2.5 Unmanned Systems Maritime Search and Rescue

Unmanned Systems Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR)

Underwater search and rescue operations present significant risks to the human element as well as to the underwater operating platform.  However, recent technological improvements in unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs)/autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) are proving to be viable mitigations to the dull, dirty, dangerous and deep (D4) risks associated with these operations.  Underwater search and rescue operations, by definition, assume that after a thorough search has been conducted to locate a specific target that a rescue follows.  Unfortunately, in deep water operations, rescues are rarely realized and recovery operations become the norm.  Recent headlines have highlighted these facts and operating platforms with specific capabilities are chosen to conduct these search and recovery operations.

This research paper presents an UUV/AUV that was deployed to assist in locating the wreckage of Malaysia Flight MH370, which was presumed to have disappeared in deep waters off the southern Indian Ocean (Varandani, 2018).

A description of the UUV/AUV is provided as well as a detailed description of the systems sensors and how they were designed specifically for the maritime environment.

In conclusion, questions regarding system and operational enhancements, and any advantages of UUV/AUV systems to those of manned platforms are addressed.

Bluefin-21 AUV

The Bluefin-21 (Figure 1) built by General Dynamics, is a self-contained autonomous vehicle equipped with a highly accurate sensory payload capable of extended deep water operations, typically realized by larger more cumbersome platforms (General Dynamics, 2018).

Figure 1 Bluefin-21 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) adapted from http://d2fuv70sajz51d.cloudfront.net/publish/3495-b4EKktiE/Bluefin-21.png

With operating speeds between 2 – 4.5 knots, the Bluefin-21 is capable of operating at depths of 1500 meters for approximately 20 hours at an average speed of approximately 3 knots (Chand, 2014).  Its exteroceptive sensory payload consists of side scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, multi-beam echo- sounder and digital camera (Chand, 2014).  A suite of proprioceptive sensors provides data essential to the onboard inertial navigation system and an ultra-short baseline system supporting autonomous navigation and positioning of the vehicle (Chand, 2014).

Sensors

            Like other unmanned systems the Bluefin-21 is equipped with both proprioceptive and exteroceptive sensors essential to supporting SAR operations.  Exteroceptive sensors collect/analyze data significant to the operating domain of the unmanned vehicle.  The

Side-Scan Sonar

            The EdgeTech 2200-M 120/410 kHz is an acoustic sensing technology that supports GPS mapping applications at depths between 0.5 and 11,000 meters (Bloss, 2013).  These types of sensors are specifically adapted for use in water applications where visibility and zero-low light conditions limit typical camera capabilities.  Using sound the side scan sonar displays an image based on the strength of the returning echo (NOAA, 2017).

Sub-Bottom Profiler

            Also a sonar based sensor, the EdgeTech DW-216 sub-bottom profiler is used to define and characterize layers of sediment, rock and other objects buried beneath the seafloor.  Using reflected and refracted sound pulses this system uses low-frequency pulses in order to deeply penetrate the sea floor but provides lower resolution pictures compared to that of high frequency systems that provide better imagery but are limited in the depth of scan (Substructure, n.d.).

Multi-beam Echo Sounder

            A significant improvement over that of side-scan sonar, the Reson 7125 400 kHz multi-beam echo-sounder employs numerous sonar beams to provide ultra-high resolution images of the seafloor (Substructure 2, n.d.)  In their online article, Multibeam Sonar (n.d.), Substructure noted:

Multibeam SONAR offers considerable advantages over conventional systems, including increased detail of the seafloor (100 percent coverage), confidence that all features and hazards are mapped without voids, the ability to map inaccessible areas (e.g., under jetties, structures, and vessels near breakwaters, in shoal areas, and adjacent to retaining walls), fewer survey lines (which shortens survey time), optimum seafloor detail for route and dredge programs, and the ability to comply with the highest order International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) hydrographic standards.

Digital Camera

            Configured with a Prosilica GE1900 camera systems, the bluefin-21 is capable of capturing high-resolution black and white images at up to three fps (Naval Technology, 2018), the ensuing images are used to provide a visual perspective of target data.

