The Royal Navy has launched early market engagement for a new fleet of 20 uncrewed surface vessels (USVs) as part of its shift toward a hybrid naval force, according to a Ministry of Defence notice published on 5 November.
Known as Project Beehive, the initiative aims to support training, tactics, and warfare development while providing an experimental platform for autonomous systems.
The vessels will be used by the Surface Flotilla (SURFLOT) in UK and overseas operations, serving as testbeds for emerging technologies and new operational concepts.
According to the notice, “these platforms will be utilised for training, tactic development, warfare development, capability development, and operations in the UK Area of Responsibility and beyond.” The project will be run as a spiral development programme, with the first USVs expected to reach technology readiness levels 4 to 5 and to feature open architecture systems for future upgrades.
The Ministry of Defence stated that the USVs are “key to maintaining operational relevance against peer threats.” The new fleet will allow the Navy to trial advanced autonomous and hybrid capabilities under its ongoing “Hybrid Navy” transition, which aims to combine crewed and uncrewed systems across surface, subsurface, and air domains.
Work on the project will focus primarily in southern and southwestern regions of the UK. Engineering support for original equipment manufacturer integration and spiral upgrades will form part of the procurement process. The estimated value of the contract is £10 million, including VAT, with funding to be drawn partly from UK Defence Innovation. The MOD added that while the participation phase is moving forward, no tender will be issued until final spending approval is granted.
This follows a major trial in which five uncrewed boats, remotely piloted from over 500 miles away, surrounded HMS Tyne during a three-day demonstration off the Scottish coast. The exercise, led by the Navy’s Disruptive Capabilities and Technology Office and the Fleet Experimentation Squadron, marked what the service called a milestone in its move toward a Hybrid Navy of crewed and uncrewed platforms.
During the trial, live data and video from the 7.2-metre Rattler vessels were transmitted to controllers aboard the research ship Patrick Blackett in Portsmouth, enabling real-time coordination with HMS Tyne, HMS Stirling Castle, HMS Biter, and a Merlin helicopter. Commander Michael Hutchinson, who leads the Fleet Experimentation Squadron, said it was “a really important moment for the Royal Navy as we progress towards a Hybrid Navy of crewed and uncrewed platforms.”
Brigadier Jaimie Roylance, the Royal Navy’s Chief Technology Officer, described the event as “the first time we have been able to field a capable, mission-ready, deployable uncrewed system at sea.” He called it “an important moment in the history of the Royal Navy” and said that uncrewed systems will be vital for maintaining the UK’s maritime edge against evolving threats.
I assume this is more RIB or strike USV trials given the low budget, but it’s nice to see something new being bought in reasonable numbers ‘just’ for a trial.
I wonder if this is an indication that the industry is fed up of the MOD’s endless trial of their kit without ever actually buying anything.
If they’re Ukr-like attack drones, 20 is enough to sustain one attack.
Still though, I get why they do it. No point in ordering 200 drones that will soon go out of date. Test beds are the way to go.
“ the first USVs expected to reach technology readiness levels 4 to 5 ”
These are the highest levels of automation possible, with level 4 being geofenced – limited to a predefined geographical area for a mission and not requiring a human for operation.
Level 5 is fully self-sufficient automation, and currently does not exist – hence the requirement for spiral upgrades in the future.
Isn’t TRL something different, to do with how well developed and trustworthy the systems are?
I think it goes above 5, I’ve seen references to US programmes being at TRL 7 etc.
You mean the TRL originally developed by NASA and now ISO 16290:2013?
TRL 4 is “validated in a lab” and I’m pretty sure they’re way beyond that if they’re looking at actual deployable systems.
Need to find the original news source I think to find out what is actually specified…
PFFT,
Even Jim’s Wife’s Hoover is level 4.
Autonomy level 4 is ‘the vehicle can operate independently of control within a limited area’ so Jim’s robot hoover is very much level 4!
Exactly.
“Sweeping Edge Technology”.
Crikey,as an aside, the Royal Marines appear to be taking over the Royal Navy. Is this their way of keeping themselves out of the clutches of the army? Just looked on Wiki at how many ‘senior’ RMs there are and the jobs they hold. Matelots complain about the number of Admirals, it’s worth a look!
May have more to do with any dark blue leadership candidates being needed in current posts due to the personnel crisis, which hasn’t gone away you know, rather than a cunning plan.
Also if you put a RM in they don’t lose the funding for the post. Better than advertising on monster.
20 ?
That’s almost 4 Swarms worth.
