My comments in regards to ACTUV operations and design.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Frying Tiger

I for one hope the world's militaries think long and hard before they arm a platform with no human in the loop.

I thought the ACTUV was intended to be remote operated like a Predator? It could at least be for the armed variant.

[Gargamel]

I can easily see this as an possibility.

Remember the hoopla over the predator drones? Now everybody is like, oh cool, our guys aren't in harms way.

Make these autonomous, except for firing weapons. If they can fit a C&C package onto an oversized RC plane, then I'm pretty sure they have room for it on an armed ACTUV MK II. Firing authority can only come from a human source. The rest of it is automated.

[Molon Labe]

@TLAM: Mission creep!!!! (It's not just the sim that takes intial detection for granted; it's part of the mission concept itself)


My understanding was that these would be completely autonomous, save for some commands that could probably be issued by satellite.

My thoughts:

1. I'm troubled by the lack of passive sonar. Not a good one for finding SSKs, I know that's wasted effort (and cost). But a relatively weak one, I would guess anyways, would be useful for keeping track of a sprinting SSK that's trying to shake you loose, as well as help with identifying false returns.

2. What the heck is this thing going to be powered by? The "speed penalty" is so low on the scoring compared to maintaining contact with multiple sensors that it seems it's expected to cruise around at 20+ knots whenever not in contact.

3. It's easy enough to deal with a rogue freighter, but isn't it more likely that the platform running interference would be more like a Boghammar? There isn't anything the operator can do to evade something that is faster and more maneuverable. If these things are programmed not to be within 500 yards of even demonstrably hostile craft, they'll be forced off rather easily.

4. How will the targets (and their respective nations) react to this new trailing method? Will being blasted with MF active continuously from the time they leave port to the time they return cause any psychological issues for the crew (sleep deprivation?). Will destroying one of these create enough of an international incident that the target nation's forces would be deterred from doing so?

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

1. I'm troubled by the lack of passive sonar. Not a good one for finding SSKs, I know that's wasted effort (and cost). But a relatively weak one, I would guess anyways, would be useful for keeping track of a sprinting SSK that's trying to shake you loose, as well as help with identifying false returns.

I agree with this, but I'm not sure on how accurate automated classification is with this type of system. I've heard reports on both ends of the spectrum.

2. What the heck is this thing going to be powered by? The "speed penalty" is so low on the scoring compared to maintaining contact with multiple sensors that it seems it's expected to cruise around at 20+ knots whenever not in contact.

I thought that too. I would have to imagine they run at like 8-10 knots when not in tracking mode, so they have fuel to actually track. But from the DARPA mission specs, these things seem to have global range, and I dont know of any craft that has global range and then has power to conduct extended high speed ops for long periods of time, that isn't nuclear. And right now (if ever), there's no way they could convince anybody that an automated nuclear drone is a good idea.

4. How will the targets (and their respective nations) react to this new trailing method? Will being blasted with MF active continuously from the time they leave port to the time they return cause any psychological issues for the crew (sleep deprivation?). Will destroying one of these create enough of an international incident that the target nation's forces would be deterred from doing so?

How would the US react if somebody shot down one of their spy drones right now? They might go "hey! Don't do that!". I really think it might become common to see other nations taking out or merely disabling these drones.

[Frying Tiger]

The ACTUV is diesel-electric with a gas turbine booster "CODAG" (haven't you noticed the sound of it spooling up and down?) (grin)

The lower hull is almost all fuel. So it can go forever on the diesels, but eats fuel at high speed with the gas turbine.

[Gargamel]

Try this on for size though.... Totally hypothetical, but of course this would be the forum where it would actually get noticed ().

What about a long range cruise missile torpedo? Ie, a Tomahawk tipped with a short range torpedo.

With ACTUV, there's no reason to move assets into a position where they could take return fire. Even the best sneak attack in sub warfare allows for some reaction time and a snap shot in return. If ACTUV is tracking a target, why couldn't they launch a torpedo on a cruise missile, and allow ACTUV to guide it to the target?

This would be no different than AWACS guiding in fighters for a BVR intercept. The firing decision would still be in human hands, pushing a button, and it avoids the problems of having armed drones crossing international borders. Most countries just grumble and mumble when unarmed drones invade their airspace, but get really upset when armed ones fly over.

The target would have little warning as there wouldn't be any noise until the torpedo splashes a few thousand yards away.

You could imagine one SSN having contact with a fleet of ACTUV's, and timing a launch so it would take out all the target SSK's at about the same time.

The ACTUV is diesel-electric with a gas turbine booster "CODAG" (haven't you noticed the sound of it spooling up and down?) (grin)

The lower hull is almost all fuel. So it can go forever on the diesels, but eats fuel at high speed with the gas turbine.

Yes I have heard that. Very cool info. Thank you!.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_diesel_and_gas

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

Try this on for size though.... Totally hypothetical, but of course this would be the forum where it would actually get noticed ().

What about a long range cruise missile torpedo? Ie, a Tomahawk tipped with a short range torpedo.

With ACTUV, there's no reason to move assets into a position where they could take return fire. Even the best sneak attack in sub warfare allows for some reaction time and a snap shot in return. If ACTUV is tracking a target, why couldn't they launch a torpedo on a cruise missile, and allow ACTUV to guide it to the target?

I don't think that's a bad idea at all. Like a modern day Silex that can actually hit something. It makes even more sense when you consider that TACTOMs already have man-in-the-loop retargeting ability, so any course changes that the target makes during the missile's flight can be compensated for.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

How would the US react if somebody shot down one of their spy drones right now? They might go "hey! Don't do that!". I really think it might become common to see other nations taking out or merely disabling these drones.

UAVs get shot down all over the place without it being a major incident... BUT most of the time when that happens the UAV was intruding on someone's airspace. The ACTUV's will be in international waters. Most of the time. I would hope. (Hey, we just thought of another way to lose the trail!)