Comprehensive Engineering Framework for a Tandem Unmanned Underwater Vehicle System in Competitive Marine Environments

Comprehensive Engineering Framework for a Tandem Unmanned Underwater Vehicle System in Competitive Marine Environments Capt. Noah Ugur Kilinc Preface and Introduction The engineering of advanced underwater robotics systems has witnessed a paradigm shift toward multi-stage architectures where the primary vehicle serves as a deployment and communication hub for a secondary, more specialized, mission-oriented unit. In the rapidly evolving landscape of marine robotics, the transition from single-platform operations to multiagent tandem systems represents a significant leap in mission versatility and operational autonomy. This research framework details the technical synthesis of a "Mother-Daughter" underwater architecture designed specifically to meet the complex demands of multi-stage missions at depths of 5 and 20 meters. This tandem configuration, often referred to as a mother-daughter system, allows for the separation of heavy-duty propulsion and long-range communication from highly precise local maneuvers. 1 In the context of a staged competition involving dives to 5 and 20 meters, the technical challenges encompass a wide range of disciplines, including hydrostatic structural analysis, complex thermal management in confined environments, and multi-sensor fusion for blind navigation and positioning. This study, leveraging doctoral-level knowledge, details the design, material selection, and systemic integration required for the construction of such a system, aiming to achieve the optimal balance between technical performance and lifecycle costs. By integrating doctoral-level expertise in submarine hydrodynamics, thermal management within sealed electronic enclosures, and multi-sensor fusion for GPS-deficient environments, the project addresses the critical challenges of "blind" navigation and hierarchical positioning reporting. The proposed model bridges the gap between high-accuracy academic research and industrial-level reliability by employing a strategic balance of custom-fabricated structural components and advanced sensing technologies. Designed with a focus on total cost of ownership and mission-critical stability, this engineering framework serves as a comprehensive roadmap for the development of high-performance, competition-ready Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) systems operating at the frontiers of underwater exploration. Keywords: Tandem UUV Systems, GPS-Denied Navigation, Subsurface Thermal Management, Hydrostatic Structural Integrity, Cost-Optimized Subsea Engineering 1 1. HYDRODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AT SUBSURFACE DEPTHS The transition from a 5-meter initial mission stage to a 20-meter secondary stage introduces a significant increase in hydrostatic pressure, necessitating a rigorous approach to material selection and hull geometry. The primary requirement for any Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) is to maintain atmospheric pressure within its internal electronics enclosures while resisting the compressive forces of the surrounding fluid.3 1.1. Subsurface Pressure Dynamics and Hull Integrity At a depth of 20 meters, the hydrostatic pressure exerted on the vehicle's hull is approximately 2.97 bar absolute, or roughly 1.97 bar of gauge pressure. This is derived from the hydrostatic equation: Where ƿ represents the density of the fluid (typically 1023,6 kg/m3 for saltwater / 997.0474 kg/m3 for freshwater), g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.80665 m/s2), and h is the depth in meters.4 While 3 bar is considered low-pressure in industrial subsea engineering, it is sufficient to cause structural failure in improperly designed academic or competition-grade vehicles. Failure typically occurs through two primary modes: yielding of the material and elastic buckling of the shell.3 Depth (m) Hydrostatic Pressure (bar) Force on 4-inch End Common Failure Mode Cap (N) 5 1.50 ~380 Seal bypass/Leaking 10 2.00 ~760 Structural deformation 20 2.97 ~1,520 Buckling in thin-walled hulls 50 5.92 ~3,800 Strength failure (Yielding) 