New under water robot what is it for?

[rip]

In the Defense Technology International magazine in the May 2010 issue on page 12 there is an article about a new form of underwater robot (UUV) called a glider. It is a fully automatous robot that travels through the seas’ by gliding up and then down the water column by changing its buoyancy. These robots will be able; it is said within the article, to travel the seas for months at a time and perhaps for years at a speed of about 0.5 knots by gleaming energy from the sea as it goes. This research is being supported for future military requirements.

Assuming that the technology works as advertised what could it do? Perhaps it can go sailing slowly around and report its position by satellite but I do not see a way that it can gleam enough energy from the sea passively too power sophisticated sensors, and analytical devices to gather useful information, recognize that it has done so, and then report it. Am I missing something?

Also with its slow speed how is it going to avoid being caught in fishing nets, hauled up and sold on E-Bay? So many questions and no answers.

If this is going to be a new hot thing, what will it do, how will it do it, and what military function will it perform?

If anybody out there knows please pass it on.


link at

Defense Technology International | May-11 | Express 3 | Zinio Digital Magazines

 

[gf0012-aust]

If anybody out there knows please pass it on.

Its based on the same technology shown by DSTO in Aust to the USN 4 years ago

(Project Wayamba)

 

[rip]

Its based on the same technology shown by DSTO in Aust to the USN 4 years ago

(Project Wayamba)

Well that is helpful to some degree.

As I said before, I will take it on faith that they can make the technology work as advertised. But what can it do militarily? For oceanographic research in the open water, I can see that it could, while on its meandering journeys, track, record, and occasionally transmit data on underwater currents, water temperature, and salinity. Perhaps it could even record some useful underwater sounds of sea life. And that this information might after enough data is collected; provide useful information on the fluidic weather systems raging ever ever so very slowly below the sea's surface which do have real long term effects on atmospheric weather. They could gather data to construct better models of long range sound propagation within the sea to help passive sonar systems be more effective and they could be used for doing various biologic species counts, I am sure but with the very limited energy available to these vehicles, I cannot see what practical tactical military value they can produce or am I missing something?

As pure research tools I can see that they can have real value but as military assets I am at a loss.

We all know that various robot warriors are on the way for use in every environment. The UAV’s now flying in the air are only the beginning. While that area will continue to expand and become militarily even more relevant, the next big frontier is in underwater robots. Small robot subs, under a variety of names, are already being tested for use from surface ships and other manned submarines. These recoverable vehicles have the potential of becoming the primary ant-submarine platform of the future especially in the littoral waters. And for under water salvage and recovery they have already proved their worth. But these robots use huge amounts of energy.

 

[Feros Ferio]

Well that is helpful to some degree.

As I said before, I will take it on faith that they can make the technology work as advertised. But what can it do militarily? For oceanographic research in the open water, I can see that it could, while on its meandering journeys, track, record, and occasionally transmit data on underwater currents, water temperature, and salinity. Perhaps it could even record some useful underwater sounds of sea life. And that this information might after enough data is collected; provide useful information on the fluidic weather systems raging ever ever so very slowly below the sea's surface which do have real long term effects on atmospheric weather. They could gather data to construct better models of long range sound propagation within the sea to help passive sonar systems be more effective and they could be used for doing various biologic species counts, I am sure but with the very limited energy available to these vehicles, I cannot see what practical tactical military value they can produce or am I missing something?

As pure research tools I can see that they can have real value but as military assets I am at a loss.

We all know that various robot warriors are on the way for use in every environment. The UAV’s now flying in the air are only the beginning. While that area will continue to expand and become militarily even more relevant, the next big frontier is in underwater robots. Small robot subs, under a variety of names, are already being tested for use from surface ships and other manned submarines. These recoverable vehicles have the potential of becoming the primary ant-submarine platform of the future especially in the littoral waters. And for under water salvage and recovery they have already proved their worth. But these robots use huge amounts of energy.

These look like just the beginning RIP. With time and research, energy harvesting by various means will be improved. As this occurs, these craft will be fitted with better sensors, etc... giving them much more military value. Well positioned networks of self sustaining, mobile underwater sensors could come be incredibly valuable in a lot of Naval/Amphibious ops, correct? Mine/submarine detection being just quick example. Or perhaps if the speed could be picked up, for extending the underwater sensor range of CBG's?

