Design of an Underwater Mine Detection System

Siamak Khaledi, Hari Mann, James Perkovich, Samar Zayed

George Mason University, skhaledi, hmann, jperkovi, szayed@gmu.edu

Abstract— Underwater mines are an effective method of blocking importance to the United States, both commercially and
shipping lanes and restricting naval operations resulting in militarily. All ship traffic traveling into or out of the
significant negative economic and environmental impacts. Chesapeake Bay must pass over one of two shipping lanes that
Current mine clearance processes used by the United States cross over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. Each shipping
Navy can take up to 200 times the cost and time required to place
lane is one mile wide [2]. In addition to the heavy volume of
the minefield. This asymmetry highlights a weakness in the
Navy’s ability to effectively deal with the threat of underwater traffic passing through this narrow choke point, the shallow
mines. To create a scenario that satisfies stakeholders’ interests, depth is an ideal setting for mines to cause damage to ships.
the Navy needs to improve the effectiveness of its mine clearance In the hypothetical situation where an enemy wanted to disrupt
systems with reduced process time, increased probability of the economy of the United States and the operations of the
detection, and removal of the risk of injury or loss of life to the U.S. Navy, and was capable of placing mines in U.S. waters,
system operators. the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay would be a prime target.
The authors analyze the benefits of the use of autonomous, The responsibility of clearing mines in the world’s
unmanned vehicles to tow the sonar through the water compared waterways often falls on the United States Navy. The mission
with current manned systems. Autonomous vehicles can be less
of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready naval
expensive to operate while providing the same or better
performance and reduce the risk of operator fatalities. Two forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and
existing sonar alternatives and five different towing vehicles are maintaining freedom of the seas. Thus, to complete this
considered. A computer model of the vehicle dynamics and fuel mission, it is critical that these waterways remain clear for the
burn is used to simulate each design alternative as it goes through safe performance of military operations.
the process of detecting underwater mines in a prospective
minefield (e.g. mouth of the Chesapeake Bay). The model II. Mine Technology
includes several assumptions regarding the type of mines to be Mines are designed to be as undetectable and deadly as
detected, total area being covered, and the type of mine clearing possible and, as such, can vary greatly in terms of their designs.
operation. Results indicate that underwater vehicle alternative Mines can float on top of a body of water, rest on the sea floor,
uses the least amount of energy. Additionally, the Raytheon or be moored to the sea floor. Mines can also be fitted with
sonar requires more energy to be towed through the water than
technology for detecting certain signals that allow the mine to
the Klein sonar for all vehicle alternatives. The total utility of
each alternative is determined based on its performance with be detonated at a more precise location or by some specific
regard to safety, speed, fuel economy, and probability of target. For example, mines can utilize acoustic sensors,
detection. A utility versus cost analysis indicates the best pressure sensors, and a multitude of other techniques in order
alternative. to become more precise [3]. The mine designs for placement
in different marine regions are shown in Figure 1.
Index Terms— Inland waterways, Lift power, Mine, Propulsion
force, Sonar, Sonar equation.

CONTEXT
I. Importance of World Waterways
Water is a vital resource to all life on earth. Humans tend to
settle near areas with reliable access to waterways because
maritime travel is an essential part of modern life. Eighty
percent of humans live within 60 miles of coastal waters and
90% of global commerce is conducted by sea [1]. The port
cities that facilitate this commercial movement are generally
accessed by travel through inland waterways that provide a
link to the open ocean. These waterways create a bottleneck FIGURE 1
for ship traffic. Due to the heavy traffic and shallow water, MINE WARFARE REGIONS [4]
these inland waterways can be targets for attacks to disrupt the
economy or military operations. The reason that mines can be used as such an effective
As an example of such an area, the mouth of the means to block waterways stems from the asymmetry involved
Chesapeake Bay is an inland waterway that is of great in the process to place a mine field versus the process to clear

