What do you think about unmanned attack boats joining Navy’s fleet?

RallyPoint Team — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:06:34 -0400

Within a year, self-guided unmanned patrol boats that can attack potential threats on the water could join the Navy’s fleet. Defense officials say the autonomous swarm-boat technology could help stop attacks like the deadly bombing of the USS Cole off Yemen in 2000.

The attack boats can direct themselves once they are alerted to a threat and work together to surround or block an enemy’s vessel. The boats can also fire .50-caliber machine guns, but only if a human decides lethal force is necessary. A sailor on a command ship would be in charge of each of the boats and could take control over any of the boats at any time. Also, if communication between the unmanned boats and the sailor overseeing them got disconnected, the boat would automatically shut down.

What’s particularly great about the new technology is it will free up sailors to stay aboard the ship who would normally be manning such boats. The sailors would be safer and can focus on other duties instead, like manning weapons systems.

Money won’t be an issue with the technology. The Navy doesn’t even have to purchase new ships. The small, transportable kit can be applied to existing patrol boats and aboard many large warships. Plus, the kits only cost about $2,000 each.

With the unmanned patrol boats, larger ships can be escorted with more protection. Fighting potential enemies will also be easier and fewer lives will be put directly in harm’s way.

What do you think about the technology being rolled out to fleet commanders within a year? In what situations should the unmanned boats be used for?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 11:51 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:51:35 -0400

Lets hope the pirates don't get to them...

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 12:07 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:07:26 -0400

I don't necessarily think it is a bad thing. We've had the aerial drones for a while now and they seemed to have helped some. I know it'll take some time to protect them and work out the kinks, but I'm all for better the lives of the men and women of our Armed Forces. That being said, let's hope and pray that they don't fall into the hands of the enemy.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 12:28 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:28:00 -0400

I went to Yemen as part of "Determined Response", so I'm emotionally invested in this. After reading the article about ensuring a "man in the loop" for any lethal force, and seeing the success of UAVs, I am all for this if it keeps servicemembers safer!

Response by PO3 Jonathan Cooper made Oct 6 at 2014 12:45 PM

PO3 Jonathan Cooper — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:45:36 -0400

I've seen how hard some of those guys work on patrols so I'm for it, just as long as the drawbacks are minimal.

Response by PO1 John Y. made Oct 6 at 2014 12:58 PM

PO1 John Y. — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:58:46 -0400

Since one day most of our combat will be unmanned this a great idea and a step in the right direction.

Response by SGT Donald Croswhite made Oct 6 at 2014 1:13 PM

SGT Donald Croswhite — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:13:28 -0400

"Self guided"? How self guided? We tested UAV's at Fort Bliss that could be thwarted by kites. I'm all for going the route of drones and CROWS to keep SM's safe. But what happens if the system goes down while on patrol? Do they have a kill switch? How much "Secret" is on these boats?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 1:28 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:28:32 -0400

I think these things working in tandem with UAVs will be a great asset for the Navy. UAVs can detect small boat threats approaching a vessel and the unmanned patrol boats can intercept and investigate them a lot more closely to determine if they are a threat. I'm no sailor, but I hear that boarding a vessel where the threat is unknown is the most vulnerable time for a small boat crew. These things could potentially take a lot of that danger away. The only thing I am worried about is hacking. I would hate for one of these things to just suddenly break formation and sail to Iran.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 1:38 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:38:28 -0400

Sounds good in a conference room. So my question is this, what happens when these boats surround some hostile who then decides to jump aboard and take control? Or what happens when communication goes down and the boat is disabled, which then allows a hostile to jump aboard and take command. I think this either needs to be thought through more, unless these issues are addressed and not disclosed. I feel much better about this program if some armor/shielding was placed on these similar to what you see on construction equipment to keep it from being vandalized.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 1:43 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:43:08 -0400

Skynet

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 6 at 2014 1:47 PM

SPC David S. — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:47:20 -0400

I could see a Seal team use a boat like this. Even better yet one that could submerge and stay hidden until needed.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 2:05 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:05:27 -0400

It's time to embrace the fact that no one wants us to be killed until its too late. Drones can be effective tools, but in excess we will lose our edge to be powerful.

