A while back, I briefly mentioned the Cormorant, Darpa’s idea for a sub-launched flying drone. Reader DS points us to the agency’s quick write-up of the 19-foot “multi-purpose unmanned aerial vehicle,” or MPUAV.
The idea is that the drone could handle “all-weather reconnaissance, battle damage assessment, or specialized mission support (e.g., special forces re-supply)” for the sub.
The Cormorants would be kept in the sub’s ICBM launch tubes, and released into the water as needed. From there, they’d be launched into the air “using two Tomahawk missile-derived solid rocket boosters.”
Upon mission completion, the turbofan engine-powered MPUAVs return to a designated retrieval point at sea, initiate engine shut down, and splash down to await recovery. During recovery, the submerged [sub] would deploy a remotely operated vehicle to secure an in-haul cable from the [sub] to the recovery tether deployed by the MPUAV. The [sub] would then haul the MPUAV to its designated launch tube [with a] saddle mechanism, where it would be docked and retracted into the missile tube.
StrategyPage, for one, isn’t so sure all that trouble is worth it.
Aircraft operating off submarines is nothing new… [During World War II], the Japanese built 44 subs that could carry a small float plane for reconnaissance. This idea was fine in theory, but much less successful in practice… Someone may read a history book before that, or remember that the United States has plenty of other satellite and long range UAVs that could provide air reconnaissance needs of U.S. subs.
And Darpa admits there are a whole bunch of technical hurdles to leap before the Cormorant would begin to make sense.
The launch and recovery procedure — including that “saddle” thingy — would have to go through “key risk reduction demonstrations.” So so would the drone’s high-pressure turbofan engine.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Good Morning Folks,
Me thinks the silly season is still with us. First it’s Limo Humvees to “Pimp” the ride for the Air Force, now launch and recover unmanned air recon. vehicles for submarines. Has anyone ever considered that the whole thing about the submarine is that you don’t know where it’s at. Let see a floating used MPUAV floating the next second it’s been snatched.
What’s next the Marines buying a junker M-151 from the DR and spending a $100K to make it fit into a C/V-22 and then buying 400 FRENCH designed UNARMORED vehicles and 120mm Mortars just because they will fit in the C/V-22. Nah it will never come to this.
While all this nonsense is going on the Army is faced with elimating two Heavy BCT’s because of the shortage of Abrams and Bradleys. The Armry is buying replacements for combat loses of these two vehicles about 1250 Abrams Tanks and over 2,250 Bradleys. But these numbers come up short of full replacements for lost or worn out vehicles. At least all will be of the mini modernized M-3 variant.
The Army’s solution is to rotate BCT’s into their equppment or equipment for 33 BCT’s to be shared by 35 BCT’s. The C/V-22 has become a cancer that is eating up budgets for equipment that troops need now.
It’s time to KILL all the 22 beasts once and for all or we can start calling the Military “Catch 22″, like in F-22 and C/V-22.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Don’t ever quote Strategypage. Those guys have no idea what in the hell they are talking about and have proved that fact on several occasions. As for the guy above, military is expensive.
Somebody’s been watching a little too much bad 1970s sci-fi — this reminds me of the Skydiver submarine/interceptor from the old British TV series UFO.
http://www.ufoseries.com/hardware/skydiver-S.jpg
The question is why this capability would be needed at all.
It can be done so much easier from other platforms…and even from concrete runways.
Sounds like
a) High tech thinking…hopefully not more.
b) attempt to find a new justification for the SSN force (and new SSN’s).
Maybe it would work, but the inspections of the recovered drone alone would necessitate a harbor and therefore make this incapable of any kind of routine mission.
Let me tell you, as a submariner a UAV would be a godsend. You spend a disturbing amount of time at PD blind as a bat because the waves are higher than your scopes and surface noise is blinding your sonar. The ability to pop a UAV out to take a high look would make life a lot safer. It’d also help out a ton on the surface, to negotiate crowded harbors and provide eyes in the sky for force protection. A UAV would also be mighty useful in littoral recon missions, or anything else requiring a better eye than a scope barely out of the water. That being said, this thing looks way too big, fancy, and pricey. It wouldn’t fit on a 688 (or Seawolf, or VA) and, being unnecessarily complex, it would probably always be malfunctioning. What we really need is a glorified model airplane with a little more brains and a camera, not some killer hydro-drone. And frankly, the retrieval looks to be next to impossible for a submerged boat, so get something cheap and small enough to be disposable (and maybe even shootable from a 3″ launcher.)
Miltary capability isn’t about “How much you can fit into one space”. Military capabilty is taking a box and seeing what you can do with it. Sub surface Navy’s “box” currently is the MPUAV. We’ve seen about 10 of these come out across the services and some were supposed to be ” a waste of money”. Like any industry, the military also runs of innovation of new technology. With this comes trial and error. All we can do is sit back and see i it works , or what they learn from their mistakes. Besides, if it is successful, it could branch services wth each one getting its own designation for different things. But to some it up, instead of the ludricous overkill comment, you should have just went with the osprey to begin with anyhow. But wait, they even got that to work.
Wouldn’t the sub be giving its location away? At least make it the size of a Harpoon missile or smaller-
:)
waste of money yes, but cool idea.
Long overdue & needed.
Good for use on FBM types, can it be Land launched too.
Id even add weapons in denterline Bay for use aside Recon module.
Recovery can be by Carrier, cruisier, DD, FF & LHD LHA types.
Very doable.
Do some tests near Pt Mugu Naval Base CA.
Or near Pearl in HI.
Great for US Customs & Border security alone.
You don’t know what’s going on up there, but you’re going to make yourself extremely visible by launching an airplane? You might as surface.
Better yet, launch a few more satellites specifically for supporting sub operations. No exotic technology needed. I think DARPA has “drone fever.”
What? The USS Seaview used one for YEARS!!1!
AND it was yellow…
I seem to remmber a program to use a Tomahawk CM for the same purpose. It would seem the more cost effective starting point,Especially if it had the ablity for Delayed or Remote launch. As for recovery you need to deal with the ballasting problem of the fuel tanks and engine.