2 Research into lightweight pressure hulls indicates that for depths up to 300 meters, aluminum alloys (such as 6061-T6) are the optimal choice due to their high specific strength and resistance to corrosion when anodized.6 The geometry of the hull is equally critical. Circular cylinders and domes are the most efficient shapes for resisting external pressure because they allow for a more uniform distribution of stresses through the thickness of the wall.3 In particular, hemispherical domes are ideal for camera ports and end caps, as they transition stress more effectively than flat plates, which are prone to bending and shearing at the O-ring interface. 1.2. Drag Minimization and Propulsive Efficiency Hydrodynamics also governs the vehicle's ability to move efficiently through the water column. The drag force (FD) acting on the ROV and the mother ship is a function of the vehicle's frontal area and its drag coefficient (CD): In tandem systems, the tether connecting the two vehicles introduces a significant source of hydrodynamic drag, often exceeding the drag of the vehicles themselves during lateral movements.8 To mitigate this, the mothership must be designed with a streamlined, low-drag profile, often adopting a torpedo or "flat-fish" shape to minimize the energy required for station-keeping and transit.9 The ROV, which requires higher maneuverability, typically utilizes a vectored thruster configuration. This setup allows for six-degree-of-freedom control, enabling the vehicle to maintain stability in roll, pitch, and yaw while performing precision tasks.11 Figure 1: Thruster configuration on Calypso- ETSU Buccaneers 7 3 The selection of thrusters, such as the Blue Robotics T200, provides a reliable baseline for thrust-to-weight ratios. In high-performance collegiate projects like the "ETSU Buccaneers" Calypso, eight such thrusters are positioned at 45-degree horizontal and vertical angles to provide active stabilization and rapid response to pilot commands.7 This configuration ensures that the ROV can overcome the "tether pull" generated by the mother ship’s movement or subsurface currents. Figure 2: Run Cam Racer Nano camera. ETSU Buccaneers 7 Figure 3: BlueROV2- Blue Robotics 11 4 2. THERMAL MANAGEMENT AND ELECTRONIC RELIABILITY IN SEALED ENVIRONMENTS The thermodynamics of sealed underwater enclosures present a unique challenge: the very seals that protect the electronics from water also trap the heat generated by high-performance processors, motor controllers, and power converters.13 Without effective thermal management, internal temperatures can quickly exceed the safe operating limits of silicon components, leading to mission failure.13 2.1. Internal Heat Flux and Dissipation Mechanisms Modern UUVs often integrate sophisticated companion computers (e.g., Raspberry Pi 4 or 5) and multiple Electronic Speed Controllers (ESCs) within a single watertight enclosure. These components can generate heat fluxes reaching 200 W/ cm2.14 In a sealed system, heat must be transferred to the external water through three primary mechanisms: conduction through the hull, internal convection, and radiation. 16 The thermal conductivity of the hull material is the most significant factor in this chain. Aluminum, with a thermal conductivity of approximately 167 W/m*K, is vastly superior to acrylic or plastic enclosures, which act as thermal insulators.16 For systems utilizing acrylic tubes for visibility, it is essential to mount heat-generating components directly to metal end caps or internal aluminum "racks" that are in contact with the water-cooled sections of the vehicle.16 Figure 4: Different types of heatsinks have different advantages. 16 5 The above chart (Figure 4) visually depicts the six methods for how they rank on these three factors. Some are better on price, others on thermal performance. In the end, extruded aluminum ranks highest in the ability to meet client expectations for cost, performance, and availability. 2.2. Advanced Cooling Optimization Research into the thermal management of sealed electronics has highlighted the importance of airflow optimization and fin geometry. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis shows that simply introducing a small internal fan to circulate air can reduce peak temperatures by over 50% compared to a stagnant internal environment.13 Cooling Configuration Peak Processor Temp (°C) Thermal Resistance (K/W) Status Sealed / No Internal Airflow 253.0 High Critical Failure Sealed / Forced Airflow (No Fins) 121.7 Moderate Marginal Sealed / Forced Airflow + Full Fins 78.7 Low Optimal The use of passive heatsinks with full-length fins is the most effective way to dissipate heat in these environments. A single full fin can drop the internal temperature by nearly 40% by increasing the surface area available for convective heat transfer.13 For even higher power densities, "heat pipes" can be utilized to transport heat from a central processor to the hull's exterior. These sealed tubes contain a vaporizable liquid that evaporates at the heat source and condenses at the cooler end, providing a thermal conductivity thousands of times higher than solid copper.14 6 3. NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING FOR DENIED ENVIRONMENTS Underwater navigation is fundamentally different from terrestrial navigation because the ocean is opaque to the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals used by drones and autonomous cars.19 To achieve "blind navigation"—the ability to track position without external visual or satellite cues—the system must rely on acoustic positioning and inertial sensor fusion.21 Figure 5: Positioning and distance measurement in the detection area 19 Method 21 Range Data Rate Applications Limitations Acoustic Modems Long Medium General-purpose underwater comms Can be affected by water noise, the speed of sound Optical Communication Short High High-bandwidth, short-range comms Can be affected by water clarity Electromagnetic Waves Medium Low Submarine comms, sensor networks Low data rates, high power consumption Through-Water Radio Medium Very Low Submarine comms, emergency signals Requires large antennas, low data rates Hydrophone/Speaker Short Low Diver comms, simple ROV control Limited data capability Tethered Communication Very Long Very High ROV ops, tethered divers Limited mobility, risk of entanglement Inductive Coupling Very Short Very Low Short-range data transfer Very short range, limited data rates 7 Figure 6: The system diagram of the Raspi2 USBL system. 20 Figure 7: Hardware architecture of the acoustic receiver and beacon cabins in the Raspi2 USBL system. 20 8 3.1. Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) Architectures The most common method for determining the ROV's position relative to the main ship is UltraShort Baseline (USBL) acoustic positioning. A transceiver on the main ship sends an acoustic pulse to a transponder or "tag" on the ROV. By measuring the "time-of-flight" and the phase difference of the arriving signal at an array of hydrophones, the system calculates the distance and the 3D bearing of the ROV.22 System Type Range (m) Accuracy Complexity Best Use Case USBL 1,000+ 0.1% - 0.5% Moderate ROV tracking from the ship LBL (Long Baseline) 5,000+ Centimeter High Deep-sea site mapping SBL (Short Baseline) 500+ Moderate Moderate Vessel-based surveys DVL (Doppler Log) 100+ High Velocity High Cost Ground-speed stabilization For a professional design, a "USBL-squared" (USBL2) configuration is recommended. This architecture places transducers on both the main ship and the ROV. By resolving the relative bearings at both ends, the system can calculate a high-accuracy heading that is immune to the magnetic interference often found near the metal structures of mother ships or competition props.25 9 Figure 8: Software workflow of the Raspi2 USBL system. 