Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Navy Launches Drone From Submerged Submarine

Posted by Soulskill on from the this-would-have-made-jack-ryan's-job-a-lot-easier dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "MarineLink reports that a fuel cell-powered, unmanned aerial system (UAS) aircraft has been successfully launched from the submerged 'USS Providence' (SSN 719). The drone flew a several-hour mission demonstrating live video capabilities streamed back to the submarine, offering a pathway to providing mission critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities to the U.S. Navy's submarine force. 'Developing disruptive technologies and quickly getting them into the hands of our sailors is what our SwampWorks program is all about,' says Craig A. Hughes, Acting Director of Innovation at the Office of Naval Research. 'This demonstration really underpins ONR's dedication and ability to address emerging fleet priorities.' The XFC UAS — eXperimental Fuel Cell Unmanned Aerial System — was fired from the submarine's torpedo tube using a 'Sea Robin' launch vehicle system designed to fit within an empty Tomahawk launch canister (TLC) used for launching Tomahawk cruise missiles already familiar to submarine sailors. Once deployed from the TLC, the Sea Robin launch vehicle with integrated XFC rose to the ocean surface, where it appeared as a spar buoy. Upon command of Providence's Commanding Officer, the XFC then vertically launched from Sea Robin and flew a successful mission."

32 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. Fuel cell based by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

    Somehow military hardware manages to be less destructive than civilian.

    1. Re:Fuel cell based by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      Well money is not an issue but reliability, longevity, and speed of refueling are all requirements.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Fuel cell based by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This begs the question, is the fuel cell technology in fact less destructive than whatever would normally have been used? A typical high-end hobbyist drone today uses the very clean and recyclable LiFePO4 chemistry, which also has more recharge cycles than previous Li-Ion technologies. Fuel cells are often made of exotic metals in high-energy processes. Most fuel cells are hydrogen cells, and most hydrogen is cracked from natural gas in an energy-intensive process. I know that Protonex works with hydrogen fuel cells, but I don't actually know for a fact that this is a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.

      I suspect that this is in fact more energy-intensive than the drone would have been simply using batteries, and if you used a nice clean fuel, it's certainly more energy-intensive than it would have been to use a microturbine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Re:not impressive by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    okay, then how about them Polaris nuclear missiles JFK was so proud of? Launched from submerged subs.

  3. "Expendable"? by cmuld3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd be more impressed if it were reusable. What happens to the buoy and the toy plane once it's done flying?

    1. Re:"Expendable"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Amazon buys them

    2. Re:"Expendable"? by kwiecmmm · · Score: 2

      before landing at the Naval Sea Systems Command Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC)

      The drone then landed at a site. It seems like they didn't throw away the drone here, the buoy could have been pulled back in (I am guessing it was tethered).

      I have other questions about the usefulness of this:
      1. What is the range of the drone? Could it fly halfway across an ocean to find a landing spot?
      2. Are these drones going to be able to do attacks? If so this could be a dangerous first strike vehicle controlled from halfway around the world, where folks have limited or no knowledge of what is happening on the ground.
      3. How many drones can subs hold? If it is only a few then it can only do a limited number of surveillance (or attack) operations before it needs to dock or surface to get another drone, which would most likely take it out of the areas that need to be monitored.

    3. Re:"Expendable"? by HtR · · Score: 2

      I believe they tried to make it reusable, but they had some technical glitches in getting the plane to fly back into the torpedo tube.

      Well, at least I thought I was funny.

      --
      Have you tried turning it off and on again?
    4. Re:"Expendable"? by Dorianny · · Score: 2

      The point of it is to be able to launch it without giving away your location to an enemy by surfacing. Once its mission is concluded you can land it in water and pick it up once the area is secure or the threat has passed.

    5. Re:"Expendable"? by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      You're wrong on all counts. Then again, I've actually served on a submarine, whereas you apparently haven't.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
  4. anyone else remember the 1980 movie 'Virus'? by themushroom · · Score: 1

    [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080768/]
    Launching a drone out of a submarine (in the movie's case, to gather air samples and get video of major cities) has been done before, in movie form anyhow.

    --
    Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
    1. Re:anyone else remember the 1980 movie 'Virus'? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080768/] Launching a drone out of a submarine (in the movie's case, to gather air samples and get video of major cities) has been done before, in movie form anyhow.

      So if aliens contact us it's not news worthy? Or FTL is invented? Because someone already showed it in a movie?

  5. How far we've come by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    It's like an episode of Star Blazers come to life.

