Category: Strategic Pings

Executive Summary

China’s apparent 205-meter submarine-drone mothership could provide the support infrastructure for a more persistent autonomous undersea presence. But the most revealing story runs along the drones’ hulls: sonar. China’s extra-large and larger experimental underwater vehicles suggest different acoustic priorities, from obstacle avoidance to passive surveillance and potential combat roles. Their precise capabilities remain uncertain. The strategic lesson is clear: hull size creates possibilities; sensor selection, acoustic performance, and integration determine whether those possibilities become useful capabilities.

---

The Floating Garage Gets Serious

The next potential disruption in undersea warfare might be a garage.

A very large, floating garage—with room for underwater robots that make “drone” sound misleadingly modest.

At Shanghai’s Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard, imagery reviewed by naval analyst H. I. Sutton shows what he assesses as a likely submarine-drone mothership. Its apparent configuration includes an internal hangar and a cradle-based launch-and-recovery arrangement. Its precise mission remains unconfirmed.

If that assessment holds, the vessel could support maintenance and repeated deployments closer to operating areas. Batteries need replenishment, equipment needs attention, and vehicles need recovering when the ocean becomes uncooperative.

Anyone can unveil a prototype. Keeping it working offshore is where engineering meets the invoice.

---

The Sonar Tells You What the Drone Is For

China is developing a family of extra-large uncrewed underwater vehicles, or XLUUVs, alongside much larger prototypes often called XXLUUVs.

These platforms should not be treated as interchangeable underwater robots. Their sensor configurations offer clues about their intended jobs.

Submerged vehicles cannot depend on continuous conventional radio links. They need onboard sensing and navigation to operate through communication gaps. Sonar is central, alongside navigation instruments and mission software.

The useful question is therefore more demanding than “How big is it?”

What can it hear, what can it distinguish, and what can it safely decide.

---

Flank Arrays: Listening Along the Hull

At NAVDEX 2023, CSSC’s 705 Institute displayed an XLUUV design with an elongated hull-side structure that Sutton identified as consistent with a flank sonar array. The same design showed apparent doors for four torpedo tubes beneath the nose.

That combination suggests an anti-ship or anti-submarine role. It does not establish that an operational vehicle independently selects targets and fires weapons. Exhibition imagery reveals design intent more readily than operational maturity.

A flank array distributes acoustic receivers along the hull. In passive operation, it listens for sound rather than transmitting a ping. A suitably designed aperture can improve directional discrimination, helping processing systems separate contacts and estimate bearings.

But performance depends on frequency, array design, processing, the acoustic environment, and the vehicle’s own noise.

A long array attached to a noisy platform can become an excellent instrument for listening to itself.

The integration work deserves as much attention as the array’s dimensions.

---

AJX002: A Different Mission, a Different Sonar

The approximately 20-meter AJX002, publicly displayed in 2025 as a minelaying system, illustrates another approach.

Sutton’s imagery assessment identifies a small nose-mounted obstacle-avoidance sonar and no visible flank array. That configuration is consistent with a vehicle emphasizing transit and payload delivery over searching for moving targets.

Forward-looking obstacle-avoidance sonar helps a vehicle detect hazards along its path. It should not automatically be described as a detailed seabed-mapping system or proof of precision navigation. Those functions depend on the complete sensor and navigation package.

Likewise, the suggestion that AJX002 carries the displayed AQS003A mine remains an assessment, rather than a confirmed payload specification.

The procurement lesson is useful: different missions justify different acoustic payloads. Buying more sonar does not automatically buy more mission success.

---

XXLUUVs: Bigger Ears, Bigger Integration Problems

Imagery analysis around Hainan has identified enormous apparent uncrewed submarine prototypes, with published length estimates roughly spanning 35–45 meters.

That scale could accommodate longer acoustic arrays, more processing equipment, and greater energy reserves. It creates opportunities for capable sonar installations, although their actual configurations remain undisclosed.

Claims that these vehicles can track Western submarines while remaining “virtually silent” go beyond the available evidence.

AI-assisted processing may help distinguish contacts from background noise. It cannot manufacture acoustic information that the sensors never captured.

Detection, classification, localization, and sustained tracking are separate achievements. A fleeting contact is a starting point.

The ocean does not read the procurement brochure.

