Project Cetus will deliver the largest and most complex crewless submarine operated by a European Navy, say the Ministry of Defence.
The contract award is worth £15.4m.
The vehicle will have a modular payload bay that can be extended by adding another section, doubling the capacity.
“Project Cetus – named after a mythological sea monster – enhances the Royal Navy’s experimentation with autonomous underwater systems. It is the first step in developing an operational autonomous submarine that will work side-by-side with crewed submarines – including the Astute-class hunter-killers and their successors – or independently.
Its maximum operational depth will exceed that of the current submarine fleet, meaning Cetus will equip the Royal Navy with even greater reach into the oceans in support of UK defence. It will be able to cover up to 1,000 miles in a single mission.
Cetus will be 12 metres long – the length of a double decker bus – 2.2 metres in diameter and weigh 17 tonnes. It will be the largest and most complex crewless submersible operated by a European navy. The bespoke vessel is being designed and built for the Royal Navy by Plymouth-based tech firm MSubs. This contract will create 10 and support 70 specialist jobs in the city.”
More specifics of the intended design come from a job listing for a Design Engineer for the project posted earlier this year, which stated:
“Primary role is to lead project CETUS; the design and build of a 27 tonne, 12m Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Demonstrator, with specific responsibility for leading on the establishing technical specification and deliverables, running the competition, evaluating tenders and contract placement during FY21/22. Subsequently responsible to ensure requirements and delivery pace are being met and are accepted.
Secondary role is to lead on technical studies exploring AUV concepts and provision of advice to the application of AUV to the future underwater battlespace including those AUV that could complement the replacement Astute Class SSN.”
The vessel will be delivered to the Navy in two years’ time and will “further advance the UK’s ability to protect our critical national infrastructure and monitor sub-sea activity”.
Very interesting…good size…hopefully a project that will bear fruit. Looks like a large cruise missile. Was expecting a round tube, but possibly the sub is pressurised to assist in keeping things together at depth.
I would assume that this is not news to Msubs, and they have been working on something like this for ages.
AA
The pressure hull may be cylindrical and the free flooding parts outside of that are squared off to maximise volume while still fitting inside a standard 2TEU shipping container.
If it’s unmanned does it strictly need a pressure hull? Electrical systems need to be waterproof, but machines can generally be built to handle pressure.
By pressurising you add strength to the structure. Being unmanned, the pressure can be raised above that of a manned submarine which may go some way to explaing how Cetus can dive deeper.
I could be wrong but I think round hulls reflect signals more so for stealth you want a non cylinder shape.
That’s why acoustic tiled are stuck to the outside.
Here’s an article on naval news discussing the hull shapes and tiles etc.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/11/first-submarine-to-use-new-stealth-technology/
Nah. Sonar doesn’t work like radar.
Not an acoustic engineer, but round bodies are also pretty good radar reflectors. So the principle is probably the same.
The two green near-spheres at either end are pressurised, the surrounding internal volume and payload bay aren’t.
There are two cylinderical pressure hull (one forward one aft) within the hull. The mission bay is unpressurised. NavyLook has an article with some very good images…
Cheers CR
So they say it will be autonomous, I wonder how many will get stuck or confused when out of contact, but how will it receive commands? Float a communications pod on a cable up?
Of all the plans that depend on not yet existing autonomy this seems very optimistic: It has to navigate a complex landscape we don’t fully understand while likely unable to receive commands.
I assume that element will be part of the testing and experimentation. It’s logical to assume it has an autonomous mode whereby it can navigate independently and safely using sensors and programmed to pop up and receive new commands. I saw it more like how they programme the Mars Rover to do things rather than under constant control, say like Reaper.
I get that, if they’re smart, they’ll try and keep it simple: stay well away from any surface, no trench or cave exploration.
However considering we have trouble making ai navigate consistent constructed environments like a road, even with a human behind the wheel, I have my doubts.
It’s very likely to encounter a situation it hasn’t been trained for, or end up somewhere it can’t navigate.
I’d have to disagree on the capabilities of AI, there are plenty of example of devices controlled by AI handling complex environments from Boston Dynamics robots through to the MQ-25 Stingray.
I wouldn’t call roads ‘consistent environments’ because they have large numbers of highly inconsistent and unpredictable things on them; i.e. people.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
I’m not sure I agree. I presume that modern submarines rely on intense decades long mapping of the oceans for much of their navigation isn’t that why last year the US submarine hit something that had not been mapped and clearly not seen by its sonar. So that will be a major factor in its operation it won’t need to find its way through complex underwater environments very often, at least in early versions which will develop the whole concept and set future parameters. roads are generally far more complex environments that air or sub surface especially when you have… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
What happens when it meets a horny whale, for example?
