No crew onboard!

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Nikola Tesla's book My Inventions, written in 1921, gave prophetic view of the importance of robotic boats, which the Serbia-born physicist and electrical engineer believed <<will ultimately be produced, capable of acting as if possessed of their own intelligence, and their advent will create a revolution>>.

Tesla was no idle fantasist. One hundred and ten years have passed since he demonstrated his pair of radio-controlled boats to amazed onlookers in Madison Square Gardens, New York. Such was his success that he was able to apply for patent number 613,809, granted by the US Patent Office, for his Method of and Apparatus for Controlling Mechanisms of Moving Vessels or Vehicles.

Tesla's boats were fashioned from iron and were battery powered. Commands were transmitted to the vessel using wireless radio signals that were received using a whiplash antenna mounted on the boat. The vessels were equipped with a rudder, electric motor and running lights. Crucially, recognising the military potential of such craft, Tesla left interior space free for an explosive charge to be added. These craft were not small, measuring 1.8 metres and amazingly he even added a 'logic gate' to prevent his boats being sabotaged and controlled by a hostile transmitter. Members of the crowd at the time thought that Tesla had housed a trained monkey inside the craft that was either performing the navigation or that he was just a very good magician.

Not only could these craft be armed, but Tesla also believed that they could be driven in 'swarms' to attack naval fleets with their explosive charges at minimal risk to one's own sailors and vessels. Yet Tesla's efforts at persuading the US Navy to adopt his invention came to naught. He then approached the Royal Navy but met with a similar rebuttal, despite the fact that the noted writer Mark Twain, a close friend of Tesla, had offered to act as his European sales agent.

It would not be until World War Two that the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) blazed the trail in so-called Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV). One thing that the German armed forces were not afraid of during World War Two was innovation. Their interest in remote-controlled technology is already well documented; the Goliath radio-controlled demolition vehicles and the Wasserfall surface-to-air missile being two such examples. The Navy meanwhile developed the FL-Boote remote-controlled motorboat which was deployed from 1944 and designed to be loaded with explosives and smash into Allied shipping. There are scant details on how successful these boats were.

The Allies also experimented with remote-controlled boats during the second world war. The Canadians developed a smoke-laying concept torpedo called Comox, which was developed in 1944 and intended to screen the invasion fleet during the Normandy D-Day landings of 6 June 1944. Although the system was successfully developed it was never deployed. The US Navy, meanwhile, trialled so-called 'Demolition Rocket Craft' which were intended for obstacle clearance near the French beaches; 'Porcupine', 'BobSled' and 'Woofus-120' were three of the rocket craft that were developed from standard landing craft, although they did not see deployment.

Once peace had broken out and the Cold War had taken hold, the US Navy looked afresh at the concept, this time as a means for water sampling around the south Pacific nuclear test sites near Bikini Atoll. In fact, remote-controlled boats were actually used to gather such data following the 'Able' and 'Baker' atomic bomb tests of 1946. In 1950 the United States and Allied forces under the United Nations umbrella had to face a considerable mine menace off the coast of Wonsan east of Korea, which was bristling with Chinese and Soviet mines. The minesweeper and mine clearance operation before the amphibious landings at Wonsam claimed the lives of more than one hundred sailors, and during the Korean War counter-mine assets comprised two percent of the combined naval forces, yet their personnel sustained 20% of their casualties. It was clear that something would have to be done to reduce this danger and loss of life. By 1954 the US Navy Mine Defense Laboratory had developed the Drone, which was designed as a remote-controlled minesweeping system. At the same time Ryan Aeronautical had developed the Firefish as a drone for missile and gunnery practice. Just as target drones remain essential to fighter pilot missile training, so they do for naval weapons practice and the US Navy retains a number of systems in service including the Mobile Ship Target, High Speed Manoeuvrable Seaborne targets and the OST-33/-35/-35A Septar targets.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Picking up from the Drone, the US Navy continued its research into robotic boats for minesweeping and in the 1960s was deploying vehicles for this task to the waters around Vietnam. It was not long before other navies around the world saw the potential of using such devices for such highly dangerous missions. A host of other navies have deployed systems for counter-mine missions, such as the Danish Stanflex-3000 ocean patrol vessels and Japan's Hatsushima-class mine-countermeasures ships. The Marinen (Royal Swedish Navy) operates the Sam-II ACV, while the Royal Navy uses the Rim drone. Remote-controlled systems are also part of the Deutsche Marine (German Navy) Troika mine-countermeasures system.

