Navy Arms Surface Sea Drones For Ocean Attack

Kris Osborn

Photo: Common Unmanned Surface Vessel - Textron Systems

Warrior Video Above: USS Zumwalt Commander Capt. Carlson Describes Riding the Stealthy Ship in Stormy Seas

By Kris Osborn

(Washington, D.C.) Armed surface drones at sea could surveil and attack enemy targets, conduct forward reconnaissance on enemy positions and provide human decision makers with combat essential command and control data -- all as part of massive, great power war on the open seas.

Maritime drones can have both offensive and defensive uses, all while keeping sailors and surface ships at safer standoff ranges. Navy strategies see them operating in coordinated groups of drone boats networking vital war information between surface, air and even undersea regions across wide-spanning segments of ocean.

Such missions are fast being increasingly enabled by advances in autonomy, fortified by computer algorithms performing a growing number of procedural functions historically done by humans. Of course developers are quick to emphasize that, regardless of advances in autonomy, current doctrine requires that human decision makers remain "in the loop" when it comes to making decisions about attacking with lethal force.

Naturally, enabling these kinds of technical advances are part of a massive strategic shift for the Navy as it pivots its attack concepts to incorporate an expanded fleet of surface and undersea drones. The initiative, as described by Capt. Pete Small, Program Executive Officer, Unmanned Systems, includes new levels of autonomy, advanced command and control, emerging software and various weapons configurations. Speaking in January at the 32nd annual Surface Navy Association Symposium, Small said many of these efforts to advance autonomy at sea are part of an emerging Navy program called Unmanned Maritime Autonomy Architecture.

“We need them (surface drones) to match fleet conops (Concepts of Operation) that employ multiple USVs (Unmanned Surface Vehicles) operating in proximity with each other,” Small added, explaining that new software and technical interfaces “allow us to upgrade autonomy on the ships and integrate additional payloads.”

Small said the Navy was now working on Interface Control Documents for ocean drones to explore and integrate “autonomy and communications” operations.

One such effort, involving a Cooperative Research and Development Deal between Textron Systems and The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Va., is exploring demonstrations with Unmanned Surface Vehicles armed with guns, rockets and possibly even various kinds of missiles.

“We are planning to develop and showcase a proof of concept for surface warfare packages; the CUSV (Textron Common Unmanned Surface Vehicle) mission set would be surface warfare, which included integrating direct and indirect fire systems to be used in a variety of ways,” Wayne Prender, Senior Vice President of Applied Technology and Advanced Programs, Textron Systems, told Warrior Maven in an interview.

The testing and demonstrations are evolving through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between Textron and the Navy, intended to explore, prototype and ultimately deploy the armed Unmanned Surface Vehicles.

As communications and networking technologies continue to evolve rapidly, drones will increasingly be able to function in a cross-domain capacity, meaning across air, sea, land and undersea operations. A human at a control station, using a low bandwidth connection, can perform command and control functions without needing to actually drive the vessels. Small elaborated upon this, explaining that the Navy’s evolving surface and undersea command and control technology - will integrate with air platforms developed by Naval Air Systems Command.

The Navy and ONR (Office of Naval Research) are already immersed in the development of a variety of USVs, including a sonar-equipped, mine-detecting Unmanned Influence Sweep System, or UISS, for the Littoral Combat Ship and other vessels. The UISS is carried by a Textron-developed Common Unmanned Surface Vehicle, or CUSV. The CUSV, in development since before 2009, can travel for more than 20-hours carrying up to 4,000-pounds at speeds of up to 20-knots, Textron information states. Also, it is engineered to withstand waves up to 20-feet.

The Navy and Textron are planning an upcoming demonstration to refine requirements for arming surface drones, assess the technology, perform force protection exercises and replicate mock combat scenarios.

Armed surface drones, it seems self-evident, could bring a substantial force protection element to surface warfare. Networked drone boats could spread across large swaths of open ocean to, potentially in coordination with aerial drones, and fire upon approaching enemy ships, boat swarms and even incoming missiles. The Navy does have layered suite of ship-launched interceptor missiles, to include SeaRAM, Rolling Airframe Missile, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block II - and even the phalanx-firing Close-in Weapons System for the closest approaching enemy attacks. It certainly seems conceivable, should there be a way to network sensors, radar and fire control, that some of these interceptor weapons might be able to arm forward stationed unmanned ships. Primarily, however, the nearest term applications might likely involve smaller, mobile attack weapons such as .50-cal machine guns, 57mm guns or other standard deck-fired weapons or even MANPAD types of heat-seeking anti-air and surface warfare attack weapons.

This kind of weapons range, to include the possibility of interceptors, various gun systems and some small remotely-fired missiles, could target enemy drones, lower flying aircraft, attacking small boats and enemy ships at ranges otherwise more difficult to reach with ship-board sensors and weapons.

Defensive uses for swarm boats could introduce a substantial increase in ship protection; should an enemy seek to overwhelm ship defenses with a speeding swarm of small boat attacks or a barrage of incoming weapons. Layered ship defenses could, at very least, be challenged, according to a 2017 article from the Journal of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

The essay, titled “The Upside and Downside of Swarming Drones,” by Irving Lachow, highlights the defensive uses of swarming drone boats. “The Navy is currently doing research on using defensive swarms to halt attackers. Swarm boats may be an effective way to protect oneself from a swarm of drones: drone against drone,” the essay states.

