![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/26_naval_unmanned.jpg.jpg\")
Though the U.S. was the only nation operating vehicles as large as the 132-foot Sea Hunter USV, it was far from the only nation getting firsthand experience at the exercise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As if to cement the intention, consider this chain of command:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The medium USV Sea Hawk was attached to the destroyer Fitzgerald for the exercise. Fitzgerald reported to Republic of Singapore Navy Col. Kwan Hon Chuong as the sea combat commander within the exercise\u2019s expeditionary strike group, which was led by South Korean Rear Adm. Sangmin An. That rear admiral then reported to the maritime component commander of the entire exercise, Royal Australian Navy Commodore Paul O\u2019Grady.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
U.S. 3rd Fleet Commander Vice Adm. Michael Boyle told Defense News that O\u2019Grady would be among the first in the world to lead a hybrid fleet of manned and unmanned assets, something even the U.S. Navy itself isn\u2019t sure how to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At RIMPAC, this group had to figure it out during the exercise itself. And according to the head of the new Unmanned Surface Vessel Division One, it went quite well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tactics of the trade<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Among the challenges the U.S. Navy has faced with manned-unmanned teaming is that sailors often don\u2019t have the time to work on such tactics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cmdr. Jeremiah Daley, who has led USV Division One since its May launch, said an exercise like RIMPAC can further test safety and navigation capabilities of a USV, assess the strain on mechanical and electrical systems during combat-relevant operations, and identify the right payloads \u2014 including an electronic warfare suite and a towed sonar array, in this case. This all helps the service figure out how USVs \u201ccan contribute to the fight,\u201d Daley said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The USVs can zig-zag through local California waters to get more hours at sea, but Daley said the destroyers are usually busy with their own training and deployments, making it hard to find a ship able to devote days, much less weeks, to manned-unmanned teaming work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What the service learned at RIMPAC, he explained, is how to achieve \u201csustainability at sea\u201d\u2014 which doesn\u2019t only mean whether the engine ran successfully without breaking down, but also whether the whole package of the USV, its payload, and the teams at sea and ashore were effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the first 11 days at sea, Daley said, they were more effective than planned. For the Fitzgerald and Sea Hawk, which hauled a towed array sonar for anti-submarine warfare missions, \u201cour sensor suite onboard was able to contribute directly to the sea combat commander.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Daley noted that he worked directly with Chuong, the Singaporean colonel, and his staff during the planning phase and at sea to ensure the sea combat commander was ready to operate the USV during scripted events and free-play scenarios.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Daley said he had a team at the unmanned operations center in San Diego, California, as well as a team on the Fitzgerald. He added that the at-sea phase seemed to go as planned for everyone involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For Sea Hunter, operating an electronic warfare suite in collaboration with the destroyer William P. Lawrence, the exercise went better than planned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe participated in all the events that we scheduled \u2026 and then Sea Hunter had some additional participation in other events that we were not originally\u201d planned to do, Daley said, noting the chain of command found additional applications for the USV and its payload.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe continued to participate in a meaningful way during those events,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For RIMPAC, Sea Hunter and Sea Hawk each had multiple support teams, including one located on the destroyer to operate the USV and its payload, and a separate team off the ship to receive the data from the payload and communicate the data back to the shipboard team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The payloads are still in the development phase and not yet fully integrated into sensitive networks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Eventually, he said, a ship-based detachment could launch an unmanned surface vessel and use real-time data to make decisions about the rest of the ship and the USV\u2019s mission. This pairing would look more like the MQ-8 Fire Scout UAV detachments on littoral combat ships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The two medium USVs ran fully unmanned, except while coming in and out of port, though each vessel was accompanied by a chase boat with a master and a chief engineer that could board the USV and take control in case of an emergency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAt a certain point, we will cross that threshold \u2014 we will be unmanned and unescorted and over the horizon\u201d without requiring a chase boat, Daley said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the meantime, his team at USV Division One \u2014 plus collaborators at Naval Sea Systems Command\u2019s engineering directorate, the Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office, the Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division and others \u2014 have a long list of questions: What routine maintenance work will be done by sailors versus contractors? How tight does the integration need to be between the USV, its payload and embarked detachments on nearby ships? How could command and control of the USVs be passed between multiple ships and ashore command centers to maximize the usefulness of the USV during long deployments?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Daley told Defense News he will continue to collect feedback from sailors on the two destroyers as well as from his staff that operated in detachments at sea and ashore.