This graph
represents the sensitivity of alternatives to required continuous track time.
“Required continuous track” may be defined as the time that we must have
unbroken track on the enemy. This may
be necessary to perform enemy engagement or identification. For the purpose of our study, the required
track time is considered to be directly proportional to the length of the
kill-chain timeline. The required continuous track times are displayed across
the x axis of this graph with probability of achieving the respective
continuous track along the y axis.
Sensitivity to continuous track time is shown by the steepness of the
line’s slope. The results of the
Littoral Action Group are shown here.
Although this alternative acheives a 70% probability of 6-minute
continuous track of any one Red sub within the first 10 days, if the required
continuous track time is extended to 54 minutes, the probability of success
drops below 30%. (CLICK) Here the performance of all four
alternatives can be seen. (CLICK) Sea TENTACLE is sensitive to the
increased requirement in unbroken track time due to the inability of its
bottomed sensors to trail the enemy and because of their limited coverage of
the Area of Responsibility. (CLICK) Due to the standoff ranges required by
manned platforms, the Littoral Action Group has a relatively high-probability
of lost track, and therefore is sensitive as well. (CLICK) The War of
Machines alternative is insensitive due to its invasive trailing method and
recharging capability. Yet, it must be
mentioned that War of Machines possesses a high technological risk in both
the coordination required in trailing enemy submarines and the recharging of
UUVs in enemy waters. If either of these risks fail to be overcome in 2025
then this alternative’s performance will be inadequate. (CLICK)
Tripwire is also insensitive, but displays a decreased performance due to its
inability to recharge. (CLICK) CDR Bindi will now brief the results, insights and
conclusions associated with this analysis. |
|