Given that securing the international waterways forms a large basis of the Navy’s missions, armed drone boats, it seems clear, would be positioned to provide both persistent surveillance and security missions.

Disaggregated armed drone boats could also form the basis of safer offensive operations, as they could spread out and search for areas to penetrate, test enemy defenses and approach enemy targets in much closer proximity because, as unmanned vessels, there would not be risk of immediate death to on-boards sailors.


Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army - Acquisition, Logistics& Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

--- Kris Osborn, Managing Editor ofWARRIORMAVEN (CLICK HERE) can be reached

Comments (2)
No. 1-2
Karl -Moderator
Karl -Moderator

What do you think of Pentagon doctrine stating the humans must always been in the loop? Most weapons developers believe such an approach is both ethical and strategically vital. However, others raise the point that - what if adversaries do not adhere to this kind of strategic and ethical approach? Also, should some measure of weapons autonomy be enabled for defensive purposes only? Warrior wants your thoughts and input on these important questions... let us know - let's discuss - Karl- Warrior moderator


The biggest question here is going to be getting boats on and off tenders vs. combatants as the ability to use conventional boat davits is going away with increased emphasis on surface area for weapons mounts and/or 'bluffing' of features for signature control.

You can have a wet deck or drive on ramp but that's going to compromise sea keeping, propulsion and a bunch of other issues, as the LCS has shown.

Additionally, if you have 1-2 USVs that's one thing but the point of having a swarm on swarm ability is to sortie out a flotilla of 10-20 boats in rotation to have a ready force in those instances where threat islands or inshore traffic makes early acquisition of the threat tenuous (PG: Abu Musa, Qeshm, Taiwan: Quemoy Matsu chains) and reaction times critical.

Similar concerns may come to dominate, even open-ocean, where you are looking to control inbound sea skimmer defense by layering in depth but are dealing with missiles that have the range to do surround sound attacks, especially from low observable threats like submarines and buoys. A laser boat or even one with (high performance) VSHORADS launchers may or may not have the engagement window to put enough energy or shots on a single lane unless staged WELL forwards. But several boats might. And now you are talking about specialists hulls with bigger fuel reserves, a high energy capacitor system (turbine + battery stack) and possibly secondary mission capabilities.

Among which (ASW, ASUW, ASST, SOF support) should be firefighting and rescue. You take a penetrating hit to your hull and you lose EVERYTHING in that compartment and passing through it, to other areas. Power, comms, personnel. There is not casualty party because they are vaporized by the power of the contained 500-2,000lb missile warhead. At that point, would it not make sense to have a ram which can shove a foam head through the deckhouse or hull plating the flood the affected area to remove the continued risk of fire without being part of the conflagration, with compromised systems?

The point here is that, even if you start with 2-3 classes of baseline 'for value' riskable hull, by the time you build out a reasonable number of boat missions, you may be talking 20-30 platforms and this is beyond what even an LCS can support.

So you are talking a dedicated tender class.

Men do not have to be 'in the loop' of a system to be in full control over it. Most navigation and traffic laning can be automatic or with limited, initial, intervention. As with a racetrack, box pattern or echelon, formation keeping, orientation which allows the USV to simply orient on the hull it is protecting, providing shadow sided coverage rather than forcing a 300ft long SCS to come around a 600-1,100ft hull at 30-40 knots. Which burns time and leaves the ship clearly open to the other side of hull, push-pull, tactics NOT amenable to combined arms attacks where you have screens of conventional boghammar types along with Ya Mahdi suicide crafts and standoff FAC-Ms, all trying to push, simultaneously.

The nice thing here is that, if you can retain secure navigation signal, you can display a top down view that gives you course tracks with vessel progress on internal transponder or primary target track apertures and overlay weapon employment opportunitities, as a function of flashing LOS-line markers that are predictive to the moment when an operator needs to open a window and allocate threat engagement authority. You may be seeing the threat with X sensor (SPQ-9) on a primary hull but attacking with Y sensor (Optronics Head) on a PCI of your own. And the ability to see the engagement opportunity coming allows you to pre-clear the weapon employment opportunity on a range or sector engagement lane basis. Just like any other free-fire vs. restricted engagement system in AAW condition.

Having the shot count, in LOS, right now matters. Because that is where fleeting options are available on X but not on Y because you just don't have a mount unmasked or there is a friendly hull in the way. The more friendly escort hulls there are, the more 'aggressively friendly' you can be in cutting off inbound speed boats that want to dodge in front of half billion dollar product carriers or the like. Since the bandit boat drivers now have to worry about who is behind their 3-9 line. And that in turn means that you can deflect early and far away, slowing down the terminal approach game.

Provided you SERIOUSLY invest in direction MMW/Laser comms from a helo or drone to get the comms signal reliably above the horizon line, there is no 'Skynet' threat here and USN/DOD knows it. They are just facing the awful truth that their big-hull investment may not be the best option for the likely theater threats.

Having a bunch of Iranians cut across you course track, less than 30ft from your bowwave is the danger here and we have no way to contain it with 300 million dollar destroyer hulls masquerading as corvettes with limited, shortrange, weapons systems.

Look at the WWII experience with E-Boats pulling up to channel marker buoys in the Tramlanes to seriously mess with the coal and steel convoys moving up and down the East Coast for how ugly that can turn out. This is not the Armilla Patrol or Earnest Will. The Iranians are better equipped. While we are still fighting with fifty cal and M240B on deck edge pintel mounts.

Boom Choca-loca