CETUS, first Extra Large Underwater Autonomous Vehicle (XLUAV) technology demonstrator to be owned by the RN was launched in Plymouth this week.
The competition for an 8-12m XLUAV was started in early 2022 and MSubs of Plymouth were awarded the £21.5 million contract to manufacture CETUS in November 2022. It was hoped sea trials would begin in November 2024 but the project is a few months behind schedule. (Update: Defence Minister Maria Eagle has said the launch was six months later than planned because of an amendment to the original design of the vessel.)
CETUS is being designed and built from scratch, and will be the first XLUAV owned and operated by the RN under the auspices of the Submarine Delivery Agency’s Autonomy Unit (SDA-AU). Overall this project will span 6 years and following delivery, the Navy intends to employ her on trials and experimentation until at least 2027.
CETUS will be the largest and most complex uncrewed submersible operated by any European navy. It is officially described as “A representative large-scale AUV demonstrator to build trust in long endurance autonomous operations and be an adaptable testbed for mission payloads”. The vessel displaces 17 tonnes and is 12 metres long and 2.1 metres in diameter.”
The production vessel appears to closely match the model shown at DSEI in 2023 and the CGI renders issued at the time of the contract announcement. The standard Main Payload Space (MPS) in the centre has a 2m x 2m x 2m capacity and there are small Secondary payload spaces in the upper fore-end and lower aft end, likely to be occupied by sensors. The MPS has doors top and bottom that allow items to be loaded in from above and to exit from the underside of the craft when deployed underwater. Examples of potential payloads could include an ROV deployed on an umbilical from the mission bay and an Autonomous Underwater Ground Vehicle (AUGV) lowered to transit across the seabed.
CETUS is the next step on the way to the RN acquiring a large fleet of XLUAVs to add mass to its underwater battlespace capabilities and supplement its small SSN fleet. CETUS will be used to conduct a series of increasingly complex trials relevant to the operational environment and de-risk future technologies, including those that could be included in SSN-AUKUS.
The RN is leading the NATO ASW Barrier Smart Defence Initiative (SDI) which aims to supplement high end crewed ASW assets with autonomous systems to patrol the GIUK gap. Under project CABOT, the RN is looking to acquire a fleet of XLUAVs known as the ‘Type 93 chariot’ to patrol the area working in tandem with ASW-equipped USVs designated as the ‘Type 92 sloop’.
Fantastic development and potential, but think the timeframes may need to be accelerated.
Happy to oblige with helping to get the project back on schedule. I do have an international reputation as that Bas****. When joining my last project in South Africa as project quality manager.
With BAe self financing the continued development of the Herne XLUUV, RN may have two options when it comes to making an order. There’s even a case for splitting the order between the two.
Bloke Down the Pub
……because of that huge fire at Barrow
….BAE can’t even deliver the two subs (SSN and SSBM) that the RN alreday has on order.
So please please please….. don’t even think about giving them any other orders!!!!!!
Peter (Irate Txpayer)
You’re rather over hyping this fire
Totally agree BAe will stall on making and delivery not too mention increasing the price.
It’s a non starter. Don’t let them near it 🥴🏴🇬🇧
BAE’s offering is an XLAUV NOT a UUV and despite cynics like Peter, capably demonstrated its offering back in Autumn 2024. As Hugo below states Peter is rather over hyping the fire. From the local news I understand the production of boats was not significantly impacted.
Is the ultimate intention here to have additional ISR capability in the GIUK gap, or does it go further than that to include ASW weaponry such as Stingray?
Very good question! Is it basically a mobile SOSUS? I think that would be the approach to take at this stage
Very good question. Makes sense for it to function as a mobile SOSUS.
I am sceptical. Submarines work because they have a crew. AI is dumb.
But let us see what comes of it.
Surely basic functionality like “if you see something that sounds like a submarine, tell us and then do your best to follow it” is possible? If not more?
The ‘do your best to follow it’ is one of its biggest issues. They may be able to stay at sea for several months/2-3000 mile range, but that’s at 3-4 it’s max. SSNs transit at 10-18kts, so not they can’t keep up, that’s not what they are going to do, nor are they designed to.
Can anything keep up with an SSN that doesn’t want to be followed, though?
Trailing a towed array for maximum detection range limits speed even on big frigates, surely just forcing them to make noise in escaping the tracking ring is a benefit?
These things are comparatively small when compared to a SSN/SSK, and any sensor suite will be corŕespondingly scaled. In the world of ASW, bigger is generally better, especially where initial detection ranges are concerned – they are not as great as many seem to think!