1
one. Clearing a minefield can take up to 200 times longer and objective is to clear underwater mines in a safe, timely and
cost up to 200 times more than laying a minefield [5]. cost effective manner. The DoD requires the proposed system
to be interoperable with the existing defense and tracking
III. Current Mine Clearing Techniques
systems [6].
Mine clearance systems that are most commonly in use by the Beneficiaries are the users of the waterways. They benefit
U.S. Navy today are time consuming and expensive. An MH- from the free and safe movement throughout the waterways of
60S helicopter flies to the site of the minefield and deploys a the world, which is provided by the system customers.
sonar to be towed by the helicopter through the water over the Beneficiaries include the ship traffic through the water, such
minefield. The helicopter then returns to base and the collected as military and commercial ships. The military traffic’s
data is examined for signs of mine-like objects. The helicopter objective is to conduct missions in a safe and timely fashion,
makes a second pass over the mine field to eliminate the while the commercial traffic seeks safe transportation through
mines, and finally makes a third pass to verify that the mines the waterways.
are destroyed [3]. This process requires three distinct flights of The final group that is a secondary stakeholder is the
the helicopter and a manned crew to operate the helicopter and minelayers. Minelayers may include strategic enemy countries,
sonar. as well as terrorist groups. Enemies seek to deny freedom of
IV. Project Scope movement to the U.S. Navy forces. Terrorist groups carry out
planned attacks to cause widespread chaos, seek the attention
Determining the actual time and cost required to clear any
of media, and obtain worldwide recognition. The mine
given mine field is difficult because there are so many
detection system does not seek to satisfy the objective of
variables that can affect the situation. These factors include the
minelayers.
size of the mine field, type of mines, whether or not the enemy
is trying to stop the operation (covert or overt operation), the III. Tertiary Stakeholders
natural environment of the minefield, and the type of sensors Three groups of people make up the tertiary stakeholders.
being used. In order to narrow the scope of this project, the System servicemen are trainers and maintainers who must
aforementioned factors have been limited. The simulation will adapt to new procedures and tasks. United States taxpayers
examine a vehicle and sonar system operating in a 1 square seek national security from the government and wish to
mile area in the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, the mission is maximize the value of investment. Environmental groups seek
overt, the system will search for moored mines in the water to protect humans, animals, and the environment from harm.
column, and the objective is to clear a path as rapidly as
possible. Although the scope of the project is narrowed, the IV. Stakeholder Tensions
idea is that when the simulation is complete, it can be run with Interactions among stakeholders expose the conflicts in their
different inputs to simulate different situations that were not respective interests, and result in stakeholder tensions. These
necessarily used in this project. tensions are broken into Internal and External levels.
Internal tensions include tensions between system
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS operators and system customers, with the system operators
I. Primary Stakeholders having concerns over operational safety, whereas the main
objective of system customers is to decrease the time and cost
The primary stakeholders of the system are system operators,
of mine clearance. In addition, servicemen and system
whose safety is at stake. Examples of system operators include
customers also experience internal tensions. Current training
those in charge of the vehicles involved in the mine clearance
staff may not be able to effectively train the operators for the
process; such as sailors and pilots. The major objective for
new system, and the new system may add significant burden
system operators is to have their operational safety increased.
to maintenance procedures.
II. Secondary Stakeholders External tensions include tensions between environmental
Designers and manufacturers include the groups that design groups and system customers. Sound waves produced by the
the entire system, as well as the manufacturers of all the sonar employed by the Navy have previously been lethal to
applied components. Components include the vehicles marine animals on several occasions. NRDC has been a leader
involved in the process (such as boats or helicopters), the mine in the battle to regulate sonar use and protect underwater
detection unit (sonar), the mine clearance unit (neutralizer), species from its harmful effects [7]. Other external tensions
and all other physical and virtual components involved in the include tensions between taxpayers and system customers,
system. The objective of designers and manufacturers is to with the taxpayers consistently seeking value of investment on
grow their market share, and they do so by providing a cost the money they provide through taxes.
effective solution to war fighters.
PROBLEM AND NEED STATEMENTS
The next group that is considered a secondary stakeholder
is the system customers, who include the U.S. Navy and the I. Problem Statement
Department of Defense (DoD). As a part of homeland defense, Underwater mines are a very effective method of blocking
the U.S. Navy functions under the supervision of the shipping lanes, restricting naval operations. They are a
Department of Defense and deploys mine clearance systems to challenge to identify, classify, and neutralize. This threat can
clear waterways that are suspected to have mines. The Navy’s

