Britain awards contract for large crewless submarine

That’s because Tesla in particular for their “autopilot” mode, are on insisting using optical scanning rather than a combination of radar and laser.

Tesla are now only using computer vision rather than LiDAR. I don’t know why they discontinued it in favour of just a vision system using advanced neural net. It may work wonderfully in California, but will it work on a car in January driving around Aberdeen with four weeks of dirt and other crap on it. To get an AI that can achieve 99% accuracy in self lablling data, you need to be spending tens of millions in engineering time and costs. At present, the only organisations doing that are governments. I assume what Tesla is doing is using the data recorded by vehicles being driven along roads. They (the cars) send that data back and (Tesla) adds it to the database of that location. I know from using the autonomous feature when driving a Model Y in California, that it’s not 100%, you always feel like your only a fraction from having an accident.

In any event, if you want the best “eyes” on the vehicle, you must have all four types of collection.

Ah, my specialist subject. The AI for autonomous at sea navigation, is far easier than anything you could ever consider on the road. On the road you have class 1 (almost cruise control) to level 6 (full automation) with levels in between. Tesla is level 3 at best. Toyota have reached level 4, but that’s as high as cars are at present.

In the military, the two areas AI is most used at present are interception and computer vision for identification of items within an image as captured. The use of AI within a sub-sea environment is far easier. Simplifying it, you use several outputs for knowing where you are and what’s near you. The most hazardous part of the journey is the last 10 metres to the surface. The hazard of hitting something while surfacing is always problematic, especially near busy sea lanes. Anything deeper than that relies on charts, surveying results from the surface and subsurface, sonar and another technology I cannot mention on here. The vehicle is pre-programmed with gates (what if, or if this happens = X action, or if that happens = Y action etc) to allow navigation. Seldom would you need outside input from controllers, unless you are updating a target package.

As far as removing the human element from many areas of technology, it is not as far away as one might think. It’s already possible in the air, including the prosecution of targets. The only element that is the stumbling point in the West is the ethics and morality of allowing machines to kill humans.

Agree 100%
• The sea is probably the easiest environment on earth for AI to navigate
• The ethical/ legal issues of allowing machines to kill humans will be the greatest impediment to deploying this ability in the future: as can be seen from the debate around the legal responsibilities of self-driving cars. We have had such machines in the past, eg land-mines, but the West has felt the moral need to phase these out. Sadly the totalitarian regimes that oppose us, Russia, China, etc will have no ethical issues around deploying autonomous killing machines.

If there is a reasonably rigorous test program now, there is a distinct possibility that this tech could be ready for primetime when SSN(R) and SSN(X) reach IOC. 🤔😳🤞

I wouldn’t say that you are far wide of the mark with assessment.
What will be interesting to learn is how they will eventually interact and pass data, given that UWC involves making a noise by transmitting, that they will have to RV to actually pass said data, unless they pass it via satcomms or the like!

Exactly, believe satellite link will be primary w/ RV secondary, and primarily dictated by necessity/circumstances; however, have been humbled by errant prognostications on distressingly regular basis. 🤔😳☹️

Well, it will be good to perhaps be right occasionally!🍷

If they can get go within 500m of each other, they could use a blue light laser. This is about the current practical limit for these types of laser. Not tactically ideal. Though the latest research keeps extending the reach.

Just read an article on it, v interesting, didn’t know you could get so far in seawater due to all the impurities etc.
Not sure of the power requirements for such a system, might be a constraint on the XLUUV type craft?
Of course then there is the expense, however, where there is a will……

You are partially correct in that SMs rely on maritime charts (or electronic versions) to navigate safely.
You will be very surprised to see how old some of those chart surveys were!! It is not uncommon to see some charts not having had an update for over 50 years!! We were one of the few countries that actually did detailed survey work, we still do, albeit on a smaller scale.
Commercial survey companies only survey what is profitable, not what might be required, it’s not the same thing.
Only about 20% of the UK and it’s dependencies coastline has been surveyed in the last 20 odd years, that’s an awful lot of water that hasn’t been.