---

A Sensor Network Still Needs to Communicate

The broader opportunity is to combine mobile sonar platforms with fixed acoustic sensors and surface relays.

China has demonstrated relevant building blocks. In 2018, researchers at the Shenyang Institute of Automation reported South China Sea trials in which Haiyi acoustic gliders collected environmental and acoustic information, retrieved moored-instrument data through underwater acoustic communications, and relayed data by satellite.

That demonstrates a useful observation-and-communication architecture. It does not prove that China’s military XLUUVs are integrated into a seamless, operational submarine-tracking network.

Acoustic links face bandwidth limits, delays, and variable propagation. Satellite connections require a suitable surface gateway or exposed antenna. Contact reports and selected data may be more practical to transmit than continuous raw sonar streams.

The ocean remains a terrible place to hold a group chat.

---

Summary: Buy the Mission, Then the Payload

China’s apparent mothership and expanding underwater vehicle family deserve attention because they suggest investment across platforms, sensors, and support infrastructure.

For sonar users, the lesson is immediate: match the payload to the mission, the environment, and the host platform. Evaluate useful information delivered, energy consumed, integration demands, and performance under realistic conditions.

A payload that fits inside the hull can still be wrong for the job.

At Strategic Sonar Solutions Inc., I help clients select the right sensor payload for crewed and autonomous platforms, including USVs and UUVs/AUVs.

Planning a new platform or upgrading an existing one? Message me on LinkedIn to discuss your mission, operating environment, and sensor requirements. Let’s make your next payload earn its place onboard.

---

Originally published in the Strategic Pings ))) newsletter on LinkedIn on 2026-10-13. Subscribe there to get new editions first.

Executive Summary

The next chapter of undersea warfare will depend heavily on what our platforms carry, how those payloads work together, and whether they deliver useful results at sea. AUKUS Pillar II is putting that challenge firmly on the agenda. For maritime decision-makers, the implication is clear: select the mission, platform, and payload together. Otherwise, we risk buying some exceptionally expensive underwater delivery vans—with considerable uncertainty about the delivery.

As an ex-submarine guy, I have a personal interest in Australia’s undersea future. I have visited Australia many times and supplied many sonar systems to the Royal Australian Navy over the years. This program touches both my professional experience and my enduring fascination with what happens beneath the waves.

It also touches a familiar industry weakness: we love a handsome hull.

Give us a sleek submarine, an autonomous vehicle, and a dramatic launch photograph, and we are practically reaching for the commemorative plaque.

The less photogenic questions deserve equal billing: What can it detect? What information can it deliver? Can its payload actually do the job?

The ocean remains stubbornly unimpressed by marketing.

AUKUS: Look inside the vehicle

Pillar I’s nuclear-powered submarines understandably dominate AUKUS headlines. Pillar II’s advanced capabilities deserve close attention from anyone making decisions about maritime technology.

On 30 May 2026, the AUKUS partners announced their first Pillar II signature project, focused on payloads and enabling systems for uncrewed undersea vehicles, with delivery starting in 2027. That places the equipment carried aboard these vehicles—and its ability to work across the partnership—at the center of capability development.

My reading is straightforward: the procurement conversation needs to move beyond vehicle specifications and into mission performance.

Range and endurance matter enormously. So do the sensors, processing, communications, and other mission equipment that make those miles worthwhile.

A vehicle can travel a very impressive distance while collecting thoroughly unimpressive information.

Commercial operators have already offered a lesson

Ocean Infinity’s use of multiple HUGIN autonomous underwater vehicles illustrates the value of operating several sensing platforms concurrently. Kongsberg documented this approach during the company’s 2018 search for MH370 and its subsequent survey work.

For defense, I see a useful principle: distribute the work, coordinate the assets, and design the information flow alongside the vehicles.

Calling everything a “swarm” adds excitement to a presentation. Making several vehicles produce reliable, usable results adds capability.

There is a substantial engineering gap between those two achievements. Occasionally, that gap has its own budget.

Excalibur makes the argument tangible

On 30 September 2026, the Royal Navy reported that its experimental uncrewed submarine, XV Excalibur, had successfully launched and controlled a US Navy Mk48 Mod 4 heavyweight torpedo during trials in Scotland.

The experiment used an inert, recoverable torpedo and required a specialist management system. It was an integration milestone within a continuing trials program.