Response by Sgt Erle Mutz made Oct 6 at 2014 2:41 PM

Sgt Erle Mutz — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:41:16 -0400

I wonder how much one costs - while we sit idly by and see our money sink to the bottom of some ocean, bay, or canal - at the hands of some "unseen" enemy RPG, torpedo, or missle.?? They're a LOT bigger than a drone, not quite as maneuverable,
and easier to plot a course for. HUH? LOL

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Oct 6 at 2014 3:08 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:08:53 -0400

Is there really a major difference between UAVs and UWVs? I do hope they rethink what they could do with a water borne vehicle if they removed humans?

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Oct 6 at 2014 4:40 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:40:32 -0400

It was only a matter of time. Air Force already have their drones. Army's is working on our autonomous load carrier and now the navy wants their drone boats. If it'll save lives I'm al for it.

Response by SGT Frank Leonardo made Oct 6 at 2014 4:55 PM

SGT Frank Leonardo — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:55:04 -0400

we have unmanned planes why not boat or ship I think it would be ok in my opinion could it save lives yes it could but things can go wrong just like any computer controlled item.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Oct 6 at 2014 6:33 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:33:02 -0400

The more I think about it, the better of an idea it sounds like. First there is a person in the decision loop so they won't be autonomous. Next if there is a system failure we don't have to worry about gravity like we would with a failed pilotless drone.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 9:03 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 21:03:21 -0400

It was just a matter of time. And any life saved is great to me.

Response by PO2 Thomas J. made Oct 6 at 2014 10:12 PM

PO2 Thomas J. — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 22:12:49 -0400

Nice

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 10:42 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 22:42:18 -0400

I think this a great force multiplier. Keeps the force safer especially with nations north of the Arabian Gulf as well as pirating mission. I think it would awesome to have a an unmanned speed boat or boats swarm a Somali pirate vessel and be able to return fire w/o putting our ships in harms way.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Oct 6 at 2014 10:50 PM

Cpl Dennis F. — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 22:50:34 -0400

Regards loss of control: Most autonomous systems have a default built in to RTB in the event of signal loss or take over.

Response by SFC Jason Bautista made Oct 7 at 2014 12:05 AM

SFC Jason Bautista — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 00:05:54 -0400

I want to drive one!

Response by SPC Richard White made Oct 7 at 2014 1:39 AM

SPC Richard White — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 01:39:49 -0400

Its only a matter of time,We have drones already why not unmanned attack boats?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2014 11:05 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 11:05:23 -0400

I believe this is a good thing. I am all for new technollogy that helps us accomplish the mission. Its like the prototype body frame suit that I know one branch is testing to help take loads off of soldiers and helps them scale inclining terrain. There is one thing however.... If UAVs can be hacked into, what makes the goverment think UWVs can't be? Food for thought. If they can somehow gaurantee the likehood of one being hijacked to almost nothing, I think the idea would be good to go. I don't want the UVs turning on myself or my counterparts. Just like everyother attack method we have, eventually the enemy will learn how to deter them or dissable them.

Response by SPC David Shaffer made Oct 7 at 2014 12:17 PM

SPC David Shaffer — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:17:36 -0400

I think the benefit of not putting soldiers in harms way is great but I believe we put too much emphasis lately on computers/machines. To me there are no substitutes that will reach the effectiveness of our high speed soldiers. We keep depending more and more on these computers/machines and I believe it's going to put us at a greater risk for tragedy to strike.

Response by CPO Jon Campbell made Oct 7 at 2014 8:22 PM

CPO Jon Campbell — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:22:44 -0400

I used to teach the tactics that these unmanned boats use. Patroling in small boats is tedious and requires a lot of skill. A successful intercept will likely result in the death of the crew as in the case where PO Bruckenthal was killed on April 24, 2004 in the Persian Gulf.
Unmanned vessels should probably be designed for mission-specific uses rahter than retro-fitting existing small boats. The current version looks like it could be intercepted by a swimmer, disabled and possibly turned against its cohorts.
Intercepting swimmers is the most difficult task these craft have whether manned or unmanned.