This is truly game changing, who knew that you could remote control four boats from 500 miles away. What wonders the modern age has.
keep the trials going guys you are truly doing great service to the Nation.
hopefully you come up with some suitable classical literature references and four letter acronyms. 🙂
I got a 3 letter one,
They are like the Aston Martins of the Sea, so DBS (Drone Boat Swarm).
we could go with 8 in a V formation giving DBS V8.
Rumour on the streets is a “Per Mile” charge being considered for EV’s.
Time to get that Tesla Off Roader me thinks.
Don’t worry about the Tesla. Prince of Wales and Starmer are at COP30 checking out Copaccababa beach. It’s tough at the top.
And I’m seriously pissed.. I’ve spent a shed load more than needed on electric cars because I believe in the public health benefits ( I’ve treated enough people with airways disease to know what air pollution does).. I get to pay 10-15k more on my car ( which gives the government vat by the way) pay a higher vehicle tax than many petrol cars..and will now have to pay per mile… FU Reeves I’m buying an ICE car if you do this.
Always going to happen – the govt needs the revenue from vehicle excise duty and road traffic always increases to fill the roads available. Public transport is the way to go. Bus networks are getting pretty good. Mobile phone > google maps > next bus > short walk is excellent for huge %age of urban travel now.
Yet more looking to buy, might buy, want to buy, the MOD do that a lot along with long winded statements but simply do not place orders. It is right to trial and evaluate kit. How ever that is all they ever seem to do on the face of it. Of course not all orders are public but the big kit needed is still sat in the shop with the skint MOD just window shopping whilst pumping out statements of hot air.
Why doe it bother me, because the Army needs a lot kit now not next year or 2030, Next pier to peir war will be short, violent and who has the kit to hand will win, not who may have it some time in the future. It will at a big guess a go with what you got war not go with what might have one day. As always those on the ground will pay the price for under spend or dame out right neglect.
I would say the next peer to peer war is not going to be short at all its going to be long as hell..because the enemy is china with Russia as second fiddle.. and china will just keep on coming and there is almost zero way to knock it out a war quickly.. Russia is also vast and china could just keep supply with tools.. NATO is the largest military alliance in history with about 50% of the worlds power and wealth.. china and Russia bring about 35%.. china has the greater heavy industrial capacity.. also the core of these power blocks ( china and the US) are separated by vast distances making it essentially impossible for either to simply knock out the other via invasion.. that means it’s a bloody war to strategic and political exhaustion and that’s years.
You do not feel then that it will end up nuclear if one side feels it is loosing. I get the pints you are making but there simply are not enough smart weapons to have a very long war. Bullits , shells etc may be buy not vastly expensive missiles. Only so many are held in stock and few made a year
In 10 days of full on war the UK ran out of smart weapons that was on an Army/Nati simulisation that before we gave loads away which we have not yet replaced.
I think it will only go nuclear if
1) one side is completely nuts.. and neither the US or China want die.
2) one side is going to be overrun and destroyed… neither China nore the US can ever overrun or destroy the other with conventional forces
Essentially your not going to get the impetus for MAD.. remember the reason everyone thought WW3 would go MAD during the Cold War was because the west assumed Russia would overrun west Germany and France had made it clear that as soon as the soviets parked an army on its border it was going nuclear..( remember France was only a few hundred miles from the inner German border).
Essentially the next major war is most likely going to a a maritime conflict in which China and the US try to strangle each other to death..it will probably have a very intense early western Pacific campaign in which the USN and the PLAN gut each other with hundreds of ships destroyed and hundreds of thousands of sailors lives lost.. they will then after this first conflagration sit back and essentially pick at each other trying to strangle resources.. making it miserable for their populations until one side jacks it in and signs a peace treaty.. winner becomes the dominant power losser goes off to rebuild and plan WW4… neither side can be conclusively destroyed unless nuclear weapons are used and if nuclear weapons are used both sides are destroyed for ever, there entire history and culture essentially erased.. so no side will use nuclear weapons..
The only real risk points for nuclear war are:
1) Russia and NATO go to war and NATO has a brain fart and decides to undertake a massive invasion of Russia and heads of to Moscow for Christmas.. NATO is not doing that.. it will destroy Russian ability to fight and undertake long range strikes until Russia signs a peace deal that will take an age because to destroy a national will to fight at long range is hard yard ( ask Russia as it cannot break its field army it’s been long range attacking Ukraine for a few years now).
2) Putin decides the west will not respond to a limited nuclear escalation and uses a tactical nuclear weapon to escalate to deescalate.. as long as the west convinces Putin it will shove sub strategic nuclear response were it hurts Putin will not do that.
