Proposal: A Drone Carrier

[ptc]

I've been a lurker for a while on these forums, but I wanted to dive in with an idea I've been tossing around in my head. If we could, I'd like to discuss the possible advantages/pitfalls of a ship that might be.

I was reading this article regarding a BAE Concept Ship known as a Drone Hive (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003743.html), which they dub as a UXV Combatant. The role that BAE envisions for this ship is roughly analogous (as far as I can tell) to the American LCS. Does anyone else feel like this design can be heavily expanded to replace major ships of the line in future navies?

Unmanned aircraft and sea vehicles are slowly but surely becoming a more important facet of tomorrow's navy. Not only are they simpler than their human-crewed counterparts (decreasing cost, maintenance, etc.) they are also much more expendable. Furthermore, launching systems would not have to be a central design feature of the ship: drone launching bays and catapults are dramatically smaller than what you would find on an aircraft carrier or LHD.

All the while, I have heard from various sources on this forum and elsewhere that missiles are the future of any Naval fleet, which can be evidenced by the development of larger destroyers/cruisers with even larger VLC than previous generations of ships. All are designed to not only serve as an ASW role but an AAW role.

If that is the case, why not combine the aspects of a missile cruiser and drone carrier? The intention is not to create a camel, but to have the capabilities of both aspects of ships complement each other.

With the development ECW/Stealth designs and various advancements in missile development, the range of missiles tend to push the limits of any ships radars and other sensors. Why not use drones to effectively extend the sensor net of one heavily armed missile cruiser? Drones could be small enough to have a low observability or numerous enough to make targeting them rather ineffective, while the advantages of radar/visual tracking of targets would be invaluable to any surface combatant.

Not only that, these same drones could clearly perform the same role in surface support for any land-based conflicts, effectively replacing the role of the Aircraft Carrier as well.

Thoughts? I'd be particularly happy to discuss potential pitfalls of such a design.

[kev 99]

The BAE concept probably won't ever get off the ground because its too small operate a decent sixed airwing or carry enough fuel and ordinance. In my opinion the most sensisble way to integrate UAVs and UCAVs into Navies would be as VTOL long endurance recon assets from Escorts, replacing some of the roles of conventional helicopters and as part of carrier airwings (USN are already planing on doing this), I can't really see too many dedicated 'drone' vessels at least for the foreseeable future.

[11561]

I like the idea because it appeals to me for a number of reasons. Firstly, a decked aviation destroyer-sized vessel could employ not only drones but helos for ASW. Even were the ship to be partly decked (abaft the funnel?) with a hangar beneath and a deck-edge or center elevator, you would have plenty of room for a 64-cell VLS SAM and a 5-incher on the foredeck and a RAM or CWIS aft before the deck starts. Without the full airwing, however, the design would be less manpower-, maintence-, and cost-intensive. For sensors, one wouldn't go with the full-hog aegis setup since you'd datalink through an aegis escort (This ship would always be escorted by other ships with Anti-ship and complimentary AAW/ASW roles.). I don't see this ship being operationally deployed for anything other than the waning ASW threat and as a weapon-range extender/ seaspace surveillance asset for situations where a whole CBG isn't necessary.

The loadout for such a vessel might be 4-6 ASW helos and a dozen drones. The capabilities of the drones embarked would by necessity, dictate the capabilities of the carrier vessel. If they could figure out a way to make a drone JDAM- and Harpoon-capable, that would go a long way toward making drones (And this hypothetical drone carrier) viable combat assets.

[kev 99]

Decked aviation destroyer? Are you referring to something similar to the Hyūga? Regardless with a dozen 'drones', 4 - 6 Helos, 64 vls cells and a 5" gun your talking about a pretty large ship.

[11561]

Hyuga? I'm not trying to launch zeroes off of it, lol.

I'm talking about a destroyer-sized vessel, lightly-armed and cheaply-sensored, of 9,000 to 10,000 tons, with a helicopter detachment and as many drones as will fit. Like I pointed out previously, the capabilities of the drones embarked would determine the (relative) capabilities of the ship. But, I don't believe it to be a stretch at this point to envision a drone with the capability to deploy the full range of weapons man-piloted aircraft now employ,either through remote operation via satellite link or through gps-guided, pre-programmed flights i.e. "Go here, drop a JDAM, go here drop another JDAM, then go here and shoot a hellfire at this," ect.

