Uncrewed systems are expected to make up a far larger share of naval forces operating in the North Atlantic over the next decade, with senior figures pointing to a clear shift in how maritime power will be structured and applied.
During a panel on innovation and transformation in the North Atlantic, Captain James Lovell RN, Head of Underwater Battlespace Capability at Navy Develop, was asked by myself how the region might look by the end of the decade, and whether uncrewed vessels would significantly outnumber crewed ones.
Lovell said the direction of travel was already clear, even if the exact numbers were still uncertain.
“If we are serious about mass persistence of sensing, which is where we need to be, then we need to start fielding things, developing things, and fielding things,” he said.
His point was a practical one. Covering a vast operating space such as the North Atlantic for extended periods is difficult and expensive with crewed ships and submarines alone, and the introduction of large numbers of autonomous systems is increasingly being seen as the only realistic way to widen coverage. When the question turned to whether uncrewed vessels could overtake traditional platforms in number, Adrian Fryer, AUKUS and Naval Director at Saab UK, gave the clearest answer of the session.
“In 10 years’ time, are there going to be more USVs, UUVs than crewed surface and subsurface vessels… absolutely no doubt, to my mind, 100% yes,” Fryer said.
That did not mean the panel saw this as a simple replacement story. Rear Admiral Paul Flos RNLN, Programme Director International Naval Materiel Cooperation at the Netherlands Ministry of Defence, cautioned against treating crewed and uncrewed systems as direct substitutes, arguing that different effects still require different types of platforms.
Flos said some people assume every new autonomous capability automatically replaces an existing one, but that was “absolutely not true.” He added that uncrewed systems should be understood as additions to the force, not wholesale replacements.
He then put it more directly. “If you want to achieve an effect which is better with people, you do it with people… if you can do it in a better way with persistence, you do it with persistence,” Flos said.
He also warned against reducing the issue to a simple either-or argument. “It’s not the black and white question,” he said.
The discussion pointed to a more distributed North Atlantic battlespace, with larger numbers of smaller autonomous systems providing wide-area sensing and persistence, while crewed vessels continue to handle missions that require judgement, flexibility and higher-end combat power. The direction is clear but the scale, pace and exact mix are still being worked through.
Why can’t we use some in the channel?
Might be considered a shipping hazard in an already congested area?
The whole point of these systems is they should be able to navigate anywhere.
No submarines in the channel
If these sea and sub sea drones are pretty slowish aren’t they potentially vulnerable to theft by rogue naval or cargo ships that can tow them away or pluck them out of the sea or trawler vessels scopp them up in nets or mothership type subs capture them or take them out? They’re expensive toys so better be prepared to lose a few and for adversaries to copy and deploy similar technologies bsck against us.
Why do you assume they are slow? If you remove the crew and everything to support a crew you have only sensors, weapons, engines and fuel left which will make them quicker and more lethal.
QD63. Yes. Exsatly what I’ve thought for a long time – putting any decent tech on them is just a gift to Russia and China who will scoop them up. In wartime a little different but peacetime these vessels are easy targets etc.
What about a self destruct ability if confirmed stolen?
Yes they are, the idea is to go cheap and large now with off the shelf commercial solutions that don’t present a security challenge if captured. Sattelite arrays like AMBER also make it possible to track dark running commercial ships world wide so it’s possible to see who is stealing your drones.
Using commercially available sensors tied together with LEO sattelite arrays and onshore AI proceesing seems to be what we will end up with.
We can’t turn the North Atlantic into a NATO lake.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website——>>> LIVEJOB1.COM
Are current warships the equivalent of steam traction engines? When you consider the percentage of human requirements that are included in warship design, it must demand more maintenance, money and space that could be eliminated or used for weaponry. A modern uncrewed vessel should be leaner, lighter and able to loiter for longer periods without refuelling/provisions. With the addition of extensive solar panel application, some vessels could remain at sea way beyond what we experience with current manned vessels. In ten years the RN could be supplementing the manned fleet with a six/eight mix type of large and small unmanned vessels.
I do think drones will be very important but I fear they are getting all excited about what technology can do and forgetting the very basics of geostrategy power and great power competition as Russia and China see it.. to Russia and China war is not a distinct thing with a start and end.. it’s never ending, so in this drones have their uses but as they move this forward that one area they have underplayed is gray sub kinetic warfare.. just because the west has forgotten that war is a constant continuum and never ends, other nations have not and sensor nets of autonomous vehicles and stationary sensors are going to be a gray warfare playground..it’s going to turn into a sub kinetic battle to neutralise autonomous sensors and also protect them.
The simple reality is a commissioned warship with a crew carries the authority of that nation and to interfere with it is a massive step up the escalation ladder. But to destroy a few drones or sensors in international waters..that’s just playing the game of great powers and low level sub kinetic warfare.
It’s why I think in international waters drones will alway end up needing a Shepard unless they are cheap, disposable and you don’t mind the enemy getting the tec or destroying them for giggles.
Russia is not going to leave some unmanned platform alone, they will see it as a sub kinetic war opportunity to attack and weaken us.
That’s why to my mind they should be building the larger more advanced occean going surface drones with optional crews.
The idea of leaving 70 meters of ultra high tec ASW capacity siting mid Atlantic is just asking for Russia or even China to fiddle with it..steal it or accidentally run it over.