New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile, also the USN

https://twitter.com/x/status/1827668229969289571

Further to.

The USN maintains an organization called SURFDEVGRU 1. It is the home for the Zumwalts. They are now, functionally, testbeds for good idea fairies to play with.

SURFDEVGRU 1 is also responsible for USVRON 1 and USVRON 3.

USVRON 3 has just been stood up (17 May 2024) under a Captain. It comprises 400 sailors focused on operating a powered sUSV of 16 ft called the Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft.

Other sUSV programs are covered by Task Force 59 (Task Group 50.1) and by the USMCs LRUSV program.

SURFDEVGRU 1 also manages USVRON 1, previously known as USVDIV 1. That unit, under a Commander, has taken part in RimPac 2022 and Autonomous Warrior 2023. In both cases the exercise are extended from California to Australia by way of Hawaii, Japan and the First Island Chain.

USVRON1 has taken over from the Overlord Ghost Fleet program. It currently manages three OSVs (Ranger and Mariner (193ft) and Vanguard (<200ft)), and 2 Sea Hunter class MUSVs (Sea Hunter and Seahawk). Sea Hunter is a 2016 DARPA build and Seahawk is a Leidos build from 2021.

Ranger and Mariner are sister ships delivered in 2021 with Mariner being delayed in service while it was outfitted with a virtual Aegis capability. Vanguard is a new build Austal design based on lessons learned that only hit the water this January.
Ranger and Mariner are Fast Crewboat OSV conversions based on the previous Riley Claire that was commissioned as the Nomad. The Nomad transited the Panama Canal in October 20 from east to west, 4421 nautical miles. It is reported that the crossing was 98% Autonomous.

On Sep 4 2021, while still under the Ghost Fleet, the USV Ranger, a 193 ft OSV, launched an SM6 missile from a Lockheed Martin mk 70 Payload Delivery System (a 40 ft ISO Sea Can) mounted on its cargo deck.

This is in keeping with the aims of the LUSV programme, to get more missiles into the fight.

...

On 13 January 2022 the Ghost Fleet was transferred to the USN and stood up as USVDIV One. USVDIV One took part in RimPac 2022 with Nomad, Ranger, Sea Hunter and Seahawk under command. Other assets included MQ-8B Fire Scouts and MQ-9A/B Sea Guardians.

Comments were generally about the payloads and how to integrate the weapons and sensors into the common engagement system. The ships seemed to behave themselves in terms of keeping station and staying out of the way.

USV Mariner, Ranger's sister, which was fitted with the Aegis system, might have answered some of the integration issues was too late for the RimPac 22 party. It joined USVDIV One on 24 Aug 2022.

...

On 7 Aug 2023 a USVDIV One flotilla, under the command of Independence class LCS-24 Oakland, an Austal built trimaran, departed California with Ranger, Mariner, Sea Hunter and Sea Hawk in company. It transited by way of Hawaii and Yokosuka (21 Sep 23), Guam, the Marshall Islands and Papua New Guinea, arriving in Sydney on 24 Oct 23. The flotilla took part in exercise Autonomous Warrior 2023 with the RAN, concluding on 3 Nov 23. The deployment completed on 15 Jan 24 on return to San Diego.

The four vessels sailed a combined 46,000 nautical miles, and stayed in autonomous mode almost all of the time. Human crews were on hand to intervene when needed, but this was infrequent, he told USNI. About once every two weeks, an intervention would be required for one of the ship's systems, whether mechanical systems, comms links or autonomy systems.

The autonomy suite only had to be deactivated 13 times for all four vessels over that time period. “We’re having to actually have a human step in and correct the autonomy less than one time per month," Searles told USNI.

U.S. Navy Launches its First Purpose-Built Midsize USV

Austal USA has launched the U.S. Navy's first purpose-built midsize unmanned vessel, Vanguard, Naval Sea Systems Command announced last week. Vang...

maritime-executive.com

....

Concurrent Activity

9 Sep 2022 - EPF-13 Apalachicola (one of 14 Austal built fast ferries in service with the MSC) was taken into service after passing its autonomous trials.

EPF 13 also completed Unmanned Logistics Prototype trials assessing autonomous capabilities integrated into the shipboard configuration, demonstrating that a large ship can become a self-driving platform.