Navigation and Communication

            As previously noted, the Bluefin-21 is also equipped with a robust set of proprioceptive sensors used to support navigation and communication.  Positive stability and control is realized using an inertial navigation systems (INS) which is further enhanced with a Doppler velocity log (DVL), sound velocity sensors (SVS) and state of the art global positioning system (GPS) (Naval Technology, 2018).  Communications with outside entities is facilitated using an externally mounted antenna supported by GPS and communication systems employing acoustic modems, Radio frequency (RF) serial links and Iridium satellite modem and Ethernet direct (Naval Technology, 2018).

Conclusion

            Risks associated with manned deep water operations are apparent, and mitigations to those risks are realized using unmanned/autonomous underwater vehicles.  Unfortunately, search and rescue operations in extreme/deep operating domains inevitably become search and recovery operations.  The Bluefin-21 is especially suited to meet the specific needs of these types of operations, on the other hand, timely target acquisition and recovery in shallower waters would more likely be accomplished using tethered remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) that enable real-time situational awareness and supported by a robotic arm. Further ROV discussions are saved for another time and assignment.

References

Bloss, R. (2013). Lasers, radar, acoustics and magnetic sensors come to the aid of unmanned vehicles. Sensor review, 33(3), 197-201. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1365745582/fulltextPDF?accountid=27203

Chand, N. (2014). Unmanned/Autonomous Underwater Vehicles. Retrieved from SP's Naval Forces: http://www.spsnavalforces.com/story/?id=328

General Dynamics. (2018). Bluefin-21 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV). Retrieved from Mission Systems: https://gdmissionsystems.com/products/underwater-vehicles/bluefin-21-autonomous-underwater-vehicle

Naval Technology. (2018). Bluefin-21 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV). Retrieved from Naval Technology: https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/bluefin-21-autonomous-underwater-vehicle-auv/

NOAA. (2017, July 06). Side Scan Sonar. Retrieved from NOAA Ocean Service Education: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/seafloor-mapping/how_sidescansonar.html

Substructure 2. (n.d.). Multibeam SONAR. Retrieved from Substructure - Hydrographic Surveys. Diving. Marine Services: http://substructure.com/about/marine-services-information/hydrographic-surveys/what-is-sonar/multibeam-sonar/

Substructure. (n.d.). Sub-Bottom Profiling. Retrieved from Substructure-Hydro Graphic Surveys. Diving. Marine SErvices.: http://substructure.com/about/marine-services-information/hydrographic-surveys/tools-used-to-examine-the-area-below-the-seafloor/

Varandani, S. (2018, June 05). MH370 Search Vessel Still Scanning Area Of Suspected Black Box Pings: Report. Retrieved from International Business Times: http://www.ibtimes.com/mh370-search-vessel-still-scanning-area-suspected-black-box-pings-report-2687462

1.5 Research Blog: UAV Sensor Enhancements

Unmanned systems, in all manner of operating domain (i.e. marine, ground, air and space) have realized significant technological improvements in both the public and civil sectors.  However, current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations appear to be the single most restrictive factor to full on integration of UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS).

The greatest hurdle for unmanned aerial systems is showing an equivalent level of safety to regulations that were written for manned operations.  Within Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), §91.113 Right-of-way-rules: Except water operations is just one of these rules.  Written at a time when unmanned aircraft were not a reality or even a possibility, this rules primary intent is that an aircraft operating in the NAS relies on the ability of the person operating that aircraft to see and avoid other aircraft or other potential hazards whether airborne or fixed.  With the remote pilot in command (RPIC) removed from the operating platform of the aircraft, the RPIC must rely on sensors not yet shown to meet the intent of the original rule.  However, in an effort to develop an acceptable level of safety to this rule, recent technological improvements have been realized that may very well prove beneficial.

