[QUOTE=DamnYankee;192567]I don’t think of any of us doubt this is going to happen. It’s just that most of us aren’t routing for it. Seafaring is a good way of life and how I put food on my family’s table. I hope to keep doing it for the rest of my career. What’s to be gained besides more “efficiency” if we go down this road? A lot of people out of work worldwide. When will it be enough? Technology is an inescapable reality in our lives, but there needs to be a check on how far we go. Otherwise we are going to end up in a world where there are too many people with nothing to contribute besides breathing the air, eating food, and consuming the resources.[/QUOTE]
Even if there are some autonomous ships in world wide trade in 15-20 years from now it will be a long time before most ships are autonomous.
When that happen there will still be a need for people to build, control, repair and manage such ships, but they will need different skills and mind set than today. To fight against development is futile. Better to prepare for the inevitable.
The “good news” is that most of those who are on this forum will not have to worry about it and those who are young enough to see it will be able to adapt to the new reality.
[QUOTE=ombugge;192578]Even if there are some autonomous ships in world wide trade in 15-20 years from now it will be a long time before most ships are autonomous.
When that happen there will still be a need for people to build, control, repair and manage such ships, but they will need different skills and mind set than today. To fight against development is futile. Better to prepare for the inevitable.
The “good news” is that most of those who are on this forum will not have to worry about it and those who are young enough to see it will be able to adapt to the new reality.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know about Norway, but the real test for how this autonomous shipping technology will be accepted in the U.S. is going to come from the trucking industry. I don’t foresee the millions of truck drivers in this country taking it very well or having any way to “adapt” when their decent paying jobs are phased out.
There are only so many things that the enormous population of the world can do for a living and you cannot have billions of computer programmers whose jobs will eventually be taken by the computers themselves.
[QUOTE=DamnYankee;192584]I don’t know about Norway, but the real test for how this autonomous shipping technology will be accepted in the U.S. is going to come from the trucking industry. I don’t foresee the millions of truck drivers in this country taking it very well or having any way to “adapt” when their decent paying jobs are phased out.
There are only so many things that the enormous population of the world can do for a living and you cannot have billions of computer programmers whose jobs will eventually be taken by the computers themselves.[/QUOTE]
Autonomous ships are not something to be “accepted” by any one nation, or group of people. It is something that will be forced on you by the development of technology. You may be able to put up barriers in one country or another, but that will only result in that country falling behind in development, in this case the Maritime industry.
One aspect that is VERY important is SECURITY, which has been pointed out here several times. This is a subject that is taken VERY seriously by those who are developing this technology: http://www.smp.no/pluss/2016/11/23/–-Norge-kan-bli-verdensledende-på-cybersikkerhet-13832039.ece#cxrecs_s
It doesn’t only apply to autonomous ships, but a whole range of things in the marine environment, as well as other industries. (Aerospace, the auto industry etc.)
[QUOTE=ombugge;192733]Autonomous ships are not something to be “accepted” by any one nation, or group of people. It is something that will be forced on you by the development of technology. You may be able to put up barriers in one country or another, but that will only result in that country falling behind in development, in this case the Maritime industry.
One aspect that is VERY important is SECURITY, which has been pointed out here several times. This is a subject that is taken VERY seriously by those who are developing this technology: http://www.smp.no/pluss/2016/11/23/–-Norge-kan-bli-verdensledende-på-cybersikkerhet-13832039.ece#cxrecs_s
It doesn’t only apply to autonomous ships, but a whole range of things in the marine environment, as well as other industries. (Aerospace, the auto industry etc.)[/QUOTE]
You know, I spent part of my career running full-spectrum threat exercises against sites that “took security very seriously” and had a pretty good success ratio. “Full spectrum” means you look at everything, surreptitious entry, shooting your way in, whatever.
So my question is: robovessel is steaming along in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific, and is boarded by a takeover team that knows what they are doing. How is this detected, what is the reliability of the transmission that signals the alarm to home base, and (best case) how long before an armed vessel shows up to take it back?
Could have the plot of a pretty good adventure movie here
[QUOTE=Earl Boebert;192741]You know, I spent part of my career running full-spectrum threat exercises against sites that “took security very seriously” and had a pretty good success ratio. “Full spectrum” means you look at everything, surreptitious entry, shooting your way in, whatever.
So my question is: robovessel is steaming along in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific, and is boarded by a takeover team that knows what they are doing. How is this detected, what is the reliability of the transmission that signals the alarm to home base, and (best case) how long before an armed vessel shows up to take it back?
Could have the plot of a pretty good adventure movie here
Cheers,
Earl[/QUOTE]
We are still waiting for answers to these questions from the dreamers promoting this whacky job killing scheme.
Contrary to their predictions, I propose that in the foreseeable future, in many areas of the globe, the number of people aboard ships will actually increase.
While a few of the current onboard positions may be eliminated due to automation and increased reliability, they will be replaced by a growing number of security forces who will be necessary to protect the ships.
In a world where rogue operators are spreading like a cancer, soft targets are not the way to go.
You are silly. Very smart people at Skynet have already released media insisting that their automated Terminator security cyborgs will take over all shipboard security needs within the next 10 years. Most likely will occur aboard Norwegian or other Scandinavian ships first but will eventually take over the industry. Resistance is futile. This is happening due to technology whether you like it or not.
Remember these people are smarter than everyone else and they assure you it will happen. So get onboard silly Americans.