In transit from Mobile, Alabama, to Miami, Florida, Apalachicola’s autonomous system completed a stress test in high-traffic coastal areas by taking appropriate ship handling actions while operating around other ships, boats, sailboats, and craft. Overall, the ship was in autonomous mode for approximately 85 percent of the multiple day at-sea period.

The future USNS Apalachicola Achieves Milestones with Acceptance Trials and Completion of

The future USNS Apalachicola (EPF 13), the Navy’s 13th Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport successfully completed Acceptance Trials and Unmanned Logistics Prototype Trials.Acceptance Trials

www.navsea.navy.mil

25 Oct 2023 - LCS-28 Savannah, another Austal trimaran with plant and deck area similar to the EPFs like Apalachicola, launched an SM-6 from a mk70 PDS strapped to its flight deck. This is the same launcher previously employed on the LUSV/OSV Ranger in 2021. This suggests to me that both the LCS and the EPF hulls could meet the requirements of the LUSV programme in terms of bringing more missiles to the fight.

20 Dec 2023 - 720 HR Maintenance Free Run on a Diesel Generator - this milestone was a requirement of Congress to advance funding on autonomous ships.

15 Jan 2024 - Austal Louisiana launches USV Vanguard - its own LUSV design.

....

Current Activity


19 Feb 2024 - RAN announces plan for 6 Large Optionally manned Surface Vessels to be built to the same specs as the USN LUSV requirement.

23 Apr 2024 - RAN and Austal complete the Patrol Boat Autonomy Trials. Austal took over a decommissioned Armidale (Maitland) and refitted it as Sentinel.

Austal Australia completes sea trials for Royal Australian Navy's Patrol Boat Autonomy Trial

MEDIA RELEASE 23 APRIL 2024 Austal Australia completes sea trials for Royal Australian Navy's Patrol Boat Autonomy Trial In a noteworthy development within the Australian maritime sector, the collaborative Patrol Boat Autonomy Trial (PBAT) project has successfully completed Sea Acceptance Trials...

www.austal.com

17 Jun 2024 - USN issues an RFI for the delivery of 7 Autonomous OSVs, new or used, from stock or new build, but no new designs, with first delivery 12 months of signing and last delivery in 24 months. Responses required in one week, 7 days.

[td width="171pt"]

The LUSV will deliver adjunct missile magazine capacity to the Fleet as part of the Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations concept. The LUSV is envisioned to be greater than 200 ft. in length with a full load displacement of approximately 1,500 tons. LUSVs are intended to be low-cost, high endurance, modular USVs that can employ a variety of payloads.​

[/td]​

....

The Aussies are not hanging around to see what everybody else is doing. In addition to building their own missile factories and signing contracts for ESSMs, AIM-120s, MLRS FMOM, Patriots, NSMs and JSMs, they are leading the way on the Loyal Wingman program with the Ghost Bat and on the XLUUV program with the Ghost Shark. I could also point to the Wedgetail and to their involvement in the AUKUS program.

I also note that the same software houses keep showing up on all the new "drone" projects regardless if they fly, swim, float or crawl.

....

Finally, WRT the EPFs, as @Colin Parkinson noted, 12 of the 14 EPFs are being "uncrewed" and put into "extended maintenance". I suggest that that is not the same as being decommissioned, especially if the vessels are capable of autonomous operation. They can keep their windows and cabins and flight decks so that they retain their multi-functional utility. But equally they could sortie as a flotilla, armed with SM6s, under the supervision of manned LCS vessels. The two manned EPFs would make for useful platforms for training and housing the maintainers necessary to keep the vessels functional and ready to deploy from "extended maintenance".

...

5 years. Not 50.

 

[Furniture]

5 years. Not 50.

We have been promised self driving cars for well over a decade, and they are still not ready for the big leagues. Why would a more complex machine, with a far more complex operating environment, be ready on such a short timeline?

Automation is making ships more efficient, but autonomous operations beyond the most basic tasks in relatively safe/not busy waters is still a long way off. Avoiding a tanker sailing at a steady speed and course in open water isn't like avoiding small pleasure craft and fishing vessels in more confined spaces.

 

[Kirkhill]

Because in war time you can clear the traffic and give priority to war craft.

Also, all the ships have to do is play follow the leader and keep station.

Screw the civilians.