That’s one level of understanding. You could say, that it can tell the differences between large armoured vehicles and smaller unarmoured ones, ie compare an IFV to a pickup.

The millimetric radar allows it form a very good image of a target. That the recognition software analyzes to see if it’s a valid target or not. That was used in the Block 1 version. It was designed as a battlefield weapon where it could then prioritize heavy armoured vehicles over lighter ones.

The AI software has come on a long way since then.

No mate, AI does not need any form of laser or LiDAR to deliver data from the outputs to the neural net for what you describe. Operating in the air and identifying vehicles and/or items is straightforward.

AI is capable of doing far more than what anyone who doesn’t work in that industry knows. Insofar as your comment, the UK can already do well in excess of that what this subsea unit needs. It would use the 100+ years of surveying done by the Royal Navy. The issue is the hardware, not software. They have to prove the hardware at present. That’s across all theatres and use cases. Air, land, sea and sub-sea. Once the hardware is cracked, it won’t be long before the majority of humans in the military are replaced.

Then it’s an ethics debate.

I imagine it’s it’s lucky day!!!🤣🤣

Good point, perhaps there is a moral component to the question of how intelligent we should make them?

Ah. Some autonomous systems, such as DIVE-LD, can do missions that way, launching from harbour, so for a test vehicle it didn’t seem all that outlandish. As others have said, it sounds harder to work from harbour than a mothership anyway.

Chasing after one of these new breed sounds even tricker than a PAP ROV, given they can go 1000 miles, stealthily, and deeper than a nuclear submarine. If this screws up it may never be found, or found as some museum piece in 70 years time.

Thanks Jon sounds like Holland 1 ah well small steps first just hope they will build in a recovery system or a bloody long tow wire

Hi Daniele,

Odd article entitled ‘Army cannot afford to replace ageing tanks’, by Danielle Sheridan, Defence Editor of the Telegraph published on-line at 10.06pm yesterday (30 Nov) – she thinks that Boxers are ‘tanks on wheels’ and that they are ‘replacing our old Challenger tanks’. How did she get the job?

Anyway she has read a recent NAO report that says instead of 1,305 Boxers required that funding is only in place for 1,016 vehs and that against a requirement for 75 x M270 MLRS there is only funding for 61.

She goes on to talk about naval programmes missing from the 2022-2032 Equipment Plan (T32, MRSS, Enabling Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary) – and only partial funding of the Future Commando Force.

What do you make of this?…and will the revised IR, requested by Hunt, sort this out?

Hi Graham, from the Equipment Plan:

“Navy continues to benefit from the significant investment in the shipbuilding pipeline as a result of decisions outlined within the Integrated Review. This strategic and long-term investment remains on track and will increase the capability and size of the Royal Navy’s surface fleet, including procurement of three Fleet Solid Support Ships, a Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Capability, Multi-Role Support Ships and Type 26, Type 31 and Type 32 frigates.”

Thanks Ian. This Ms Sheridan of the Telegraph is spreading some misleading messages. It seems that the Navy continues to do well out of the Equipment Plan.

BTW, any more on the Ajax trials? I heard that MoD was going to make a Programme announcement this month.

Santa was going to use them to deliver presents…trouble is they realised the noise would wake the kids up ……

I have read elsewhere that the MRSS and T32 may have their cans kicked down the road a bit rather than cancelled. As for AJAX, my sources tell me that milestones have been met and agreed with MOD, so the ball is in BW’s court.

Morning Graham. Sorry, late to this been rather busy of late.

A few thoughts and wider considerations.

I’d never heard of her and consider most journalists rather poor regards defence matters and their overall view and how they interpret things. You could pick any of a dozen or more commentators here who would do a better job. The Boxer and Challenger II story sounds like the old 2 Regiment Medium Armour Ajax plan with Strike that was to do just that.