[QUOTE=Earl Boebert;192741]You know, I spent part of my career running full-spectrum threat exercises against sites that “took security very seriously” and had a pretty good success ratio. “Full spectrum” means you look at everything, surreptitious entry, shooting your way in, whatever.
So my question is: robovessel is steaming along in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific, and is boarded by a takeover team that knows what they are doing. How is this detected, what is the reliability of the transmission that signals the alarm to home base, and (best case) how long before an armed vessel shows up to take it back?
Could have the plot of a pretty good adventure movie here
Cheers,
Earl[/QUOTE]
We are talking about civilian ships, not the US Navy’s autonomous warships here.
But you are right, the developers of cyber protection for such ships have to think very broadly, including physical takeover of the ships by “terrorists” or unfriendly forces.
Maybe you should offer your expertise to the project? Civilians may not have the right mindset for that task.
Updated - - -
[QUOTE=Slick Cam;192745]You are silly. Remember these people are smarter than everyone else and they assure you it will happen. So get onboard silly Americans.[/QUOTE]
FINALLY somebody here admitted the obvious. To resist IS futile and those who resist development will be left behind. Let’s hope they don’t try to shoot themselves out.
[QUOTE=ombugge;192757]We are talking about civilian ships, not the US Navy’s autonomous warships here.
But you are right, the developers of cyber protection for such ships have to think very broadly, including physical takeover of the ships by “terrorists” or unfriendly forces.
Maybe you should offer your expertise to the project? Civilians may not have the right mindset for that task.
[/QUOTE]
In today’s world the distinction between civilian and military is pretty blurred. The prospect of a hijacked LNG tanker or bulk carrier full of ammonia fertilizer is not something to look forward to.
As far as me getting back into the security business, no way. I shifted to the study of systems safety because I was tired of battling all the snake oil salesmen peddling “solutions” to those who “take security very seriously” (as long as it doesn’t cost too much).
And a Happy Thanksgiving to all of you out there who celebrate the holiday but whose duties take you away from your family. May you be reunited soon.
Then again, this is a car and close up contact, not a ship at sea and far away from a WiFi hotspot.
I would think it is possible to have a “fail-safe” system whereby, if anybody got onboard and tried to “take command” all system went to stop and locked against restarting?
Besides, there may not be any manual operation system by which to “take command”, only via remote link on a “safe” connection.
When you write a Concept of Operations for a system that gives humans full authority (see https://www.mitre.org/publications/systems-engineering-guide/se-lifecycle-building-blocks/concept-development/concept-of-operations if you are unfamiliar with ConOps) you inevitably end up with a section called “Doctrine” which is directed at the human operator and boils down to a list of statements of the form “keep alert and don’t let the system get into such and such a state.” E.g. “don’t run aground.” And then there’s always a written or unwritten footnote “unless the nature of the emergency is such that running aground is the best option.”
The problem with fully autonomous systems is you have to program in all that doctrine, much of which rests on human intuition and tacit knowledge. Robots aren’t that smart yet. The problem with semi-autonomous systems, like the Tesla “autopilot” is that they breed complacency (people treat them as if they were fully autonomous) and the vendor’s “doctrine” that the operator should be able to tell when the robot is confused and take over control is just a marketing cop-out.
The bottom line is that control of autonomous vehicles, large or small, fast or slow, in real-world conditions is a problem that is not solved by wishful thinking and marketing brochures. And that’s without taking into account the existence of competent organizations that wish to do you harm.
[QUOTE=ombugge;182654]I believe they are SUPPOSED to comply with the Colregs at least? Or are they exempt from those as well??[/QUOTE]
The US Navy is bound to “adhere as closely as possible to” all laws governing ships of the US. The only blanket exception is mission completion. Colregs have exceptions that Naval Officers are trained in, for example sailing darkened ship with no navigation lights displayed. A Captain’s first responsibility is to the mission, a Master’s first responsibility is to the crew.
That alone makes the admiralty laws a poor fit for both. You cannot sue a Captain in the US Navy but you can down right fillet a Master. It’s not so much that the Navy is exempt or allowed to slide on things legally, they have their own milestones of competency that more realistically reflect their own ships.
As far as might makes right, the entire reason our Armed Forces exist is to coerce our enemies to adhere to our biddings. The US Navy exists to remind our enemies that when our Army goes home and they go back to to their old ways we’re coming back.
The US Navy may not be my first choice to share an ocean with but when I see choppers from the carriers landing food and medicine hours after natural disasters occur anywhere in the world at the same time they’re conducting combat flight ops, supporting SEAL operations, monitering entire country’s communications, evacuating Americans in peril overseas plus protecting the battle group and it is literally all in a day’s work, I try to be even toned and give them a pass on things underway.
When Viktor Balinko defected with a MIG he asked to see a carrier underway. Flying back to the beach the next day he stated that a US carrier must be the most complicated integration of men and machine in the world. Be in awe of a US Carrier Battle Group. That goes for Russia too and they know it.
Not the most impressive thing I’ve seen come out of DNV. First, the article conflates “autonomous” with “remotely piloted.” Two completely different systems concepts. “Autonomous” means independent operation without the need for continuous communication with shore. “Remotely piloted” means there’s a link. Second, the claims for safety and resistance to piracy are, to say the least, unsubstantiated. Finally, this is the quote that got me:
“The road towards autonomous shipping will probably start with small specialized cargo vessels for costal and local traffic.”
Oh, I see, you’re going to do operational evaluation of a brand new systems concept in areas that have a shoreline to run into and the highest level of military, commercial, and recreational vessels to contend with. What could possibly go wrong?
