinger at a vastly greater distance than the pinger can hear its own sonar's echo off the sub. For starters, consider the acoustic two-way travel, then the added attenuation experienced in littoral waters, etc. Given that small, stealthy, diesel-electric/sterling-engined/fuel-celled subs with added anechoic coating are exceptionally difficult to detect in shallow littoral zones when stationary - and doubly so if they have plenty of time to evade - this thing sounds like a non-starter. Also, regarding initial acquisition, they are assuming software as sophisticated as the brainy-ear of a trained and experienced sonarman - ears that are the select of the best and practiced for years in all manner of conditions to achieve competence - unless, of course, they plan a real-time data-link to a sonarman in Gackle, North Dakota.
From another forum where I posted this story:
' . . By the way, I passed this thread on to my wants-to-remain-anonymous contact at the Pentagon and he responded "One thing he is wrong about though...unmanned is NOT cheaper than manned (yet)...satcom time is eating our lunch."'
http://www.wwnorton.com/pob/forum/ceilidh.htm#88924
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