Current Developments

Stephen Phillips, Managing Director of Autonomous Surface Vehicles in Britain, feels that crewless craft will develop a niche for dangerous missions. <<There's no point in using new technology if it's actually more appropriate to use existing technology For most harbour protection requirements you don't need unmanned boats. You need electronics on the seabed, you need video cameras and radars, but you can put those on the shore or on a buoy. I think unmanned vehicles are of real value where you have a dangerous situation and a danger to personnel such as mine hunting or if you are operating in an area with a risk of pirate or terrorist attack. Where there's a dangerous or repetitive element to the work, then unmanned vehicles could be very beneficial.>>

[ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED]

Unmanned vehicles have also been touted as escorts that can swarm ahead of a carrier battle group, for example, looking for threats and reporting these back to the Combat Direction Centre or even remotely taking action against such threats with guns or missiles. During an amphibious landing operation such vehicles could have a huge role to play in sanitising the area between the Amphibious Ready Group and the shore. Force protection is another possible mission. When the USS Cole guided missile destroyer was attacked in the port of Aden in October 2000 it cost the lives of 17 sailors after a boat loaded with explosives tore a hole in the side of the ship in a suicide attack. In the future a remotely controlled boat could take a look at the marine traffic around a warship, particularly in a busy shipping lane, to ensure that it was friendly and to give advanced warning, or take action, against any vessel that was not.

Several programmes are ongoing at the moment and, as in the airborne drone world, companies and research organisations in the United States and Israel are leading the pack. General Dynamics Robotic Systems (GDRS) is developing the Draco, which is intended to provide the US Navy with an affordable anti-submarine warfare vessel. To this end, in October 2006 the US Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center awarded GDRS a $ 12.7 million contract to design, integrate and deliver four vehicles of eleven metres in length for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) programme.

The design of the Draco will enable it to host the systems that it will require for the ASW mission; these include a torpedo launcher, dipping sonar, towed array and a multi-static system. Command and control for the vessel is provided by three principle communication methods, namely line-of-sight and beyond, satellite or communication relay via an airborne drone. Although the Draco is optimised for ASW missions, GDRS stresses that it will have a modular design to enable it to accept other payloads for different missions. The modular design is also intended to accommodate subsystems providing increasing levels of autonomy as and when this technology is developed in the future. The Draco can run on either marine diesel fuel or JP-5 marine jet fuel and is powered by a pair of Yanmar 6LY3A-STP engines coupled to two Kamewa FF310 water jets. The vessel is controlled by the 'C2CS' (Command and Control Computer System) which runs the vehicle and its sensors and control systems. Within the C2CS is a radar processor designed to manage radar tracks and contacts, and to alert its human operators to potential targets or collision hazards. Also within the C2CS is a video processor to control Draco's electro-optical payload and to receive its real-time imagery.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The US Naval Surface Warfare Center in Panama City is currently engaged in developing the Joint Unmanned Systems Common Control (JUSC2) Advanced Technology Concept Demonstration system which is tasked to provide a common operating system for the unmanned vehicles to be used on the LCS, which will include drones as well as unmanned surface and underwater vehicles.

In 2005 the US Navy was performing experiments with two surface testbeds that had been supplied by Maritime Applied Physics of Baltimore, Maryland. The experiments concerned developing procedures and standards for launching and recovering vehicles from naval vessels; getting this right is important considering that the LCS will be equipped with around five vehicles.

At present, some question marks hang over the LCS programme and it is unclear if the full complement of 55 vessels will be ordered by the US Navy. However, the presence of remotely controlled vehicles on these new vessels is not in doubt, although a reduction in the LCS order would almost certainly mean a reduction in the numbers purchased.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Conceived with the coastal and port security mission in mind is the Inspector, which was developed by ECA of Toulon, France. ECA foresees a range of applications for its product including mine warfare, hydrographical survey and Istar. The system is currently being evaluated by the French Ministry of Defence.

Also optimised for reconnaissance is the Marine Robotic Vessels International (MRVI) Interceptor-2007--a 6.4-metrelong vessel designed for high-speed reconnaissance operations. The Interceptor can travel at speeds of up to 47 knots and was designed to execute both direct remote control and autonomous navigation. The latter feature gives an obvious attraction as it allows the Interceptor to operate from beyond line of sight and to cover vast distances at high speed. MRVI has also mooted that the vessel could be fitted with a water cannon as a non-lethal weapon, which could be ideal when operating as a sentry boat to guard larger warships. Non-lethal weapons may also help to assuage some of the concerns over installing kinetic weaponry onto a remotely operated boat; a dilemma that the airborne drone world is also grappling with.

