Innovations Under The Sea:

Navy Studies Group Plots Bold Course for Future Submarines

By OTTO KREISHER

Otto Kreisher is a reporter for Copley News Service.

Imagine a submarine launching an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) while submerged and controlling its flight over hostile territory to provide real-time targeting data for the submarine's own weapons--or for other forces in an integrated network-centric battle group.

Or picture an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) docking with a submerged submarine on station in contested littoral waters and transferring weapons and supplies.

Those and many other bold concepts have been not just imagined but explored in depth and, in some cases, started on the path to realization by an unusual team of innovators the Navy calls the Submarine Future Studies Group.

The group was formed to break through the long-standing and formidable institutional barriers to the revolutionary changes that are considered essential to moving the Navy and its submarines into the future, according to two of the effort's leaders.

"Throughout history we have seen that the technology that has given us the best return often was looked at skeptically" at the beginning, said Rear Adm. Paul F. Sullivan, director of the Submarine Warfare Division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV). Moreover, in naval/military circles it usually has been considered dangerous to think outside the box, because experimentation often means failure, Sullivan said.

Ideas, Concepts, Realities

There is a cost factor involved as well. The Navy's leadership has known for a long time that it is difficult to get the scientific community, the Navy's in-house laboratories, and other innovators to focus on the development of future capabilities until "good ideas" or "revolutionary concepts" evolve into official programs complete with budgets and operational requirements documents. Rear Adm. Charles B. Young, deputy commander for undersea technology at the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), said that the lack of official status "can really be crippling in looking at a technology that is out of the box, out of the mainstream. ... That is why we created the Future Studies Group," he said. "It [the group] is really a mechanism that we can use to sign up the leadership. ... to say this is where we want to head in the future ... [to develop] submarine technology and capability."

The studies group was formed in 1998 by then-Rear Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr. and directed to "Develop future submarine concepts and goals necessary to enhance submarine superiority, with emphasis on revolutionary capabilities." After obtaining approval from the Navy's submarine leadership, the group was told, its next tasks were to develop a concept statement for the submarine force of the future and to set goals for submarine research and development--which were to be based on a broad spectrum of opinions, suggestions, and recommendations from both within and outside the submarine community.

The group's goals, in short, according to a Navy briefing paper, were to "provide needed focus" to the government research institutions that would be involved and to "enable investment in technologies that will provide military capabilities from under the sea [that would be] needed in the 21st century."

The World of 2020

The group's charter encompasses attack submarines and the proposed guided-missile boats, traditional submarine missions as well as new ones, and the full spectrum of submarine operations in both peace and war. For working purposes the group has focused on the world conditions likely in the 2020 time frame, on the tasks likely to be assigned to submarines at about that time, and on the capabilities they would need to carry out their missions.

The group's co-chairmen are Young and John G. Schuster, branch head for science and technology in OPNAV's Submarine Warfare Division. The permanent members of the group are Capt. Scott Van Buskirk, commander, Submarine Development Squadron 12; Capt. Donald J. Boland, the Submarine Warfare Division's branch head for plans, liaison, and assessments; Capt. Kai T. Repsholdt, resource director for Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet; and Capt. Steven H. Ross, resource director for Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.

There also are a number of ad hoc members, selected by the co-chairs, who have been diligent in looking for "innovators" from inside and outside the submarine community. The group also has solicited input and insights from a long list of senior officers, non-government defense analysts, representatives of industry, and such key submarine "customers" as the U.S. Strategic Command and the U.S. Special Operations Command. It also has made a determined effort to draw upon the energy and imagination of the junior officers who will be leading the submarine force of the future that the group is seeking to shape.

In its concept statement, the group warned that the submarine community has to be able, and willing, to respond to the challenge to its "relevancy" in the post-Cold War world--in other words, it has to have good answers to the question: "Why submarines?"