In his article, Tarabee Showcases LED Distance Sensor for UAVS (2018), author M. Rees introduced a new detect and avoid sensor developed specifically for UAS.  Manufactured by Tarabee, these sensors rely on light-emitting-diodes (LEDs) capable of measuring and returning distance values in millimeters at high rates of speed (Tarabee, 2018).  M. Rees provided the following additional information:

The TeraRanger Evo is a lightweight LED distance sensor. Weighing just 9g (12g with communication board), it has a unique modular design allowing multiple sensors to be used on one platform, with simple plug and play functionality. Ideal for use on UAVs, for high-speed collision avoidance and object detection, the new TeraRanger Evo sensor has a 60m distance range with centimeter-level accuracy.

One can be sure, as micro technologies similar to these become instrumental to RPIC situational awareness and present mitigations essential to addressing the risks of unmanned operations in the NAS, full integration will be realized.

References

Rees, M. (2018, May 15). Tarabee Showcases LED Distance Sensor for UAVs. Retrieved from UST-Unmanned Systems Technology: http://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2018/05/terabee-showcases-led-distance-sensor-for-uavs/

Tarabee. (2018). Distance Sensors. Retrieved from Tarabee: https://www.terabee.com/distance-sensors/

9.3 Research Blog: Future Unmanned Systems Impact

For this week’s blog I was required to discuss which type of unmanned system (UGS, UMS, and UAS) I believed will have the greatest impact on society over the next two decades, what role it will play, and why.

I believe all manner of unmanned system, whether it be marine, ground or air, will have an impact on society in some form or another, but it is my opinion, that only those systems with the most exposure to a society will have the greatest impact.  In this regard I don’t foresee marine systems in their current application having an impact on a society as significant as ground or air based systems, in part because of their low or nonexistent visibility (i.e. out-of-sight/out-of-mind).  Therefore, given my position within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), I couldn’t help but address the implications or impact that unmanned aircraft systems will have on a modern society within the next two decades.

It’s not by accident that UAS have become the must have technology for civil applications.  Over the past two decades of armed conflict, UAS have shown their ability to remove man from the dull, dirty and dangerous operations of war.  Somewhere along the way the commercial industry saw the advantages of having an unmanned aircraft system added to the toolbox for the hazardous and costly operations performed in the commercial sector.

In an effort to ensure the fast paced environment of commercial UAS is done in a safe manner, the Federal Aviation Administration slowed the industries enormous potential by implementing operational standards to integrate UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) in a methodical and measured way.  One way of ensuring that UAS are operated safely in the NAS is to define and regulate operator or pilot-in-command requirements.

In the article, The Future of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Pilot Qualification (2013), A. Mirot explained:

UAS Operator qualification is a complex issue that will set the foundation for other integration issues. The FAA's initial guidance is simplistic and will not appropriately manage the diverse requirements of UAS operations. The FAA has understandably made UAS operations very restrictive and placed qualification requirements on UAS crews that far exceed current manned aircraft or model aircraft requirements (Summary, pg. 26).

Overtime, as collected data shows the reliability of the technology these stricter operator requirements will be relaxed.  Only then, after the technology has been slowly proven out and accepted by society will true Integration in the NAS be realized.

In his report, Sustaining the U.S. lead in Unmanned Systems, Military and Homeland Considerations through 2025, (2014) S. Brannen suggested;

Unmanned systems will also have a new domestic prominence and importance for the United States as they are increasingly adopted for homeland and law enforcement missions, for private commercial use and by individuals (pg.2).

It is also Brannen’ s opinion, that by the year 2025, the most technological advances will be realized in autonomy, software/integration of existing systems, better sensors of all types and solutions applicable to congestion and electromagnetic spectrum (para. 3, pg. 5).

He further explained that autonomy will be enabled by continued progress in efficiency and miniaturization of computer processing and power sources, most significantly in the realm of machine learning or AI (also referred to as artificial Intelligence) (para. 5, pg.5).

As history has shown over the past 100+ years, technology of any sort that appears foreign or unrealistic to a society evolves to meet the society’s concerns and doubts for the need of the technology.  It was only over the past two decades that home computers and mobile phones have found their way into nearly every home and pocket around the globe.