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?
Good question tomartyr, will there be a mothership, or is it preprogrammed, prior to leaving Plymouth Dockyard
It’s just a test system, but why would they insist on it fitting in a 40′ container if the only place it went from was Plymouth harbour? Given that it has a test life of 3 years planned. I imagine they’ll use it in lots of scenarios, including from a mothership.
Plymouth dockyard was a jest Jon It was just Autonomous vehicles sometimes have a habit of doing different too what has been programmed ,that’s why I said about a mothership being at hand little dit we had a Pap eca105 mine desipolsal unit that went rogue faulty connection divers sent out to catch it speed of 6knts in the end waited till the batteries ran out Jebal Ali Port stopped all harbour traffic until it was retrieved
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
I am guessing with equipment as complex as this there will be some built in ‘default’ behaviour , what that is we do not know , maybe ‘return to a friendly (GPS) location’, or ‘stay still until a new instruction recieved’ etc.
Yes, autonomous equipment either has a “RTB”, or “go as deep as you can and rewrite data” instruction.
Indeed. My two anxieties with UAVs are getting hacked & who fixes them when something goes wrong with no crew? Stuff breaks down, but “worse things happen at sea.”
Would operating passive sonar on deployable drones help with target range determination?
Only if there was a significant sound source nearby. Modern military subs have a look down sonar to see below (tuned so the sound doesn’t travel further than a few meters) but are blind to sharply vertical objects at the same depth such as sea stacks or floating debris.
With the big defence cuts annouced yesterday I doubt it will see the light of day 😎
This is literally the contract award to build it…
Have a look at Navy Lookout, bit more info on this. Sounds like this is just a oneoff, unfortunately. But hayho it’s a step in the right direction.
In May 2022 the Royal Australian Navy entered into a $140m contract with Arundil to co-fund the design and local manufacture in Sydney of extra large autonomous undersea vehicles (XL-AUV). The first of three 30 metre-long XL-AUVs will be ready by 2023.
The Anduril XL-AUV design is modular, customisable and can be optimised with a variety of payloads for a wide range of military missions including intelligence gathering, surveillance, reconnaissance, targeting and weapons delivery.
Australian company C2 Robotics is also developing an 8m uncrewed autonomous underwater vehicle called the “Speartooth” with a prototype currently being trialled by the RAN.
Defence cuts announced yesterday? I missed that one. Do say more than just one line, please.
The suggestion is that we may not be buying more than 22 A400, this was commented on yesterday
Here is a link to the defence equipment plan pubished by the government. Bear in mind Hunt has ordered yet another SDSR, to report early next year
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-defence-equipment-plan-2022-to-2032
And in the meantime, reports the numbers of MLRS will expand to around 70 if I recall from the 30 odd currently, so some positives, no doubt payed for things such as the freezing of Atlas at 22.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
If only we could weaponise Defence Revues (spelling intended) eh we would be the number one power in the World.
I don’t think its actual cuts directly just pressure due to inflation will impact spend.
Go to Breaking Defence News, say’s it all.😎
Thats just the equipment plan from earlier in the year, they were asked to resubmit some items meanwhile around £10bn towards the end of the decade remains unallocated.
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.
Thanks mate. Funny we should hear this from a US source.
What defence cuts sorry? Are they scrapping the planned budget increase?
Do you mean the 3% of GDP promise? That lasted as long as Truss did and was never affordable. Let’s hope the new integrated review is not just a cost cutting exercise but a genuine effort to match political aims with budget reality.
Yes I did, that is a shame 😑. Defence is always seen as a waste of money to the public so it will always be a hard sell to get more funding, but it is only a waste until you need to use it.
British people don’t seem to consider that much of the spend on equipment and supplies benefits British businesses in terms of £ and jobs.
Just changes in spending not cuts.
Yes no more new Atlas for now, but an increase in M270s. If you call the Atlas decision as a ‘defence cut’ then you could equally misrepresent the M270 purchases as “defence increase’.
Just changes in priorities as to what’s being bought.