I remember an article discussing the capabilities of the Sea Krait slimline TA system being developed for use by autonomous vessels, it’s detection capabilities against modern SMs was assessed as being approx 10% of that of a full fat system as fitted to SMs ( this from their own development team!). In ASW terms, that’s a massive difference. SM commanders aren’t going to be excessively worried by these craft just yet. They are probably still several decades away from being really useful ASW assets.
I suppose we can’t really expect a 12m thing half the size of Holland 1 compete with SSNs.
These things are only going to get bigger though, I imagine if you devoted the middle section to the reels a 30m one might start competing with manned submarines in raw towed array size.
Doubt they’ll be able to multitask, however.
Yes I agree, they will get bigger because they will need to be. Now you are increasing weight, so you will need the power to move it, so, the propulsion system becomes important as does the fuel. It’s not that simple unfortunately, the US with their ORCA are currently some 5 years behind and if believed, some £250 million overbudget with little sign of this spiral ending any time soon.
What @WIZookeeper has posted below is correct.
The Irish are developing a cutting edge electric propulsion system for their version, it uses both Solar and Wind power.
More silly statements, the primary objective of these SUUV will be surveillance of infrastructure, not chassing subs! Whilst mine detection and removal might also be a secondary role.
I think what a large part of the problem is, is that people are likening them to what is happening with such air vehicles. It’s nowhere near the same, totally different operating environment, with its own set of unique challenges.
A platform has to be able to cope with the sea.
A platform has to have range.
A platform has to have or generate sufficient energy.
An unmanned platform has to have more redundancy. It will probably be need to be big enough for technicians to work inside to statist maintenance needs anywhere.
I keep saying a useful drone / robot / thing will neither be small or cheap. And the larger something is the bigger a target it becomes the more difficult to manoeuvre it becomes.
That many here think these things will cost 2 buttons and a bottle top and be the size of a torpedo says a lot to me about their basic understanding of the topic.
When it comes to multistatic, would it really take 10 thin-line TAS to equal one CAPTAS 4? Or would the detection capabilty increase faster with number because of advantageous spacing? These XLUUVs won’t be deployed alone.
The other point that crosses my mind is that in shallower water you can’t use all the power of a large active towed array because of echos. So maybe there would be price advantage there too. There’s a fairly deep channel south of the Faroes and another to the north of Iceland, but a lot of the GIUK gap is relatively shallow.
Good to see a highly relevant graphic in a comment. Really helps to visualise the issue to hand.
That’s a really nice graphic, actually.
I think the “Faeroes channel” would probably be quite easy to manage under Cabot; it is close enough to the UK that unmanned vessels will have good time on station there, and in particular UUVs like CETUS that have excellent depth performance.
The “Iceland channel” is worrying, however. There are no naval bases nearby (unless a fishing port on Iceland is available for investment?) and it is about as far as USVs will venture from the UK without support.
However, some USVs do still have the range for decent (35 days) patrol endurance out there.
Not sure the channel to the north of Iceland is all that worrying, because there will be other uncrewed assets, such as SOSUS-style FDS, not to mention our own crewed assets: maritime patrol aircraft, frigates and submarines (okay, using the plural might be a tad optimistic just now). However, I’m pretty sure that underwater cables will link assets in the channel to onland bases. Perhaps in time they could be used to power recharging stations for UUVs. Getting new USVs north of Iceland will probably be done using a mothership of some kind. It’s all early days, so we have to expect durations to lengthen.
We don’t always have crewed assets up there because we don’t have enough MPA for what is needed. Not enough by far. Nor do we always have a towed array patrol ship up there.
As I keep saying,
1) That is why we need a ninth T26.
2) That is why it utterly stupid for T31 not to have ASW kit.
3) If we took protecting CASD seriously we would have an ocean going SSK ‘parked’ off northern Norway permanently.
Naval Air Station Keflavik, Iceland………..
Great to see this graphic. Does Jan Mayen still play a role in tracking ships and Subs, I’m guessing yes but not sure ?
Bearing in mind the number of these subs planned for the Greenland Iceland gap they wouldn’t have to keep up, but instead pre position other subs further down range tracking it or narrowing the search area for our deadlier assets.
Of course yes!!! Because subsurface comms are always super aren’t they? Not.
Not the longest, most detailed message for LF radio though, is it?
“I’m here, I’ve found a submarine and this is what I’m doing next”
Probably a fraction of a kilobyte as an absolute maximum,
About 450 English words per minutes for ELF.