That distinction matters. A successful demonstration provides evidence of what can work. Operational readiness requires further evidence that it works reliably under the conditions and constraints users will face.

Still, the significance is considerable: a British unbrewed platform carried and employed an American payload through deliberate integration.

That is a far more useful conversation starter than another artist’s impression.

The payload decision starts with the mission

The “underwater delivery van” analogy has limits. Hull design, endurance, survivability, and platform noise all influence mission success. Good payload selection respects those constraints from the beginning.

For crewed and autonomous platforms alike, I would put four questions on the table:

What decision must this mission support? Searching an area, examining an object, and monitoring infrastructure can demand different equipment and information.What environment must the payload handle? Depth, water conditions, background noise, and the operating area should shape the choice.What does integration really involve? Space, power, mounting, software, data interfaces, and maintenance belong in the initial discussion.How will the results reach the people who need them? Collection, processing, communication, and interpretation must form a workable chain.

“Compatible” deserves evidence. A connector that fits is an encouraging start; the sea trial is where the relationship gets serious.

Summary

The payload revolution gives us an opportunity to build more adaptable maritime capability across crewed and autonomous fleets. Realizing that opportunity requires disciplined choices about the whole mission.

My view: the organizations that connect operational needs, platform constraints, and payload performance early will get more value from their investment, and fewer unpleasant surprises offshore.

At Strategic Solution Incorporated, I help clients select the right payloads for crewed and autonomous maritime platforms, bringing submarine experience and years of supplying sonar systems to the discussion.

Planning a new platform or upgrading an existing capability? Message me here on LinkedIn to discuss your mission and payload options.

Let’s make sure your next impressive hull carries an equally impressive reason to be at sea.

---

Originally published in the Strategic Pings ))) newsletter on LinkedIn on 2026-10-06. Subscribe there to get new editions first.

Executive summary

Atlantic Bastion represents an ambitious shift in how the Royal Navy intends to protect the North Atlantic: connecting autonomous systems, underwater sensors, ships, and aircraft into a more persistent maritime defense network. Its promise is earlier warning, better understanding and a more effective response to underwater threats.

For me, this project is personal. I was involved while at Ocean Power Technologies. Watching it develop brings both enthusiasm and some familiar questions about what it takes to turn an ambitious concept into something that survives contact with salt water.

The comparison with the Cold War’s SOSUS listening network is compelling, although Atlantic Bastion should not be presented as its direct replacement or the first mobile anti-submarine warfare network. The opportunity lies in combining persistence, mobility, autonomy and shared information on a much broader scale.

And its success will depend heavily on a deceptively simple question: have we put the right payload on the right platform for the job?

---

The North Atlantic is a difficult customer

It does not read your strategy document. It has little interest in your investor presentation. And it certainly will not reduce the wave height because your demonstration is scheduled for Thursday.

That is part of what makes Atlantic Bastion so interesting.

There is real ambition here: a maritime surveillance architecture that can keep more sensors at sea, connect their observations, and help naval forces understand what is happening beneath the surface.

Having been involved from the bidding side, I feel a personal connection to that ambition. I want to see it succeed. I also want the discussion to reach beyond the attractive graphics of autonomous vessels connected by immaculate blue lines.

Those lines have an enormous amount of engineering hidden inside them.

The strategic purpose is serious. In September 2026, the First Sea Lord described Atlantic Bastion as a defensive network supporting protection of the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent and critical infrastructure. That places it directly in the business of protecting the connections and capabilities on which national security depends.

For everyone ashore who considers maritime security a specialist interest, remember this: an impressive amount of modern life depends on things crossing an ocean or sitting on its bottom.

The seabed deserves more attention than it gets.

---

SOSUS

The historical echo takes us back to SOSUS: the Sound Surveillance System and the geography of the Greenland–Iceland–UK gap.

SOSUS used fixed underwater hydrophone arrays to exploit the ocean’s ability to carry sound over long distances. It became a much wider surveillance network than a single line across the North Atlantic. The principle was powerful: listen persistently, use the environment intelligently, and turn faint acoustic information into useful awareness.

It is tempting to call Atlantic Bastion “SOSUS with autonomy.”

As a conversation starter, that works. As a technical description, it needs another cup of coffee (or would that be tea…?)