Response by MSgt George Sidler made Oct 9 at 2014 12:25 PM

MSgt George Sidler — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 12:25:02 -0400

Welcome to the new world.
Stealth, and unmanned is the wave (or should I say... "way") of the future-arrived.
I am certainly much more comforted by the fact that it is (most) always the U.S. that arrives first in this race with technology. I must say that it seems almost a daily thing that some different type of technology is appearing before us; truly, I would love to see into the future 50-years... I'm betting we would hardly recognize it!

Response by PO3 Brendan "Smitty" Smith made Nov 8 at 2014 2:17 PM

PO3 Brendan "Smitty" Smith — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:17:16 -0500

Everyone is so quick to jump on the drone bandwagon because it takes their loved ones out of harms way. While that sentiment is certainly understandable, I'm not a huge fan of drones, especially when you throw the word "autonomous" in there. I read Asimov and Orwell at a young age (benefits of a Catholic school education) and I took both of their novels to be the cautionary tales the authors intended them to be. Not "how to" manuals, as our government seems to be using them.

Response by PO1 Chris Crawley made Nov 9 at 2014 11:54 AM

PO1 Chris Crawley — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 11:54:18 -0500

Drones work great.....until you encounter an enemy whose electronic warfare capabilities have progressed beyond 1965.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Nov 21 at 2014 7:04 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:04:02 -0500

Great, lets make unmanned tanks and we can have a complete drone military.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2014 8:53 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:53:24 -0500

What about sharks with laser beams...

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2014 10:25 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:25:20 -0500

I think we should just make everything a drone. We can have all of our planes, tanks, boats, hell ships even be drones...then we can let the kids sit at their X-BOX and run the military while we sit in a bar somewhere sipping an adult beverage. Infantry of course will just have to keep being infantry...sorry grunts.

Response by SCPO Larry Knight Sr. made Nov 23 at 2014 11:12 PM

SCPO Larry Knight Sr. — Sun, 23 Nov 2014 23:12:06 -0500

I believe it to be a total waste of resources, which could be better utilized like for spare repair parts to keep systems in top running order! We already have drones out there, and why do you have to go pier side in a foreign port known as a hostile area ? While anchored you have vigilant armed watch standers throughout all main deck levels, with radio coms in the event of a situation involving an inbound bogy!

It's really starting to give me the impression that we are getting lax in our command readiness for deployments. We have everything we need to respond to any scenario , so lets focus on better utilization of funding in times where Grand/ Rudman still have the impact on military spending. I think if anything leave the systems up and running inport in the event someone decides to get stupid.

We have no problem blowing you out of the water if you want to launch an RPG at us etc.

Response by CDR Mike Kovack made Nov 24 at 2014 4:43 AM

CDR Mike Kovack — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:43:40 -0500

Excellent idea! While we'll never totally replace putting people in harm's way the more technology we can use to keep threats farther away the better. And, in the long run, this typically turns out to be cheaper.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 16 at 2015 2:35 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 02:35:07 -0400

Can I drive one?

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Aug 16 at 2015 10:26 AM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:26:08 -0400

Does it bother ANYONE that we're making the act of violence free of humans? When it's just a machine versus a machine, are we not MORE LIKELY to start something stupid? Don't stupid things escalate until someone says "Here... hold my beer and watch this!"

I don't mean just us, as in America, What about all the butthole backwater warlords and Kim Jong Un wanna-be dictators?

I don't know about this drone/remote/unmanned craze. I get the "no humans are at risk" thing, but if "no humans are at risk", then what's the down-side of starting a conflict? When all of our unmanned "whatevers" are done blow'd up, what's next? "Real war"?

I just don't have a warm fuzzy - especially when non-military political dickwads start deciding to throw some unmanned "whatevers" at an enemy thinking that there's no risk.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2015 4:34 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:34:40 -0400

I personally think this would be a great step to achieving many goals. Not all operations are combat orientated for example counter piracy counter narcotics etc. Imagine the pressure it would take from operators on the boats and commanders involved with launching them into these other type scenarios. The possibilities are endless and I'm a big fan of minimising exposure of troops until absolutely necessary.

Response by Dave Skala made Nov 9 at 2015 1:34 PM

Dave Skala — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 13:34:17 -0500

We are resellers for ECA robotics group and others to include Air and Land vehicles. There is huge potential in this area but as mentioned on another post. I am not always excited about arming our equipment. The ability to send in a ROV into HAZMAT areas etc is a big deal.