Unmanned systems, whether they are marine, ground or air will find their niche in society the same way, if not sooner.

References

Brannen, S. J. (2014). Sustaining the U.S. lead in Unmanned Systems, Military and Homeland Considerations through 2025, Retrieved from https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/140227_Brannen_UnmannedSystems_Web.pdf

Mirot, A. (2013). The Future of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Pilot Qualification, JAAER Vol. 22 Number 3 Article 7, Retrieved from http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1317&context=jaaer

8.4 - Research Blog 5: Unmanned System Implementation Strategy

This week’s research blog assignment was to develop a basic strategy to ensure the successful implementation of any unmanned system within known boundaries.  But the blog had to address issues regarding privacy, ethics, safety and lost/link loss of system control.

In order to develop a strategy to address these issues, as they might apply to any given unmanned system, those issues must first be defined.  The Microsoft Word based Encarta dictionary defines privacy, ethics, and safety in different context, but only those significant to this discussion are provided in the following manner:

Privacy- (noun):

·       seclusion-the state of being apart from other people and not seen, heard, or disturbed by them

·       freedom from attention of others- freedom from the observation, intrusion, or attention of others

·       hidden condition- the state of being kept secret

Ethics (noun):

·       study of morality’s effect on conduct- the study of moral standards and how they affect conduct (takes a singular verb)

·       code of morality- a system of moral principles governing the appropriate conduct for a person or group (takes a plural verb)

Safety (noun):

·       freedom from danger- protection from, or not being exposed to, the risk of harm or injury

·       lack of danger- inability to cause or result in harm, injury, or damage

Lost/link is a generally accepted term associated with radio frequency (RF) based communication between a remote control station and an unmanned system (US) that has been inhibited to such a degree that operational control or situational awareness of the US is lost.

A post in Non-Military & Commercial UAS, Regulatory Matters (2016) defined lost/link in the following way:

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are unique as they are operated through commands sent via line of sight, relayed by satellite relay, or by responding to pre-set programming in the on-board computer. (UAS, para. 2).

There are two components to lost link: one is the up-link that transmits command and control (C2) instructions to the aircraft; the second is the down-link which relays the operation/status of onboard systems within the aircraft to the ground control station. If either link is disabled or malfunctions, the result is defined as “lost link (UAS, para. 3).

This definition can be aptly applied to any unmanned system type whether it is ground, marine or aircraft.  Regardless of how these issues are defined, some distinctions must be made in order to gain an understanding of how to develop a strategy to insure these issues are addressed for the successful implementation of any given unmanned system.

      Privacy, ethics and safety are terms that can be best described as state of mind. They are not based on a given failure but on how an individual applies the term to their own state of well-being, moral compass or security.

On the other hand, Lost/link is quantifiable, where the end result is loss of human in/on-the-loop control and situational awareness of the unmanned system.  Lost/link cannot be defined in different terms, on a case-by case basis, or differently from one person to the next, it is what it is.

So, given any further analysis of these issues, how does one develop a basic strategy to ensure the successful implementation of any unmanned system within known boundaries?  Those issues that are a state of mind can be resolved thru continued education and regulation over a period of time, probably best described as assimilation and adaption or as the Federal Aviation Administration has aptly titled their basic strategy for implementation of UAS: Integration.

For issues that are quantifiable and result in unacceptable outcomes, mitigation's must be established and tested to ensure the resulting failure has been remedied to an acceptable level of risk, a risk that presents itself as another state of mind and ultimately found acceptable to a given society thru conditioned or integrated norms.

References

UAS Vision (2016). FAA Ads UAS to Lost Link Procedures Retrieved from http://www.uasvision.com/2016/10/18/faa-ads-uas-to-lost-link-procedures/

5.4 Unmanned Systems Space-Based Applications

Advancements in technology have provided mankind with the ability to travel farther and over longer periods of time than ever before, all without risk to human life.  In support of unmanned vs. manned explorations in space I offer the following blog with an article that supports my view.