As for the limited stocks of advanced weapons.. yep the first campaign of the war would be intense and burn the stocks.. but world wars are not continued very high intensity they burn hotter and colder as nations stockpile offensive weapons and build up supply.. winter is also surprisingly good at shutting down most campaigns.and allowing build up . campaign season is still a thing in the 21century it’s well know that one of the big cock ups Argentina made in the Falklands was going to early in early autumn.. they had planned to invade in early June at the start of the worst winter months.. as it was by the UKs victory in mid June fighting was becoming profoundly difficult.. it’s likely the by mid July it would have been impossible to continue.. look at all the wars that matter almost all of them are profoundly long affairs.. just take the modern wars the war in Afghanistan lasted 20 years until one side gave up. Consider Iraq the first Iraq war was in 1991 the west then keep Iraq under constant air interdiction for 12 years.. essentially the west spent 12 years reducing Iraqs ability to fight..before deciding to invade in 2003 the will not finally leave Iraq until 2026… that’s 35 years of war.. the he Vietnam War lasted 20 years.. there are some historians that will happily tell you WW1 and WW2 as well as the Korean War was essentially one very long war that rapped itself around the world and never let go.. it simply died down in one theatre as individual nations suffered strategic exhaustion and flared up in anothers….
Fishead stuff. Believe it when it happens. Do not hold breath.
Bite me.
Love and hugs Light Infantry
Are you OK John ?
This “Bite me” thing seems to be a consistent request, do you taste like Chicken, are you hot and spicy, are your pickles super hot ?
If so, call me a cab and I’ll turn Cannibal😁😁😁
🙂 I just invite the “experts” on here to offer their opinions mate. There are so many. Secret squirrel? It was a platoon thing in NI, we would invite certain sections of the community to “bite us”. Part of a pre PC days initiative to promote inclusion and diversity. It always worked.
Ha ha, Experts ‘R’ us !!!
It’s simply staggering the knowledge shared on here at times.
Pity as there are some very clued up people, l enjoy Mr Mandeli and his knowledge. Then the obvious socialist drones who are best ignored. You make me laugh, not enough half wits on here by far.
True enough, I like everyone here pretty much, especially the ones with no Idea what I’m on about !
Reckon the Site has a few issues with multi handled Wind up merchants though, but saying that, most sites have the same problems In my experience.
What are you on about?
Tee Hee Hee !!!
Mutli handled wind-up merchants.. I’ve got visions of some clockwork shopworker with winders instead of nipples.
20 more RIBs
Probably not many people will notice it, but there will be a change in the propulsion of vessels and it will change the design and use of the boat.
Looks to me like a way inject money into companies doing R&D on naval drones. Well it needs to be done. Not sure it will produce anything useful but it might. 20 is enough for companies to focus on something which can be mass produced whilst using up all the cash on materials. In theory it is not a bad plan as there is little point in encouraging the large companies as they will be producing their offerings out of petty cash. We do need smaller companies dragging the price down to a sensible level. We can’t be paying 250m per drone.
By the time any weapon systems are installed it will easily cost that much
So the plan is 20 autonomous vessels.. now I’m a bit confused I have to say… because the RN keeps talking about 2 surface autonomous capabilities
1) ASW capabilities essential autonomous and or optional crewed ASW boats to pair with the T26s
2) AAW capabilities, optionally crewed boats paired with the T45s
So are they talking about 20 to cover both.. or is this just the ASW element?
This isn’t an operational procurement, but rather a procurement of a large group for wide-ranging testing purposes. There doesn’t seem to be any specific requirements listed beyond being suitable for training and spiral development.
Didn’t the Americans try testing Porpoises ?
They did indeed, and the Russians use whales as operators.
Bloody Welsh.
There’s lovely.
Six nations fun this weekend
It’s neither
Yes they seem to have sidestepped the actual capability they need.. China builds a 450 ton autonomous armed stealth corvette and we buy 20 autonomous ribs 😵💫😵💫😵💫
The actual capability doesn’t exist yet, and also costs more than 20 mil
In all seriousness, do the MOD not understand how drones work?
1 QE Aircraft Carrier = £4.5 Billion.
1 Drone = £100 +/-
1 Drone (or a swarm) could literally take out a rather expensive ship. Tanks, Artillery, Infantry, Command posts etc.
But, the MOD insist on all of these random ‘upgrades’. To missile, systems, other things made for bigger targets.
They need to invest in drones. Not 20 boat drones or whatever overpriced rubbish they keep spending the budget on.
Drones, people and / or systems to operate them, R&D, stockpiling them etc
I honestly don’t believe the MOD are taking the threat from drones seriously. Which is a tad worrying.
Just saying.