2
have severe negative effects on the world economy and the gap filler sonar. The Klein option is smaller in size and
ability of the world’s Navies to conduct necessary operations. weighs less than the Raytheon sonar. All vehicle
Because of the capabilities and worldwide influence of the alternatives must be able to tow the AN/AQS-20A or
United States, the responsibility of clearing mines often falls Klein 5900 through the water.
on the U.S. Navy. As explained in the gap analysis section,  Underwater Vehicle Alternative: The underwater
today’s technology to clear waterways of mines is slow and alternative consists of an underwater vehicle that is
costly when compared to what it takes minelayers to store the capable of towing either of the two sonar alternatives
mines in the waterways. Underwater mines also pose negative through the water. The underwater alternative that is
environmental impacts, by exposing the underwater species considered for this project is the Lockheed Martin Remote
and the natural environment to the danger of explosion. Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV). The RMMV is powered
by a diesel engine and has a snorkel that extends beyond
II. Need Statement
the surface of the water. Its capabilities include the ability
There is a need for the U.S Navy to improve the effectiveness to stay in water for up to 24 hours, tow sonar through the
of mine clearance systems. The U.S. Navy needs to reduce the water, and autonomously travel pre-programmed routes
operational cost and improve the rate of detection and [10].
neutralization to prevent the threat of underwater mines from  Surface Vehicle Alternatives: The surface alternative
increasing. Furthermore, there is a need to remove the safety will consist of an unmanned surface craft towing the
risk of personnel in a mine clearance operation. underwater sonar. The two surface alternatives that are
Making the investment of time and money immediately evaluated for the system design are the Meggitt
will end up saving time and money in the future if an event Hammerhead and the Textron Fleet-Class Common
occurs where the U.S. Navy needs to clear an area of Unmanned Surface Vessel. Similar to the underwater
underwater mines. The current investment will also reduce the alternative, both surface alternatives area able to tow
negative economic impact that underwater mines could heavy loads, and travel along pre-programmed routes
potentially cause to the U.S. or world economy [8]. through the use of their GPS systems. The Meggitt boat
can travel at speeds up to 35 knots, and has more than
CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS eight hours of endurance [11]. The Textron boat is much
larger and can carry heavier loads. It can haul up to 5,000
I. Limitations pounds while traveling at 10 knots, and has a range of
When designing a mine countermeasure system, there are 1,200 miles [12].
some important limitations that should be noted. Any system  Airborne Vehicle Alternatives: The airborne alternatives
that is looking for objects in the water is limited to the consist of an unmanned helicopter towing the underwater
currently available sonar technology. Other technologies that sonar. There are two unmanned helicopters available that
are traditionally used to find objects at a distance are not are evaluated for use, the U.S. Navy’s Fire Scout and the
effective underwater. Sonar has a much longer range than U.S. Marine Corp’s K-Max. Both unmanned helicopters
either radar or optical instruments (cameras) due to the are currently being used by the U.S. military. Similar to
physical nature of the way light waves, radio waves and sound the underwater and the surface alternatives, the unmanned
waves move through water. For this reason, the system being helicopter can carry heavy loads, travel through
designed must use sonar to detect underwater mines. preprogrammed GPS positions, and communicate with
The new mine detection system will make use of sonar human observers through conventional radio
systems and vehicle systems that are already in production. communications. The Fire Scout can lift up to 2,650
More information on the sonar and vehicle systems that are pounds and stay in the air for up to eight hours, while the
considered for use in the system can be found in the following heavy duty K-Max can lift up to 6,000 pounds and has a
section. flight endurance of more than 2.5 hours [13],[14].
II. Design Alternatives
Each system alternative will consist of two main components; a SIMULATION
vehicle alternative, and a sonar alternative.
The goal of the simulation is to determine the time it takes for
 Sonar Alternatives: The first alternative, the Raytheon
each alternative to scan the minefield, how much energy is
AN/AQS-20A Minehunting Sonar System, is considered
used, and what the probability of detection is. To achieve these
the standard in mine hunting technology by the U.S. Navy
outputs, the simulation consists of two main models: The
[9]. The system does not have propulsion capabilities and
energy consumption model and the probability of detection
therefore must be towed through the water. The
model.
AN/AQS-20A simultaneously uses a combination of five
All alternatives were run through a simulation of mine
different sonar systems while moving through the water to
detection over one square mile in the previously mentioned
get a picture of both the sea floor beneath the vehicle, and
Chesapeake Bay area. An area of one square mile was chosen
the water column in front of it. The second sonar
because it is the width of the shipping lanes, and therefore, is
alternative considered is the L-3 Klein Systems 5900.
wide enough to allow ship traffic in two directions. If there
The Klein sonar has a dual side scan sonar and an optional