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But, after the 11-day at-sea training phase of the exercise, \u201cwe have demonstrated good use cases for a medium-sized or smaller USV, along with a larger platform as well,\u201d he said, referring to the large Overlord-type USVs dubbed Ranger and Nomad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe reason why we brought both of them here was to not just internally test, but to demonstrate how far we\u2019ve moved the ball on capabilities and integration points with the fleet,\u201d he said, noting the USVs would also participate in two additional four-day at-sea pieces of the exercise that were less scripted and could yield interesting insights on the usefulness of USVs during conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe are still working through those tactics, techniques and procedures,\u201d he added. \u201cThe more input we can get from afloat units, not just sailors attached to my staff,\u201d the better the outcome will be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clark, the Hudson fellow, told Defense News this one-to-one pairing of a medium USV and a destroyer is not the best use of that unmanned type in the long term, but it does make for a good stepping stone during experimentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAlthough unmanned systems can extend the reach of sensors or countermeasures\u201d \u2014 essentially how they\u2019re used in RIMPAC as a way to lengthen the reach of a destroyer \u2014 \u201cthe main advantages of larger unmanned vehicles like MUSV or LUSV [medium or large USVs] is their ability to allow operations to scale with the threat and provide commanders with more options for how to organize and operate their forces,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf MUSVs are acting as \u2018loyal wingmen\u2019 for [destroyers], the variety of force packages and tactics available to commanders is less than if the MUSVs were allowed to operate independently based on direction from the theater or local commander.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clark added that he\u2019d like to see the unmanned ships operate more independently in the future. But for RIMPAC 2022, he said, \u201cusing them as extensions of manned ships\u2019 sensors and countermeasures is a good way [to] initially assess how autonomous the MUSVs can be, and help crews build [concepts of operations] that use the MUSV.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clark said the ability of these USVs to independently operate from the manned ships would be especially useful in something like the gray zone operations that dominate the South China Sea, where there\u2019s not all-out combat but rather tense interactions and close scrutiny of activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cUnmanned systems enable coalition forces to maintain persistence and reach, so it is important to be able to use them in gray zone situations as well as in combat,\u201d he said. \u201cAt the low end, they can be more affordable solutions to surveil and use electronic warfare against opponents. At the high end, unmanned systems can provide long range or more expendable ways of delivering attacks.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clark noted the data these USVs provide could go to a headquarters\u2019 maritime operations center and inform the whole fleet\u2019s decision-making, rather than be tied to a sole ship, as rehearsed at RIMPAC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Daley declined to discuss potential future uses of USVs, but did say part of their value at RIMPAC is demonstrating \u201cthe ability to control [the USVs] from more than one platform, from multiple platforms, in a dynamic way.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe are walking through afloat and ashore control for these vessels, and the transition between those two types of control is one of the objectives for our command\u2019s trials and testing here at RIMPAC: to continue to experiment and do trials on how those [tactics, techniques and procedures] will need to be developed for that program of record, [and] to inform the technical community of any additional requirements that we may need to execute tactically.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In an Aug. 1 media roundtable, several USV program officials said when one of the two destroyers had to drop out of the exercise, its accompanying USV was able to shift seamlessly from being commanded from the destroyer to being commanded from the unmanned operations center ashore in San Diego. Brian Fitzpatrick, the principal assistant program manager for USVs, said the Navy uses the Common Control System to operate its drones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s a few flips on a screen, and then you have control over\u201d the USV from a new console, Fitzpatrick explained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Navy had practiced shifting control of USVs in previous test events, so the program office and USV Division One knew it was technically possible. However, Fitzpatrick said, \u201cit was good that we could show we could do it to the fleet,\u201d even if that wasn\u2019t a scripted part of RIMPAC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rear Adm. Casey Moton, the program executive officer for unmanned and small combatants, said during the roundtable that he suspects the change in plans was \u201cjust one more thing to help build trust with the fleet. If there\u2019s an off-nominal condition and we show the ability to take control \u2014 to remove control off that vessel, to have the [unmanned operations center] perform its role \u2014 then that just gives the fleet more confidence in how the platform\u2019s going to react, how the USV [division] is going to react.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Daley said RIMPAC was the first exercise where all four of his USVs were available to participate, but it won\u2019t be the last. The Navy has three more USVs in construction, and the soon-to-be fleet of seven will be looking for opportunities to get to sea as well as test new payloads and command-and-control configurations, while the service searches for the right tactics and payloads to maximize what USVs can deliver.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Throughout RIMPAC, the U.S. Navy and its partners ran about 40 different experiments, mostly focused on incorporating unmanned systems and improving command and control within kill chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Capt. Dan Brown, the head of experimentation at 3rd Fleet, told Defense News at the exercise that a demonstration of the MQ-9B SeaGuardian \u2014 a maritime variant of the MQ-9A Reaper that operated in deserts across the Middle East in recent years \u2014 would be another highlight of the exercise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/7307238.jpg.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/7313641.jpg.jpg\")
Experimenting with the SeaGuardian<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/7305520.jpg.jpg\")