Mobile surveillance already has a substantial history. The US Navy developed SURTASS, the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System, using ships to tow long acoustic arrays. DARPA’s own history describes work that helped advance that capability decades ago.

Atlantic Bastion therefore enters a long-running story. What excites me is the ambition to make a varied collection of autonomous and crewed systems function as a persistent, adaptable network.

Think of a listening architecture with more moving parts, more opportunities to reposition sensing and a much greater need for everything to understand one another.

That last requirement could become the most expensive sentence in the program.

---

Concept

So, what does the concept actually do?

In April 2026, the Royal Navy described demonstrations covering seabed acoustic detection, uncrewed surface vessels with acoustic and towed arrays, remote operations centers, AI integration, drones carrying sonobuoys, subsea vehicles, gliders and acoustic floats. These were demonstrations of technologies that could contribute to the capability; they were not proof that every component had already become one fully operational network.

The functional logic is straightforward enough.

Different sensors contribute different observations. Those observations need to be assessed, combined, and placed in context. People then need information clear enough to decide whether something deserves further investigation or a response.

A detection is the beginning of that process.

It still leaves questions: what produced it, how confident are we, does another observation support it, and what should happen next?

My concern is that we could become very good at collecting information without becoming equally good at understanding it. A crowded display can look reassuringly sophisticated while leaving its operator thoroughly unconvinced.

---

More sensors should buy us better decisions. We should insist on evidence that they do

One recent development illustrates why the less glamorous parts matter.

In September 2026, the Royal Navy reported that five Slocum G3 gliders had completed a 64-day mission gathering environmental data around the British Isles. The service explicitly linked this work to Atlantic Bastion. Their contribution was oceanographic understanding; the announcement did not say these gliders had spent two months autonomously hunting submarines.

That distinction deserves attention.

Temperature, salinity and pressure affect sound speed in seawater. Understanding those conditions helps explain how acoustic observations should be interpreted.

A sensor operates inside an environment, and that environment gets a vote.

You can put artificial intelligence on the processing chain, but you cannot persuade the ocean to adopt your preferred acoustic conditions.

The environmental glider may never win the beauty contest against an autonomous submarine. Its measurements can still be essential to making the rest of the system useful.

There is another interesting change below the surface of the procurement language.

The Ministry of Defence’s May 2025 Atlantic Net pipeline notice proposed delivering “ASW as a service” through a Contractor Owned, Contractor Operated, Naval Oversight model. It described industry-provided systems supplying acoustic data, triaged by AI and machine learning, to a secure remote operations center for Royal Navy analysis.

That approach could create room for faster deployment and technology refresh.

It also makes the service definition critically important. What counts as useful availability? What happens when equipment needs recovery? How is data quality demonstrated? Who carries responsibility when several suppliers’ systems disagree?

Calling something a service does not make the maintenance disappear. Somewhere, someone still has to deal with a connector that has developed an intimate relationship with seawater.

From a bid manager’s perspective, these are exactly the questions that make an ambitious proposition concrete.

From a sonar consultant’s perspective, they bring us back to the payload.

The most expensive sonar you can buy is the wrong sonar.

An excellent sensor can become a poor investment when it is mismatched to the mission, platform or operating environment. The vehicle’s motion, its own noise, available power, payload space and practical support arrangements all need attention.

Then there is endurance.

The platform, sensor, processor, and communications equipment all arrive at the same electrical dinner table. Their combined appetite deserves examination before anyone promises how long the system will remain useful offshore.

We should also distinguish time at sea from time delivering dependable information.

A vehicle can remain afloat while its contribution deteriorates. Maintenance, calibration, data quality, and recovery arrangements deserve a place beside autonomy in the sales presentation.

I would like to hear more conversations begin with the decision the customer needs to make, followed by the information needed to support it. That gives us a sensible route toward selecting the sensor and its platform.

Starting with a favorite vehicle and searching for a mission afterward is an expensive way to go boating.

This is why I see Atlantic Bastion as such an important undertaking. It creates an opportunity to rethink how persistent maritime awareness is delivered while exposing every difficult seam between platforms, payloads, processing, people, and support.

My test of success would be practical: does it deliver useful coverage, trustworthy information, and a dependable service under real operating conditions?

Those are less photogenic measures than a new autonomous hull. They are also the measures that will matter when the weather deteriorates and the contact becomes ambiguous.