From the pre-historic trek of humans across the land bridge over the Bering Strait some 12,000 years ago to the mid-20th century deep sea voyages of Jacques-Yves Cousteau (Patenaude, 2015, para. 1), mankind has explored the unknown since the beginning of time.  Much to their peril, humans have ventured out on expeditions beyond mountainous terrains, expansive deserts, endless ocean scapes and the vastness of the universe.

Mankind has always wondered about the marvels of space; the moon, distant planets, our sun and those of distant galaxies far, far, away.  But mankind didn’t jump on the first rocket in an effort to visit the outer boundaries of the Earth’s atmosphere.  First came Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite.  Launched by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957 it marked the start of the space age (Garber, 2007, para. 1).  Then on November 3, Russia launched Sputnik II, with a payload that included a dog named Laika.  The successful missions that followed and the data collected led to the knowledge that man could survive in space, beyond the protective blanket of Earth’s atmosphere.  But these missions don’t come without cost, a cost both in technology and in loss of human life.

While manned missions can result in the injury or death of humans, they also offer a unique perspective on exploration. However, robotic missions can go places humans cannot and often for far less money (Chavis, 2015, para. 1).  With increased pressure to mitigate the costs associated with manned space operations, technological advancements have introduced unmanned systems capable of traveling long distances, over decades of time, searching for answers to life itself all while collecting valuable scientific data in hopes of supporting colonization beyond that of Earth and its dwindling resources.

An article written by Jason Chavis, Disadvantages to Manned Missions to Space (2015) introduced the benefits of robotic spaceflight versus that of manned operations by presenting concerns of Safety, Health, Time and Costs. The following are excerpts from each of these concerns:

Safety Concerns

Safety is a major issue of manned and remote space missions. Both government agencies and the public regard the deaths or injuries of astronauts or cosmonauts a major failure. Conversely, robotic spaceflights have virtually no risk to humans outside of ground accidents. In total, five percent of all people who have attempted to fly into space have died (para. 2).

Health Risks

When astronauts or cosmonauts fly into space, they can experience a number of illnesses including immune deficiency, collapse of bone and muscle tissue, decompression sickness and radiation poisoning.  Robotic spaceflights have no issues in regards to health.  Since there are no humans present, very little affects the spacecraft.  Robots are able to achieve their missions with almost no threat to human life (para. 3).

Time Frame

Manned missions are definitely at a disadvantage when it comes to time. Human crews are required to train for months to years in order to pilot spacecraft. Robotic spacecraft, on the other hand, are built to conduct their mission immediately. However, there is a disadvantage to construction because of the fact that it takes years to build an unmanned craft.

In addition, there are limitations to what manned space flight can accomplish in regards to the time it takes to get to destinations. Humans are limited on lifespan, which causes the timespan of a flight to become an important factor. Meanwhile, robotic spacecraft have no such factors impacting their lifespan. This becomes highly important since no medical emergencies can be handled from the ground crew short of advice to the astronauts (para. 4).

Costs

The overall cost of human spaceflight versus robotic missions is a significant factor in the decision to continue missions. According to NASA, each space shuttle mission costs $420 million on average, but increased drastically after the Columbia disaster. These missions generally only last one to two weeks. Robotic missions cost significantly less money considering the tasks can take place over the course of years. For example, the Cassini-Huygens and Voyager missions have lasted years. In many ways, robotic missions are preferred over what many people may consider a traditional manned mission to space (para. 5).

References

Chavis, J.C. (2015) Disadvantages to Manned Missions to Space Retrieved from http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/72499.aspx

Graber, S. (2007). Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age Retrieved from https://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/

Patenaude, M. (2015). What drives humans to explore the unknown? Retrieved from http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/journeys-into-the-unknown-91212/

4.4 The future of UAS in either the military or civilian sectors

In support of my continued graduate studies in Unmanned Systems, this week’s Blog assignment was to comment on a recent article centered on the future of unmanned aerial systems in either the military or civilian sectors.

Ironically, this morning I found an article under the subtitle of Future Technology, on the front page of my locally delivered newspaper, THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE. The article, SoCal’s Changing Urban Landscape-How driverless cars, drones and other tech will change the urban landscape of Southern California, was written by Neil Nisperos June 18^th, 2017.