It's probably more important to create and perfect UCAV technology before we start trying to envision ships made to employ it. But I can see a ship like this deployed to a semi-hotspot with a pair of AB's if the situation doesn't require a full CBG.

[AegisFC]

Hyuga? I'm not trying to launch zeroes off of it, lol.


:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyuga_class_destroyer

[outsider]

The question for me is:

Should we be modifying a destroyer design to fit helicopters and uav's

or

Would we be better off modifying a light carrier to have some destroyer capabalities.

I'm curious what a smaller version of the Hyuga class destroyer would be like, say 10,000 - 11,000 tons versus 13,500 currently with some or all of the forward flight deck sacrificed for a 48 - 64 cell vls and possibly a main gun.

Seems to me that a modified light carrier design is far more optimised for a meaningfull number of helicopters and/or uavs together with enough fuel and weapons than a modified destroyer.

Then again, it does depend on what role we want the ship to perform.

Are we looking for a destroyer with modest uav abilities or a light carrier with destroyer capabilites?

[kev 99]

Hyuga? I'm not trying to launch zeroes off of it, lol.

I'm talking about a destroyer-sized vessel, lightly-armed and cheaply-sensored, of 9,000 to 10,000 tons, with a helicopter detachment and as many drones as will fit. Like I pointed out previously, the capabilities of the drones embarked would determine the (relative) capabilities of the ship. But, I don't believe it to be a stretch at this point to envision a drone with the capability to deploy the full range of weapons man-piloted aircraft now employ,either through remote operation via satellite link or through gps-guided, pre-programmed flights i.e. "Go here, drop a JDAM, go here drop another JDAM, then go here and shoot a hellfire at this," ect.

It's probably more important to create and perfect UCAV technology before we start trying to envision ships made to employ it. But I can see a ship like this deployed to a semi-hotspot with a pair of AB's if the situation doesn't require a full CBG.

Destroyer sized? I'm no ship builder but I think you'd be hard pressed to get a 9 - 10,000 ton vessel to accomodate 64 VLS a 5" gun (you call that lightly armed?) and 4 - 6 helicopters, the aviation facilities needed for the helos themselves would be huge, we're not even touching on the facilities for the UAVs/UCAVs.

BAES Tarranis technology demonstrator is similar in size to a BAE Hawk, the X47B is even larger and is conventionally launched meaning you'd need catapults and arrester gear equipped unless the aircraft you aim on using are STOVL.

Hyūga is 13500 tons and can carry up to 11 aircraft if Wiki is to be believed it and has 16VLS. Personally I don't see you getting the capabilities you mention for much less than 20,000 tons and if I'm honest I think 25,000 tons is more likely.

[santi]

Hyūga is 13500 tons and can carry up to 11 aircraft if Wiki is to be believed it and has 16VLS. Personally I don't see you getting the capabilities you mention for much less than 20,000 tons and if I'm honest I think 25,000 tons is more likely.

13500 tons is the st displacement, full load is 18000 tons... larger than Garibaldi, similar to Principe de Asturias.

If you reduce a bit the hangar you can add a second VL silo forward for 16-32 cell (32-48 including the actual aft silo) and may be you can include a medium caliber gun (makes it sense in a "drone carrier"?), preserving the space for 6-8 helo or a combo of helos and UAV.
All on a 16-18000 tons ship, more difficoult on a 10.000 platform (Veneto revisited? ;))

Regards

[kev 99]

13500 tons is the st displacement, full load is 18000 tons... larger than Garibaldi, similar to Principe de Asturias.

If you reduce a bit the hangar you can add a second VL silo forward for 16-32 cell (32-48 including the actual aft silo) and may be you can include a medium caliber gun (makes it sense in a "drone carrier"?), preserving the space for 6-8 helo or a combo of helos and UAV.
All on a 16-18000 tons ship, more difficoult on a 10.000 platform (Veneto revisited? ;))

Regards

Thanks I know;)

What 11561 is proposing has a bigger weapons fit and up to 18 aircraft!

I'm not sure if something like the Veneto is viable, it needs a flight deck unless all the UAVs are basically Helo's or VTOL.