I bow to your expansive hours commanding your armchair.
I wish I had an armchair to work from, I should look into that.
How long do you think it would take then? Yes, my guess came from GCSE Computer Science, but I was trying to consider the actual quantity of information that would be needed.
6-figure grid reference, probably a vector, and some sort of identification code for the contact.
AI will get smarter and you have to start somewhere,
Humans will still be in the loop ?
Many here think these things will be floating about COMPLETELY autonomous loosing off torpedoes when they think it is warranted,
AI is almost sentient
Ummmmmh maybe…..in the future.
At the moment AI has limited uses and is a product of how it is trained.
If you use AI for anything outside its training you get total garbage and even then it makes odd stuff up that a specialist human would know was untrue.
Yes there is a difference between the highly defined world of cyberspace and the real world. Something most here just don’t grasp even I bet as smart phones users they have suffered some way at the hands of second generation AI.
Oh…………..
AI that you can access for free online is dumb, start paying for the good stuff and AI is increasingly impressive.
If used correctly and respecting its enormous limitations….then, yes.
In very highly defined world yes it is. I don’t know perhaps I look at things differently having worked in IT for over a decade. High end computer systems don’t impress me as such as the lay person.
I’ll give it a month before it gets lost.
And ‘found’ by a Russian trawler ?
Hi, other Jon.
Why do you say that when its predecessor, Manta, didn’t get lost or stolen? It’s not like they are just going to set it going all by itself.
Are we going to have another scenario like when Duker had an argument with himself?
Hopefully the trials programme is a lot more ambitious than Manta was. MSubs have a competitor now with BAE, who have much bigger funds to back them up. That should spur some quicker work, hopefully.
I’m sure they’ll build on it. To be fair, I thought it had been going reasonably quickly. A little over two years from contract to water is a lot faster than the Yanks got Orca. The Manta thin-line sonar trials were pretty interesting and I’d like to see more of them, but I’m not sure what the objectives of Cetus are. If the direction is towards this T-93 for Project CABOT, that’s not concrete in my mind. Is it just sensors or also effectors? I’ll bet comms testing gets in there too.
It also sounds like they’ll be using it as an underwater Patrick Blackett, so there’s going to be plenty for it to do before they order the next one.
I wonder why they decided to put the T93 into the type system at all, having submarines in there, unmanned or otherwise, just doesn’t make sense.
But yes, I think that Cabot is the eventual goal in the RN’s eyes.
No, that was @Duker’s AI arguing with itself…
On a towpath……..
Hope all these unmanned vehicles have a self destruction built in in case if falls into our enemy’s hands
It could well be used as bait to trap the Russians and then self destruct in hugh way taking them out.
Not a bad idea I think it would be a great idea to show the Russians what happens when you get caught taking other people’s property that you die if you try and take our things
You think they would care after losing so many taking Ukraine’s things ?
What happened to the article about the Royal Navy having a new, European two power standard? Am I losing my mind or has it disappeared?
“Apologies, article removed at author’s request.”
It did.
Maybe because:-
– it was childishly naïve; and
– the author was a serving RN junior officer maybe CoC hadn’t cleared; and
– it was embarrassingly poor quality for the site?
I actually appreciated it as a thought experiment. I expect it was # 2…not previously approved.
The Author removed it. Probably after reading all the abusive comments from all the usual “experts”. Shame really, a lot or work was put in to the article to show different scenarios and their costings.
I thought it was fun and had some interesting numbers in it. Oh well!
There were some 101 errors in there that a sensible group conversation should have pointed out pre publication.
It was thought provoking and it did at least fight the idea that decline is inevitable.
Nothing wrong with trying it out. He may not believe it, but he’s mostly among friends here. Let’s hope he resubmits with something more robust.
I agree he should submit a revised version.
The basic premise is right that there need to be real public conversations about what spend gets you what equipment, capabilities and posture.
If you are talking about a proper 30 combatant surface fleet with 12-15 SSN, 4 SSBN, 2 carriers, 6 MRSS, 2 helicopter carriers and a dedicated fleet of F35B as per SDSR 1998 then a conversation around the costs of that is valuable as it has previously been determined and agreed that this was necessary and achievable.
I tend to think that the Author was slightly taken aback by the response he received from all the Admirals on here.
Nowhere does Fantasy Fleets quite like this comments section !
Several research mistakes. If you are comparing to other euro fleets at least make a good research.
OK Admiral !
Thank you for the promotion!