Politics and Priorities

In order to determine what capabilities future submarines will need, the group conducted an "alternative future worlds study" in which a number of naval/military and independent experts examined the economic, political, social, and military factors expected in 2020. That study predicted the continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, increased "access" challenges, and the emergence of quiet long-endurance coastal submarines as the likely primary opponents of U.S. submarines operating in the littorals.

The group then determined the most likely high-priority tasks U.S. submarines will be assigned in that future world. Those tasks include but are by no means limited to: clandestine ISRT (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting) missions; special operations assignments; mine reconnaissance; littoral antisurface warfare; theater antisubmarine warfare; attack operations against buried or hardened targets; strategic deterrence; forward presence; and information-gathering operations.

The submarines of 2020 also will be needed for forward engagement, the suppression of enemy coastal defenses, theater nuclear deterrence, the development of situational awareness, interdiction, covert neutralization of mines, theater missile defense, and arctic operations.

The group's answer to "Why submarines?" includes a long list of submarine contributions to joint operations and emphasizes such unique submarine qualities as undetected presence (which allows the element of surprise in attacks), the submarine's role in solving the "denial of access" problem, nonprovocative intelligence collection, the submarine's "24/7" and all-weather operational capabilities, and the critical capabilities provided by submarines in close-in operations.

To meet the challenges most likely in 2020, the group said, several overarching capabilities must be created or expanded, including the following:

* The ability to collect tactical information through the use of off-board vehicles and distributed sensors.

* The ability to maintain fully integrated connection at all times with the national and theater command networks through improved sensors, state-of-the-art communications assets, and information-processing systems.

* Greater overall adaptability through modularity, enhanced system and mission flexibility, and an increased volume of firepower.

The Outside Story

The Navy's future submarines will need a tenfold increase in what might be called payload productivity--but, Young emphasized, in the same physical space. Which translates into the probably increased miniaturization of weapons and sensors and the ability to carry more of the payload outside the hull. Various Navy "payload" studies have shown, Young said, that "the only way ... to get significant changes is to go external."

That conclusion led to other studies--one, for example, that focused on ways to shield weapons, sensors, and other external payloads by using protective capsules that can attach to the hull.

Another way to boost a submarine's capacity without increasing the size of the hull is to increase the size of the sail. Starting in fiscal year 2006, in fact, the Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) will be built with an elongated sail, probably constructed of composite materials, Young said, to minimize the increase in weight.

The most effective way to gain the desired quantum increase in a submarine's reach, though, according to a Navy briefing paper, will be through the use of a variety of remote vehicles, including some that can "swim, fly, and walk on land." The deployment of UUVs has been in the planning stages for years, but the deployment from submarines of UAVs is a much newer and much bolder concept.

A submarine could deploy UAVs in several different ways, depending on the size of the UAV itself. Some are small enough to be launched out of a submarine's three-inch signal ejector; larger ones could be deployed from the submarine's 21-inch torpedo tubes, Young said.

Sensors and Vehicles

A UAV also could be launched from friendly territory or a surface ship and then passed to the control of a submarine operating closer to land, Sullivan pointed out. He and Young both emphasized that Navy efforts to increase a submarine's payload must of necessity focus as much on sensors as on weapons, and perhaps more. "In my view," Young said, "the sensors ... the off-board sensors and vehicles, are much more important to our capabilities than weapons."

By using a remote vehicle that has significant endurance and payload capability, he continued, "you can extend the eyes and ears of a submarine beyond the horizon"--which, he said, would create the possibility of additional new missions, such as targeting for strikes in real time.

"This idea of extending the reach of a submarine beyond its organic sensors is really the direction we're heading, particularly in the littoral world," Sullivan added.

The studies group also has examined different ways of exploiting the capabilities of UUVs, including the possibility of using them to resupply and rearm submarines on station without revealing their presence. A submarine fitted with an electric-drive propulsion system would have enough additional space in the hull, Young said, that a UUV would be able to swim up to and lock into the submarine to transfer weapons and supplies.