NAO have indicated CH2 and Warrior both extended, Warrior especially as it is now our recc vehicle!

Even if 1016 Boxer are bought instead of 1305 that is a fair amount, provided they are equipped properly beyond the basic we are getting in the first two batches.

61 MLRS is also an uplift from the current number.

It must be remembered that while journalists and others with a pro army and anti RN / RAF agenda like to take a snipe at the RN and its carriers, and say the RN has done well lately, in the latest uplift, I believe most money went to the army.

I believe the IR and DCP, will, as Sean points out elsewhere, expand some areas while reducing others, not necessarily with actual cuts but changes in spending rules, which I read HMT has allowed Ben Wallace to do.

Though it is all null and void if it does not come with a spending agreement from the Treasury confirming what funding is there going forward. Otherwise it is the usual aspirations that then get the rug pulled from underneath, and MoD has a history of that committing to too much that then cannot be paid for, so those Boxer and M270 numbers don’t actually bother me. What is a pity is that they seem to see an IFV as obsolete as Boxer won’t replace the capability Warrior provided.

Finally, on the army, I’d also heard CGS is looking at rewriting FS and the overall structures again. Here, along with the extra kit the army can get, with Boxer, Ajax, CH3 and the RA / EW / AD programmes at its heart, is where we will see success or failure.

Thanks Danielle – I appreciate your comments.

Interesting that WR is now our recce vehicle – will that still be the case if/when Ajax passes its Factory Acceptance Tests (FAT) and Reliability Growth Trial (RGT) – although it would be some time until such well-sorted vehicles are in the hands of the User in quantity, so WR Recce may be around for a good few years.

Reduction in Boxer numbers of 22% will have an impact – maybe it is a precursor to losing a battalion or two – or instead we may have to retain a handful of very old vehicles.

I have re-read articles about the £16.5bn (over 4 yrs) uplift announced on 18/19 Nov 20 – the army was not mentioned at all. The cash was: to create Space Command; to create the National Cyber Force; to fund further development of the FCAS; to expand and modernise RN vessels (specifically to enable confirmation of both T26 and T31 programmes and to enable commitment to the T32 and FSS programmes).
I struggle to think of any new army kit other than Sky Sabre and AH-64E.

Some commentators accept that a wheeled armoured carrier, if fitted with a significant cannon, can be termed an IFV – but we don’t yet know if all/some of those Boxers replacing WR IFVs will sport a cannon.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that CGS is considering rewriting FS and hence to revise structures – no concept or policy or stuctures seems to last more than a year or two – and this kicks equipment plans further down the road.
I wonder when we will truly have a networked/digitised warfighting division (of three bdes) with 100% modern/upgraded equipment and sufficient CS and CSS.

If I had my service time again starting now I would definitely have joined the Navy!

Thanks Graham.

Yes, Warrior will have to “soldier on” because, without it, and the RAC getting rid of CVRT, they are on foot unless they use soft skinned which is madness for armoured cavalry.

I did not interpret the Boxer number drop as having such an effect, as the 528? order was to equip but 5 battalions of infantry and I believe the attendant regiments and battalions of the CS CSS arms that were once to support the 2 Strike Brigades, so the REME, RAMC, RE elements.
One of the issues with the Boxer variant choice thus far is the great number of c2 vehicles compared to infantry section / Infantry FS vehicles, which is compounded by the additional c2 in the Ajax order, which was for the previous plan of the 2 AI Brigades having tracked CS CSS supports and the Strike CS CSS elements on wheeled Boxer.
Now the two have somewhat merged there could be a rethink.
A 1,000 plus order as well as the 500 plus Ajax seems to me to be a great many vehicles for just 5 Infantry Battalions, 4 Armoured Cavalry Regiments, 2 Armoured Regiments, plus supporting CS CSS for just 3 brigades – 12 ABCT, 20 ABCT, and the DRSB, the bulk of the combat power of 3 (UK) Div.
I assume some Boxer might find their way into 7 LMBCT too?