3
was a situation where a suspected mine field was halting the I. Energy Consumption Model
movement of Navy ships, clearing a distance of one mile wide The energy consumption model was made using a free body
would be sufficient to allow passage in both directions. In diagram for each system alternative. The free body diagram
addition, one square mile is a simplified baseline measurement shows all the forces acting on the vehicle component of the
that can be used as a conversion to project the clearance of a system while it moves through space. The free body diagram
larger area if the situation exists. for the airborne alternative is illustrated in Figures 3.
Each system alternative consists of one of the vehicle Diagrams for the other alternatives are similar with the
alternatives towing one of the sonar alternatives. Evaluating exception that force of gravity is opposed by buoyancy force
five vehicle alternatives and two different sonar alternatives rather than lift force. The Equation used to calculate
totals ten different alternatives that will be run through the propulsion force for all vehicle alternatives is displayed in (1),
simulation. All ten alternatives are also compared to the and drag for each vehicle alternative and for the towed sonar is
current system. The possible combinations that make up each calculated using (2).
system alternative are shown in Table I.

TABLE I
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT

FIGURE 3
FORCES ACTING ON THE AIRBORNE ALTERNATIVE

( ) (1)

(2)

Random inputs that affect the simulation are wind and As the system moves through space, the propulsion force
water current. Each random input affects the hydrodynamics must overcome the force of drag on the vehicle body and on
and aerodynamics of the system in different ways, depending the body of the sonar that it is towing. After propulsion force
on the vehicle alternative. is calculated, it is multiplied by distance to find the total
The search area and underwater topography of the search energy used. In addition to the force needed to travel at a
area will be constant inputs. A block diagram showing the constant velocity, there is also an additional force to accelerate
simulation inputs and outputs is shown in Figure 2. the system up to cruising speed. The additional force needed
to accelerate the system was calculated using (3), than
multiplied by the distance needed to accelerate up to the top
speed that the sonar can operate. A constant acceleration of
0.1m/s2 is assumed.

( ) (3)

The airborne alternative requires additional energy to

keep the helicopter in the air. The helicopter must create
enough lift to overcome the force of gravity and the weight of
the sonar body that it is towing through the water. The
equation used to calculate lift power is displayed in (4).

√ (4)
FIGURE 2
SIMULATION INPUTS/OUTPUTS
Lift power is multiplied by time to find the total energy
used to keep the helicopter in the air as it travels through the
one square mile search area. The energy needed for lift is then

4
added to the energy used for propulsion to derive a total vehicle. The complete results of the energy consumption model
energy used. For the purpose of the simulation, it is assumed are displayed in Table IV.
that the angle at which the sonar tow cable trails the vehicle
will remain constant for all vehicle alternatives. Table IV
The total energy needed for the system to travel through ENERGY CONSUMPTION RESULTS
the one square mile area was calculated by running the
simulation through 10,000 replications. The required energy
from the output was multiplied by energy density of the fuel to
calculate the total volume of fuel needed. Volume of fuel was
then converted into total fuel cost based on current fuel prices.
Energy density and fuel cost for all fuels used is displayed in
Table II. Energy cost will be added to cost of staffing, along
with acquisition cost in the cost model to determine an overall
cost for the system.