 

[Furniture]

Because in war time you can clear the traffic and give priority to war craft.

Also, all the ships have to do is play follow the leader and keep station.

Screw the civilians.

That's not how the real world works... We can't have navy ships plowing through fishing fleets, and pleasure craft just because there is a war happening somewhere in the world.

First of all, that would be the fastest way to see support for the war die completely in Canada. Secondly, fishing gear will foul the shafts and make the ships dead in the water targets.

 

[Pelorus]

Peacetime collision avoidance, with some exceptions, is the low hanging fruit of naval complexity. It's something we expect our Naval Warfare Officers to have cased before most other warship considerations.

If the answer to current technological limitations in this area is "during war the complexity will drop, so it won't be a problem", then I'm going to feel as confident in that USV as I do when I pass a Tesla on the highway and see a distracted driver with their hands off the wheel.

 

[YZT580]

Peacetime collision avoidance, with some exceptions, is the low hanging fruit of naval complexity. It's something we expect our Naval Warfare Officers to have cased before most other warship considerations.

If the answer to current technological limitations in this area is "during war the complexity will drop, so it won't be a problem", then I'm going to feel as confident in that USV as I do when I pass a Tesla on the highway and see a distracted driver with their hands off the wheel.

whilst theoretically you are correct, there are currently several American captains plus a norwegian skipper all looking for work that might prove you wrong and that is just in the last couple of years

 

[FJAG]

We have been promised self driving cars for well over a decade, and they are still not ready for the big leagues. Why would a more complex machine, with a far more complex operating environment, be ready on such a short timeline?

Automation is making ships more efficient, but autonomous operations beyond the most basic tasks in relatively safe/not busy waters is still a long way off. Avoiding a tanker sailing at a steady speed and course in open water isn't like avoiding small pleasure craft and fishing vessels in more confined spaces.

Honestly, the operation of an autonomous ship navigating the ocean (even off the Asian coast), is probably a much simpler problem then that of a car navigating the streets of Los Angeles.

My questions are more about taking control back, communication links and maintenance at sea.

 

[Furniture]

Honestly, the operation of an autonomous ship navigating the ocean (even off the Asian coast), is probably a much simpler problem then that of a car navigating the streets of Los Angeles.

My questions are more about taking control back, communication links and maintenance at sea.

I'm not an NWO, but even as a casual observer on the bridge of a few ships in busy waterways, I'd say you are so far off the mark it isn't even funny.

Spent much time in the Straight of Malacca? Even the Straight of Juan De Fuca gets weirder than LA Traffic.

A couple of radars mounted 14+m above sea level are going to struggle to spot small contacts in perfect conditions. Most of the time at sea, perfect conditions don't exist.

My last entrance to Esquimalt harbour had us under 300m from a Glen tug before we could visually spot it. We had a lookout sitting on the forecastle as we crept toward harbour, so we didn't hit a small boat or fishing gear.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'm not an NWO, but even as a casual observer on the bridge of a few ships in busy waterways, I'd say you are so far off the mark it isn't even funny.

Spent much time in the Straight of Malacca? Even the Straight of Juan De Fuca gets weirder than LA Traffic.

A couple of radars mounted 14+m above sea level are going to struggle to spot small contacts in perfect conditions. Most of the time at sea, perfect conditions don't exist.

My last entrance to Esquimalt harbour had us under 300m from a Glen tug before we could visually spot it. We had a lookout sitting on the forecastle as we crept toward harbour, so we didn't hit a small boat or fishing gear.

My wife's Uncle was a Chief Mate on a Malaysian Coast Guard buoy tender in the Straits of Malacca, that place is utterly crazy, with pirates for spice.

 

[FJAG]

I'm not an NWO, but even as a casual observer on the bridge of a few ships in busy waterways, I'd say you are so far off the mark it isn't even funny.

Spent much time in the Straight of Malacca? Even the Straight of Juan De Fuca gets weirder than LA Traffic.

A couple of radars mounted 14+m above sea level are going to struggle to spot small contacts in perfect conditions. Most of the time at sea, perfect conditions don't exist.

My last entrance to Esquimalt harbour had us under 300m from a Glen tug before we could visually spot it. We had a lookout sitting on the forecastle as we crept toward harbour, so we didn't hit a small boat or fishing gear.

Yup. Not a sailor but ...