---

Summary

Atlantic Bastion carries forward the enduring logic of undersea surveillance into a more connected, autonomous era. Its promise is substantial, and its delivery will demand disciplined integration, environmental understanding, and reliable support. My personal involvement makes this a project I will follow with particular interest. The ocean will provide the most honest progress report.

At Strategic Sonar Solutions Inc., I help customers select the right payload for their autonomous or crewed platforms, starting with the mission, the operating environment, and the decisions the system must support.

If you are developing a platform, evaluating sonar options, or reconsidering an existing payload, message me here on LinkedIn. Let’s discuss what your platform needs to detect, understand, and deliver before you commit to the equipment.

The North Atlantic will test the result. Let’s give it something worth listening to.

---

Originally published in the Strategic Pings ))) newsletter on LinkedIn on 2026-09-30. Subscribe there to get new editions first.

Executive Summary

A patch of blue on a map is an excellent way to make an information gap look reassuring.

My background in hydrography, including my work with RESON and Teledyne, has made me rather less reassured. Beneath that blue are mountains, channels, habitats and hazards that influence real decisions. Understanding this underwater landscape matters deeply to me.

As of April 2026, 28.7% of the world’s ocean floor had been mapped to modern standards. We are planning the ocean’s future with most of its geography still missing from the detailed picture.

Seabed 2030 gives us a shared ambition: a complete, freely available seabed map. Delivering it requires funding, coordination, technical expertise, and access to existing data.

Hydrography asks a wonderfully uncomfortable question: How do you actually know what is beneath you?

Eventually, someone has to produce the measurements. A beautifully rendered digital ocean will only get you so far.

The Nippon Foundation–GEBCO Seabed 2030 Project launched in 2017, when only 6% of the seabed was mapped to adequate resolution. The progress deserves recognition.

But progress and sufficient progress are different things.

Coverage increased from 27.3% in 2025 to 28.7% in 2026, adding almost five million square kilometers. An enormous contribution—and just 1.4 percentage points against the global task.

At that annual rate, closing the remaining gap would take roughly 51 years. That is simple arithmetic, not a forecast: investment, technology, and the release of existing datasets could substantially change the pace.

2030 needs a serious acceleration plan behind it.

One obstacle is that many people assume the job is already done.

Open a digital globe and the ocean floor looks complete. Ridges, trenches, contours: very convincing. Across vast areas, however, that picture relies on low-resolution estimates derived from satellite data rather than detailed seabed measurements.

An attractive color palette is doing a remarkable amount of work.

For readers outside hydrography, a multibeam echo sounder measures returning sound across a broad strip beneath a vessel, building a picture of depth and terrain. Bringing sensors closer to the seabed, including aboard autonomous underwater vehicles, can reveal finer detail in deep water.

The principle is straightforward. Reliable results take expertise.

Position, vessel motion, sound speed, and calibration all matter. The seabed has declined to rearrange itself to match our assumptions.

We also need to be precise about “mapped.” Seabed 2030’s target grid-cell sizes range from 100 meters in shallower waters to 800 meters in the deepest ocean. Individual engineering and inspection tasks require their own survey specifications.

GEBCO explicitly states that its grids must not be used for navigation or other purposes involving safety at sea.

A global map is a foundation. Understanding its limitations is part of using it intelligently.

Autonomy can expand our mapping capacity. Uncrewed surface vessels carry survey systems across extensive areas, while underwater vehicles bring sensors closer to terrain requiring detailed investigation.

But removing the crew does not remove the need for hydrographic competence.

Someone must plan the survey, integrate the sensors, validate the measurements, and deliver usable information. My preferred measure of success is the cost of delivering a square kilometer of usable, quality-controlled coverage.

Less glamorous than unveiling another autonomous vessel. Considerably more useful when discussing the budget.

There is also valuable information sitting in archives. Some gaps in the global compilation reflect measurements already collected but not contributed. Seabed 2030 seeks these datasets and encourages reduced-resolution sharing where commercial sensitivities are involved.

Summary

Before commissioning another survey, check what someone already knows.

Organizations can take three practical steps:

Review existing datasets: establish ownership, permissions and potential value to the global map.Plan contributions into new surveys: agree on sharing arrangements while teams and budgets are in place.Fund expertise alongside equipment: skilled people turn sensor output into information others can trust.