The Protector was initially developed by Rafael but BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin later joined the programme when an American interest in the system emerged. It is claimed to be the only vehicle of its kind in regular military service, having battle honours from the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf to its name. The Protector was conceived as a marine antiterrorist platform with low-observable characteristics and a high level of autonomy for Istar operations in the riverine, coastal and port environments. The Protector is outfitted with a Rafael Toplite electro-optical pod for target detection and this is beefed-up with the company's Mk 49 7.62-mm Typhoon machine gun, which is fitted onto a stabilised mount and connected to the Toplite system, although the weapon can also be controlled independently.

Communication with the command and control system is provided through the Rafael Lightlink datalink, which boasts a high degree of jam resistance and can be used for picture transmission and vessel performance telemetry. The Predator has found customers with the Israeli Sea Corps and also the Republic of Singapore Navy, however whether other naval forces plan to follow suit remains to be seen. The US Navy had shown an initial healthy interest in the Protector; however, a potential showstopper for the force appears to be the question of arming the vessel--a pertinent issue given the machine gun mounted to the Protector's hull. As mentioned above, arming drones has generated its fair share of controversy and debate about who is responsible if a weapon is fired: the drone's pilot, the pilot's commanding officer, the drone's manufacturer or all, or none, of the above? These issues will have to be clarified before unmanned systems are sold to the world's navies en masse. The US Navy's uncertainty on the subject has been sufficient for it to withhold its interest in the Protector for now. Meanwhile, further plans to test the Protector in the United States are on hold. BAE Systems has already said that they do not expect to perform any sea trials of the system this year, having completed several Protector demonstrations for both the US Navy and the Coast Guard in 2006 and 2007. As reported in Armada 6/2006, page 48, the Protector was then equipped with a Toplite stabilised camera and a Rafael stabilised Mini-Typhoon turret.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

A host of other systems are at varying stages of development. The Roboski, built by Robotek Engineering and Third Hemisphere Interactive in the United States, is based on the Ship Deployed Surface Target used by the US Navy for gunnery training. Meanwhile Northwind Marine of Seattle has developed the low-cost Seafox system, which sells for around $ 80,000 and weighs 726 kilos, enabling it to fit comfortably onto and operate from just about any naval vessel in service globally.

Aeronautics Defense Systems of Israel has developed the Seastar which has been designed not only for naval missions such as mine warfare and Istar, but also for homeland security applications and harbour patrol. The vessel can be outfitted with either lethal or non-lethal weapons on a stabilised platform. Meanwhile Qinetiq has designed and developed the Sentry. Based on a jet ski-style design, the Sentry is intended for vessel security and to patrol around a warship. The Sentry, which was launched in September 2007, is very much a local system and with six hours of endurance it is ideally suited as a short-range, local defence system rather than a long-range Istar or anti-submarine warfare platform. Autonomous Surface Vehicles built an unmanned semi-submersible called the ASV-6000. Built as a technology testbed, the system can be deployed either from a ship of from the shore. The semi-submersible nature of the vessel allows it to simultaneously perform surface and subsurface surveillance and travel at a twelve-knot speed with a 200-kilo payload. Other unmanned vessels built by the company include the five-metre, 30-knot Fast Marine Target Drones for naval gunnery training and their semi-submersible ASV-9500 design, which has a range in excess of 2500 km, a sprint speed of up to 37 km/h and it can operate in all but the most extreme weather.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Elbit's Silver Marlin robotic boat was unveiled in 2007 and is being promoted as an agile and fast vehicle. The company claims that the vessel can perform autonomous obstacle avoidance and that it can house either electronic warfare or kinetic weapons systems. Furthermore, Elbit claims that the design has good handling in rough conditions. Satellite datalinks are used for vessel command and control, and Elbit is promoting the Silver Marlin for naval and homeland security missions, as well as for search and rescue.

Radix Marine developed the Spartan Scout as part of a 2002 Department of Defense Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration Project. The boat has a radar and a host of electro-optical sensors including a video camera It can also house a 13-mm machine gun, AGM-114 Hellfire or FGM-148 Javelin missiles, allowing it to attack shore-based targets from littoral areas. The Spartan Scout can carry up to 2267 kg of modular payloads, enabling the vessel to be configured for a variety of missions.

The Spartan Scout went to sea in 2003 on board the USS Gettysburg guided missile cruiser. Force protection is one of the missions earmarked for this eleven-metre-long vessel. The Gettysburg was sailing with the USS Enterprise Carrier Strike Group and during the voyage the Spartan Scout performed a three-hour mission controlled via three laptop computers in the ships' CDC.