How much are we trying to navigate what is basically a cheap unmanned floating weapons platform through crowded waterways anyway? I don't see these types of ships as ones that you use for a ports of call visit nor without being part of a hybrid flotilla.

The little - and I mean little - that I know of operating a ship is that navigation is heavily rules-based. Rules-based processes are what computers are good at working at. Add to that that as part of a hybrid flotillas, I expect that there will be a fairly close human oversight of their operations.

Highways, on the other hand, have hundreds of cars operating at high speed in very close proximity to each other. Reaction times are considerably shorter; rules are more malleable.

I don't want to minimize the issues involved, but at the same time there is a risk of a degree of over-complicating the problem. It seems almost like we're approaching a "no we can't" attitude. (And believe me from an army standpoint the "no we can't give reservists complex equipment" attitude is one that is equally or more ingrained and keeping the army from looking for cheaper manpower solutions - but I digress)

Considering how long it takes to lay down hulls, or in @Kirkhill's case, militarizing commercial solutions - its already too late to start. A simple step forward is to design and build a ship with a minimal crew - say ten - with enough accommodation for them. Once the software is up to snuff, remove the crew - and even replace them for a difficult transit through crowded sea lanes. When conflict is imminent remove the crew and let slip the dogs of war.

Unfortunately, what I see is a navy that will just add a number of minimally armed but moderately crewed ships to replace the MCDVs in the near future. While I think some patrol ships are necessary, we are a country with three major shorelines. We have only a handful of surface combatants at our beck and call and there needs to be a way to economically bring more weapons systems to bear. Autonomous weapons platforms do that.

 

[Underway]

I guess that I'm a victim of the gunner philosophy of concurrent activity. I see something like cheap minimally-manned or autonomous vessels as part of a hybrid flotilla as an inevitability. To me that means the goals should be set now and the experimentation, whether on our own or as part of an allied partnership, should be happening as we speak.

Being on the bleeding edge of technology always incurs some risk. On the other hand, waiting for the risk to be zero, coupled with our long design and delivery dates for vessels, will create significant delay and bring in considerable risk of its own that we either do not have the operational systems when needed or we keep investing in less useful systems (such as an MCDV replacement) which has limited capabilities and ties up resources for years to come.

I don't want to sound quarrelsome - although being a non sailor I don't doubt that I do sound that way - but sometimes one needs to take a leap of faith.

I find myself in the situation where, while @Kirkhill and I aren't in lockstep, we're marching in the same general direction.

Unfortunately the RCN operates alongside civilian traffic every day unlike the army who does not. Which opens us up to all sorts of liability and law violations not to mention lives at stake, if this isn't gotten right, similar to UAVs for the airforce that have to be qualified to fly within civilian airspace.

I have yet to see a USV that can autonomously see and avoid a dead head or slow down when there is a whale sighting, respond to victoria traffic calls etc...

Minimally crewed though, that poses some interesting option that should be examined right now.

 

[Underway]

Yup. Not a sailor but ...

How much are we trying to navigate what is basically a cheap unmanned floating weapons platform through crowded waterways anyway? I don't see these types of ships as ones that you use for a ports of call visit nor without being part of a hybrid flotilla.

The little - and I mean little - that I know of operating a ship is that navigation is heavily rules-based. Rules-based processes are what computers are good at working at. Add to that that as part of a hybrid flotillas, I expect that there will be a fairly close human oversight of their operations.

Highways, on the other hand, have hundreds of cars operating at high speed in very close proximity to each other. Reaction times are considerably shorter; rules are more malleable.

I don't want to minimize the issues involved, but at the same time there is a risk of a degree of over-complicating the problem. It seems almost like we're approaching a "no we can't" attitude. (And believe me from an army standpoint the "no we can't give reservists complex equipment" attitude is one that is equally or more ingrained and keeping the army from looking for cheaper manpower solutions - but I digress)

Considering how long it takes to lay down hulls, or in @Kirkhill's case, militarizing commercial solutions - its already too late to start. A simple step forward is to design and build a ship with a minimal crew - say ten - with enough accommodation for them. Once the software is up to snuff, remove the crew - and even replace them for a difficult transit through crowded sea lanes. When conflict is imminent remove the crew and let slip the dogs of war.