Well that’s like saying DragonFire will be cancelled. Even if individual programmes are cancelled the capability and concepts won’t it will simply be about what will be financed internally and what will be acquired from external sources because submersible drones, lasers and hypersonic missiles are all going to be vital within a decade or you are going to be out of the game against higher level powers and with undersea drones very probably almost anyone I fear if Ukraines surface drones are anything to go by. Anyway producing something of this nature as a prototype for a testing regime isn’t… Read more »
It would be interesting to see if the optional additional mid setion has been ordered at the same time as well for experimentation purposes. I hope it has to see if the modularity concept actually holds as much water in practice as adherents promise.
Time will tell as to whether the add on section can be fitted in the field or if it has to return to the factory for the work. The 12m length quoted looks from the image to be the unextended length, in which case any extension would mean it’d no longer fit in standard shipping containers.
Thats my concern, but I’d also like to see that modularity trialed in practice, it always promises a lot but doesn’t always deliver.
Adding a new section to a fuselage has got to be factory work by the OEM – massive job.
“Holds as much water”……hilarious!😂
That’s great news!😁
More progress and a much needed addition
Been a fan of the MSubs designs since they first started
I can see this could lead to bigger and better things going forward, but what could this be used for other than surveillance and espionage type stuff?
Perhaps by doing the surveillance and espionage type stuff it frees up a crewed boat for something else? I could see one of these patrolling the GIUK gap or similar, though with a range of 1000 miles that could be a bit optimistic for this particular vessel but as a proof of concept maybe?
Depends where they start and finish I guess one presumes they will have a mothership for much of the time.
It’s a test boat for underwater autonomy, with the ability to carry/deploy various payloads. Can it operate out of sight and out of mind? And the military loves its man-machine teaming exercises. After three years we’ll comfortable enough to order the next in the series, informed by the tests run on this one. It’s not going to be a spyboat or commissioned warship or patrolling to defend cable infrastructure or anything like that.
The article states:
“It will be able to cover up to 1,000 miles in a single mission.”
A 1000 miles equals 1600km or approx 870nm. Is that range? Or radius?
Whatever it is, it’s not very far.
As a comparison the Boeing Echo Voyager is reported to have a range of 6500nm (12,000km):
https://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/echo-voyager
If the UK AUV ever goes into production/service, I think the range need to be significantly increased, I don’t think a ‘1000 miles’ cuts it.
I should think the Boeing product is an order of magnitude more expensive ie we can’t afford it.
It may well be more expensive but 1000 miles v 6500 nautical miles is a significant difference in operational flexibility.
Anyway, early days, I’m sure range has the potent to be extended.
If I’ve got this right and I’m connecting two stories correctly (?) the R.N. were talking about using this type of sub in the far north watching the Ruskies.🕵
It depends on the tasking?
If the job is to potter round the North Sea sniffing at pipelines and fibre links then 1000 miles might be enough.
Particularly if there were several used in rotation.
I was just reading the Voyager link (thanks for that). 6,500 NM is a maximum range with a fuel payload module. Being diesel-electric it can only go underwater a certain distance (150 NM) before it has to surface to recharge. Cetus will be able to travel underwater the full distance, which can be extended by adding more batteries. I think that makes it inherently more stealthy. Given improving battery technology, this might be the final configuration. I reckon Voyager and the Orca test vehicle are the right comparisons, not the forthcoming Orca prototypes. We are behind the Americans and Australians.… Read more »
It’s not all good news for Boeings Orca, it’s believed that it’s approx 4-5 years behind schedule and some 250 million dollars over budget at the last count. This stuff is not easy to bring o line.
Indeed sometimes less complex and capable works out better except in exceptional circumstances. It’s all a balance.
Miles covered. But you can get flexible in the way you deploy, launched from a UK vessel, it travels 1000 miles and is recovered by another UK vessel. What’s not mention is ability to loiter, if it can travel 300 miles, loiter for 5 days then travel back that would be very valuable.
Absolutely headline stats never tell the full story. Mentioned a couple times my own ideas for a somewhat simpler sub surface drone and considered the feasibility of effectively closing down for periods and being reactivated and how that might work but if if could ‘sleep’ for days then it could be a lethal weapon awaiting a victim to come along but perhaps complex to actually achieve at the highest ideal autonomous levels maybe but not for lesser applications perhaps, especially if you can contact it to reactivate when other assets inform you as and when it is needed.
Hi Spyinthesky,
What you have described is sounds very much like some decription of modern smart mines that I have read about in the past, at least in terms of deactivation, reactivation type operations. As such I would suggest it is an eminately possible and sensible proposition.