Two versions of the Spartan Scout have been developed. Both are based on a rigid inflatable boat design with either a seven-metre or eleven-metre-long hull design available. The smaller version can carry 1360 kg of payload. During the Gettysburg voyage the Spartan Scout was configured for force protection and Istar missions, although its modular construction means that more complex missions could be undertaken in the future. A two-person crew is required to launch the vessel although, once underway, the Spartan Scout has a high degree of autonomy.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Although ostensibly developed for the civilian world, the Stingray, which has been developed by the University of Plymouth's Marine and Industrial Dynamic Analysis Research Group, could herald some important technologies which might spin-off into the military world. The Springer is intended to provide a robotic boat for pollution monitoring and control although it can also act as a test bed for experiments with new sensor technologies and alternative propulsion systems like solar cells. The vessel uses electric propulsion and its twin-hull design is around three metres long.

Elbit's Stingray was unveiled at the Idef exhibition in 2005. Capable of 40-knot speeds the vessel has an endurance of around eight hours and can be controlled by a single operator based on land or at sea. Elbit has leveraged much of the experience that it has gained in developing drones such as the Hermes, Watchkeeper and Skylark systems. The Stingray can carry a 150-kg payload and has payload stabilisation for rough seas, together with integral electro-optics. Its design also gives it impressive stability and prevents it from capsizing.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Another company indulging in the development of crewless craft is Boston Whaler through mother company Brunswick in conjunction with Accurate Automation Corporation, a fact that is not well publicised, but a deliberate move until recently according to a Brunswick official. It appears that Brunswick is providing its best possible support to Accurate Automation to ensure that their platforms are selected if and when a substantial programme fires up. Boston Whaler employs a technique that makes its craft unsinkable, being basically made of an outer hull and an inner 'tub' sealed together with a synthetic material foam that not only fills the gap but also tightly clings to the two surfaces.

Robotic speedboats have never enjoyed the glamour and media coverage of their airborne cousins and their appeal is still nowhere near as widespread as it is for the sky-bound RQ-4 Global Hawks and MQ-1 Predators.

In terms of getting USVs onto naval vessels, just as drones have to compete with ramp space against manned aircraft at airbases, so robotic boats will have to compete for deck real estate and command and control system space in the CIC (Combat Information Center) against other future naval systems which will receive their fair share of lobbying in the admirals' corridors. One way around this could be to have 'optionally inhabited' boats which can either be staffed or driven remotely as required. This could mean that the Ribs which are routinely carried on naval vessels for boarding parties but could perhaps be occasionally outfitted with a control system and modular payload to perform an otherwise dull task or a mission which could put sailors at risk.

There may also be a need to rethink hull design. Like an airframe, a hull which does not need to accommodate people need not be designed for comfort and can instead be optimised in terms of endurance, stability and speed. It can be designed to house a large quantity of sensors or weapon systems without having to give thought to human safety. Many USV designs have thus far been based on existing hull forms. Innovative propulsion systems could be another option. Today's USVs are powered by conventional water jets, but podded electric drives or power-vent systems could power future robotic boats. The USVs of tomorrow may look radically different from those that we have seen so far.

Obstacle avoidance for wheeled autonomous vehicles will be one area which development will have to grapple. The biggest challenge includes the sensor systems and getting reliable sensor perception of the environment and fuse data from several different types of sensors.

In September 2007, the US Navy released its USV Master Plan, which stressed, <<One of the keys to accomplishing the ultimate vision of unmanned vehicle common control is the establishment of standards for the major factors affecting vehicle design, configuration and operation>>. To this end, the navy has reached out to industry, industrial representative bodies and the academic world to assist it in the development of standards for the operating conventions for both surface and air vehicles. This is intended to facilitate the development of common control systems for unmanned boats and submarines. However, as of March 2008 there have been warnings from the naval community in the United States that insufficient budget allocations could slow the development of remote-controlled or autonomous boats and this is probably not helped by the questions surrounding the future of the LCS programme.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Although the USS Cole tragedy was a clear wake-up call for the US Navy, robotic speedboats still have to compete with other naval ships, aircraft, weapons and systems for their slice of the budgetary pie. Concerns over arming them will also have to be ironed out before armed robotic boats become a reality. This could have a knock-on effect for other navies. While the Israelis and Singaporeans have blazed the trail in introducing these types into active service, many navies around the world may take their lead from their American counterparts and refrain from deploying any until much of the research, risk and operational lessons learned have been absorbed by the world's biggest navy.

Despite Tesla's experiments, it is still relatively early days for the uninhabited boat and away from the world of mine warfare, as they have not had the operational exposure of their airborne relatives.

It has been more than a century since Tesla demonstrated his radio controlled boats; his visions of swarming remote-controlled boats remain just that. How research and development progresses over the next one hundred years will probably depend on the world's biggest navies taking the plunge and using USVs in a wholesale fashion beyond mine warfare applications. Once they do, many of us will probably be left wondering why the potential took so long to apply.