Steadfast XO: Will USVs and UUVs Disrupt Existing Naval Power?

A quiet revolution is underway in Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV) & Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV). Ukraine didn’t have much of a Navy when Russia invaded, but has been able to sink over 20 Russian naval vessels since then, forcing the Russian navy into a much reduced role. The sinkings were mainly carried out by Unmanned Surface Vehicles and missiles. Navy forces are expensive to maintain and take a long time to build up. In the future, could a nation quickly build up an extensive Naval capability? Could this cost-effective, unmanned Navy then defeat a more expensive traditional one? When we wrote our Drone Swarms series in 2022, a lot of this thinking was speculative, but now increasingly sounds like it could occur.

In that series, we talked about AI-powered boats providing an autonomous and persistent scanning and sensing capability. That would provide a country with better intelligence, and could offer a decided edge. In another article on submarines, we discussed a radical reduction in the form factor of submarines. In a piece on 3D printed wolf packs, we discuss simple vessels whose only job is to trail capital ships; especially without the need for oxygen, water, and food, the length at sea of those craft could be extended significantly. We also introduce the concept of the Always On Navy, where Naval capability could be airdropped to different theaters, and vessels could have persistent interchangeable roles. The powerful idea is that even if a huge naval power has 200 ships, you could inexpensively make 3,000 vehicles to engage them.

In the Always On Navy article, we look at the finances of this, noting that “A carrier is maintained more than it is at sea and only actually operational around a fifth of the time. So, the U.S. has 11 carriers, with a fifth active at any one time. At the moment, the U.S. Navy has 295 ships of which 55 are classed as ‘deployed ships underway.'”

“A September 2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the fleet envisioned in the document would cost an average of between $25.3 billion and $32.7 billion per year in constant FY2021 dollars to procure.”

“Remember that a 355-level goal would, in current terms, mean that the U.S. would spend around $30 billion to get 60 more vessels, of which there would effectively be an extra 15 ships at sea at any time. That’s just the procurement costs.

“CBO estimates that total shipbuilding costs, including costs for nuclear refueling and unmanned systems, would average about $34 billion per year (in 2021 dollars), 10 percent more than the Navy estimates. Annual operation and support costs for the fleet would grow from $74 billion today to $113 billion by 2051. The Navy’s total budget would increase from about $200 billion today to $279 billion (in 2021 dollars) by 2051.”

The US Navy momentarily spends $3 billion a year in maintenance for every ship afloat. This is patently ridiculous, and it is clear that the Navy is being disrupted by current stage technology. The idea of a Navy is to be able to project and use power at sea, which can include some kind of destructive capability, or the ability to help land forces somewhere. Countering enemy Naval forces and other threats are key abilities as well. In Afghanistan and later, we could see the Navy play a role whereby they were far away, but still could project air power and launch cruise missiles from remote areas. Currently, the US Navy’s ability to show up with a fleet that is probably more powerful than your Navy and Air Force is formidable. At the same time, we can see that in a failed operation against the Houthis, the US Navy spent around $4 billion. Meanwhile, the Houthis are acquiring increasingly effective missile and drone capabilities on the cheap. The US is at a crossroads where it cannot afford to win any longer, let alone lose.

Adversarial Planning 1: China

So imagine for a moment that you’re China, and you are working on building ships faster than the US. At the same time, new long-range missiles and hypersonics are being developed at great costs. You’re behind on some technical capabilities and know you won’t win in others. But, your goal is to eventually win. For now, keeping the US at bay and making it too expensive for them to interfere, in Taiwan for example, is enough. You know that eventually the US will bankrupt itself in search of military supremacy in an eerie echo of what the Soviets did. We don’t officially know what China is spending on its Navy; indeed, the total figure of defense spending is believed by many to be $245 billion, while others think it may be three times higher.

Imagine I pitch the following to you: for 10% of our defense budget—around $2.4 billion—I will build and maintain 10 labs that will be for underwater drone deployment. These ships will have factories on board where we can 3D print and create the propellers, valves, and pumping systems (LPBF), chassis and large metal components (DED), metal components (bound metal FDM), dielectric components (bound metal), large polymer components (large format material extrusion), regular polymer components (material extrusion), circuits (mSLA, DIW, SMT Pick and place), wire harnesses (Q5), bladders/fuel cells/seals (Chromatic), connectors (SLA) and assemblies (SLA, LPBF), and munitions (material extrusion), charges/warheads/solid rocket motors (SLA and FDM). Each of these labs will be set up to make 30 UUV vessels a day. We probably won’t be able to make every single component, but we hope to go towards around 90% of components in five years. At the same time, you task 10 commercial businesses and 10 institutes/universities to develop the same capabilities, all for a decade. That would cost $1.8 billion in its entirety, and give each lab $6 million in setup costs for the building, $6 million in equipment, and eight years of development. That would leave another $600 million in materials for them to use, on top of the $6 million a year in budget, after paying for the lab and all equipment. And if you don’t think that’s enough to deliver a significant capability, then realize that these are not inflated gravy train US numbers, but money spent in China.

