It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Navy’s Swimming Spy Plane

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I think this craft is going to safe allot of lives. Swim, fly, and eliminates enemy targets, and its unmanned, how could it get any better?





The Navy’s Swimming Spy Plane

mod edit: changed long link to cut down added page width

Please use this in future to cut down the length of your link, as long url's can alter the width of the page.




[edit on 23-2-2006 by UK Wizard]




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Blooming ace find


Very interesting craft, but it sounds like its a few years off yet... but well worth keeping tabs on.. cool find



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Hey man I know its not sitting at the docks
But still imagine that, a craft like that flying around, and cruising through our oceans, how cool would it be to see one.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Mr.J,



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'-
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?"

This-

www.ausairpower.net...

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-

www.fas.org...

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 throwaway.

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 manned airpower.

Any way they can.


KPl.

P.S. Did anybody wonder at the 'foldability' of wings that sectionally thick?


LINKS-
Dumb and Dumberer..

Let The Stupid Be Punished

And boy, I remember seeing this image back in like 1996 or so...lockheed-submarine-launched-ucav

mod edit: 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]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
The concept of Sub launched UAVS have been around for awhile I started a thread about these awhile ago.

This is a new design I havent seen. The ones I saw mentioned had them directly launched from missiles tubes and later landing in the water to be pcked up by a robotic arm from the sub.

Interesting stuff Future Aircraft carriers may even go this route never surface and stay underwater with a fleet of UAVs. That would definitely be a adavantage for future carriers never knowning were they are.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Also with these crafts(I guess that's what I should call them) a vast amount can be gained in knowledge. The ocean is one of the most confusing topicsfor man, imagine, new fish species, early warning for Tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, climate change and such. The possibilities are endless with a craft such as this one, beyond military, beyond it just being a weapon, it could be a tool to gain knowledge and advance man kind. Just my $.02 cents.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
ShadowXIX,



The concept of Sub launched UAVS have been around for awhile I started a thread about these awhile ago.


Yeah, since WWII at least. Lot of good it did the respective proponent navies (France and Japan as I recall) vs. 'real' airpower.



This is a new design I haven't seen. The ones I saw mentioned had them directly launched from missiles tubes and later landing in the water to be pcked up by a robotic arm from the sub.


Thats what Cormoran does except the arm is only for launch, you need a tethered UUV to do the pickup.



Interesting stuff Future Aircraft carriers may even go this route never surface and stay underwater with a fleet of UAVs.


Well, it requires your enemy to work harder to defeat the hydrodynamic barrier for both targeting and weapon effect delivery. But then AShM and ASW have never been /all/ that far apart-

www.skomer.u-net.com...

www.mbda.net...

You put a conventional deckhouse/sensor mast on a submarine and it _will not_ hold a level keel in submerged maneuvering turns (keel effect tends to roll you, sometimes 360` or more) and if you drop or retract the masts, in favor of air/space platforms, not only are you creating a dependency in on the ship (close enough to the surface for CDL, never more effective than the number of jets it has up at the moment) you are instantaneously creating a fight between S/VLS and ballast tankage while creating a shape more like a WWI/II 'cruiser' sub than a hydrodynamically optimized (Albacore) one.

I forget who it was that said 'surface or sub, not both' for hullform. I think it may have been me. :-)

Specifically because, from 50-70 knots possible either side of the surface boundary, you've dropped to 15-20, just in the inefficiencies of the interface zone.

Myself, I don't see the point in losing weapon/sensor apertures just to freebeam even just the decks in wash. You might gain a small detection threshold advantage but you lose air as a principle fighting medium (extended horizons and speed of light sensors) even as you do _nothing_ to increase your safety against mines or SCT.



That would definitely be a adavantage for future carriers never knowning were they are.


I agree, for RF.

The problem being I think we can already track subs from space in a lot of conditions with optics or very long wave RF and SOSUS or long line drogue systems haven't automatically stopped working either.

At best, you are creating a more pragmatic means of raising a stealth airwing to surface for launching conventionally and then making a 40-60,000 dwt vessel turn into an IR/Acoustic trace vice a radar one.

Either way, I would prefer a jet that lands on a dry deck rather than one which plays Convair Sea Dart and expects to live to tell about it in a blue water environment. That's the difference between a seaplane tender and a true carrier right there.

Furthermore _my way_ (an LCS based on Planing Cat or SLICE technology and designed with a flat roof) /requires/ VTOL development to match the smaller hull which (contrary to manned jets) I believe is a critical benefit in the race to bring UCAV out ontop of legacy-air.

Lord knows it will keep costs down if you can launch vertically without playing at being a sea launched Pogo.

The best 'airpower' in a DEW age is a throwaway missile. Best ISR to point that missile into seeker footprint is a loiterer with long LOS and fast transit.

#4 of my Firepower Laws: Never Mix The Two.


KPl.

mod edit: added quote tags

[edit on 23-2-2006 by UK Wizard]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join