And if they could be fitted with sensors and weapons, much like UCAV's, along with todays mass production technology, wow.... Think of the tactical implications of a swarm of such robots!

 

[rip]

These look like just the beginning RIP. With time and research, energy harvesting by various means will be improved. As this occurs, these craft will be fitted with better sensors, etc... giving them much more military value. Well positioned networks of self sustaining, mobile underwater sensors could come be incredibly valuable in a lot of Naval/Amphibious ops, correct? Mine/submarine detection being just quick example. Or perhaps if the speed could be picked up, for extending the underwater sensor range of CBG's?

And if they could be fitted with sensors and weapons, much like UCAV's, along with todays mass production technology, wow.... Think of the tactical implications of a swarm of such robots!

I am thinking about it.

I agree with you that if the energy problem can be solved, it would make almost every assumption we now currently have about naval warfare completely obsolete. The possibilities are startling but so are the challenges and the dangers.

As I see it there are a few absolutely necessary requirements for any military application and issues to be solved before they can be used.

1. The ability to detect navigational hazards and then avoided them. Things like the bottom when in shallow water or sea mounts when in deep water, floating debris found at sea of all kinds (trees, fishing nets, dead whales, etc.) powered boats and ships. To do so it would have to able to both detect the hazard, calculate an escape tactic, and have the energy available to execute it. That would require some kind of propulsive device that could work for at least shot periods of time.

2. What happens when someone finds or captures it? Will it self-destruct? How will it determine that it has been captured and what if it is just found by an innocent civilian after a malfunction?

3. What kind of international law will govern their use? Will they be like registered warships, even though they are unmanned, they will be flagged, registered, and thus always remain the national property of the nation that made them, even when they find themselves within someones else’s territorial waters or zone of economic control? Or would they be disposable just sonobouys, treated like trash or free salvage?

These are just a few questions I have, not only about these robots, but about the use of robots in warfare in general. But in this case since they would be unattended for very long periods of time and manly automatous in their functions, these issues will come up in this context first. As long a robots need to be refueled and serviced they are on a very short leach but when that are not things get very complicated.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am thinking about it.

rip,

some years ago I was in hawai'i and was invited to a USN demo of a RO-USV. at that stage the platform had an 8hr duration. within 3 years that duration had extended to 36hrs of absolute autonomy.

36hrs of autonomy acting as a dismount means a dynamic change in underwater warfare at both the sensor and weapons delivery level.

its beyond 36hrs now

 

[MrConservative]

3. What kind of international law will govern their use? Will they be like registered warships, even though they are unmanned, they will be flagged, registered, and thus always remain the national property of the nation that made them, even when they find themselves within someones else’s territorial waters or zone of economic control? Or would they be disposable just sonobouys, treated like trash or free salvage?

These are just a few questions I have, not only about these robots, but about the use of robots in warfare in general. But in this case since they would be unattended for very long periods of time and manly automatous in their functions, these issues will come up in this context first. As long a robots need to be refueled and serviced they are on a very short leach but when that are not things get very complicated.

I am not going to comment directly on the piece of robot tech this thread is about however RIp I will pass a few comments generally on the area of automonous weapons systems.

Regarding International Law or more specifically Laws of Armed Conflict the development of Automonus Weapon Systems so far has been in accordance with Article 36 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 whereby nations who are introducing such weapons into the battlespace have been obligated to assess the legality of the weapon system. So far OK as there has been a man in the loop or MILT. While we have Milt doing his bit the legal niceties are taken care of. That said other than the moral and ethical principles espoused within jus ad bellum (just cause) and jus in bello ( just and fair conduct in warfare) there are NO international laws guiding or indeed banning the use of automonous weapon systems.

Therefore simply:

Automonous Weapons + MILT + Comand & Control + ROE (which take into consideration Necessity, Proportionality and Discrimination) = Legally OK at the present under the current jurisprudence of Laws of Armed Conflict.