TABLE II
ENERGY DENSITY AND FUEL COST
Type Energy Density (BTU/gal.) Cost ($/gal.)
Diesel 128,450 [15] 3.873 [16]
Gasoline 116,090 [15] 3.296 [16]
Jet Fuel 125,217 [17] 2.966 [18] Although the Klein sonar performed best in terms of
energy usage, the Raytheon sonar performed best in the
II. Probability of Detection Model probability of detection model. The Raytheon sonar showed a
The sonar equation, shown in (5), is used to determine probability of detection of .998, while the Klein probability of
probability of detection. Each term of the sonar equation is detection was .82.
described in Table III.
RECOMMENDATIONS
[ ( )] (5)
After the simulation was completed, a total utility score was
Table III calculated for all system alternatives. Total utility score was
EXPLANATION OF TERMS IN THE SONAR EQUATION plotted versus total cost in order to determine the preferred
Source level radiated by and measured at sonar combination of alternatives. Weights used in the value
Propagation loss en route to receiver hierarchy were derived using the swing weights method with
Target strength, measure of sound reflected by target input from industry experts. Final weights are shown in Figure
Sonar self-noise 4.
Array gain, how much noise the array cuts out
Detection threshold, signal to noise ratio (SNR) required for
detection
Signal excess, difference between provided and required SNR

For this simulation, the target strength and detection

threshold terms are constant and the same value for both sonar
alternatives. Source level and array gain are dependent on the FIGURE 4
size of the sonar, and therefore are constant throughout the VALUE HIERARCHY
simulation, but different for each sonar alternative.
Propagation loss and self-noise depend on the environment, Although cost data on the Textron boat is not available, it
and therefore are random variables in the simulation. Both is concluded that cost would be significantly higher than the
random terms are assumed to follow a Gaussian distribution cost of the Meggitt boat due to its increased size and
[19]. capabilities. Additionally, total utility of the Textron
alternatives are less than that of the Meggitt alternatives. The
RESULTS higher cost coupled with a lower total utility results in the
elimination of the Textron boat as a preferred alternative
The energy consumption model results indicate that the despite the unknown cost.
RMMV towing the Klein sonar requires the least amount of Utility versus cost analysis shows that either the
energy. Additionally, the Klein sonar performed best with all RMMV/Klein combination or the RMMV/Raytheon
vehicle alternatives, and the RMMV was the most fuel efficient combination are the preferred options for a new underwater
mine detection system. The Meggitt/Klein combination