Seabed knowledge supports ocean circulation research, tsunami modelling, environmental management, and cable routing. Its value extends far beyond our industry.

For me, Seabed 2030 is a professional responsibility with a personal connection. My work with RESON and Teledyne is part of why I care about turning acoustic measurements into useful knowledge.

We have capable technology. Closing the gaps requires sustained investment, shared data and people who understand the mission.

At Strategic Sonar Solution Inc., I help clients define sonar requirements, evaluate technologies and plan sensor integration for conventional and autonomous platforms. Contact me to discuss your survey ambitions, assess your options, and build a practical path from operational need to reliable seabed information.

Scanning the depths so you don’t sail blind.

---

Originally published in the Strategic Pings ))) newsletter on LinkedIn on 2026-09-21. Subscribe there to get new editions first.

Executive Summary

The Belgian-Dutch replacement Mine Countermeasures program is much more than a procurement of twelve new ships. It represents a fundamental change in how navies detect, classify, identify and neutralize mines.

The traditional minehunter sails into the suspected minefield with a hull-mounted sonar. The new concept keeps the mothership outside the danger area and sends an integrated team of uncrewed surface vessels, autonomous underwater vehicles, towed sonars and mine-disposal systems forward.

I followed this competition from the uncomfortable side of the table.

As bid manager for Teledyne Marine, I spent considerable time in Ghent working with Elbit and a REMUS-based AUV concept. We wanted to win. We believed we had strong sensors, capable vehicles and a credible technical solution.

We lost.

What won was not necessarily the best individual sonar, AUV or USV. ECA Group and Naval Group presented the most convincing complete operational system. That distinction remains one of the most important lessons in autonomous maritime procurement.

Replacing the Traditional Minehunter

Belgium and the Netherlands had operated closely related Tripartite and Alkmaar-class minehunters for decades. These ships represented the classic MCM model: place a specialized vessel near the mine threat, search with hull-mounted sonar, investigate contacts and deploy a disposal vehicle.

The replacement program was far more ambitious.

The two navies wanted twelve new MCM vessels, six for each country, supported by roughly one hundred uncrewed systems. The ships would become command platforms, workshops, data-processing centers, and launch-and-recovery motherships rather than traditional minehunters.

That sounds logical today. In 2019, it was a bold procurement decision.

During the bid phase, Ghent became one of my temporary offices. Meetings focused on payload capacity, sonar performance, navigation accuracy, launch and recovery, data processing, endurance and system integration. Every supplier had impressive slides. Every team could produce attractive detection ranges.

But a minefield does not care about PowerPoint.

A successful MCM operation requires a complete chain. The vehicle must navigate accurately. The sonar must produce usable imagery. The software must manage contacts. The operator must distinguish a mine-like object from another tire, cable, rock or discarded refrigerator. A second system must relocate the target. A third must neutralize it.

One weak link can make the entire architecture operationally irrelevant.

Who Won?

In 2019, the contract was awarded to Belgium Naval & Robotics, the consortium formed by Naval Group and ECA Group. Naval Group led the vessel and combat-system element. ECA Group supplied the integrated robotic MCM toolbox.

ECA Group later combined with iXblue under the Exail name. In July 2026, Thales announced a binding agreement to acquire the Gorgé family’s controlling stake in Exail and launch a tender offer for the whole company. The transaction is not yet complete, so Exail is on course to become part of Thales rather than already being fully absorbed.

It has been quite a journey.

ECA was once viewed as a specialist robotics company competing against much larger defense groups. Its success in Belgium and the Netherlands helped prove that maritime robotics had moved from equipment demonstrations into fleet-level naval architecture.

Why ECA Won

The detailed tender scoring has not been publicly released, so claims about one decisive technical score would be speculation.

The winning logic, however, is visible in the architecture.

ECA did not merely offer an AUV. It offered a coordinated toolbox built around the Inspector 125 USV, A18-M AUV, T18-M towed sonar, Seascan identification vehicle, K-Ster C disposal system, influence-sweeping equipment and UMISOFT mission-management software.

The Inspector 125 became the forward-deployed carrier. It could transport sensors and disposal vehicles into the mine-threat area while the larger crewed vessel remained farther away.

That created genuine stand-off MCM.