20 10 3.2. Doppler Velocity Log (DVL) and Sensor Fusion While USBL provides an absolute position, it suffers from a low update rate (typically 1-5 Hz) and can be affected by multipath reflections in shallow water.24 To achieve the stability required for a 20-meter dive, the ROV must integrate a Doppler Velocity Log (DVL). The DVL uses the Doppler shift of acoustic pulses reflected off the seafloor to measure the vehicle's precise ground speed.2 The data from the USBL, DVL, and an internal Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) are combined using an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF). This filter manages the "sensor fusion" by weighing the high-frequency but drifting data from the IMU against the low-frequency but absolute data from the USBL.23 For the main ship to report its position to the operator, it must first establish its own global coordinate by surfacing periodically for a GNSS lock or by using an "Acoustic Compass" to orient itself relative to seabed beacons.26 Figure 9: Underwater Positioning Systems 24 11 Hybrid Systems Mix elements of USBL, SBL, and LBL to balance accuracy and deployment speed. Specialized Methods UUV navigation combining dead reckoning through inertial measurement units (IMU) with Doppler velocity logs (DVL) and intermittent USBL/LBL fixes for periodical GNSS locks, status updates, and command transmissions. Figure 10: Underwater Positioning Systems 24 12 4. COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS AND INFORMATION REPORTING CHAINS The requirement for the remote ship (ROV) to report its position first to the main ship and then to the operator necessitates a robust, multi-tier communication architecture. This involves a mix of physical and "virtual" tethers depending on the operational requirements.1 4.1. The ROV-to-Mother Ship Link The primary connection between the ROV and the main ship is typically a neutrally buoyant tether. For optimal cost and performance, this tether should utilize a high-speed Ethernet link. Boards like the Fathom-X leverage the HomePlug AV standard to send Ethernet signals over a single pair of wires, which simplifies the tether construction and reduces the diameter of the cable, thereby reducing drag. In more advanced "wireless" hybrids, the physical tether is replaced by an acoustic or optical modem. Acoustic modems, such as the Water Linked M16, provide reliable low-bandwidth communication over long distances, suitable for sending position data and control commands.21 Optical modems, while limited to short ranges (typically <10 meters), offer the high bandwidth necessary for real-time HD video streaming.2 Figure 11: Concept diagram illustrating the operational framework of a fully wireless hybrid AUV/ROV system for subsea inspections, designed to reduce operational costs and address the challenges inherent in conventional ROV deployments. 2 13 Figure 12: Behavior tree model implemented using ROS2 for hybrid AUV/ROV operations. This diagram illustrates the decision-making stages that ensure safe and reliable wireless underwater inspections 2 Figure 13: Image of the base station developed for communication with our vehicle HUV Hydra, captured during setup just before deployment to the seabed. 2 14 4.2. Reporting Chain and Operator Interface The reporting chain for the position data follows a hierarchical structure: 1. ROV Local State: The ROV processes its internal IMU and DVL data to maintain a local "dead reckoning" position. 2. ROV to Main Ship: The ROV transmits its local position and sensor health via the tether (or acoustic link). Simultaneously, the main ship’s USBL transceiver calculates the ROV’s relative position.18 3. Main Ship Integration: The main ship fuses the ROV's relative position with its own global position (derived from GNSS or seabed LBL beacons) to determine the ROV's absolute coordinates. 4. Ship to Operator: The main ship, acting as a surface or sub-surface gateway, transmits the combined data to the remote operator via an RF link (WiFi or 900MHz XBee for surface) or a long-range acoustic link (if submerged).1 The operator interface typically runs on a ground station software such as Q Ground Control, which displays the live video feed, telemetry dashboard, and a 2D/3D map of the vehicles' positions.29 Figure 14: A graphical depiction of our architecture for virtual tethering of ROVs 30 15 5. PROJECT SYNTHESIS: THE CORRECT TECHNICAL MODEL To meet the requirements for a competition with two dive stages (5m and 20m) while maintaining optimal cost, a "modular research-grade" model is the most effective approach. This model synthesizes the successes of previous projects like the WHOI mROVs and