With the influx of 21^st century technologies, Nisperos offered a future consisting of driverless cars, drones and virtual reality (para. 2).  Big yellow-taxis will be replaced with driverless vehicles, drones will deliver packages to a specific location at your residence and virtual reality applications will be enhanced by faster internet speeds, perpetuating and enhancing a work from home environment, thereby significantly reducing traffic congestion at peak commuter time frames.

This vision of the future is all well and good, but in case you just crawled out from under a rock, the article is already old news.  Internet speeds are already supporting work from home and working hub environments, with real-time video conference applications such as MeetingBurner, Meetin.gs, GoToMeeting, Yugma, WebEx, and 321Meet (Fance, n.d.) to name a few, all of which enable the teleworker to be virtually present in business meetings and all-hands office discussions both globally and internationally.

Hardly considered futuristic, at the pace in which technology is proving these systems out, driverless cars are only 2-3 years away from full scale production and will be capable of providing level 4 autonomy to the market.  A list of these autonomous cars and their manufacturers can be found at this link.

Where the futures of drones or UAS are concerned, one only needs to see how the technology is already proliferating into our daily lives.

Technology/Operations

Nisperos wrote in his article:

The future is now- Much of the changes hinted at are already under way. New apartment projects, including a yet-to-be named 570-unit rental project to be built just north of the Citizens Business Bank Arena in Ontario, will incorporate design concepts for people to better work from home and areas to accept packages from Amazon and other online retailers (The future is now section, para. 1).

Amazon, thru its proposed airborne delivery system, Prime Air, is actively working with the FAA thru one of many pathfinder programs to develop the sensory capabilities and show regulatory compliance, where package delivery relates to UAS operations beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS), sense/detect and avoid (SAA/DAA), and operations over people (OOP).

A description of how the service is provided and when it will become a reality can be found on the Prime Air website:

·       Amazon Prime Air is a service that will deliver packages up to five pounds in 30 minutes or less using small drones.

·       Safety is our top priority. Our vehicles will be built with multiple redundancies, as well as sophisticated “sense and avoid” technology. Additionally, through our private trial in the UK, we will gather data to continue improving the safety and reliability of our systems and operations.

·       We will deploy when and where we have the regulatory support needed to safely realize our vision. We’re excited about this technology and one day using it to deliver packages to customers around the world in 30 minutes or less.

·       We are testing many different vehicle designs and delivery mechanisms to discover how best to deliver packages in a variety of operating environments. The look and characteristics of the vehicles will continue to evolve over time.

·       We have Prime Air development centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Austria, France and Israel. We are testing the vehicles in multiple international locations.

·       We believe the airspace is safest when small drones are separated from most manned aircraft traffic, and where airspace access is determined by capabilities.

·       We are currently permitted to operate during daylight hours when there are low winds and good visibility, but not in rain, snow or icy conditions. Once we’ve gathered data to improve the safety and reliability of our systems and operations, we will expand the envelope. (FAQs, 2017).

·       We are working with regulators and policymakers in various countries in order to make Prime Air a reality for our customers around the world, and expect to continue to do so.

By employing the resources of one of their many geographically located distribution facilities, the likelihood of Amazon Prime Air package delivery is on the horizon and not as far out in the future as one would imagine.

References

Amazon (2017). Prime Air, Frequently asked Questions, Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?node=8037720011

Fance, C. (n.d.) Online Meeting and Web Conferencing Tools-Best Of, Retrieved from http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/online-meeting-tools/

Nisperos, N (2017). SoCal’s Changing Urban Landscape, How driverless cars, drones and other tech will alter the look and development of cities, Future Technology, The Press Enterprise, Retrieved from http://www.pe.com/2017/06/18/how-driverless-cars-drones-and-other-tech-will-change-the-urban-landscape-of-southern-california-4-2/

3.4 - Research Blog 2: Unmanned Maritime Systems

  Per this week’s assignment the class was required to comment on an article that centered on the future of Unmanned Marine Systems (UMS) in either the military or civilian sector. The article was required to discuss both the technical and operational uses and must be no more than 12 months old.