More importantly, ECA understood that integration included launch and recovery, navigation, communications, mission planning, contact management and neutralization. The customer was not being asked to buy a collection of excellent boxes and then spend years persuading them to communicate.

That was the impressive part of the win. (and they had Daniel S. as bid manager…)

The Sonar Architecture

The A18-M AUV uses the UMISAS 120 interferometric synthetic aperture sonar for autonomous mine detection and classification. The vehicle can survey an area independently, collecting consistent, high-resolution acoustic imagery without requiring a physical communications link to the surface platform.

The T18-M towed system performs a related mission using the UMISAS 240 sonar. Because it remains connected to the Inspector 125, its sonar data can be transmitted in real time through the USV to the command ship.

This combination matters.

The AUV provides autonomous coverage and freedom of movement. The towed sonar provides continuous communications, immediate quality control and faster operator intervention. They are not competing solutions. They address different parts of the same mission.

After detection comes identification. Seascan relocates and inspects the contact using cameras and forward-looking sonar. K-Ster C then performs the neutralization task while sailors remain outside the immediate danger zone.

The sonar is therefore not a payload hanging under a vehicle. It is part of a sensor-to-decision chain.

That is where many autonomous programs still get it wrong.

Current Status

The first vessel, Belgium’s M940 Oostendevehicles,, was officially transferred to the Belgian Defense organization on November 7, 2025.

The second vessel, HNLMS Vlissingen, was delivered to the Royal Netherlands Navy in Den Helder on February 27, 2026.

The first operational MCM toolbox has also been delivered in Zeebrugge. It includes Inspector 125 USVs, A18-M AUVs, Seascan and K-Ster vehicles, with the T18-M towed sonar element scheduled as part of the continuing delivery sequence. Further vessels are under construction, with deliveries planned to continue through 2030.

The program has moved beyond drawings, prototypes and promotional videos. Hardware is entering naval service.

The harder phase now begins: qualification, doctrine development, crew training, maintenance, data management and proving that the complete kill chain works under real operational conditions.

Summary: The Lesson From Ghent

I would naturally have preferred a different result when I was sitting in Ghent working on the Teledyne, Elbit and REMUS-based proposal.

But losing a major competition can teach you more than winning an easy one.

The Belgian-Dutch program demonstrated that customers do not ultimately buy sonar specifications, vehicle endurance or attractive autonomy demonstrations. They buy confidence that the complete mission will work.

ECA understood that early. Naval Group gave the robotic architecture a credible mothership and naval integration framework. Together, they changed the definition of a minehunter.

The new minehunter is no longer a ship.

It is a distributed system of sensors, vehicles, communications, software, operators and weapons. The sonar starts the conversation, but integration determines whether the mine is actually removed.

Because buying an excellent sonar is relatively easy.

Building an operational capability around it is where the real work begins.

Call To Action

Selecting a sonar is easy. Selecting the right sensor for the right payload, the right autonomous platform, and the right mission is much harder.

Strategic Sonar Solutions Inc. helps navies, shipyards, defense companies, investors, and autonomous-system developers make those decisions with less risk and fewer expensive integration mistakes.

If you are evaluating sonar, AUV, USV, ROV, MCM, ASW, hydrographic, or seabed-warfare capabilities, contact me. Let’s make sure the system works as a complete mission solution, not just as an impressive collection of specifications.

---

Originally published in the Strategic Pings ))) newsletter on LinkedIn on 2026-09-16. Subscribe there to get new editions first.

Executive summary

Sweden has signed a roughly SEK 47 billion contract with Naval Group for four FDI-based Luleå-class frigates, scheduled for delivery between 2030 and 2034.

The headline is French frigates. The more important story is Swedish pragmatism and underwater warfare.

A proven platform reduces construction risk, but it does not guarantee ASW superiority. In the Baltic’s shallow, noisy and highly stratified waters, success will depend on how well Sweden integrates sonar, environmental intelligence, helicopters and autonomous systems.

A mature frigate can shorten the route to sea. It cannot repeal the laws of underwater acoustics.

The calendar is also a weapon

Sweden’s order covers HMS Luleå, HMS Norrköping, HMS Trelleborg and HMS Halmstad. The contract value includes training systems, spares and associated equipment, so simply dividing SEK 47 billion by four does not produce a meaningful unit price.

