Minesweeping comes of age

C

colay

New Member
Minesweeping seems on the verge of a new era after years of neglect. Some key pieces of the puzzle still need to be put in place. I would think that linking the remote platforms to the mothership won't be a big nut to crack. Perhaps a high-endurance UAV could act as a relay or maybe an airship could do in more benign environments.
http://defense.aol.com/2012/09/26/e...sweepers-take-cues-from-nascar/?icid=related1


..All that eyestrain-inducing, migraine-causing data analysis takes place aboard the mothership -- and currently, there's no way to beam the data back there from the helicopters and unmanned submersibles out hunting. You have to physically pull a hard drive out of one system and plug it into the other.

"What we're proposing is an RF [radio frequency] link." That way the drones can transmit their data back to the analysts without come back to the mothership for the laborious, time-consuming process of hauling the UUV back aboard (or landing the helicopter) and physically swapping the drives. The drones can keep gathering new data at the same time as the humans are analyzing the data already gathered, in parallel, instead of each process having to wait for the other in serial.
 
M

My2Cents

Active Member
The details of ONR's experimental solution are classified, but "Rube Goldberg would be proud," Schuette ruefully told the conference. Does it work? "We'll know in another year or so."
Click to expand...
Well, since they used that phrase, and high frequency radio cannot be used to communicate through water, I am going to bet that the UUV ejects a buoy with a copy of the hard drive and a transmitter to rise to the surface and transmit it back to the mothership. Don’t think they will have any way to send orders back to the UUV.

Don’t see any reason that they couldn’t send a copy back to the US as well, and bring some truly massive computers running experimental software as well, as a check on both the software and the analysts on the mothership.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
You could stream a small buoy to the surface and trail it above the UUV ? After all, the mines will have to be relatively shallow to work so we're not talking any huge depth surely ? Stream the buoy with antennae, retrieve it back into the UUV when you're done, repeat as needed.
 
M

My2Cents

Active Member
StobieWan said:
You could stream a small buoy to the surface and trail it above the UUV ? After all, the mines will have to be relatively shallow to work so we're not talking any huge depth surely ? Stream the buoy with antennae, retrieve it back into the UUV when you're done, repeat as needed.
Click to expand...
Shallow is a relative term, probably less than 300ft for moored mines. Could be up to 600ft for rising mines, or 3000ft for something like the US CAPTOR Encapsulated Torpedo mine.

The problem is the connecting cable needs to be fairly large due to the forces involved, mostly from drag on the cable. That means the UUV has to include a fairly large winch and reel, and bigger motors, batteries, etc to support it. You would probably do better in that arrangement to use a USV to deploy and support a smaller UUV. And that assumes you can keep the cable clear of the mines, especially moored mines, even when you are doing close inspections.

But the big problem is it will add noise that the mine designers can exploit to detect and target the mine clearing UUV’s. Better from the mine designer’s view to sacrifice a couple mines to protect the rest of the field. The UUV designs are suppose to sneak around undetected to prevent that.

Other alternative designs would be to:
  • Have the UUV report to the surface periodically to download data and receive instructions.
  • Have a floating communications buoy that unreels a disposable fiber optic line as needed to avoid tension, the UUV does the same from its end, and the line drifts with the current. This design avoids the problems of force loading on the line by not permitting any. Potential problems could occur if there are cross currents or the line gets snagged on something. The line has to be disposable because it is not strong enough to support reeling in a couple thousand feet of it.
 
C

colay

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
The modularity of the MCM systems slated for implementation on the LCS also means that they should be readily implementable on other platforms as well. The multiplier effect of having disparate platforms contributing to the MCM effort will provide a,major boost in capability.
 
M

My2Cents

Active Member
colay said:
The modularity of the MCM systems slated for implementation on the LCS also means that they should be readily implementable on other platforms as well. The multiplier effect of having disparate platforms contributing to the MCM effort will provide a,major boost in capability.
Click to expand...
Correct.

And that list of other platforms would include most of the dive support vessels for the offshore oil fields, that would give them another hundred or so platforms with all the support equipment (cranes, etc.) they need already in place, except the military communications and satellite uplinks. That is the great strength of the modular MCM system, if they would just build some of them.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I attended a US conference in London about 4 years ago.

The gent from ONR giving the session talked about blue laser comms between all assets at various depths being able to sing to each other.

there is also drop and lift technology thats been used for the last 8 years. The tech was originally based around a concept that was designed to submerge cray pots and protect them from marauding seals

I know we sold that system to both US and UK and they were looking at modifying it to deal with hand offs in the arrays.
 
Last edited:
K

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
colay said:
The Japanese have ordered the ALMDS to upgrade their MCM capabilities. Using lasers mounted on helos, they can quickly scan large swaths of ocean for surface mines and those moored a couple of hundred feet down.. ideal for harbors and channels..
Click to expand...
Uhm. We are talking about the same ALMDS here that's been postponed for a full financial accounting period because it didn't meet requirements the last couple years?

The one where the receiver was crappy enough to not detect anything at all at sufficient depth, so they just amped it up (and hey, that only took a year) and it started mistaking every reflection in the water for a mine. Gee, and no one predicted exactly that being the principle problem of LIDAR 20 years ago, right?
Also was rather funny how the USN managed to play 'three monkeys' for a week after that GAO report until they signed the next LRIP contract.

As for those large swaths of ocean and moored mines, you might want to recheck that. Requirement for detection depth is a grand total of 40 feet. Also, hint, due to the fixed number of beam emitters, swath width is in direct relation to resolution detection.
 
C

colay

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
kato said:
Uhm. We are talking about the same ALMDS here that's been postponed for a full financial accounting period because it didn't meet requirements the last couple years?

The one where the receiver was crappy enough to not detect anything at all at sufficient depth, so they just amped it up (and hey, that only took a year) and it started mistaking every reflection in the water for a mine. Gee, and no one predicted exactly that being the principle problem of LIDAR 20 years ago, right?
Also was rather funny how the USN managed to play 'three monkeys' for a week after that GAO report until they signed the next LRIP contract.

As for those large swaths of ocean and moored mines, you might want to recheck that. Requirement for detection depth is a grand total of 40 feet. Also, hint, due to the fixed number of beam emitters, swath width is in direct relation to resolution detection.
Click to expand...
I can only assume the Japanese have done their due diligence and their appreciation of ALMDS is very different from yours. As for the 200-ft. detection depth, my bad.. misinterpreted the graphic for,shallow water,i.e.,40-200 ft. in the linked,presentation.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...ox_hj9&sig=AHIEtbSOu9bZSPXYZOp0_a-5MkMg8IGDEg
 
C

colay

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Better late than never and hopeflly they can leverage the work done on the Sea Hawk when they decide on a replacement. Another S-92 vs. AW-101 battle shaping up perhaps?

'Deadly Serious' Navy Wrestles With Mine Warfare Modernization

Recently the Navy decided the MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter that LCS carries simply lacks the endurance of the current MH-53s to haul mine-detecting sonar arrays through the water, so it is seeking a new way to "sweep" the water for mines: "We have a sweep system," said Linkous, "[but currently] it doesn't have anything to tow it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top