It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


sub launched UCAV

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 06:09 PM

Weird and crazy. it's range is limited but the advanatges are obvious.

[edit on 15-7-2006 by urmomma158]

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 06:51 PM
Ive seen some of these designs before and they are interesting. The concept goes back to atleast WW2 with the Japanese and their Sen Toku (Ghost fleet) I-400 class subs.

Ive even seen future concepts for massive aircraft carriers akin to modern US class ones which are infact submarines. But that would be the far future

Its likely we will see converted subs which will launch and recover UCAVs without ever comming to the surface much in the way they launch missiles while underwater. The UCAV would ofcourse come back unlike the missiles
and sink its self and be picked up by either a robotic arm from the sub or a dive team.

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 08:22 PM
A cheaper option would be to launch it from a pod which floats to the surface and then launches a somewhat conventional single-use mini-UAV - the pod also acting as the command relay station - it could be connected by cable to the sub for secure comms below the surface (less prone to accoustic countermeasures).

[edit on 15-7-2006 by planeman]

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 09:39 AM
check this out :

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 11:12 AM
Awesome link. Mast mounted means the sub needs to come quite close to the surface and stay there to control the uaV. But very credible method.

posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 01:12 PM
Chec this out.

These are the unltimate sam killers. Its like a cross between a UAV anda cruise missile. Anyway Stealthspy that was a great link there. Those UAV's are pretty useful,they're nice and small and have a good loiter time.

posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 02:39 PM
No offense, but the benifits don't seem obvious to me.

First off, why do we need a submarine to control the UAV? Most of these schemes require that the submarine control the UAV with a radio link, which will give away it's position just as quickly as the launch itself would. This largely negates the effort put into "shoot-and-scoot"ing from the launch site.

Why not control the UAV from another location? We've got bases around the world and through satelite communication you could stay in contact from anywhere on earth. Transmit the info. to the US, analyse it, then transmit the useful/relevant information back to the submarine.

Second, if the Sub. isn't going to control the UAV, why use it as a delivery system? A sub-launched/retrieved UAV is going to have a very compromised design if it's going to survive for multiple uses: limited size, range, and sensor load out. And it's going to be expensive, even by military standards.

UAVs - predator and Global Hawk in particular - have incredible range and endurance, and if we add in-flight refueling (not too big a jump) you could take a UAV anywhere you wanted and leave it there until mechanical failure became a problem.

Giving a submarine recon. abilities isn't a bad idea, but when you consider what other options we've got, putting the sub in charge seems like the most expensive and riskiest (to the ship) solution availible.

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:19 PM
This capability will be particularly useful when operating in the littoral where clandestine surveillance may be required or when other types of sensors are not available. The simplicity of the concept makes the Submarine Organic UAV a cost-effective solution for deploying an operational, over-the-horizon surveillance and targeting capability.

Organic, Disposable
Multi- Mission OTH Operations
8 Hour Endurance (100 mile “Fly Out” w/6 Hours on Station)
Up to 4 Vehicles in a Mast
GPS Aided Preprogrammed Flight or Manual Flight Control
UHF Uplink/Downlink
Preprogrammed Flight or Console Control from the Submarine or On Shore


Reconnaissance and Surveillance
Line-of-Sight Communications Relay
Special Operations Support
Target Detection and Localization
Decoy Planing/Jammers
Atmosphere Monitoring (CBR)
MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detection)
MICRO-UAV Delivery


8 Hour Endurance
50 Knots Cruise Speed
Cold Rocket Launch at PD
2.5 HP Cold Start Engine
Sealed Composite Construction

Single Board Computer
GPS Navigation
UHF COMMS Electronics

Color CCD/IR Camera
Environment Sensing

Control Systems
Combat System Console Interface
Hand Over to SOF Ashore

“The beauty of UAVs as other military users have found is they are economical, portable and reliable,” said Lt. Cmdr. Tom Armstrong, Commander, U.S. Naval Submarine Force anti-terrorism force protection officer.

The new UAV design is ideal for stealth, due to its ultra-quiet electric motor and small size.

