**4. System measure of effectiveness**

#### **4.1. System evaluation model**

A capability of directing all aspects of the multifaceted MIW campaign plan is needed to bring the various MCM capabilities together, providing unity of effort in defeating the mine threat.

There are several state-of-the-art weapon systems to dispose or detonate mines effectively, and economically such as the use of a laser gun, acquire gun and small charge delivery devices. Furthermore, the confidence for job completion requires the capability of accurate battle damage assessment (BDA). Underwater motion projectile is multipurpose in formed cavity water, due to its density, has a profound impact upon the terminal velocity of the implant at the target. A suitable weapon technology applied to MCM UUV is a lightweight composite 30 mm launcher that would implant a round filled with either high explosives (HE) for an

Similar technology was developed to counter roadside improvised explosive devices using 50 caliber weapons. A 30 mm implant would be usefully larger and could integrate a compliant fusing device, utilizing a detonator enables digital fusing, and affords either timed or control‐ led detonation, including detonation by an acoustically transmitted command. A 30 mm launcher provides sufficient terminal velocity to penetrate 5/10 inch cold rolled steel from a

The currently achieved standoff range of 30 feet which the UUV should shot detonate the mine is not sufficient to ensure safety of MCM UUVs. Shooting from longer ranges requires significant basic research, and development, both in material strengths, and in achieving

Considering the operational combat field endurance limit of more than 50 days of MCM UUV and the current status of the battery systems technology, the combination of diesel internal combustion engine (ICE) and effective battery systems could become reality. The high specific power generation of the internal combustion system gives effective operation of the vehicle and can provide a stable recharge power source of the battery system. Integration of a small diesel engine connected to the battery systems, and modification of the UUV hull structure for the snorkeling operation could give better alternatives for both recharging and propulsion of

A diesel submarine is a very good example of hybrid power supplying and sharing systems. The two or more sets of diesel engines in most diesel submarines can run propellers or can run generators that recharge a huge battery bank, or work in combination mode; one engine driving a propeller and others driving a generator. The submarines should run the diesel engines, they must surface or cruise just below the surface of water using snorkeling, and once the batteries are fully charged, the submarine can dive to underwater operations [8]. These diesel battery hybrid power systems are controlled by vehicle management computers and a main AI expert mission management system. Combined power generation, and the control

precise sonar fire-control accuracies before truly safe standoff ranges are achievable.

explosive hard-kill or reactive material for a soft kill burn [3].

**3.3. Neutralization weapon**

140 Autonomous Vehicle

range of 30 feet [13, 26].

**3.4. Energy and power managing section**

the MCM UUV in the meantime [25].

system structure are given in **Figure 6**.

Recently, UUV systems have emerged as a viable technology for conducting underwater search and neutralization operations in support for the naval MCM missions. In the final phase of the system design process, either conceptual or actual, justification studies for the proposed design should be carried out with functional and cost-effectiveness evaluations. In this section, analytical frameworks for evaluating the proposed MCM disposal UUV unit are developed based on the part of current US naval underwater ship design procedure [27, 28].

The evaluation models provide means to relate the effectiveness matrices to the system-level performance parameters. These individual capabilities can be stated in terms of vehicle subcomponents, such as sensors, data storage, processing unit, communication systems, navigation instrumentations, and disposal payload items. The evaluation framework is based primarily on the approach that combines several well-known systems engineering practices and decision making methods in a framework suitable for naval ship design [29].

The general approach of measure of effectiveness (MOE) investigation is to make high-level model as generic as possible and to increase detail and resolution with each progression into the low-level models [27]. This is accomplished by developing separate model subcomponents and linking them together to form the overall system model.

#### **4.2. System effectiveness model**

For the entire MCM evaluation framework, the specific operational requirements can be defined as follows; the MCM operations with mine reconnaissance, classification, localization and mine neutralization; the autonomous operations with minimal reliance on support platforms; safe recovery of the vehicle system unit. The effectiveness model has been estab‐ lished through considering the operational requirements for MCM autonomous vehicle systems and comparing those requirements to the existing MOE to determine where the changes are needed as in **Figure 7** [27].

**Figure 7.** Structure of system MOE evaluations.

Thus, for the MCM UUV disposal system unit, the mission time, mission accomplishment, autonomy, communication and covertness form the highest level of the proposed MOE hierarchy [29]. As shown in **Figure 7**, the MOE evaluation for the proposed design has the following components: system endurance, neutralization success, system autonomy, commu‐ nication links and clandestine operations.

The concepts for effective area coverage rates are better measured by time rate for mine search and actual neutralization activity, while operational time range is better for information, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations for long-term mine detection activities in wide areas. The effective area coverage rate can be defined as the ratio of the total search area to the total amount of time required to complete the MCM missions from launching to recovering of the UUV system. Duration of designed mission time is fundamentally based on UUV system hardware capability related to energy source, speed, operational load and hotel power consumptions [30].

Mine neutralization or sweeping success is the main object of MCM operations, and this MOE represents the estimated probability of search/classification of mines, as well as mission accomplishment for mine clearing. Mine reconnaissance and clearance are the two basic MCM missions, and the major objectives of mine reconnaissance are accurate search, localization and containment of designated mine in the contacts. Search level refers to cumulative probability of mine detection and relocalization, classification and identification within specified MCM operational areas. For the mine hunting, and neutralization phase, the MOE will be scored from minesweeping levels and the search level, confirming relocalization accuracy. The measures of mine neutralization success are defined by performances of the individual disposal weapon system and by successful identification of mines, which is expressed by the probability measures based on the history of mission maneuvering trajectory, performances of identification sensor systems and conditions of complex underwater environments [28].

The autonomy measure represents mission management, and vehicle operations related to the independence of the system from human oversight for the mission tasks. The area of mission managements consists of execution/service commands, communication links among MCM operations and logistics support relating to launch and recovery of the small UUV unit. The mission management requirement is specified in terms of discrete host responsibility alterna‐ tives, such as performance of system platforms, remote command and control (C2) and integration of mission activity by subdivisions via operation executions [28].

Measure of dynamic vehicle operations is also based on the degree of intelligence of vehicle maneuvering, obstacle avoidances and optimal path planning. The degree of autonomy of vehicle operations is determined by the level of guidance/navigation/control (GNC) of vehicles and obstacle avoidance/optimal path planning required during the MCM mission operations. The nature of this kind of MOE characteristics is well defined in the department of de‐ fense(DoD) level of autonomy for autonomous vehicle criteria by the number, capability of processing unit and data base capacity for decision making within specific missions [29, 30].
