http://www.darpa.mil/program/anti-submarine-warfare-continuous-trail-unmanned-vessel
>The Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV) is developing an unmanned vessel optimized to robustly track quiet diesel electric submarines.
What does /k/ think about ACTUV? Is this a viable pathway for developing a future-proof ASW capability?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ0oW3wcFuo
Also in the beginning of the video the prototype looks like a cheap 3D model inserted in post-production, it's weird as fuck.
Is it kinda provocative to tail submarines in international waters?
This is like one cargo business having drones follow the ships of other cargo businesses.
>>29564880
>Is this a viable pathway for developing a future-proof ASW capability?
I don't know about future-proof but it is the clear beginning of a robust, responsive, next-generation evolution of the SOSUS network concept. It's an excellent home waters solution and has some very intriguing enemy AO possibilities (well dock motherships with ASW and radar/AA picket drone ships to deploy and sweep in front of CSGs, for instance, tying into the ASW and Aegis battlespace networks).
Sensor node persistence is one of the few weaknesses of the P-3/P-8 and rotary wing-focused SUW ASW fight, and these neatly resolve this. Cost VS tactical benefit is really the only remaining question once the system is working. Are they cheap enough to build in the numbers required for the required bolstering of current systems?
>>29564941
>Is it kinda provocative to tail submarines in international waters?
The USN does it whenever possible, as does any country with boats quiet enough to tail effectively without constant or immediate discovery (read: impossible against USN/RN/FN boats for many to most Soviet designs). It is provocative, but not illegal; many collisions have happened during such operations over the years. However, the very nature of the submarine mission set and operational capabilities means it comes hand in hand with national defense operation of submarines. If you want a better overlook on how this process plays out and why it is necessary, read Blind Man's Bluff by Sontag/Drew or The Silent War by Craven.
>>29564941
As >>29564953 alludes to, its principal application would probably be in friendly littorals. Although I had wondered about the possibility of mothership-based strike group deployments too, and agree that seems to have potential.
>>29564994
>its principal application would probably be in friendly littorals
Yes, although international waters choke points are obvious and easy targets for using these to bolster SOSUS networks already in place. Think G-I-UK gap, Baltic sea, East and South China Sea, the Bering Strait and Sea, etc. All you need is a friendly port reasonably close to service them at the end of each patrol leg back and forth, and enough of them to keep them cycling and maintain coverage.
One question about all this from an international law standpoint is the status of the vessels:
>Is an unmanned ship still considered a flagged vessel?
>Are these legitimate salvage targets under current international maritime law?
>If they fire upon another vessel, are they classified as mines or warships under international law?
These seem nitpicky, but are important things to take a position on early so as to keep the diplomatic high ground in the inevitable diplomatic aftermath of any action involving these drones.
>>29565167
>Think G-I-UK gap, Baltic sea, East and South China Sea, the Bering Strait and Sea, etc.
Indeedm that seems to be the plan actually.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/darpa-actuv-self-driving-submarine-hunter-steers-like-a-human
>designed to be able to launch from a pier and go out on its own for weeks or months at a time, for thousands of miles at a stretch
>Is an unmanned ship still considered a flagged vessel?
I don't see why not. Such ships are still operated by nationals of one country or another.
>Are these legitimate salvage targets under current international maritime law?
Again I don't see why not, although I'm not familiar with how the law treats military vessels.
>If they fire upon another vessel, are they classified as mines or warships under international law?
I have to imagine that distinction will become decreasingly relevant as technology evolves. "Autonomous" dumb mines will eventually be completely replaced by autonomous, intelligent, remotely-operable ones. And at that point, what is the difference between an autonomous mine and autonomous ship? What is the difference between an autonomous ship and conventional one for the purposes of determining operational responsibility?
>>29565392
>I don't see why not. Such ships are still operated by nationals of one country or another.
I'm no expert, but I understand the rules for flagged or operated vessels revolve around occupancy and active control. While this isn't so much an issue for actively remote piloted drones (agency reverts to the controlling vessel), I can see it potentially being a thorny legal issue for something designed to be autonomous. Agency is the main issue: the question of what people, organization and government are responsible for a given hull become even more urgent in the case of an armed warship.
>Again I don't see why not, although I'm not familiar with how the law treats military vessels.