Yes, as an another with 10’s of peer reviewed publications I’d chat a new idea out over a few beers and gauge reaction. That is the way research gets bottomed out.
I’m sympathetic to him that he had a go at the issue. But starting with a top line of 5 x QEC was a bit rich even for my most fantasy fleeting moments! Quite apart from there being no hot QEC line and the team is now dispersed.
Different story with T26/31/31+ etc.
Supportive Bloke
You have just – and also “quite correctly” I have to add – identified what keeps gong wrong with all of these major MOD and RN procurement projects.
i.e. that not nearly enough beer is being drunk at the very beginning of the project definition / development process (ie at Gateway No 1)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS It did say on Navy Lookout “withdrawn at the author’s request”
So only time will tell whether that was
Waterlogged “lost” container would be a better bet.
Cheeky element would be an ability to sink if required.
Could use it as a refuelling station for a thinner “fat” torpedo similar to above.
Any hints on the range / performance capabilities of this new system?
Range / mission duration not looking great.
So you ask what the range and performance is yet then go on to say it’s not looking good ?
It’s designed to be long endurance at a 4 knot loitering speed, go search the previous NL and UKDJ articles.
MOD reality / capability points to performance limitations.
Chat about the possible powertrains not looking good.
Performance spectrum …
Transit speed.
Mission duration
Loiter speed.
Diving range.
What do these need to be to make it credible?
7 day mission / 100 miles per day?
7 tonnes of batteries?
Displacement — 17 tonnes.
Volume — 25m3’ish.
Payload — 4/6 tonnes?
Sizing — very container friendly.
Overall — tough sail / tough sell.
Needs a mothership / support.
It’ll be dropped off to loiter around a specific area I guess. Diving range will have been a major design factor given it’s intended purpose.
It’s just a demonstrator.
Fair point — starter for 10 in a Bamber Gascoigne voice.
Always thoughts the fat torpedo angle had legs in the ASW world.
More capable / faster than the 21″ / 25″ coming the other way.
Gets into position and then drops the 14″ to put a hole in the bad guy.
However that was in the region of a 36″ or 48″ system.
85″ is very North Korea or Yugo in its scale / architecture.
Any ideas out there on the size / scale of the Type 92 sloop?
How big is the well deck in a Bay — 45m x 10m x 8m?
Picture suggest that a Mk10 LCU is lost in it.
This would make a good platform for guarding our underwater infrastructure.. keep the Russians away.
Is this the Rivet Joint version ?
I find the 2m×2m×2m loading bay an interesting point it seriously limits what this submarine can carry and although I’m sure future models will grow in size it leads me to think this was never intended to have an offensive capability.
Wasn’t there supposed to be an additional insertable payload module? I don’t hear any mention of it and I hope that doesn’t mean it got lost in the development process; it was also to double the power carried. As I recall the CETUS sea trials were originally scheduled for an ambitious date of Nov ’24, so this is a few months later than planned. Perhaps we’ll see the insert arriving later. There’s plenty to be getting along with without one.
We have UAV spy planes flying successfully all over the world today , so why not a autonomous submarine
Because they can’t fly.
Because communication with submarines is difficult. And to do anything useful they will have to be not small or simple.
UAV spy planes are typically RPAS, not autonomous.
Progress needs to speed up.
Mild steel / X level prototype should have been in the water in 12 months to test the basics.
Propeller looks a bit old school — no need for a tarpaulin.
Interesting that the MOD has not signed up one of the multi nationals to develop the system / tech — hopefully they deliver and others can get a shot at some of their other projects.
High speed LCT — is that on anyone’s agenda?
The US hovercraft vibe is just a moneypit.
Who are you and what have you done with Pete ?
“CETUS will be the largest and most complex uncrewed submersible operated by any European navy”.
All
First of all, a very big “well done” to whole team at M-subs – both for getting this very innovative demostrator /protype into the water and also for allowing it to be photographed (in close up) for NL……..
….so I must wish them well with these trials …
I will now add, as I have said before here on Navy Lookout…..that simply because it is “peopled” by proper engineers…….M-Subs is an inhently very good company…..