the BlueROV2 into a single, cohesive architecture.11 5.1. Structural Model: The "Hybrid Chassis." The correct structural model for the main ship is a semi-submersible or fully submersible UUV with a torpedo-shaped hull for low-drag transit. The ROV should utilize an open-frame design using T-slot aluminum extrusions. This allows for the "optimal cost" of manufacturing (using standard parts) while providing the "Pro-level" flexibility to adjust the center of gravity and center of buoyancy as mission tools are added.7 5.2. Navigational Model: The "Virtual Tether Gateway." The navigation model should employ the "main ship as a beacon" strategy. Equipping the main ship with a high-accuracy USBL transceiver (e.g., Sonardyne Micro Ranger 2 or Advanced Navigation Subsonus) creates a local "GPS" for the ROV.22 This eliminates the need for expensive seabed infrastructure while ensuring that the ROV's position is always known relative to the mother ship, which is the primary requirement for successful reporting to the operator. 5.3. Material Specifications and Technical Components The selection of materials for a 20-meter dive must balance cost, weight, and durability. HDPE is favored for its "near-neutral" buoyancy, which reduces the amount of expensive syntactic foam required for trim.27 However, for pressure-bearing components, 6061-T6 aluminum is the standard.7 16 Component Main Frame Electronics Hull Observation Ports Buoyancy Fasteners Material Benefit Technical Detail Optical clarity 4-inch diameter, 5mm wall thickness 3 Hemispherical dome for pressure 3 Subsea R-3312 Foam Depth rated to 100m+ Density of 0.192 g/cm2 7 316 Stainless Steel Prevents galvanic corrosion Must be used with Tef-Gel or similar HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) Aluminum 6061-T6 (Anodized) Acrylic (PMMA) Corrosion-proof, impactresistant High thermal conductivity 1/2-inch thickness for rigidity 34 The seals of the electronics enclosure are the most critical mechanical component. A "faceseal" O-ring configuration is recommended for the end caps, as the external pressure of the water actually compresses the seal further as the vehicle dives deeper, creating a more reliable barrier at 20 meters than at 5 meters.3 17 6. ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK AND OPTIMAL COST ANALYSIS A Professional approach to cost optimization focuses on the "Total Cost of Ownership" (TCO), which includes not only the purchase price of parts but also the time spent on integration and the cost of potential mission failures. 6.1. Build vs. Buy Analysis for Subsystems For collegiate competitions, the most significant savings are found in the "core" vehicle (frame and thrusters), while the most significant risks are in the "specialized" sensors (navigation and sonar). 1. Vehicle Core (Build): Building a custom frame from HDPE or aluminum extrusions is significantly cheaper than buying a turn-key industrial ROV.27 A custom build allows the team to optimize the size for the specific competition tasks. 2. Propulsion (Buy): Utilizing COTS thrusters like the T200 ($240 each) is more costeffective than custom-developing waterproof brushless motors, which require specialized potting and sealing expertise.11 3. Navigation (Lease or Partner): High-end USBL and DVL systems represent the largest capital expense, often exceeding $20,000. 26 For optimal project cost, teams should seek academic partnerships (e.g., with NOAA or NSF-funded labs) or utilize lower-cost opensource alternatives like the Raspi 2USBL project.20 Category Estimated Cost (Custom/COTS) Estimated Cost (Industrial) Savings Mechanical System $1,500 (HDPE/Alu/Thrusters) $12,000 (Observation Class) 87% Navigation System $6,500 (Low-cost USBL/DVL) $45,000 (Subsonus / Work Class) 85% Control/Comms $800 (RPi/Pixhawk/HomePlug) $15,000 (Proprietary) 94% Total System Cost $8,800 $72,000 88% The "optimal cost" for a research-grade system that can reliably perform at 20 meters is estimated to be approximately $8,800 to $12,000, assuming the use of open-source software and standardized hardware.12 18 CONCLUSION AND STRATEGIC OUTLOOK The design of a tandem UUV system for the 5-meter and 20-meter mission