See, again, this is a potential problem. If they are legitimate, legal targets for salvage due to lack of occupancy or direct remote control, that means any country or company can literally sail up to one, disable its propulsion and legally tow it back to home port with little or no legal repercussions. That's an important issue for the US government to have a firm stance on before they are operational.
>I have to imagine that distinction will become decreasingly relevant as technology evolves.
See, again, this is an issue for a persistent asset. With mines, agency follows a direct line back to the vessel which placed it, but once placed it can be legally destroyed or removed by ANY party which happens across it, at least in international waters. So here again we have a possible situation where US agency is intact (responsible for it's actions) but rights to it as property are not, so any sub picked up by such a craft can turn around and destroy it with impunity, but if the craft fires back then it is committing an act of war. The legal status matters when considering the operational parameters of these things, especially outside of territorial waters.
>>29565167
>>29565392
>>29565905
This...
This is not how I thought this thread would go. Reasonable and surprising insight? In MY /k/? GTFO.
>>29564880
Did you know that DARPA polished this design using free to play game?
http://archive.darpa.mil/actuv/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO4EOYv92mk
>>29566295
I remember this. It was basically a very basic Dangerous Waters. Was sorta fun.
>>29566295
That's pretty damn cool. DARPA's the shit.
>Hey Jim?
>Yeah, Bob?
>Fuck writing the control laws for this semi-autonomous vehicle.
>Yeah, Bob, fuck it right in its peanut-riddled chocolate starfish.
>Say, I got an idea...
>No, Bob, for the last fucking time, I will not sleep with your wife while you wear a gorilla suit and watch.
>Oh, you will. You will... But no, how about we get a bunch of neckbeard gamers to do it for us?
>What the literal fuck, Bob. How are we going to get clearances for NEETs?
>No, no, no. Hear me out. What if... What if we made it a video game, and scrubbed the sensitive info out of it?
>... Brilliant!
And suddenly I want to work at DARPA.
>>29565905
>I can see it potentially being a thorny legal issue for something designed to be autonomous.
Consider the purpose of ship registration: to determine which state a vessel is bound to for matters of compliance with maritime law, regulation, certification, etc.
In other words, the vessel is not the principal party to maritime law enforcement: the state responsible for managing the vessel is. This responsibility doesn't disappear simply because human beings are not involved in the direct control of a vessel. Somebody ashore must still develop and program its automated systems, not to mention keep the vessel running in the traditional sense.
In fact, I would go so far as to argue that in this way crewed and uncrewed vessels are funcitonally equivalent: From the perspective of land-based agencies, both types of vessels maintain varying degrees autonomy over their regular operations, such as navigating the high seas. A crewed armed warship may or may not defer to a third party for permission to engage weapons systems, subject to local rules of engagement and TRADOC--and there is no reason to think the same wouldn't be true for uncrewed warships.
>Agency is the main issue: the question of what people, organization and government are responsible for a given hull become even more urgent in the case of an armed warship.
I agree, but the case is particularly clear where military vessels are concerned. Surely you don't imagine that there would any cause for confusion or dispute in identifying property of, say the United States Navy. Of course, piracy is also a concern, but that's not an issue unique to automated ships.
>>29566456
>In other words, the vessel is not the principal party to maritime law enforcement: the state responsible for managing the vessel is. This responsibility doesn't disappear simply because human beings are not involved in the direct control of a vessel. Somebody ashore must still develop and program its automated systems, not to mention keep the vessel running in the traditional sense.
Oh, you're absolutely right there. I don't think ultimate agency of the craft is in any way in question. Naval mine precedent sets it firmly upon the constructing/deploying/owning entity.
>Surely you don't imagine that there would any cause for confusion or dispute in identifying property of, say the United States Navy.
My question involves reciprocal rights. Yes, the country which deployed it is responsible for its actions. No doubt. But if naval mine law applies, it can also be destroyed, recovered or salvaged with no consequences in international waters. I.E. the craft may be fired upon and it would not be considered an act of war, but if it returns or initiates fire, then the operating country has just committed an act of war. This unequal balance also exists if, by nature of it being uncrewed and not under direct remote control, it is legally considered a derelict and thus a legitimate object of salvage. The rights of ownership do not apply, but agency still does.
I don't think these are legally unresolvable issues (and in fact, may already have a clear statutory answer which in my inexperience with maritime law I am ignorant of), but they are things the US is going to have to get out in front of before we deploy it. I would not be surprised if they've already quietly started working on it as a result of past aerial drone shootdowns.