If you removed the Medium calibre gun, reduced the VLS to 16 (64 ESSM) its probably doable on a baby carrier if the UAVs are Predator or Reaper sized, you'd still need a method of launching and recovering them though.

[Firn]

First we must ask ourselves "What for?".

UAV are certainly a way forward and are becoming more and more capable for their size and logistical footprint. The are supreme ISTAR assets an should compliment greatly the sensor suite of surface ships.

UAV come in a great deal of sizes and categories and require for the launch and recovery no deck or a flight deck of specific dimension which can be reduced by certain methods. For example UAV like the scaneagle can be operated with very little deckspace because they are catapult launched and retracted with a swinging mast via a mast.

Scaneagle

Such methods work of course only upon a certain sizes but are great for ships roughly the size frigates or even smaller. A relative long and broad flight deck of a Hyuga or a small helicopter carrier multiplies of the course the options. Personally I think though that in the near future the most bang for the buck are offered by carriers capable to operate manned (usually STOVL) and unmanned assets alike. In such a package you have almost all the options available that you will need.

[outsider]

13500 tons is the st displacement, full load is 18000 tons... larger than Garibaldi, similar to Principe de Asturias.

If you reduce a bit the hangar you can add a second VL silo forward for 16-32 cell (32-48 including the actual aft silo) and may be you can include a medium caliber gun (makes it sense in a "drone carrier"?), preserving the space for 6-8 helo or a combo of helos and UAV.
All on a 16-18000 tons ship, more difficoult on a 10.000 platform (Veneto revisited? ;))

Regards

I must admit, I do like the Garibaldi - 10,000 tons standard, 13,500 tons fully loaded. Just trying to find the optimum size for a light carrier, big enough for the job, but cheap enough to be built in reasonable numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Garibaldi_(551)

[11561]

Ok gents, I'm sorry that I didn't outline exactly what I was envisioning. I wasn't talking about a full-deck aviation cruiser, but rather something more like an AB with the rear end decked over, with room below for 4 (Maybe 6 is too much for 10k tons) helos and as many drones as will fit. I'm picturing helo drones for VTOL, rather than catapult-launched, which in turn would require a full deck, and then you might as well send a proper carrier.

The drone carrier I'm picturing would be good for landing/supporting special forces, ASW (Lets add a towed sonar), supporting AAW (Lets go from 64 to 48-cell VLS), and showing the flag where it needs to get shown

Remember, I'm trying to provide capabilities on the cheap here, not provide the be-all, end-all. Also, remember that modern AB's carry 2 helos w/ support and 24 VLS fore and 64 VLS aft (I think) on 9200 tons. So 4 helos and 48 (or even 64) VLS on a 10-11k ton hull shouldn't be too big of a deal.

Again, I can't stress how much this ship depends on the drones yet to be developed and embarked. UCAV's require only maintenence and fuel oil; No food for the pilot, no fresh water for him, and no paycheck; The guys that maintain the gas turbines could probably be cross-trained to take care of UCAV's if they're simple enough.

The UCAV's that I want for this ship are Satellite-linked, VTOL, JDAM, Harpoon, AIM-9, and anything else that can be guided by laser, satellite, or GPS.

[kev 99]

Okay that's a little more sensible, I still think 4 helicopters plus VTOL UAVs is still going to be a stretch on a hull that size even with the reduction from 48 vls.

There's a few VTOL UAVs in development at the moment like Firescout and Hummingbird, I don't see many helicopters being capable of carrying JDAM or Harpoon though, for those sorts of weapons you're probably going to need larger UCAVs that would require a flight deck.

[Moebius]

11561

It seems to me you are basic suggesting a vessel similar in design/nature to

DDG Haruna/Shirane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruna_class_destroyer

CVH Jeanne d'Arc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_d%27Arc_(R_97)

CGH Vittorio Veneto:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vittorio_Veneto_class_cruiser


but with a 5' inch gun, a VLS for missiles, and an ability to launch UAVs or am I misunderstanding your description.

[11561]

Moebius-

That's exactly what I am thinking along the lines of. Whatever you want to call it: Drone Carrier, avaiation Destroyer/Cruiser, helicopter destroyer, ect. It seems that these days the lines have blurred at what size a destroyer becomes a cruiser and a frigate becomes a destroyer.