Unfortunately, what I see is a navy that will just add a number of minimally armed but moderately crewed ships to replace the MCDVs in the near future. While I think some patrol ships are necessary, we are a country with three major shorelines. We have only a handful of surface combatants at our beck and call and there needs to be a way to economically bring more weapons systems to bear. Autonomous weapons platforms do that.

Rules at sea are far more flexible and hard to interpret then car traffic rules. Can a USV identify the difference between a sailboat under power or under sail? What about a fishing vessel fishing or one just transiting. How about a power driven vessel Not Under Command in the day vs at night vs a Power Driven vessel at anchor or restricted in its ability to maneuver (again day or night). Or recognize that it's in fog and all the rules change (including sound signals now!)

 

[FSTO]

Rules at sea are far more flexible and hard to interpret then car traffic rules. Can a USV identify the difference between a sailboat under power or under sail? What about a fishing vessel fishing or one just transiting. How about a power driven vessel Not Under Command in the day vs at night vs a Power Driven vessel at anchor or restricted in its ability to maneuver (again day or night). Or recognize that it's in fog and all the rules change (including sound signals now!)

So we could spend billions developing the AI that will be able to recognize and react to COLREGs situations. And then spend billions to build and test the craft to handle the maritime environment.

Or.......we keep the humans.

 

[Kirkhill]

So we could spend billions developing the AI that will be able to recognize and react to COLREGs situations. And then spend billions to build and test the craft to handle the maritime environment.

Or.......we keep the humans.

Or we buy the software from the Aussies, or the Yanks, or the Norwegians,, or Palantir, or Anduril or Kratos or...the Japanese

First autonomous vessels already sailing in Japan - SYM Naval

Large autonomous vessels have already begun trials in Japan. The technology was tested earlier this year on two ferries and a container ship.

sym-naval.com

Japanese group to trial autonomous ship navigation

The Nippon Foundation and NYK Group subsidiaries are leading a consortium trialling autonomous navigation technology on container ships

www.rivieramm.com

....

I will stipulate that humans can handle more complex situations than AI. No problems acknowledging that. But there is much that AI can do and we can exploit those capabilities while accepting the limitations.

As @FJAG says, and I was trying to convey, we are not talking about fully functional warships here. We are talking about intelligent, self propelled barges. They can fall somewhere between a buoy and barge.

If the Navy were playing sheepdog to a convoy then all it would require is that the merchant ships conform to the Convoy Admiral and keep station. The Convoy would have priority over all other traffic and the Escorts would keep the path of the Convoy clear.

If a Task Force went to sea with a mix of crewed and uncrewed vessels, as was the case in 2022 and 2023, there was apparently enough human supervision that there was more news about incidents involving human drivers than AI drivers. Humans, on average, apparently only had to intervene once every couple of weeks or so and when that intervention was required it could be managed by a ship travelling in company, by was of a satellite or UAS link or direct from shore.

....

I have heard a lot of discussion about removing the mission bay on the CSC to carry more missiles. My problem with that is: not only do you lose flexibility when the ship is used as a GP patrol vessel but no matter how many missiles you have you will eventually run out and have to reload.

Why not have an unlimited number of platforms carrying 32 cells each playing follow the leader that you can access? That when empty can fall out and return for reload and then come back?

A platform that costs 10,000,000 and puts no sailors at risk. A platform that can stay in port until requested.

 

[Underway]

I jabe no doubt autonomous navigation is possible. Now jam or destroy the GPS.

I think that loyal wingman style USVs and autonomous UUvs are more likely for combat purposes in the near term.

There is also the possibility of creating special navigation rules for UXVs to deal with these particular situations, but then everyone else is adapting to the robot and not the other way around.

Which is kinda opposite of what we were talking about.

 

[captloadie]

Given I have no Navy experience, I am curious about something. How does a Carrier Group deal with transiting busy waterways? Are there fishing vessels and small craft darting in an out of their bubble? Many of the points brought up seem to come from the individual ship point of view, and I was wondering if things differ once there is a larger flotilla of ships?

 

[Kirkhill]

I jabe no doubt autonomous navigation is possible. Now jam or destroy the GPS.

I think that loyal wingman style USVs and autonomous UUvs are more likely for combat purposes in the near term.

There is also the possibility of creating special navigation rules for UXVs to deal with these particular situations, but then everyone else is adapting to the robot and not the other way around.