>>29566528
>This unequal balance also exists if, by nature of it being uncrewed and not under direct remote control
Pretty sure it would be remotely piloted especially if action starts around it.
>>29566576
>Pretty sure it be remotely piloted especially if action starts around it.
I understand it to be optionally piloted: it roams a programmed course and sends off sensory data home to mamma. If it detects something or is fired upon, it has a suite of programmed responses or an operator can step in and directly control it.
This, of course, further muddies the legal waters. All drone shootdowns to date have been over the national airspace of another country, making the legal situation clear. What happens with a similar confrontation in international waters?
>>29566595
>>29566612
To be clear, I'm not arguing a correct position on one side or the other. I'm stating my inexpertise while pointing out potential legal issues (and kind of hoping another lawfag with maritime experience will jump in).
>>29566389
It not only about control and tactics but also choosing performance. They had different variant fo vehicles l with different capabilities. Some were clearly better than other in everything, some were different flavors (like better speed but shorter sonar range). So simulation should show what specs are more important, what level of specs is good enough for the job.
>>29566660
>So simulation should show what specs are more important, what level of specs is good enough for the job.
I'm less confident that this was a primary goal. How accurate could such design insight be when there is no possible way they incorporated realistic sensor, propulsion, noise radiation, etc characteristics into the simulated ACTUV, much less the in-simulation sensor targets. That shit is all very highly classified and controlled information.
No, the autonomous decision tree iterations were clearly the primary point of the exercise. You can run simulations on chaotic systems till the heat death of the universe, but unless human interaction and unpredictable nature is injected into the process, you will leave openings within the control laws and option evaluation. And, of course, the more diverse and more numerous the simulations involving human response, the better.
The other primary benefit is clearly positive public exposure for DARPA. The public gets involved in one of their projects, gets to play with the concepts, gets a window into what DARPA does and gets personally invested in ACTUV. All of this translates into more possible funding and general good press.
>>29566732
>You can run simulations on chaotic systems till the heat death of the universe, but unless human interaction and unpredictable nature is injected into the process, you will leave openings within the control laws and option evaluation. And, of course, the more diverse and more numerous the simulations involving human response, the better.
It is also important to note that this research and simulation iteration can be in many ways directly applied to both aerial drones and other autonomous control logic. DARPA is, after all, one of the leading researchers in AI/autonomous control logic.
>>29565905
>>29566456
>If they are legitimate, legal targets for salvage due to lack of occupancy or direct remote control, that means any country or company can literally sail up to one, disable its propulsion and legally tow it back to home port with little or no legal repercussions.
I am very skeptical that this concern has any relevance outside of theoretical debate. Sure, Putin could pluck a USN drone out of international waters and get RT to run wall-to-wall coverage about how the action was in strictest compliance with international maritime law, but the only people to support him would be Jeremy Corbyn and the editorial board of The Guardian. Not that I believe such a thing would likely happen.
>But if naval mine law applies, it can also be destroyed, recovered or salvaged with no consequences in international waters.
Right. But what I meant was that I don't foresee uncrewed autonomous vessels becoming subject to mine law. That would require such vessels to become conflated with antiquated relics, which just doesn't seem likely.
But likewise, in my similar inexperience I don't believe any of these issues are unsolvable.
>>29566826
>Sure, Putin could pluck a USN drone out of international waters and get RT to run wall-to-wall coverage
Ah, but he gets even more political capital if he gives Iran or North Korea the means to execute such a thing, and then buys the tech off them. The US gets punked by a much lower-class power, Russia still gets the intel and they get to strengthen relations and let a client state thump their chest but have to deal with the fallout all in the bargain.
>That would require such vessels to become conflated with antiquated relics, which just doesn't seem likely.
As far as I can tell, naval mine precedent is by far the most closely applicable. Though now that I think about it, I need to read up on the applicable protections on NOAA sea state buoys. Those would also be ballpark analogues in some ways.
As far as the applicable precedents being shared by technological antiques, you would be shocked to learn just how much of law, IP, Maritime, Family, Tax, Property, etc, is bound up in "antiquated" precedents. The thing is, new statutes being written at a pace with the introduction of new technology is almost unheard of. So court cases involving new technology often devolve into arguments over which of several only loosely applicable precedents would apply to this new situation. The various cases over civilian drones being destroyed over someone else's property while violating their privacy is an excellent example of this phenomenon. This is why I was thinking aloud that the US better get in front of this particular statutory roadblock (if it even is one) before some judge in an international court with only the vaguest understanding of technology and military operations decision trees makes a completely ridiculous legal connection and lumps all autonomous craft under, say, mine law and thus sets a legal precedent which will be much harder to change or defeat.