This week’s blog is focused on an article written by Abhijit Singh Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicles and future Maritime Operations in Littoral Asia (July 2016).

As Unmanned Aircraft Systems were significantly enhanced to support wartime efforts in the Asia Pacific theater, so too are efforts to enhance the technological and operational capabilities of Unmanned Marine Systems to provide additional support for the Indian Navy.

Supporting this transition, Singh wrote:

While the more substantive developments in unmanned technology have involved aerial drones, the more interesting possibilities are in the field of underwater vehicles. Indeed, despite the institutional and policy attention enjoyed by aerial platforms, it is unmanned and autonomous undersea vehicles that have been the subject of strategic debate and discussion in Indian maritime circles (para. 15).

Singh presented the significant operational roles this technology plays in supporting the world’s leading navies as; high-tech submersibles for mine countermeasure (MCM) operations, naval intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) roles, and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) missions (para. 16).

He further categorized Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) as those that are autonomous undersea vehicles (AUVs) and remotely operated undersea vehicles (ROVs). By clarifying, “an AUV differs from an ROV by maintaining a degree of autonomy from human control. The AUV’s chief attribute is that it can undertake ASW tasks typically carried out by nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), freeing the latter to perform more critical functions” (Singh, para. 16).

Singh also presented two distinguishing operational characteristics of AUVs in that they;
• Possess onboard intelligence and an inherent ability to self-program and execute missions. Unlike ships and submarines that are commanded solely by humans, autonomous undersea vessels exercise their innate judgment in performing operational tasks, and adversely
• They are inherently risky due to their inability to avoid risky maneuvers, leading to untoward incidents or collateral damage in combat situations (para. 18).

Aside from untimely incidents AUVs are also plagued with a moral dilemma as to whether the engagement of an enemy is deemed a legitimate act, minus due authorization from a human in the loop command.

The Indian navy, in consideration of these and other ethical considerations has taken a pro-active approach in the development of numerous UUV platforms from hand-held slow-speed ones, to military-class platforms, with the capability to assist in the entire gamut of maritime security (Singh, para. 19).

Current attention is given to that of the Defense Research and Development Organizations (DRPO) prototype capable of speeds up to seven km per hour at depths of up to 300 meters.  The system is reportedly being reworked to include passive sonar and electro-optical sensors for anti-mining missions (Singh, para. 20).

Where these prototype systems are designed and tested to meet the operational requirements of the user, they still must overcome three major technical constraints inherent to UUVs, 1) energy storage 2) communication link and 3) autonomous control.

Essentially all state-of-the-art UUVs today are battery-powered, and battery capacity remains the most fundamental limitation on range and endurance (Whitman, n.d.).  Despite improvements to electrochemical and conventional fuel cell technology no significant breakthroughs in energy technology have been made to permit relatively small UUVs to perform theater-scale missions or long-duration trailing tasks (Whitman, n.d.).

R. Turner noted in his article, The Unmanned Underwater Future (2014) that;

UUVs come with a disclaimer; the technology is in its infancy and lags behind unmanned land and air equivalents.  Communication with submerged platforms is highly challenging and that problem is compounded when you remove the human from the platform. Additional issues with propulsion, energy use and payload capacity add to the complexity of developing UUVs for naval operations (para. 8).

Ultimately, as technical improvements to AUVs continue and operational capabilities are realized, the world’s navies will struggle with the ethical challenges and decisions associated with operations played out forward of the manned fleet.

References

Singh, A. (2016). Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicles and Future Maritime Operations in Littoral Asia Retrieved from http://www.orfonline.org/research/unmanned-and-autonomous-vehicles-and-future-maritime-operations-in-littoral-asia/

Turner, R. (2014) The Unmanned Underwater Future, the Strategist Retrieved from   https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-unmanned-underwater-future/

Whitman, E. C. (n.d.). Beneath the Wave of the Future Retrieved from   http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_15/wave.html