I think this craft is going to save a lot of lives.
No but it will certainly waste a lot of money. I'm reminded of the the SR-71/D-21 'mothership' fiasco. In particular, the notion of manually
releasing a drone with the boat making even minimum turns sounds like /pure disaster/ waiting to hit-the-dorsal-or-prop-or-tail happen.
Of course if you look at the 'bonus page'-
You get even more insanity-
Growth capability for the Ohio.
You mean the SSGN conversion of the /oldest/ Ohios. Not that bringing a 600ft long nuke boat into the littorals is by any means a 'wise idea' but
if you want a missile bus, don't pretend that targeting has to come with it. It's _just a bus_.
Reusable, _serviceable_, underwater drone
This means that you have to be able to either break open the missile tube underwater. Or pass a remote feed for things like more 'HK-MPUAV' (Hunter
Killer Multi Purpose Unmanned Air Vehicles) and gas through through a seal and into drone with a teleoperated service gantry or waldo. Which means
that -somewhere- in the boat is a tank with a 1,000 gallons of JP-8. No, no, no, no, NO!
1,000lb sensor/payload combination for UGS, HKs and onboard sensors.
1,000lbs, as a combined MEP/Weapons Payload is very small.
The use of drones-off-drones, while not in and of itself all that bad, begs the question: "Why fly them out with a bringback delivery system if they
are already sacrificial and intended for (very high value) time sensitive targets?"
Shows what a simple rocket system can do in terms of lofting 12 mini-missiles to a target area 100-200km distant. Admittedly the Assault Breaker is
dated now but the ARRMD is not and it is capable of carrying 4 LOCAAS _powered_ submunitions, each with a 100+nm range on their own.
If you want to hit a Time Sensitive Target, don't waste /hours/ flying to the dispense area at 400 knots. Get there in MINUTES at Mach 8 or more.
Not least of this system modes advantages are that there IS NO 'launch and recovery' segment. Rather you can put upwards of 8 missiles into the
same space as the old UGM-133. Each one a wooden round that is never touched or tampered with until the moment of launch.
OTOH, if you want an eyes-on ability, go with Sea Ferret or similar-
And simply double the size to accomodate the fuel for range+recovery.
IF the target is worth the exceptional cost of a CM to begin with, it's worth the cost of a _separate_ (Low Cost) targeting aperture. Even as a
OTOH, if the need is for recoverable airpower, don't pretend that sending a submarine inshore to run around at periscope depth trying to pretend to
be 'stealthy' with a cluster of drones whooshing out, ethering up, or splashing back down into it's proximity.
Such is ludicrous, because the penalty you pay in immersion proofing sucks miles and millions out of the _mission end_ of what a VTOL, UCAV could do
from the back of an ordinary ship.
IMO, what this really signifies is a development community trying desparately to wriggle around the oppressive weight of staid corruption that is
Any way they can.
P.S. Did anybody wonder at the 'foldability' of wings that sectionally thick?
Dumb and Dumberer..
Let The Stupid Be Punished
And boy, I remember seeing this image back in like 1996 or
Cut down long url to restore page width and added quote tags
Please use this
in future to cut down the length of your link, as long url's
can alter the width of the page.
Or alternatively you can use: (url=www.urlhere.com)link name here(/url) - changing the () into 
[edit on 23-2-2006 by UK Wizard]