5
yielded a total utility of .718 at a cost of $1.1 million [20],[21]. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/port-strike-los-angeles-
janice-hahn_n_2240871.html [Accessed: 09/05/2013]
The Meggitt/Raytheon combination had a total utility of .995
and a total cost of $11.93 million [21],[22]. For these two [9] N/A, “AN-AQS-20A Minehunting Sonar System” [Online] Available:
http://www.raytheon.com/ourcompany/rtnwcm/groups/public/documents
alternatives, the marginal cost of utility is $3,916,817 per 0.1 /datasheet/an_aqs_20_minehunting.pdf [Accessed: 09/07/2013]
units of utility. The choice is up to the decision maker to
[10] N/A, “Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle” navi.mil [Online] Available:
choose the alternative with the higher utility, or the alternative http://acquisition.navy.mil/content/download/7880/36392/version/1/file/r
with the lower cost. The final utility versus cost plot is shown mmv+20110812.pdf [Accessed: 10/22/2013]
in Figure 5. [11] N/A, “Hammerhead Brochure March 13” [Online] Available:
http://www.meggittcanada.com/media/public_files/documents/2013/Mar
/15/Hammerhead_Brochure_March13.pdf [Accessed: 10/22/2013].
[12] N/A, “Performance, Persistence & Modularity” [Online] Available:
http://www.aaicorp.com/sites/default/files/datasheets/AAI_CUSV_08-
08-11_AAI.pdf [Accessed: 10/22/2013].
[13] N/A, “K-MAX Unmanned Aircraft System” [Online] Available:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/docum
ents/K-MAX-brochure.pdf [Accessed: 10/22/2013]
[14] N/A, “MQ-8C Fire Scout” [Online] Available:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/FireScout/Documents/p
ageDocuments/MQ-8C_Fire_Scout_Data_Sheet.pdf [Accessed:
10/22/2013]
[15] N/A, “Alternative Fuels Data Center – Fuel Properties Comparison”
energy.gov [Online] Available:
FIGURE 5 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf [Accessed:
UTILITY VERSUS COST ANALYSIS 1/10/2014].
[16] N/A, “Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update” [Online] Available:
www.eia.doe.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ [Accessed: 2/6/2014].
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [17] M. Janic, Greening Airports: Advanced Technology and Operations,
Springer, Delft, Netherlands, 2011.

We would like to thank George Blaha from Raytheon [18] N/A, “Fuel Price Analysis” [Online] Available:
https://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pages/price-
Integrated Defense Systems for his contributions as the sponsor analysis.aspx [Accessed: 2/6/2014]
of this project. Special thanks to Dr. Lance Sherry, Paula [19] D. Wagner et al, Naval Operations Analysis, 3rd ed., Naval Institute
Lewis, and Jedidiah Shirey for their contribution and support Press, Annapolis, MD, 1999.
throughout this project. [20] M. Mitchell. (2014, Feb. 12). L-3 Communications [Online]. Available
e-mail: Michael.mitchell@l-3com.com Message: RE: Request for
REFERENCES Information about Klein System 5900
[21] N/A, “Hammerhead USV-T” [Online] Available:
[1] N/A, “Privacy Policy” navi.mil [Online] Available: http://www.navi.mil http://www.navaldrones.com/Hammerhead.html [Accessed: 2/18/2014]
[Accessed: 11/12/2013].
[2] N/A, “Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel – Facts & Figures” [Online] [22] N/A, “US Navy Buys AN/AQS-20A Sonars from Raytheon” [Online]
Available: http://www.cbbt.com/facts.html [Accessed: 10/22/2013]. Available: http://navaltoday.com/2014/02/20/us-navy-buys-anaqs-20a-
sonars-from-raytheon [Accessed: 3/25/2014]
[3] T. Brown et al, “Next Generation Mine Countermeasures for the Very
Shallow Water Zone in Support of Amphibious,” at Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterrey, CA, 2012. Available: www.dtic.mil/cgi- AUTHOR INFORMATION
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA559143
[4] N/A, “21st-Century U.S. Navy Mine Warfare” [Online] Available: Siamak Khaledi, Student, Department of Systems Engineering
http://www.navy.mil/n85/miw_primer-june2009.pdf [Accessed: and Operations Research, George Mason University.
09/21/2013]
Hari Mann, Student, Department of Systems Engineering and
[5] N/A, “Mine Warfare” navy.mil [Online] Available: Operations Research, George Mason University.
http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/mcmconflict/Pages/minewarfare.aspx
[Accessed: 10/22/2013] James Perkovich, Student, Department of Systems
[6] N/A, “About The Department of Defense (DOD)” defense.gov [Online] Engineering and Operations Research, George Mason
Available: http://www.defense.gov/about/ [Accessed: 09/27/2013] University.
[7] N/A, “Lethal Sounds” [Online] Available: Samar Zayed, Student, Department of Systems Engineering
http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sonar.asp [Accessed: 09/25/2013] and Operations Research, George Mason University.
[8] J. Stephens, “Los Angeles Port Strike Endangers Entire country’s
Economic Engine” [Online]. Available: