Introduction:
A senior Navy official responsible for overseeing investments in unmanned surface vehicles has expressed skepticism about the feasibility of the Large Unmanned Surface Vessel (LUSV). Rear Adm. William Daly, the Navy’s surface warfare requirements director, emphasized the need for a more streamlined and cost-effective approach to unmanned vessel design.
Call for Simplified Designs:
During his address at the Surface Navy Association’s annual symposium, Rear Adm. Daly advocated for a single, affordable craft rather than multiple large and medium vessel designs. He posited that a uniform vessel capable of accommodating either the LUSV’s intended magazine payload or the Medium USV’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities would be more effective.
„We can build this craft in numbers at many shipyards. Designs already exist,” Daly stated, cautioning against the temptation to “over-spec” the vessels.
Concerns About the Large USV:
Daly acknowledged the potential purpose of the Large USV but criticized it for becoming „exquisite, expensive, and unpalatable,” leading him to doubt its successful integration into the fleet. He expressed a preference for exploring alternatives that are able to carry multiple containerized payloads, similar to the capabilities offered by vessels developed under the Strategic Capabilities Office’s Overlord program.
“This is a very appropriate, inexpensive, feasible, producible, elegant solution to two problems that can come at speed,” he explained.
Political Pressure to Shift Focus:
Daly’s comments follow a letter from Senators Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), urging the Navy to reassess its commitment to the LUSV in favor of other unmanned systems, particularly the Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV), which has demonstrated greater promise.
Integration of Unmanned Systems in Conflict:
Meanwhile, Adm. Daryl Caudle, US Fleet Forces commander, acknowledged the Navy’s competence in employing unmanned capabilities for missions like intelligence gathering and submarine rescue. However, he noted the ongoing challenge of integrating these capabilities into a cohesive strategy for broader conflict against peer competitors.
“What you really are asking me about is how I bring that and package it together to enable a navy to win against a peer competitor,” Caudle stated, emphasizing that this remains an area in its early stages of development.
Responsiveness to Fleet Commanders:
Adm. Daly recognized the influence of fleet commanders on investment decisions concerning unmanned technologies. He indicated that his perspective on LUSV may evolve based on signals from fleet leadership, implying that his current skepticism could change if operational demands dictate otherwise.
“Until one of these doors that I’m pushing on shuts or slows me down, that’s where I’m going,” Daly said, reaffirming his commitment to responding to the Navy’s operational needs.
Conclusion:
As the Navy navigates the complexities of unmanned vehicle production and integration, leadership voices like those of Rear Adm. Daly and Adm. Caudle underline the critical need for cost-effective and practical solutions. The ongoing discussions about the future of unmanned vessel programs highlight the balance between innovation, operational readiness, and budgetary constraints in evolving maritime warfare strategies.