But as pointed out by gf0012-aust the disconnection for long periods of time from the technical automonous system in the battlespace (eg 36 hours plus and much longer in the near future without the direct interaction of MILT and C&C) is very much a reality. But here is the rub and the big Q for commanders, politicians, LOAC legal specialists, and poor old Milt - as we head into more and more fully automonous weapons systems then the legal niceities could become unravelled as Tort Law principles that are as yet not really part of LOAC jurisprudence may raise there head viz a viz the principles of proximity to the event in question and forseeablity of consequences in regards to actions and outcomes.

You see at the crux of it all is this notion of knowing who is or who can be responsibile as part of a causal nexus of events and how far can they be in time and space and moral decision from a destructive combat action. That lies at the heart of International Law, Laws of Armed Conflict and any layering of Tort Jurisprudence that may assist further development of legal knowledge and principles in this area. To be honest fully automonous gives me the willy's I look to having MILT in the process as long as possible. But one day someone is going to go to war with a fully autonomous weapon systems and the thought depresses me.

 

[rip]

I am not going to comment directly on the piece of robot tech this thread is about however RIp I will pass a few comments generally on the area of automonous weapons systems.

Regarding International Law or more specifically Laws of Armed Conflict the development of Automonus Weapon Systems so far has been in accordance with Article 36 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 whereby nations who are introducing such weapons into the battlespace have been obligated to assess the legality of the weapon system. So far OK as there has been a man in the loop or MILT. While we have Milt doing his bit the legal niceties are taken care of. That said other than the moral and ethical principles espoused within jus ad bellum (just cause) and jus in bello ( just and fair conduct in warfare) there are NO international laws guiding or indeed banning the use of automonous weapon systems.

Therefore simply:

Automonous Weapons + MILT + Comand & Control + ROE (which take into consideration Necessity, Proportionality and Discrimination) = Legally OK at the present under the current jurisprudence of Laws of Armed Conflict.

But as pointed out by gf0012-aust the disconnection for long periods of time from the technical automonous system in the battlespace (eg 36 hours plus and much longer in the near future without the direct interaction of MILT and C&C) is very much a reality. But here is the rub and the big Q for commanders, politicians, LOAC legal specialists, and poor old Milt - as we head into more and more fully automonous weapons systems then the legal niceities could become unravelled as Tort Law principles that are as yet not really part of LOAC jurisprudence may raise there head viz a viz the principles of proximity to the event in question and forseeablity of consequences in regards to actions and outcomes.

You see at the crux of it all is this notion of knowing who is or who can be responsibile as part of a causal nexus of events and how far can they be in time and space and moral decision from a destructive combat action. That lies at the heart of International Law, Laws of Armed Conflict and any layering of Tort Jurisprudence that may assist further development of legal knowledge and principles in this area. To be honest fully automonous gives me the willy's I look to having MILT in the process as long as possible. But one day someone is going to go to war with a fully autonomous weapon systems and the thought depresses me.

You obviously know a lot more about these issues than I do. These issues are going to become very important in the conduct of warfare in the future of that I am sure. I consider it unknown territory, and though I might be wrong, I am will willing to bet there will be a major rethink of these weapons both nationally and internationally concerning all of theses suites of technologies what to use them for and what they will mean to fight war and keeping the peace. I doubt that any one will be satisfied with what currently is recognized as international law as it how stands about robots. Or am I being overly optimistic?

That said, at this point, I am more interested about robots that do not have, nor do they carry lethal weapons. UUV’s as they are so far envision, are stealthy sensor platforms, not weapon per say, and do not at this point will they carry weapons, though self-destruct devices are a gray area. I think we will see these platforms deployed first and in other than just war time conditions. As so they will demand attention first and thus will drive the issue.

But much to my personal amazement this is not as new an issue as I thought. Such a weapon already exists. The CAPTOR mine, half robot and half torpedo, it fits the definition and has been around for a long time, except that as far as I know, it has never been used in warfare and would only be used after war was declared. And an even far more deadly weapon has been proposed “Predator”. Link is provided below.






Sea Predator A Vision for Tommorrow's Autonomous Undersea Weapons