stages is a multifaceted engineering challenge that requires a deep understanding of fluid mechanics, thermal transfer, and acoustic signal processing. By adopting a mother-daughter architecture, the system achieves a level of operational flexibility that single-vehicle systems cannot match. The "main ship" acts as the critical bridge, georeferencing the ROV through USBL-squared technology and relaying mission-critical data to the operator via high-speed RF links. Meanwhile, the ROV—built on a modular, high-rigidity aluminum frame—utilizes DVL and INS fusion to maintain a precise hover even in the presence of subsurface disturbances. Thermal management through internal convection and aluminum heat-spreading ensures that the sophisticated companion computers remain within safe operating temperatures, even during long-duration missions. This technical framework, synthesized from state-of-the-art research and competition-winning designs, provides a robust roadmap for the development team. By prioritizing COTS components for propulsion and open-source stacks for control, the project achieves a doctorallevel sophistication while maintaining a cost structure accessible to university programs and small research labs. As marine robotics continues to evolve, the integration of these "virtual tether" technologies and multi-vehicle swarms will remain the frontier of undersea exploration.1 19 References 1. Amalie Berg Vollan. UUV, ROV, AUV & USV. Differences and Use Cases. Blueye Robotics, accessed April 2026, https://www.blueyerobotics.com/blog/uuv-rov-auv-and-usv-differences-anduse-cases 2. Rajat Mishra, Bharath Kalyan, Mandar Chitre, Yuen Min Too, Soo Pieng Tan, Hari Vishnu, Luyuan Peng. Design and Demonstration of a Wireless Hybrid AUV/ROV for Subsea Inspections. https://arl.nus.edu.sg/wpcontent/uploads/2025/07/Design_and_Demonstration_of_a_Wireless_Hybrid_AUV_ROV_for_Sub sea_Inspections.pdf 3. Meschini, A., Ridolfi, A., Gelli, J., Pagliai, M., & Rindi, A. (2019). Pressure Hull Design Methods for Unmanned Underwater Vehicles. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 7(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7110382 4. Water Pressure and Depth Calculator. Blue Robotics, accessed April 2026, https://bluerobotics.com/learn/pressure-depth-calculator/ 5. Arif Pambudi. Fatigue Life Assessment of Underwater Vehicle Pressure Hull due to Corrosion Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research. Vol. 15, No. 3, 2025, 23729-23735 23729. https://etasr.com/index.php/ETASR/article/download/10957/5074 6. Shuo WANG, Zhiyuan MEI, Xiao FU, Yi ZHONG. Pressure hull material selection and load law of unmanned underwater vehicle[J]. Chinese Journal of Ship Research, 2024, 19(4): 247. DOI:10.19693/j.issn.1673-3185. 03334. https://www.researching.cn/articles/OJ2071cbf8dc6c561a 7. Gavin Bentley, Quintin Folkner, Quinn Bentley, Samuel Deaton, Pearson Mills, Matthew Smith, Nicholas Sells. Buccaneers 2024 Technical Report. East Tennessee State University. https://20693798.fs1.hubspotusercontentna1.net/hubfs/20693798/EX23%20ETSU_Buccaneers_Technical%20documentation08_2024.pdf 8. Khanmeh, J., Wehbe, B., Simetti, E., & Indiveri, G. (2025). Tracking data of a Remotely Operated Vehicle and its tether using a motion capture system and a tension sensor. Scientific Data, 13, 35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-06347-0 9. Norihide Wakita, Takuji Ichikawa, Kiyoshi Hirokawa, Yoshiaki Yamauchi. Development of Autonomous Underwater Vehicle for Detecting the Deep Sea Marine Mineral Resources, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Technical Review Vol. 47 No. 3 (September 2010). https://www.mhi.com/technology/review/sites/g/files/jwhtju2326/files/tr/pdf/e473/e473073.pdf 10. Zhong, Q., Bose, N., Hwang, J., & Zou, T. (2025). Exploring the Potential of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles for Microplastic Detection in Marine Environments: A Systematic Review. Drones, 9(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/drones9080580 11. BlueROV2. Blue Robotics. accessed April 2026, https://bluerobotics.com/product-category/rov/ 12. Nicolette Purcell. How Much Does an ROV Cost?. Blue