Another important way to increase the value of future submarines is to greatly expand their ability to communicate with the outside world. This would represent a major change from submarine operations in the Cold War era, though, "when we were very much out there by ourselves," Young said.

A Range of Communications

"Today," he continued, "our thought processes are much different. We're worrying about whether we are part of the joint force ... [and about] how we can operate better with the special forces, with the Army, and the Air Force."

The major goal is to be able to communicate "at speed and depth, with some bandwidth," Young said. Tests have shown that a system of acoustic communications can transfer valuable information, including photos and video clips, at ranges of about 30 nautical miles, he said. But that capability requires the right acoustic conditions, which are not always available, particularly in the noisy and mixed waters of the littorals.

Another system being researched is the advanced buoyant cable antenna, which uses an array of antenna elements floating on the ocean surface to allow fairly high-volume transmission and reception, Young said. The buoyant cable antenna and another one called the low-profile antenna are both being evaluated, he said, in an advanced technology demonstration program being carried out by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Defense Department researchers. Meanwhile, the Navy is ready to deploy a high-data-rate antenna that has already completed technical and operational evaluation on the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Providence, Young said. "That got us up to a bandwidth that we are very much a part of the battle group."

Although a submarine must come up to the surface to extend its antenna, that is not usually a major problem in the littorals, where, as Sullivan pointed out, "we are more likely to be at periscope depth."

The studies group also is evaluating various modularity concepts that could lead to increased flexibility and adaptability in future submarines. One idea involves the submarine itself; another involves the submarine's payloads. For greater payload adaptability, Young said, submarines could be built with revolutionary interfaces that would allow a preloaded module to be installed quickly and to be supplied with power and other operational necessities without a physical connection. Platform modularity would require boats to be built with the inherent ability to have hull sections quickly replaced for upgrades, major maintenance, or mission changes.

Current and Future Advances

Although just in its third year, the Future Studies Group has already helped to facilitate some changes in the submarine force--by supporting the production and installation of fiber-optic towed arrays, for example. Current arrays, although very capable, are hard to keep in service because the sensitive electronic components are exposed to the harsh conditions of the ocean. The new fiber-optic arrays not only will be less subject to wear but will cost only about one-fourth as much as the current $4 million systems.

The group also takes some credit for the expected deployment, in about two years, of several variants of UUVs, including the mission-reconfigurable drone and the long-term mine reconnaissance system. Both of these vehicles can be deployed from a submarine's torpedo tubes and will be able to carry out their searches for up to 48 hours.

Although its focus is on 2020 and the next generation of submarines, some of the group's findings and recommendations are being used to improve the capabilities of existing submarines. One example cited by Young involves the acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf technology insertion program, which will be used to upgrade the Navy's Los Angeles-class SSNs at the same time it is being improved for use with the new Virginia-class submarines.

This approach is important, Sullivan noted, because with a 30-year service life the Los Angeles-class boats "will be the heart of our submarine fleet for many years to come." For that reason, he said, " ... one of our efforts is to refresh that technology and use it as a test bed for future technologies that will be inserted in the Virginia class."

Throughout the search for far-reaching innovations, the studies group is keeping a firm focus on three extremely practical questions: What works? What is needed? What can the Navy afford? Partly for those reasons, the group involved the development squadron and fleet operators in the process at a very early stage to ensure that the concepts being considered are both "doable" and desired. It does very little good, Sullivan said, "if we create this great capability that no one wants to use, or needs, or is not complementary, or can be done from other sources."

As the resource sponsor, Sullivan said he is well aware of the fact that, although "there is no shortage of great ideas," there also is no surplus of money. "This is what the process of the Future Studies Group is all about," he said. " ... It allows people to express priorities, so we can place money where we can get the best returns."

"With all those options and solutions on the table," Young added, "we want to make sure we are funding the ones that give us the greatest leverage as warfighters."