(thus dealing with M-Subs is very unlike dealing with our that other much bigger, and much better known submarine maufacturer here in the UK…..i.e. the big one which, despite it employing so many beancounters, simply failed to buy nearly enough fire extingishers for use in their big shed up at Barrow)
——
I first saw this model at DESI back in 2023 (i.e. as photo above) and I also had a really good chat to the M-subs team there on the stand
However my biggest concern today is exactly the same one that I had when I first saw this model – the “payload bay”
This next remark may sound like a really obvious comment ……however the key issue with designing any type of new submarine – be that submersible machine either big or small and/or crewed or uncrewed and/or nuclear or conventional powered – etc etc etc
– is always the very fundamental question of “how to leep the F*****G water out”
In this particular case
Therefore this prototype is, in reality, actually a technology demonstrator for two very-different new types of underwater technologies
And therefore I really do honestly hope that the many issues that M-subs must soon encounter with the effective sealing off of that FMB from any (even minor) water ingress will not, in turn, then bugger up the one and only key reason for the RN bulding this prototype in the first place = to test the whole concept of an uncrewed submarine.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS Big hint to M-Subs
On Monday morning…. I suggest you nip out and buy a few welding rods: and thus get ready to weld up those huge (and very flappy) payload doors = very tightly shut. That simple “trick of the trade” will greatly accelerate your development programme.
I guess you answered my call then !
Seriously though keep it up, I love all your stuff,
He puts such a lot of effort into his posts.
He doesn’t deserve the ire he receives from some here.
You have awoken the monster, it seems.
The formatting is getting even more extreme!
Why would the payload bay be watertight? Anything going in or out underwater is going to get wet. Might as well have a flooded payload bay and keep the electronics in the dry bits of the craft, no?
Pete, as an MSubs guy – thank you.
You’re doing great work at the moment, BZ.
Btw is there anything going on with MSubs’ Moray concept for a larger XLUUV or is that just CGI for now?
The MORAY concept is based on updated MASTT, built for the USN as a realistic ASW target modeled on a specific SSC threat. So we know the maths works and would update it with modern batteries and sensors etc. Nothing in the pipeline yet, but the need for a realistic ASW target for the SSN/T23/Pinger & MPA community is compelling in its own right, IMHO.
Thanks, F238, I hadn’t realised the link between MORAY and MASTT from your website.
Nice to have a genuine subject matter expert on the site, I hope you stick around!
Pretty sure submarine builders have already solved the issue of having doors in them – they are after all handy for getting crew in and out along with torpedoes/ and missiles.
And electronics to detect leaks, and even interfacing them to computers, had been around for decades…
Jon and Sean
Please also see the very-nice reply, to me, from F238 working at M-Subs (posted directly above).
Jon
Sean
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1
Note 2.
PS Sailorbouy.
I have no idea what has happened with the formating and huge fonts.
My mate Bob, who’s day job is in cyberwarfare (protecting RAF Strike Command) is curently investigating the two most-probale options, so one of either;:
There are several sort of sensors out there for detecting water. Around the air con bases in the main machine room we used to use rope sensors. When it was wet it completed a signal and the watchdog PC would page or text us. To dry them we would lay them on top of kit with top vents. No shortage of warm air flow in a machine room.
Perhaps what is needed is a drone to suck up leaks…………?
But this is what I have been on about when anything unmanned is mentioned. They won’t be simple machines because they will need extra redundancy and as you highlight clever design and systems to get around the absence of ‘mandraulic systems’.
OK Gentlemen, my last comment for a while, as I can only clarify what is in the public domain. CETUS is still an R&D platform but with a focus on developing deployable payloads, hence an almost oversized and free flooding payload bay. MANTA was great for us (and Pusser) in proving that the platform-level autonomy was fit for purpose. CETUS will do the same for mission-level autonomy and payloads. These will be selected by the RN, and we will integrate them into our autonomy stack. Hope that helps, and thanks for all the positive comments on the company. It is a great place to work.
“but with a focus on developing deployable payloads”
F238
Thank you for the clarification of that particular point.
I must admit that I had personally not fully appreciated (before today) that developing those flexible / adaptable / waterproof payload packages was a key part of this particular RN R&D programme
——————————
so, next…… the RN’s underwater service has always been known as the silent service ..
so from now onwards, can you and your team mates down at M-Subs
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS with the ongoing chaos at BAE Barrow …your uncrewed submarines might, just, be needed in service asap
Biggest in Europe — best dressed man in Cov accolade if ever I heard it.
Mission bay — needs reconfigured.
Can it accomodate a 14″ torpedo?
Perhaps if you want to patrol and investigate cables they would be a useful thing.
A surface ship with a VD side scan sonar would be better.
https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D4D12AQFXaMtx2RAcdQ/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/0/1678943279438?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=B4JAhNiT8-CzzaXxMXcBZ21PfE2lhnD4VIsaFlN1fU4
Much more stable below the large circle that is a wave and possibly cheaper, potentially more persistent, could be quieter I can see some potential advantages.