More strategically, Sweden is joining an established FDI production line and an operator community that already includes France and Greece.

That matters. Sweden is choosing operational relevance within a critical timeframe over the prestige and risk of another clean-sheet national design. I see this from a personal perspective.

I was part of the YS2000 design team at FMV that developed the YS2000/Visby class. The original YSS/Luleå concept was intended to become its larger sibling. Selecting the FDI therefore represents more than a platform decision. It marks a significant departure from the design lineage Sweden originally envisioned.

Industrial sovereignty sounds magnificent in a strategy document. It sounds less magnificent when the fleet is still waiting at the pier.

The Baltic is an acoustic nightmare

The Baltic covers approximately 420,000 square kilometers, yet more than one-third is shallower than 30 meters. Salinity ranges from roughly 15–18 PSU near the entrance to the Sound, to 7–8 PSU in the Baltic Proper and as little as 0–2 PSU farther north and east.

Those differences, together with temperature variations, create layers that can bend sound away from a sonar (refraction). The Baltic is famous for what is called “micro-sound channels”.

Now add dense shipping, machinery noise, bottom reverberation, complicated coastlines and quiet conventional submarines. The result is an environment where catalog performance and operational performance may be very different things.

Thales advertises detection ranges of up to 60 kilometers and beyond for the CAPTAS sonar family. That demonstrates potential, not certainty. In ASW, the words “up to” can carry more displacement than the ship.

What the FDI brings below the waterline

The established FDI ASW architecture offers a sound foundation. The Greek configuration combines the Kingklip Mk2 hull-mounted sonar with the CAPTAS-4 Compact variable-depth sonar.

Sweden has publicly identified ASW as a core Luleå-class capability, but it has not yet named the final sonar suite. Kingklip and CAPTAS should therefore be treated as the reference architecture, not automatically as the confirmed Swedish fit.

A hull-mounted sonar provides immediate coverage, but it remains fixed at hull depth and must contend with the ship’s own noise. A variable-depth sonar can be lowered through the water column, allowing operators to place it on the useful side of a temperature or salinity layer.

That flexibility comes at a price. The ship must accommodate the towed body, cable, winch, power, cooling, maintenance and launch-and-recovery loads. Sea state, maneuvering and crew workload also matter.

The sonar may fit beautifully in a brochure. The handling system still has to fit in the ship.

The network is the real ASW weapon

The Luleå class should not be judged only by the performance of its onboard sonar. Its greater value may be its ability to coordinate a distributed underwater sensor network.

Ship sonar, helicopter dipping sonar, sonobuoys, maritime patrol aircraft, uncrewed surface vessels and autonomous underwater vehicles such as AUV 62R, can create multiple sensing positions. One platform can transmit while another listens. Autonomous systems can extend coverage or enter areas where exposing a crewed frigate would be unwise.

This is where sensor fusion becomes decisive. More sensors do not automatically create more understanding. Without robust communications, compatible data formats, accurate environmental models and manageable operator workloads, they may simply create more ambiguity at greater expense.

A SEK 47 billion ship can still lose the acoustic fight if payload integration is treated as an accessory.

The strategic wager

Sweden is betting that a mature foreign hull, selective national integration and a wider operator community will deliver combat power sooner than a sovereign clean-sheet program.

That is a sensible wager.

But the ASW test will not be passed when the ship leaves the yard. It will be passed when the frigate can enter a difficult acoustic environment, coordinate manned and autonomous sensors, maintain contact on a quiet submarine and convert uncertain detections into a reliable tactical picture.

Short summary

The hull gets the Navy to sea. The sensor architecture determines what it can hear when it arrives.

Sweden has reduced platform risk. Its next challenge is ensuring that sonar, payloads, data fusion, and operating concepts work as one ASW system in the difficult Baltic environment.

Selecting a maritime sensor payload?

I help clients select and integrate sonar, surveillance and mission payloads for autonomous and manned platforms, matching the technology to the mission, platform and operating environment.

If your program needs an independent view before committing to a payload architecture, connect with me on LinkedIn or send me a message.

The costliest sensor mistake is often not buying bad technology. It is buying good technology for the wrong mission.

---

Originally published in the Strategic Pings ))) newsletter on LinkedIn on 2026-09-08. Subscribe there to get new editions first.