Which is kinda opposite of what we were talking about.

My plants ultimately ended up with the operator adapting to the needs of the machine. Kind of like a convoy conforming to the speed of the slowest ship.

As for GPS - if the robots are playing follow the leader then they don't need GPS. They could be following a manned ship or they could be receiving navigation inputs from a shore based controller observing the path by way of a UAV.

I am not minimizing the challenges. But neither do I see any challenges as insurmountable. Imagination is a powerful tool.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Given I have no Navy experience, I am curious about something. How does a Carrier Group deal with transiting busy waterways? Are there fishing vessels and small craft darting in an out of their bubble? Many of the points brought up seem to come from the individual ship point of view, and I was wondering if things differ once there is a larger flotilla of ships?

There aren’t operating rules for groups. Civvies don’t care about Carrier Groups or Flotillas or whatever. That is a made up Navy thing. Each individual ship must navigate IAW with the rules of the road and integrate into the overall traffic management scheme.

Half the time (and most of the tricky interaction situations) small boats and fishing vessels don’t follow any rules, so it is up to the big guys to avoid them, regardless of what the rules actually say.

 

[Furniture]

My plants ultimately ended up with the operator adapting to the needs of the machine. Kind of like a convoy conforming to the speed of the slowest ship.

That is not the same as demanding that the rest of the world adapt to how your plant runs.

Imaging someone buying a right-hand drive car, and demanding that while they are driving we must all adapt to them. That's more akin to what you are suggesting when suggesting the rest of the world adapt to avoid USVs.

As for GPS - if the robots are playing follow the leader then they don't need GPS. They could be following a manned ship or they could be receiving navigation inputs from a shore based controller observing the path by way of a UAV.

In that sort of scenario, sure a USV can make sense. I don't think anyone has argued against a "loyal wingman" type of set-up being viable. The problem with investing heavily in that sort of platform right now, is that it means less money for the things we do/use daily. The RCN/CAF isn't rich enough to spend a lot of money on arsenal USVs that will rust away sitting alongside unused.

When the balloon goes up, we will have time to build and deploy USVs at about the same time we have enough missiles to put on them. Missiles and other advanced weapons will likely be the limiting factor in a future war, not building barge hulls and fitting them with cheap diesel engines.

I am not minimizing the challenges. But neither do I see any challenges as insurmountable. Imagination is a powerful tool.

I also have zero doubt that with enough time and resources we can make completely safe autonomous USVs, I just don't think that the juice is worth the squeeze. Particularly given all of the other things the RCN/CAF needs to invest in... Even as a sailor, I'd rather see the army get effective CUAS/GBAD before the RCN gets arsenal USVs.

 

[FJAG]

I think @Kirkhill has replied with the points that I would have so I won't belabour it. I just wanted to touch on one thing.

... but then everyone else is adapting to the robot and not the other way around.

My plants ultimately ended up with the operator adapting to the needs of the machine

Like DND's fetish for Canadianizing every piece of equipment we are interested in buying "off the shelf" to the point where it is no longer "off the shelf" or coming at "off the shelf" prices I have the same view about systems and particularly robotic systems.

There comes a point - and it should come very early in every project - where you have to say "Is it reasonable or proper that we spend time, effort and cost in adapting the system to the way we do business? Or do we adapt the way that we do business to the way that the new system already does business?"

For me, that always brings me back to the Americans. North America is a fairly compact continental system that needs a continental defence which means jointly with the Americans. In the same way, we wouldn't consider doing any significant, expeditionary war-fighting unless the Americans were involved. In my mind that means we should have totally interoperable systems from the get-go. I think that's already where the air force is headed. The navy is moving there as well, and the army is still a bit off. I think we need to leave behind bespoke systems and get on board with the development of systems that Americans are already heavily invested in.

I'll just say it one last time, considering how long the lead time is for having new vessels come off the line, we should be looking seriously at new solutions which increase combat ability and not looking for just another unarmed patrol hull that will gobble up funds and stifle progress for the next two decades. In my head I see inexpensive autonomous weapon carriers to accompany and augment a River class as a deep water solution and a fast inexpensive patrol/assault boat something like the Norwegian Stridsbåt 90 H(alv) based in small ports along our shorelines in hybrid organizations for small scale littoral operations.