>>29566909
>Ah, but he gets even more political capital if he gives Iran or North Korea the means to execute such a thing, and then buys the tech off them.
Funnily enough, I had originally thought about mentioning Krazy Kim as well. That scenario is definitely a risk; but the North Koreans have never been wary of seizing USN property anyway, crewed or uncrewed.
>The thing is, new statutes being written at a pace with the introduction of new technology is almost unheard of.
That's certainly the case. But as far as maritime law is concerned, I think that's a moot point. International law is only as strong as the norms underpinning it, and norms almost by definition don't exist for new technology... so the legislative situation would resemble more of a Wild West situation in my opinion. As it does in the case of remote-operated aircraft. In which case first-movers lead the way, not judges, I think.
>>29567331
>In which case first-movers lead the way, not judges, I think.
True, but clearly determining first cause in an armed conflict is pretty important when you show up at the UN or NATO looking for allies to join you.
>>29567359
>NATO
I mean, it's pretty damn important just for enactment of the mutual self defense clause.
>>29567359
True enough. Suffice to say I think the scenario you're suggesting is a rather narrow escalator to catastrophe.
Anyway I must go to sleep now, it is past my bedtime.
Goodnight /k/ommando.
>>29567457
Don't let the skinwalker bite.
>>29564977
The chinese like to tail our ships whenever we enter the SCS. Its hard to tell if they actually believe they are bein sneaky or are simply trying to estimate how quickly we [USN] can find them
>>29564880
>Also in the beginning of the video the prototype looks like a cheap 3D model inserted in post-production, it's weird as fuck.
It's the combination of the virgin coat of paint on the hull, lack of shadows on the hull, and the camera drone's movement.
>>29564977
You admit it's dangerous and provocative.
What are underwater traffic laws? If a sub pulls a crazy Ivan and the drone hits them, do we have to pay for repairs and compensate dead families?
>>29568651
>You admit it's dangerous and provocative.
Of course. It always has been. It's in the very nature of what subs do, even in peacetime. An overwhelming chunk of SSN mission profiles that aren't CSG/ESG ASW screen are EM gathering within other nation's territorial waters, trailing foreign subs (building sound emissions profiles on specific boats, following boomers around, defining foreign patrol routes and SSBN bastions, etc), infil and exfil for SOF operations, hardline comms tapping a la Ivy Bells, recovering foreign hardware off the ocean floor (spent missiles from tests, etc), following foreign surface assets around, all that shit. This isn't just the USN, this is all navies, especially those with nuke boats.
>What are underwater traffic laws?
There are none. Surface right of way tendencies loosely apply, but in general there are no hard and fast rules.
>If a sub pulls a crazy Ivan and the drone hits them, do we have to pay for repairs and compensate dead families?
First of all, the drone is not submersible. Secondly, it's got nowhere near enough mass to sink or even partially flood a sub (the USS San Francisco hit an undersea mountain at flank speed - 30+ knots - and survived. Pic related). Thirdly, all collisions which did cause damage between foreign powers with submarines were almost always classified and buried with cover stories in both nations. See:
>USS Swordfish
>USS Skipjack
>USS George C. Marshall
>USS Gato
>USS Sturgeon
>USS Tautog (1970, this was a bad one. We actually thought we'd sunk an Echo here. Turns out it limped home)
>USS Dace
>USS Pintado
>USS James Madison
These boats all had collisions with Soviet subs, and only in the time period from 1961 to 1974. It's coming out that through the cold war they happened at a rate of about one per year, but we generally only hear about incidents 30 years old or older. It's the nature of the work.
>>29564880
I love the idea, but I'm sure this program will morph into some unholy abomination gold plated wonder weapon like the LCS or zumwalt. They should go small and cheap and build hundreds of them.
Bumpity for interest
>>29564941
why use drones
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-5/centery:36/zoom:8
>>29568068
Yeah, I guess that about sums it up.
Also it looks like they are looking for something to do with the mini zumwalt mockup they've got laying around...
