Hi Robert LePage on sea DRONES or Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs)

So as not to reinvent the wheel, the world's Number 1. military UUV advocate is former US Navy submariner BRYAN CLARK. He has discussed UUV issues for several years. He has visited Australia for semi-confidential reasons now and then.

There are two big limitations to UUVs

1. one is short endurance, short range and slow speed on battery compared to a manned submarine.

2. the other big UUV limitation is they don't have any accountability in terms of the human control over weapons use. And so even though you could autonomously program a UUV to go and shoot (itself or a mini-torpedo) at a target that it recognises, who will be accountable for the result if that torpedo hits a civilian ship instead of hitting a military ship?

Clark also seems to be asking Will attacks by Chinese UUVs be less constrained morally and legally than more careful Western UUV attacks?

Unlike weapon carrying aerial UAVs, which can secretly beam up what they see and what they may shoot to satellites

- and then receive remotely piloted orders

- this is far less possible with sea UUVs that wish to remain hidden.

Regards

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/uuvs-need-to-complement-manned.html

Sorry Robert LePage, you have missed one small point.

Australia is running on empty. We have just a couple of weeks of all liquid fuels in our stocks, & no reserves. So we are more dependent on imports of fuel than practically anywhere else, to run the country, military or industry.

Unless we can find some way of convincing the population we need nuclear, & as it is hard to fuel subs & planes with coal, we had best start organising coal to liquid fuel, & gas conversion plants before we bother with diesel subs, or jet aircraft.

We might as well produce blow up models of planes & subs, like the Poms did during WW11, for all the use billions of dollars worth of gear will be without fuel.

plantagenet - Quote "one is short endurance, short range and slow speed on battery compared to a manned submarine."
Battery technology is getting better very quickly, there are experiments with atomic batteries very small and last for years.
short range and slow speeds can easily be overcome by using higher voltage, what is the size of the smallest battery you will know in a few years as most modern electronics come to consumers via ex military technology.

Point 2 is also nothing drones have been killing innocent people by the hundreds ever since they first were used and no one has been held accountable.

Hasbeen Quote "We have just a couple of weeks of all liquid fuels in our stocks, & no reserves. So we are more dependent on imports of fuel than practically anywhere else, to run the country, military or industry."

Same problem Germany had in WW2 but they managed for quite a while, I am sure someone would come up with a solution.

Why didn't I think of that Philip S, we'll just knock up a coal liquefaction plant or 3 in the 15 days it takes for us to run out of the fuel we need to build them.

Perhaps you forgot Germany started that war, & were planning how to fight & fuel it for some years.

As I don't expect we would be an aggressor we would be reacting to an attack, or someone cutting off our fuel supplies.

I really do wish I was too blind to see the problems, it would make "she'll be right mate" a whole lot easier.

All good and well to have boats - new, second hand, whatever David.

But firstly, what about the situation with DMO retaining and commensurately paying the maintainers of the MK48's (excuse my ignorance, but isn't this the main reason the boats are in the water - as a platform to deliver the warshots) a reasonable salary ?

Secondly, if you can't even man the Collins boats with RAN crews for current patrol demands, as is the other consideration, then why FFS is this conversation even happening ?

TMF at Stirling couldn't even get the air exchange rates right...oh too much thinking involved for the budgeteers, engineering consultants and assorted numpties in Caarnbra to get into their thick heads? $Millions of taxpayer money wasted there in review after review with nothing really achieved.

This and 'reusing' parts from previous firings is symptomatic of Defence thinking across the ADF & the good ole 'Just in Time' ordering system simply has not worked during the nearly 40 years since I qualified as an armourer. 100 mile an hour tape, second rate screws and garbage from China in the form of Grab it Kits is still the norm in workshops in every corner of the the country. Not to mention uniforms and boots made by our faithful allies in Chung Wah to add insult to injury !

Nothing like a good healthy lungful of Otto fuel sludge as mist and HCN gas to start the day, followed by a rummage around the various boxes of stashed away bolts & screws to put a weapon back together is there ?

Wake up mate, the Yanks don't have the same problems & like every other weapons system we've inherited, bought off them, or adopted since WW2 we have had to make do with what bits we have on hand, or make it ourselves in shop. Otherwise like any other bit of kit it sits on a shelf, labelled: " awaiting parts "

Politicians...dreamers and conjurers of false hopes.

...canoes anyone ?