The announcements of 2020 regards the uplift, welcome as they were, I thought at the time were obviously “sexed up” with those headline mentions, which is typical is it not of HMG? Space, Cyber, Autonomy, AI, all very much in vogue.

They were getting lots of bad press for lack of RN escort numbers, so that area would get highlighted. The NCF already existed, they had just not officially announced it, as did many of its assets, I can name some of them, and its future HQ is currently either a muddy field or abandoned brownfield land, so way way in the future. It is an exercise of re brigading existing assets and augmenting them given the priority of Cyber and offensive Cyber, the whole point of the NCF. Though Britain has had such an offensive capability for years.

Likewise RAF Space Command, the RAF has been involved in space since the late 60s. It re brigades existing assets, brings Skynet back in house, and gives the domain its own directorate at MoD and investment in future small sats, all good stuff for sure.

Likewise Tempest, sexy headline stuff, 9 billion going to that I believe till 2030? Better headlines than the obsolescence of areas of the army that needs addressing.

If you follow UKAFC as I have mentioned before that site has outlined several army programs that have yet to have their grand public unveiling but have been acknowledged. Future Mobile Fires, which despite claims of having funding in place previously seemed in fact to be without funding, new SHORAD and MRAD programs, extended range Land Sabre, EW, SIGINT, the extra M270, the extra Boxers going to 1,000 plus, anti UAV programs, and so on. I believe army cash has gone into these areas, and no doubt unspecified DSF enhancements and of course filling the numerous financial and equipment holes the army has managed to get itself into over the last 2 decades.

I think it will be many many years before the Division is sorted, aren’t they talking of Future Force 2030 or 2035 now? It is always about tomorrow, which never comes before plans change again.

Thanks mate. I am happy for Warrior to temporarily take on the armoured recce task as Ajax is over 5 years late but am still unaware as to whether it merely takes on the Scimitar role equipment or the Ajax role equipment or some mix of the two.

I hate it when agreed equipment numbers are cut – and a 22% cut sounds deep. Slightly different subject but it was numbers cuts previously that meant that not all 430s were replaced by Warrior variants, so many 430s stagger on to at least their 60th year of service. That 22% cut must impact capability somewhere, unless as you say it is justified by only having one BCT that does Strike rather than two. I do agree that the high number of C2 vehicles in the 528 Boxer order is puzzling – bde HQs will account for some of that..but even so..

I recall having a RAF space unit up the road from my REME Camp at Bordon many years ago – I think they ‘flew’ Skynet comms satellites. RAF Oakhangar, still operational but now run by civvy contractors for the RAF.

I do hope those army projects you mention actually get funded and see the light of day – and quickly.

This modernised warfighting Div is slipping to the right – was to be launched in 2025. Seems incredible now that we once thought nothing of having four quite well equipped warfighting Divs in BAOR.

Yes, MoD Oakhanger. Used to be 1001SU RAF, is still MoD owned but run by contractors, alas like so much else.
There are actually 3 local sites, the TCS – Telemetry and Command site, which is the main one, the Satellite Ground Station proper, and finally the “Remote Site” with the NATO SGT.

The Bordon sites have been sold off, one of the barracks parade grounds is a drive in cinema, we live fairly close by.

On Scimitar, I’m none the wiser.

The 1001SU officers were members of my REME mess, back in the day. I also remember being a member of BOSC, now rebuilt and looking really good. I did follow the closure of Bordon Garrison story – and visited their new/replacement facilities at Lyneham a few years ago.

Think this EP was unveiled about 29th Nov, only a few days ago.

Yes it was published for the Defence Committee recently but was written in April I think it was.

Yep, think you are right. The 29th Nov release was the NAO report on the self-same MoD’s EP.

British people don’t seem to consider that much of the spend on equipment and supplies benefits British businesses in terms of £ and jobs.