  6. Re:not impressive by LuisAnaya · · Score: 1

    ... or tomahawks missiles for that matter. I presume that they meant: launched from a submerged submarine and landed without destroying anything. For some reason it reminds me the minisub from the Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

    --
    Vi havas e-poston.
  7. RF? by jdmuir · · Score: 1

    No worries that the Sub will be easier to find based on RF output?

    1. Re:RF? by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 1

      According to the article the UAS is completely autonomous. This means the sub can simply 'listen' to what the drone broadcasts without giving away its location. The drone may indicate a sub is within listening range, but it does not give away its location.

    2. Re:RF? by Bugler412 · · Score: 2

      spread spectrum, burst, drone broadcasts only during large portions of the flight, directional antennas working via satellite link to the drone. All ways of avoiding that problem, there's likely more too depending on the specifics. There may be missions where this isn't a concern, depends on the sophistication of the adversary I suppose

  8. Since the 60's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Breaking news:
    The Beatles had this technologies on their yellow submarine back in the 60's. YAWN...

    1. Re:Since the 60's by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Don't forget Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, with their flying sub.

      Oh, and UFO, with their sub-launched fighter.

    2. Re:Since the 60's by sconeu · · Score: 1

      UFO's version was called SkyDiver.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  9. Navy's drone program... by whizbang77045 · · Score: 2

    I knew the Navy's drone program was sunk.

  10. Life imitates life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, it turns out we are the Protoss all along. I always new that spamming carriers was the best way to win!

  11. Recovery by Cidtek · · Score: 1

    How is it recovered after a mission?

  12. In the NAVY! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Can't explain the utility of the mesh tunic uniforms though! Who let those women aboard?!!

    Or the purple wigs.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:In the NAVY! by sconeu · · Score: 2

      The purple wigs were for Moonbase. Gerry Anderson allegedly claimed they were for anti-static.

      But they did have some women in those mesh uniforms on SkyDiver!!! A 13 year old boy's dream!!!!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  13. Re:not impressive by bob_super · · Score: 1

    The only difference I can see is the buoy stage.
    Launch, move away, then get the drone airborne. This way the sub isn't threatened as soon as the drone gets spotted.

    But making a canister float and release remotely the drone isn't much compared to the normal launches.

  14. Re:Take this to NK and then we can be done with th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you can list a few "wars" where this strategy worked?

    NK is just fashionable today, like "Vietnam" was back in its day.

    Honestly, lets say NK is a terrible place and all that, why not just avoid it?

    Who says you need to be the world police? How many times has the world police made a situation worse then before?

  15. Re:not impressive by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    How about a land, air, or ship launched drone that flies to a pre-set location then submerges and homes-in on a submarine?

    I built guidance systems for ASROCs...

    http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/ASROC.html

    So I tend to think of things going the other way. It actually wouldn't be that hard to build such a drone with the hardware & tech available these days compared to the 1970s.

    I wonder how the Navy would feel about swarms of civilian flying-submersible drones shadowing & recording their submarine fleet?

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  16. Re:not impressive by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    No, but it made the 'Russkis' crap their pants; they weren't close to that at the time. :)

    I feel like this drone announcement is one of those achievements for the "Special" kids, to make them feel better about themselves.

    Based on what we've done in the past, I guess it is.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  17. Up, Up, Up, Up Periscope by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Johannes Gutenberg gave us the periscope, history later developing to the cleptoscope. The "Office of Naval Intelligence" has already gone way above this recently, with the launch of NROL-39 http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/12/05/u-s-spy-rocket-launching-today-has-octopus-themed-nothing-is-beyond-our-reach-logo-seriously/ The drone is aka "middle management".

    --
    Gently reply
  18. Re:Take this to NK and then we can be done with th by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    NK is working on getting nukes and you don't really want to that to happen.

  19. Re:Take this to NK and then we can be done with th by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Who says you need to be the world police? How many times has the world police made a situation worse then before?

    The general consensus of the free world made us the world police in our sphere of influence. The collapse of the various SSR's made our sphere of influence global. See also, the world asking the US to get involved in the first Gulf war, and the Yugoslavia breakup.

    Also, see our failure to act in Africa, and how no one else did.

    We tend to make things better more often than not. Success stories: Germany, Japan, South Korea, (First) Gulf War, Yugoslavia. Failures: Vietnam, (Second) Gulf War. To early to tell: Afghanistan. And the Second Gulf War was a retarded from the get-go.

    Yeah, Vietnam was really bad. But there we were explicitly asked to go in.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!