Let’s say that after the fact, you’re happy with their work, and you commission them to continue work and produce UUVs at scale—just 30 a day per lab in 2035. Pretend they are not very effective, completing only half of that target. This would still mean that they produce 180,000 UUVs a year. Let’s say that in any attack you’d need 1,000 to overwhelm defenses. Congratulations—you’ve just eliminated around half the US Navy for what it costs the US to maintain a single ship per year. I’m not saying these things will be perfect. They just have to be good enough for 1,000 at a time to sink one US ship. Mind you, this can all be done with current stage technology. There’s no magic here, you’d just need a lot of machines, which are getting cheaper every year. Feel free to do your own estimates, but to me this is a completely realistic proposition. If you were running the Chinese military, would you commission this plan? I don’t see how you can’t.

Adversarial Planning 2: Houthis

Imagine you lead the Houthis, and you’re a bit worried about the viability of Iranian support. But, you are earning $180 million a month from transit fees. On what would you spend a third of one month’s earnings? Maybe some air defenses? How about your very own hand layup, large scale material extrusion, sand casting Shahed drone plant? A human and 3D printing-powered Firestorm, but perhaps a bit more low-tech. Could you set up such a facility for around $15 million? And would you then be able to churn out Shahed drones continuously? Yes, on both counts.  How many of them could you make for the remaining $15 million? 350? We would be deluding ourselves if we believed that localized 3D printed arms production will limit itself to the western nations. Hezbollah has been making shells and increasingly sophisticated missiles for decades now. The group takes in tonnes of ammonium nitrate per year. Indeed, in austere weapons modification and production, it is groups like Hezbollah that have the most experience. We also mustn’t forget that the first to weaponize FPV drones was Isis, in 2014. These guys haven’t spent the last 11 years sitting on their hands waiting to head butt a Hellfire missile.

Allied Planning 1: the Netherlands

The Belgian and Dutch governments have spent about $1 billion per frigate and a program cost of over $6 billion putting Tomahawks on frigates. OK, so how can we do something similar, but on the cheap? Let’s buy a Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) battery for around $200 million and 100 missiles ($2M each). Now let’s pop the battery on a $25 million Eureka Naval Craft Aircat. Then, we spend $325 million integrating the battery and some nice Thales or Leonardo stuff. It’s not a really safe vessel, but we put some drones on it for protection at $100 million. Then we just put on a bunch of cameras and automate it, for $500 million. Like a Predator pilot in a container, a bunch of Dutch sailors in Den Helder will do their best to steer the vessel remotely. Now this thing isn’t autonomous, just remotely operated. Maybe two Wall-E type guys are on it to repair essentials using 3D printers. Isn’t this a vastly superior model to putting 230 people in harm’s way for more money per vessel? 

What about an alternative? We buy 30 used Dive Support Vessels (DSV). Using medium and large format additive, as well as rapid casting, we quickly change these vessels. We put the absolute minimum in anti-missile and anti-ship defenses. Then we man the $80 million ship with a better radar and EM defense package, and send these ships buzzing around the Atlantic dropping UUVs everywhere. These vehicles will be similar to the Manta Ray and be built for long term survival at sea (but hopefully smaller). Here, we’d be using additive for the Manta Ray, and to adapt the vessels quickly and cheaply. We’d do the same with a few aging oil tankers, which we’d convert into drone carriers. Now we have a robotized Navy in that we’re using autonomous and remotely-operated vehicles to reduce the number of sailors at sea. We’d put less men and women at risk, but also reduce the need for other men and women to protect them, cook for them, etc.

At the same time we’d be building up a similar, but much reduced, capability than a US Navy strike group, but for pennies on the dollar. Could such a Drone Strike Group engage a Chinese force successfully? Probably not, but it would likely make mincemeat over much of the aging Russian Navy, and be a credible but more expendable threat to Iran. Meanwhile for almost any other emergency, strike, peacekeeping mission worldwide against anyone else it will suffice. And in a war, this could be a forward deployed force backed up by the regular Navy. Do you like Loyal Wingman? You’ll love Steadfast XO. Less political risk, cheaper, less lives at stake, and for most things, just as effective. Able to counter most Navies or threats worldwide, and a helpful addition against those exquisite threats, Steadfast XO is the future.

On the whole, I think it is clear that Naval planners worldwide should think of the advantages of a sailor-less Navy. They probably won’t go for it, but a segment of a Navy with 5% of the seamen at risk is one that could—for much less cost—provide an effective defense against the threats of today and tomorrow.