Security
Drones have changed the shape of recent conflicts. So much so that allied forces are working against the clock to deliver countermeasures facing up to a vast range of platforms, from small homemade devices to large sophisticated uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) platforms. These threats have evolved quickly, and forces have had to ensure they have the agility to respond in time.
It doesn’t stop there. It is quickly becoming evident that the underwater space is no longer solely the domain of large, crewed submarine platforms. New actors are quickly emerging including autonomous uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUVs), which bring an entirely new challenge to subsea defence operations.
Should the development of these UUV platforms reflect even half the pace at which aerial drones evolved, it becomes critical that allied forces are forearmed with the technologies and expertise they need to counter these threats.
Uncrewed platforms in the underwater domain present an entirely new set of difficulties for friendly forces. To complicate matters further, the environment is almost the perfect blend of protection measures for potential foes where they benefit from cover from subsea terrain and noise, as well as naturally occurring fauna, animals, and debris.
Coupled with the fact that threats could range from anything from a sole diver to a large UUV, this makes detection and classification a seemingly insurmountable challenge leaving your vessels, assets, and crews extremely vulnerable to attacks.
Although there is still no clear evidence of UUVs taking an offensive role in underwater conflicts, this does not mean that navies can rest on their laurels.
The fact is that these platforms are continually evolving and new subsea platforms designs will soon be operational. This means that your countermeasures and detection technologies have to be able to keep with the pace of these new capabilities.
In busy ports and harbours, vessels and crews are under substantial danger with traditional detection systems like cameras and radars offering very little visibility underwater, if at all.
This makes the reliable detection of underwater intruders of any form a notoriously tricky problem, but in the case of subsea drones that are small and extremely quiet, it can seem almost impossible. Fortunately, acoustic sonar systems can be deployed to stand up to them.
Confined spaces in ports and harbours are notoriously difficult, noisy acoustic environments. The vessels themselves are sources of noise as they come and go. In addition, shallow waters create a complex thermal structure affecting the sound velocity profile that in turn limits the performance of your acoustic systems.
Only by making the right design choices, it is possible to detect hostiles using sonar. Once a target is detected, it must also be classified and distinguished from marine fauna, otherwise potential foes could be missed, or crews sent to investigate harmless objects in dangerous environments.
Telling apart a harbour seal from a terrorist diver or UUV is a determination that must be made correctly, or the consequences could be dire.
Understanding the threat landscape in the undersea domain is vital to help track, identify, and accurately classify detections. It’s not just sonar returns that are of interest, their behaviour and signal patterns help to make well-rounded decisions on targets.
With effective threat detection and classification in place, navies are best able to keep assets and personnel safe on operations.
By combining our in-depth technical knowledge and understanding of the underwater environment with our ability to analyse, identify and classify a range of new threats, you can stay one step ahead of potential foes and ensure safe operations anywhere in the world.
Main image: Ioseba Tena, commercial director at Forcys
Propulsion
While the environmental ambition is laudable, unintended consequences of the IMO’s decarbonisation regulations appear to be emerging.
Regulations such as the Carbon Intensity Indicator are encouraging the majority of shipowners and operators to limit the power of vessel engines to reduce emissions and then wait for alternative fuels to emerge at scale rather than invest in the plethora of clean technologies available today.
This is detrimental to progress. Future fuels will be expensive and less energy-dense than current fuels. Energy-saving clean technologies will be needed for their commercial viability, so the two pathways to reducing emissions aren’t mutually exclusive or even distinct from each other.
They are mutually beneficial. The key challenge remains reducing vessels’ energy requirements while providing the energy needed to operate as cleanly and efficiently is possible. Once fitted, clean technologies add favourably to the return on investment of adopting new fuel technologies later on. They also lessen the risk of adopting new fuels and their associated new technologies.
This is important because a wide range of solutions will be needed to support the diversity of the international fleet as it transforms to meet long-term IMO and EU targets. New fuels cannot leapfrog over clean technology development, they are dependent on them.
An example will demonstrate this point best. Houlder recently completed a feasibility study for a newbuild zero-emission service operation vessel.
A general arrangement for a vessel fuelled with liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC) and powered by proton-exchange membrane fuel cells was successfully demonstrated. The concept vessel produces zero-emissions in operation (tank-to-wake) and a preliminary high-level estimate showed a lifecycle (well-to-wake) CO2e emissions reduction of 83%.
The vessel is fitted with a redundant Energy Storage System (ESS) in the form of Lithium-ion batteries. In addition to the power provided by the fuel cells, these batteries were sized to meet the vessel’s power demand at maximum speed. The batteries also compensate for the slower transient response of the fuel cell system.
The inter-dependence of new fuel and new technology is clear. The success of LOHC is dependent on the fuel cell technology, which is in turn dependent on the ESS. A serviceable vessel requires the three to work in unison.
The success of LOHC is dependent on the fuel cell technology, which is in turn dependent on the ESS.
The realisation of such a vessel is still some years away. Before it can become a reality, LOHC release units must become commercially available, green hydrogen production must scale up, the cost of an LOHC-fuelled vessel must be addressed, and more prescriptive regulations for hydrogen fuelled vessels must be developed.
However, innovative vessel designs such as this highlight any barriers to technology adoption and can help the industry overcome them. Further developing this vessel would make decarbonisation through LOHC more of a known quantity – tackling technical challenges, supporting investment, and informing regulations.
The experience the industry has already gained with energy saving devices such as ESS reduces the technical risks and lessens the lead time for futuristic designs such as this.
Shipowners are increasingly seeking technical advice on decarbonisation projects that fall outside of their usual experience. Consultants will play an important role.
Analysing the greenhouse gas emissions and carbon intensity of the current fleet and its operations is key before identifying the most suitable technologies and operational measures to reduce carbon emissions. This includes defining the costs, benefits, and timeline for implementation of these technologies.
The specific operational challenges faced by each vessel type will also all need to be analysed before identifying the best solutions.
The fuel consumption of vessels in different operational modes, as well as total annual consumption, need to be calculated and the impact of anticipated changes to the construct of the fleet must be considered over the next 10 years. All this analysis is needed to target the most effective technical and operational improvement measures.
As well as the vessel’s operational requirements, the viability of each solution must be considered in line with available space, displacement, power demand and endurance requirements.
Engine power limitation works, but is a pessimistic approach and doesn’t complement the adoption of alternative fuels.
Analysis should also evaluate the associated implementation costs alongside the resulting fuel efficiency and emissions savings to ensure shipowners and operators get a strong cash and carbon return on investment.
Finally, forecasting a fleet's greenhouse gas emissions through the next 10 years for different investment scenarios will help shipowners and operators prioritise and properly plan for the implementation of clean technologies.
Consideration must be given to timescales for engineering, procurement, and installation of technologies as well as vessel operational demands and dry-docking schedules in order to be successful.
The bottom line is that there are many proven energy efficiency and renewable propulsion adaptations and technologies that can be deployed on vessels in operation today to support the transition to net-zero carbon emissions. Engine power limitation works, but is a pessimistic approach and doesn’t complement the adoption of alternative fuels; clean technology does.
Main image: Simon Potter, director of sustainability advisory at Houlder