We need more than one replacement for HMS Scott. I know other ideas have been floated but there is no substitute. A big simple ship with a big side scan sonar. The only thing I would change, add, would be a flight deck.
A submarine may be closer to the cables but it can do very little. A ship up on the roof can do so much more.
Flightdeck AND Hanger…. people get all funny about having a warm shelter to work on the Helicopters !
OK you can have a hangar too. But to me the lack of flightdeck on something that displaces something like 13k tonnes seems a bit off……….
Zookeeper
The entire design concept / equipment etc etc of HMS Scott is nowdays “very long in the tooth”, especially for conducting “proper” wide-area deep ocean seabed surveys
So, whilst I am personally not a fan of either Yahoo news nor the (truely horrible!) colour scheme used to paint their newest ship – . this is what Ocean Infinity will probably soon being using
= to try to find the 21st centurys version of the Mary Celeste….
…….scanning the seabed of the vast Indian Ocean
……to try to find the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 plane
Final search for missing MH370 Malaysia Airlines flight begins after 11 years
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Yes. Personally though I would rather go to see with the accommodation (and bridge) amidships.
Apparently it was Appledore’s fault …. the arse end was sticking too far out into the Torridge that the Covered Dock was not sufficient enough to provide suitable warmth and shelter for the H&S contingent to sign off the landing and hanger section.
Other concerns were that If she had this extended rear capability , she would never have been able to cross the notorious Sand Bar…… I was lucky enough to watch her leave and see her venture out into the soon to be renamed… “American” Channel……
If the Torridge was dredged properly, It would be a great English site to build more RN Ships. NAB will tell us the current limitations though…..
HMS Scott… a little bit larger than a T26, T31 and a T45….. Appledore is the last English Shipyard to actually build complete Warships…. Bring back English Warship Production I say…. T32 would be a great start.
Ah! Thank you. I have never ever been aboard her.
Oops
Isn’t this just a bigger Boaty Mc Boatface?
How can it be unscrewed when it has a proeller?
Says unscrewed but it has a screw
Yeah thought it will be pump jet.
So, it’s not pump jet? How noisy is it?
At the 3-4 knots stated in the article, not very.
http://www.hisutton.com/images/Italy-Drass-DG160-Submarine-Cutaway.jpg
It has a Toilet !!!! (32).
A head. It is has a head. 😉 🙂
I suspect these USV will be big enough to have and will require a head and a small galley for maintenance teams………
Ah, the Irony !
A submarine is a tube full of tubes. To be big enough to be useful it will be too big to pull out of ogin every time it needs fixing. It might have to be fixed mid ocean. It will have to be big enough for engineers to move around inside with ease.
I think we need to invent micro sized autonomous engineers then !!! Maybe we can 3D print them.
Yes!
Funny you should mention that as they have !
MEMS or micro electromechanical systems
A lot of the tech in a phone now is Mems alongside the electronics, one you don’t think about is the microphone is now really ‘micro mechanical device, theres many others like accelerometers
The need for loitering UAV’s to defend fibre optic networks is high. They’ll need weaponising ASAP, not simply alert the Navy. Russian aggression is likely to increase rapidly, and these UAV need to be autonomous.
No one will allow a so called autonomous vechile in peace time attack another nations ships military or civilian.
What would such a vehicle do if it came across a trawler net snagging a cable sink the trawler that may have innocently done so.
http://www.hisutton.com/images/DRASS_DG85.jpg
The military and navy forces are using unlicensed technology software which has been extracted from multiple patents, removed from the patent and transferred to the mobile phone and cloud system then used illegally to connect autonomously to multiple devices, the operation is no different than connecting Bluetooth headphones or anything else for that matter to a mobile phone, electric vehicle, or military drones, it is all mass plagiarised technology illegally sold on pushed by greedy governments that is currently being investigated
That’s modern software development: cut and paste and tack it together! And despite sophisticated testing tools software today is poor. Speed and cheap memory is today’s paint that hides the poor fabrication mistakes.
They could have brought one from Ukraine especially as it seems to work well against Russia.
I am sceptical of British technology as of late because of the Aircraft Carriers are having so many troubles with flooding and engines not working.
Perhaps they can still use these Carriers if they change the engine with a nuclear power instead.
Thanks for taking a photo of the prop and making it public…
Might as well send china the acoustic signature while your at it…