Cheers CR
39ft compared to 51ft, horses for courses I guess but surely this is a test vehicle, by the time a production vehicle goes into production, propulsion, battery and overall size could all be changed to improve that range if felt necessary, I would presume testing will determine the optimum compromise.
The pictures on the NavyLookout article are very good. One thing I noted was that the battery packs looked rather small, if I had understood the CGI pictures correctly so plenty of room to increase capacity. Of course, if you increase battery capacity you either need to increase the available bouyancy (pressure tanks?) or reduce the payload.
I recon the range is limited inpart because is it a test vehicle and the 3 year test programme does not require huge ranges i.e. designed to do a limited job.
Cheers CR
I think some of the size requirements come from the ability to house it a full size iso container. Thereby making it more easily transportable.
Here in Oz we have a similar project underway, with a value of approx A$140m:
https://adbr.com.au/anduril-adf-to-partner-on-autonomous-undersea-vehicle-development/
“operational XL-AUVs produced at significant scale and in service within five years.”
That’s impressive.
The RAN has a couple of significant future budget allocations in the coming years (of many billions of dollars), for a variety of undersea systems.
With the size of Oz, and our areas of interest, UUVs and AUVs will play a significant role in the years ahead.
Cheers,
If they are using it to keep an eye on under-sea infrastructure (cables and pipelines) a 1000 miles should be more than sufficient, and it just needs to transit from one “friendly” country to another
Hi Mark,
I suspect that it is designed to carry out a specific set of trials and they have set the range requirements accordingly. At £15m it is quite a cheap craft compared to the numbers being quoted for the US and Australian programmes.
We clearly have some catching up to do.
CR, yes with you on that one.
Would anticipate a comprehensive roadmap for the development of a class of a commonly designed, autonomous underseas vehicles, as a subset of AUKUS master plan, to be released in March 2023. The unclassified, redacted version for public release could be a rather slim volume.
Not enough money for the job, and the spec is too demanding
Hi all… I know nothing about submarines. However, I do not currently see what purpose a 12-metre autonomous ‘tube’ would serve the Royal Navy. A decoy maybe for a Trident sub?
Sub Brief is a good youtube channel for sub information.
I was formally a BSFO working in the Clyde basin. As part of my job I was involved in the Perisher excercise that pulled a trawler down killing 4 fishermen. I have also dealt with waste from nuclear submarines. which is a threat to life. I have also dealt with torpedos that have gone awry.
This idea, which is no more than a glorified torpedo, will cause a hazard to shipping and the lives of fishermen and should not be deployed within coastal waters.
Excellent news it’s what we’ve been calling out for years and for that price I hope we are able to get several dozens of them, as the premier navy in the Euro Atlantic we need to be able to lock off the russian navy for good.
“The vessel will be delivered to the Navy in two years’ time”.
Is that real? Design AND build AND deliver in only two years? Can’t imagine that, unless I’ve mis-read something.
I think MSubs did it even faster with Manta. According to their website (did a quick search mid-typing) outline design to delivery took them 14 months. Cetus is bigger than Manta, but I don’t think two years is all that unrealistic. Underwater test boats don’t have quite the same strictures as military submarines.
I would like to think that Msubs have had something like this in the top draw for a while. Making it to fit a 40’ container is a good idea. All the necessary support stuff can be in the same container and presumably will then fit in a mission bay. Makes for easy, and covert transportation (obv can’t hide the actual container, but the contents would be secret). With regards to the ‘only’ 1000 mile range, it seems to me that a more easily achievable goal would be having a slightly less advanced (read..expensive and time consuming) operating system tuned… Read more »
Thanks, Jon (and Admiral).
Hi Crabfat,
I would also point out it is a trials vessel not an operational platform, so different design standards would like apply e.g. it could be that there is no intention to carry or fire live weapons.
Cheers CR
Sounds like a big brother of the torpedo sizes autonomous and self-redoch thing the USA is playing with.
Cool.
It’s early days but will these AUVs be able to piggy back on the Astutes or just be launched off vessels?
I should also add in, on the SSN(R) too?
What speed and what depth will it be capable of?
if this unmanned sub detects something interesting, how does it report back without giving its position away and would we allow the artificial intelligence to take an action which may have significant consequence.
interesting design, nice to see that it is being produced in the southwest to give us a much needed bit of attention down here BUT…the article itself…early on it is stated that the sub will weigh 17 tonnes but then later on it says 27 tonnes…where did the extra 10 tonnes come from…presumably the additional payload bay?