If the delay becomes considerable between the introduction of this ship and the introduction of drones/ UCAV's able to give this ship the whole breadth of her capabilities, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem to embark additional helos in the space that would hold the drones.

[Moebius]

11561-

Good to know we're on the same page.

As for classification of warships, I believe (according to modern convention) ships are classified by their capabilities and roles now as opposed to the size/displacement of their hulls, but you would have to ask the Europeans why the insist on calling their destroyers, frigates. The only "reason" I've heard is that the word frigate sounds less warlike.

[kev 99]

If I'm really honest I think something like the Hyuga is a better choice for the role your suggesting, you'd get a much more capable ship with greater hanger space, able to launch a greater variety of UAVs for not too much of an increase in displacement, let's not forget the steel is usually the cheapest of a warships components.

[kato]

The only "reason" I've heard is that the word frigate sounds less warlike.
It also sounds cheaper, and that's what sells the concept really. Same reason certain navies manage to get 3,000 ton "corvettes", or the USN can differentiate classes between two hulls that are only 8-10% apart in displacement and weapons capability and capacity.

[Lostfleet]

I think we should not think UAVs as we think fixed-wing or rotor aircraft. UAVs have no human beings inside and therefore its designs should evolve to take the advantage that there is no one inside.

Instead of UAV taking of conventionally, if it is launched like a missile or with rocket assistance ( with higher G-Force) then it could be deployed vertically and fast, so even a submarine can be a multiple UAV carrier. Since it is submerged, more stealth and more trouble for the enemy.

Even if it is not used on submarine, you will require less deck space for launching and recovering the aircraft ( you guys figure out a way to crash-land a UAV on a small deck without harming the deck or the UAV) and in the end you can go away with a smaller ship.

[Moebius]

If frigate sounds cheaper to politicians and taxpayers perhaps the RAN should have ordered 4 Holbart class frigates instead of 3 destroyers (technically they could have gotten away with it since the F-100s they're based off are classed as frigates in the Spanish Navy).

[11561]

Kev-

Agreed that steel is the cheapest part of a ship. I'm not trying to stick to a smaller (10k-11k) hull for reasons of saving money on steel, but for a set of different reasons. Electronics, design, integration, and crew are the high-dollar items built into modern warships if I'm not mistaken.

What I'm trying to get with this design is a slightly-stretched Arleigh Burke class ship with a hangar and deck after the funnel. That would save the cost of engineering a new ship class from the ground (Or close to it) up. It would save the time and expense of testing, integrating, and possibly fixing a new fit on a new ship. Using an AB hull would save the shipyard the costs associated with retooling for a completely new design, thus lowering the delivery cost of our hypothetical drone/helo carrier. Being as there's about a billion AB's in service as it is, I'm sure Bath (Ingalls? NN?) can knock them out fast and as cheaply as possible, and I really think that using a modified AB design would streamline the transition from building AAW destroyers to multipurpose drone/UCAV/Helo carriers.

Again, I'm nowhere near close to being an expert of any kind, but to me the logic is sound on both issues of cost and order-to-delivery time.

[kev 99]

The big problem with that is that most of the ship is going to be different including the hull form which is going to need stretching, I think you're going to lose a great deal of the commonality which would grant you economies of scale almost immediately. There's also the point that the USN seems to be interested new propulsion systems for the Zumwalt so they would probably want to probably want to move over to that.

Finally the type of ship that Moebius indicated hasn't really been made for quite some time, The Haruna/Shirane: classes are being replaced by Hyuga class ships and Vittorio Veneto is out of service, replaced by an aircraft carrier. As far as the capabilities you require most navies seem to be of the opinion that you get more 'bang for your buck' by using a small flattop.

[swerve]

Kev: agreed.

I don't think you'd get much more commonality from stretching an AB & decking over the aft half than by building a Hyuuga-style ship on an AB hull & machinery. Reducing the superstructure would regain much of the weight added by raising the deck. It could be big enough for a UAV carrier, though not necessarily for the big UCAVs proposed for the future.

Rotary-wing UAVs don't need special ships, but can be operated off aything with a helicopter deck.

[AegisFC]

Rotary-wing UAVs don't need special ships, but can be operated off aything with a helicopter deck.

The USN's OHP's are being outfitted to carry Firescout in one of the hangars.