Robotics. accessed April 2026, https://bluerobotics.com/how-much-does-an-rov-cost/ 13. C. M. Tarhan, A. Feyzioğlu, and G. Brenner, “Cooling analysis and innovative design to increase heat transfer in sealed electronic devices,” Journal of Mechatronics and Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 22–39, Oct. 2025, https://doi.org/10.21595/jmai.2025.25166 14. Ersoy, K. (2025). Review of Electronic Cooling and Thermal Management in Space and Aerospace Applications. Engineering Proceedings, 89(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025089042 15. Gabriela Shinskie. A New Deep-Sea Remotely Operated Vehicle Coming to USM. The University of Southern Mississippi. https://www.usm.edu/news/2024/release/mrov.php 16. Michael Wayde. A guide to thermal management solutions for electronic enclosures. Phoenix Contact USA, Inc. White Paper. December 2025. https://assets.phoenixcontact.com/file/f0027d3973da-4ad8-a506-124d0f7f11b6/media/original?US_Guide-to-Thermal-Management-Solutions-forEnclosures-White-paper_20260112_U008480A.pdf 17. Importance of thermal management of electronic devices. TESA®. https://www.tesa.com/enus/about-tesa/press-insights/stories/thermal-management-in-consumer-electronics.html 20 18. Nava-Balanzar, L., Sanchez-Gaytán, J., Fonseca-Navarro, F., Salgado-Jiménez, T., ReynaAlonso, M., Garcia-Valdovinos, L., Rubio-Lopez, O., Gómez-Espinosa, A., and Ramirez-Martinez, A. Towards Teleoperation and Automatic Control Features of an Unmanned Surface Vessel-ROV System: Preliminary Results. DOI: 10.5220/0006414302920299 In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (ICINCO 2017)Volume 2, pages 292-299. https://www.scitepress.org/papers/2017/64143/64143.pdf 19. AUV (Underwater Drone) Utilization and Underwater Communication Technology. Murata Manufacturing Articles, accessed April 2026, https://article.murata.com/englobal/article/underwater-communication-technology 20. Huang, J., Wang, Y., & Chen, Y. (2025). Raspi 2 USBL: An open-source Raspberry Pi-Based Passive Inverted Ultra-Short Baseline Positioning System for Underwater Robotics. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.06998 21. Underwater communication. Water Linked, accessed April 2026, https://www.waterlinked.com/applications/underwater-communication 22. USBL Systems for ROV and AUV Operations: A Practical Selection Guide. Unique Group, accessed April 2026, https://www.uniquegroup.com/media-centre/blog-articles/usbl-systems-forrov-and-auv-operations/ 23. Jeong, D. B., & Ko, N. Y. (2024). Sensor Fusion for Underwater Vehicle Navigation Compensating Misalignment Using Lie Theory. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 24(5), 1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24051653 24. Underwater Acoustic Positioning & Navigation Systems. Evo Logics. https://www.evologics.com/solution/underwater-positioning 25. Underwater Navigation & Robotics. Advanced Navigation, accessed April 2026, https://www.advancednavigation.com/subsea-navigation-systems/ 26. Low-cost DVL for subsea navigation and merge with INS. Blue Robotics Community Forums, accessed April 2026, https://discuss.bluerobotics.com/t/low-cost-dvl-for-subsea-navigation-andmerge-with-ins/4775 27. Gavin Bentley, Quintin Folkner, Pearson Mills, Quinn Bentley, Nick Sells, Kalista Alley, McKinley Sexton. 2023 ETSU Buccaneers Technical Report, accessed April 2026, https://20693798.fs1.hubspotusercontentna1.net/hubfs/20693798/EX08%20EastTennesseeStateUniversity_ETSUBuccaneers_TechnicalR eport_2023.pdf 28. Amy E. Nevala. New underwater vehicles in development at WHOI. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/new-underwater-vehicles-in-development-atwhoi/ 29. Brandon Hargitay, Halvor Hafnor, Jayanti Lahoti. Final Report, Tryton - Subsea Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV). https://kastner.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/admin/tryton.pdf 30. Rajat Mishra, Mandar Chitre, Bharath Kalyan, Yuen Min Too, Hari Vishnu, Luyuan Peng. An Architecture for Virtual Tethering of ROVs - Acoustic Research Laboratory, accessed April 2026, https://arl.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/VirtualTetherArc_OCEANS24-1.pdf 21