Another plus comes in the versatility of the vehicle. According to Armstrong, it can be flown in all kinds of weather and can be launched in a very unique way.

“It can be flown via Global Positioning System (GPS). We just program what route we want it to fly and it doesn’t matter if it’s night or day, in bad weather or good," he said. "We could launch the UAV from the submarine at sea or launch it from shore depending upon the available range.”

Acquisition of this UAV for submarine force protection is still under consideration, but Armstrong is optimistic this technology will be a part of the fleet in the future.

> Link 2

Lockheed martin also has a sub launched UCAV project too :

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:05 PM

The communications link from the sub to the UAV can be unobservable, and I'm morally sure that's what they're using, since a LOT of the new stuff they aren't describing fully uses this technique.

There's no way to track or detect it at all. Moreover, the nature of the link gives you the UAV position inherently as if you had the thing on radar, which can be handy at times.

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

The communications link from the sub to the UAV can be unobservable, and I'm morally sure that's what they're using, since a LOT of the new stuff they aren't describing fully uses this technique.

There's no way to track or detect it at all. Moreover, the nature of the link gives you the UAV position inherently as if you had the thing on radar, which can be handy at times.

I was under the impression that radio transmissions were always detectable, at least to some degree (assuming you get close enough). Not being an expert, I'm perfectly willing to admit there might be systems/methods I don't know about... and untracable/undetectable comminications with UAVs would be an incredibly usefull thing.

I'd love to know how that works, but I doubt that information is "open to the public."

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:01 PM
Sub-based UAVs will give them a lot better intelligence. It also allows them to remain hidden and attack with UCAVs meaning they've got a constant source of protection and offensive capability. I expect you could use the missile launch tubes to launch a UAV without much trouble.

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 05:39 AM
Give me two directional antennas and you can traingulate the position of any radio signal.

The thing that would make it 'undetectable' is that the military transmits in frequencies well beyond those our products are capable of filtering out. It wouldnt' surprise me if they were 80 GHz or more.

You could still triangulate a position - but you couldn't isolate those transmission frequencies and would have to manually filter out clutter.

The idea is interesting.... Although it would make more sense to relay information to submarines using satelites (and that new 'green light' transmission system that will allow decent depth penetration - or other forms of communication.... I'm sure there are more than a few viable ones that stem from particle projection research) from land-launched drones - or satelites, themselves.

Although if you're dealing with an area that is inaccessable via land.... I could see where this could come in handy.... however, you could also use covert operations to support a submarine (but, there again, you deprive the submarine crew of directly utilizing the capability).

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 05:59 AM
Lot's of Recon units utilize wire antennaes and narrow transmission "beams" It shields the signal from detection unless the enemy ELINT squad is directly in between the HQ and Recon Squad, something similar might work, or then use a LASER link to subs radio mast...

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 06:32 AM
Also, you can see the links posted in this thread from back in February.

It's got a pretty good P.S. link.

[edit on 7/20/06 by redmage]

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:34 PM
RedMatt, Aim64C: Nope, it's not possible to localize the transmission through triangulation when done this way. You can't triangulate it because you can't find a signal. It's hard enough trying to locate a SINCGARS (although it can be done) but this technique is not interceptable.

If you don't have the timing key, the signal you're looking for isn't there. The total energy of the transmission is spread over the EM band "from DC to sunlight". There is no detectable emission at any one frequency. You have to have both a compatible emission/reception element and the timing key to reassemble the signal.

The math of the process provides a very accurate location for the transmitter as well, relative to the receiver. It's also very efficient, only a few milliWatts of transmitter power are needed to cover quite a distance, so it's great for small comm units and implanted sensor arrays like ELASTIC (though I think the guys that did ELASTIC ended up using something cheaper). Since it's not at any one frequency it can't be jammed, either.

It's a big hairy deal, a lot of new stuff uses it. We've been designing with it for a few years now. I have seen fielded devices come out with it recently, although they're sort of hand-waving over that part of it in the announcements.

northwolf: Wire antennas are either monopoles which are not directional at all, or dipoles which aren't very directional. Sort of like two teardrops meeting at the point.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Tom Bedlam]

new topics

top topics


log in