Video: Raytheon Engineers Develop New Infrared-Acoustic Sensor to Stop RPGs & ATGMs
By Kris Osborn - Warrior Maven
(Washington, D.C.) The Navy’s future attack submarines for the 2030s will be bigger, faster, more autonomous, networked and stealthier than the existing Virginia-class attack boats because greater size will allow for more advanced quieting technologies to be built into the boats.
Slated to emerge in the 2030s, a new SSN(X) class of attack submarines may be closer in size to the Navy’s much larger new columbia-class of nuclear-armed ballistic missilesubmarines, according to quotes from BWXT CEO Rex Geveden cited in areport from the U.S. Naval Institute.
The Columbia class is planned to displace about 20,000 tons – whereas the current Virginas displace about 8,000 tons. The Columbia-class hulls are about 42-feet in diameter, while the Virginias are 36-feet wide, the report says.
“A wider hull for submarines can improve characteristics like stealth, allowing ship designers to build in more sound-deadening technology and allow room to develop systems to increase a boat’s speed, but it is more expensive to build,” the USNI report states.
Will it be the stealthiest, most lethal attack submarine ever to exist? That ….is the Navy plan.
Plans for a next-generation attack submarine, as explained by Navy weapons developers, include launching long-range precision strikes, delivering Special Operations Forces on secret high-risk attack missions, conducting ISR missions, networking with platforms and -- perhaps of greatest significance - operating undetected in high-threat waters.
As part of the development for the boats, the Navy conducted a “SOF Optimization” Analysis of Alternatives to, among other things, find ways to engineer an attack submarine well suited for clandestine undersea SOF missions. These can includetargeted attackoperations, forward intelligence gathering or high-risk surveillance missions, among other things.
While particulartechnical details are often unavailable given the secret nature of these kinds of platforms, over the years senior Navy weapons developers have talked to The National Interest about some of the key areas of modernization focus; these include new coating materials to make the submarines stealthier, new antennas for longer-range, more accurate undersea surveillance missions and new “quieting” engine propulsion technology, among other things.
Recommended for You
All of these technologies, in fact, already exist in the USS South Dakota attack submarine -- the most advanced submarine ever to be delivered to the Navy. The new boat, which is now operational, began as a prototype, test-bed platform to evolve these new technologies.What all of these USS South Dakota innovations are informing current conceptual discussions now underway for the new generation of attack subs.
The technical elements ofundersea command and control for the new submarines, quite naturally, are likely being engineered with a mind to an expected increased use of underwater drones. The Navy is now moving quickly with efforts to build an entire new fleet of UUVs able to destroy mines, conduct lower risk forward surveillance, deliver supplies or even fire weapons with a “human-in-the-loop.” Navy developers have explained this in recent years, explaining how the service’s now in development Orca XLUUV - Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle - is being configured to fire torpedoes.
Also, according to Congressional testimony in 2016, cited in a report from SeaPower magazine, former PEO Submarines Rear Adm. Michael E. Jabaley Jr., the USS South Dakota includes a DARPA-engineered Hybrid Propulsor “which brings new acoustic advantages.”
Yet another area of innovation likely to figure prominently in the development of a new generation of attack submarines is “Fly-by-Wire” navigational controls such as those built into the Virginia class Block III boats; instead of using mechanically operated hydraulic controls, the Fly-by-Wire system uses a joystick, digital moving maps and various adaptations of computer automation to navigate the boat. This means that computer systems can control the depth and speed of the submarine, while a human remains in a command and control role.
A 2005 Naval War College Review essay cites Virginia-class submarines as a platform benefiting from a modular, or “open architecture” approach. Since its inception, the Virginia-class was built with a mind to prepare for future upgrades, as evidenced in the essay.
The Naval War College Review essay, interestingly, aligns with Navy program managers’ comments about the need to engineer for future technologies to permit quick integration of new systems. The essay describes it as “yet-unenvisioned equipment to be installed to counter unimagined threats, and an insistence that core enabling characteristics such as stealth never be compromised.” (From”The Submarine as a Case Study in Transformation:Implications for Future Investment,” James H. Patton Jr, 2005)
“From essentially a “lone wolf ” a decade ago, the submarine is now nearly universally accepted as a key node within network-centric warfare, the purveyor of “undersea dominance,” and an essential element of Sea Power 21 (a previously articulated Navy attack vision emphasizing information dominance),” the 2005 Naval War College Review essay writes.
With this essay in mind, there is substantial precedent for this kind of modular approach, looking at the multi-year trajectory of Virginia-class development; each Block has incorporated several impactful new technologies not yet present when the previous boats were built. For example, unlike Blocks I and II, Virginia-class Block III boats significantly increase firepower with the introduction of what’s called Virginia Payload Tubes adding new missile tubes able to fire 6 Tomahawks each. Block III also includes a new Large Aperture Bow “horseshoe-shaped” sonar, which switches from an “air-backed’ spherical sonar to a “water-backed” array, making it easier to maintain pressure, according to a 2014 report in “NavSource Online.”
The LAB sonar, which is both more precise and longer range than its predecessor, also advances the curve in that it introduces both a passive and “active” sonar system. Passive systems are used to essentially track or “listen” for acoustic pings to identify enemy movements. This can help conceal a submarine's position by not emitting a signal, yet can lack the specificity of an “active” sonar system which sends an acoustic “ping” forward. The submarine’s technology then analyzes the return signal to deliver a “rendering” of an enemy object to include its contours, speed and distance. In concept, sonar works similar to radar except that it sends acoustic signals instead of electronic ones.
Kris Osborn is the Defense Editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.