Unmanned patrol vessel

Pilot article

Cool, and they could connect it to Skynet. What could go wrong?

15 thoughts on “Unmanned patrol vessel

    1. Len, Textron Industries is a company unto itself. For now. Mergers and acquisitions happen all of the time. It is more likely Textron would buy a competitor. So no Boeing or Ingalls or any of the other DEFCONS we tend to see around here.

      Like

  1. RE: “What could go wrong?”

    Don’t let the .50 caliber machine gun throw you. If Wikipedia is to be believed, the CUSV’s design mission is to tow around a high-resolution sonar sensor in shallow waters looking for mines and submarines. The add-on capability to shoot up terrorists in motor boats is just a nice-to-have.

    Seriously, mine countermeasures are a necessary defense for a harbor like ours. I don’t know why The Pilot didn’t mention it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Surveillance and mine sweeping are fine,

      The .50cal with no person attached is not.

      And a person in a trailer in Arizona does not count. I want a real person familiar with the harbor and normal fishing and boating in the area, with full situational awareness.

      A .50 “manned” by some millennial who doesn’t feel the salt spray and hear the gulls or know how to tie a bowline has no business being able to shoot me.

      It’s not a ‘nice to have’ it’s a tragedy waiting to happen.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The person will be in a control room @ NAVTSTA.

        Your questioning of the qualifications of those trained to operate the equipment is troubling, to say the least. 18-21 year olds perform operations all of the time in the military that keep you and your fishing boat safe. Enjoy the safety, but don’t run down those who provide it.

        More proof that you are welcome to return to the 1950’s where attitudes like yours are welcome.

        Like

        1. The 18-21 yo’s are fine, but I want them there, in person, with full situational awareness before they pull the trigger on that .50cal.

          Someone in a trailer in Arizona who has never been on the water is not a substitute for a sailor looking me in the eye.

          Like

          1. Thank you for ignoring line 1 of my post. These are not Air Force (or Space for that matter) mindless, set it and forget it patrol boats. These are under the control of sailors who will be trained to operate them locally. And who know the local waters.

            Besides, when California falls into the Pacific, Arizona will be the right place for WEST COAST protection

            Your disdain for anything new is disheartening and possibly dangerous.

            Like

          2. RE: “These are under the control of sailors who will be trained to operate them locally.”

            Not necessarily. CUSVs normally deploy from Freedom and Independence-class littoral combat ships. The portable command center is part of an LCS mission module. The module operators could be from anywhere or even located anywhere.

            Dr. Tabor’s point is a fair one.

            Like

          3. In the case of Naval Station, there would be no need to deploy from the littoral class ships. The facilities are already in place to support any number of vessel, large or small. It would be a mistake , IMHO, to use littoral ships in home port.

            I think his point is uninformed. And not very well thought out.

            Like

          4. RE: “In the case of Naval Station, there would be no need to deploy from the littoral class ships.”

            Maybe so, but the The Pilot’s report doesn’t actually say that the experimental system will be deployed as a shore-based system. The only thing we know is that the test was to evaluate the mounting of a .50 caliber gun on a CUSV, an apparent expansion of the CUSV’s existing mission.

            Like

          5. Fair point. However, if we are talking about patrolling LOCAL waters, with the facilities and space available here, there would no no reason to base them on littoral ships which are used primarily overseas.

            Like

    2. RE: “It’s not a ‘nice to have’ it’s a tragedy waiting to happen.”

      I hear you. I’m just pointing out The Pilot article doesn’t tell the whole story. There’s a big difference between testing a capability and using it operationally.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Well an RPV is better than an autonomous one. Just stand clear because do you know what you call an RPV with a broken datalink? An unguided missile.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s