DARPA: Flying Submarine?

What's interesting is in the 'USO' UFO videos that History Channel plays, one of the narrators said something like 'we don't have any craft that can fly into the ocean or fly out of the ocean' referring to the alleged sightings of craft doing just that. Now, on the show, they have totally unrealistic shots of craft emerging like a jumping manta-ray or flying fish and zooming away. I suspect any craft that can submerge as well as fly would have a configuration where it would surface then get up speed like a flying boat then take off.

That looks like what the proposed craft above would do.

Yes, the
VA-111 Shkval torpedo comes to mind.

The thing is I remember seeing them launch the Polaris in some videos, and all the trouble they had transitioning from just under water, how clumsy that looked.

But a lot of times it's just a matter of putting two-and-two together, as you did here. Very neat.

By the way do you know Paul McGinnis? He and I were old email buddies back in the early days, circa mid-1980s.

He came up with the Senior Citizen ID, and related items.

Thanks for the input!

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

Here's how I see it based on that design.

In the fast attack mode it's like a skimmer. When it gets to the deployment area it can sink down like a crocodile, to periscope depth. Then when the boys are ready for pick up, they enter the craft...

**Underwater**

Then the craft stealthily surfaces, maybe only the upper parts, and they hit the jets and do an almost VTO, or short skip.

Alternately they might go to a cavitation mode to get out of there quickly in a half or fully submerged mode.

At the right time, they surface and fly home, probably skimming the ground, but with other capabilities.

I'm basing this all on what SEAL team would want.

In fact, they would probably have a support vessel, and an underwater lock and dock - fast attack sub? That uses existing tech and would reduce the design characteristics. Maybe they have both flyaway and submerged docking - deployment?

(I'm totally guessing there, so forgive anything retarded)

Agree in part, but it would be a matter of inches and ounces.

Only this part would be submerged (in red) and the conning tower/bubble/IR post/Periscope (in green) would be above water in the front. The tail is obviously not designed for underwater use (note the up-cant).



I don't even think you would so the props. The hull/fuselage would be sealed - so no doors or hatches exterior to that. But it couldn't go deep and the 'cavitation' part wouldn't really be applicable to -this- vehicle.

Remember this is a design of a SEAL fast incursion and pick up vehicle, iirc.

Why not have it modular? Have a cavitation pod that could dock to a set of wings? (ok that's clunky.)

Note it says 'submersible' - it doesn't say submarine.

(not trying to dispute you - your points are well-taken. Just playing off your great post)

I don't believe I've heard IG say 'anti-gravity' before with a straight face. Was she joking? I truly do not believe we have AG-enabled -craft-, for a variety of reasons, which I'm prepared to discuss in detail if you like.

Having made that comment that her saying it gives me some pause...if not for the reality of it but for other reasons.

This is a simulation but it looks interesting:



I'm not big on the giant 'splash' upon entry, thought.

So we're not talking cross purposes here, this concept/requirements list is NOT for the item in the first post but is related to the submersible aircraft design

Here is a list of the major requirements.
From the DARPA site (somewhere) www.darpa.mil...

Flight: The minimal required airborne tactical radius of the sub-plane is 1000 nautical miles (nm). The minimum surface tactical radius is 100 nautical miles. The minimum subsurface tactical range is 12 nautical miles. Note that the ranges quoted are one-way ranges. The platform would need to be able to fly to a location, insert and extract personnel without refueling and this would require the total operational range to be 1000 nm airborne, 200 nm surface, 24 nm under water.

Loiter: The platform should be capable of loitering in a sea-state five, in theater between inserting and extracting personnel for up to 3 days (72 hours). The craft does not need to be submerged during loitering operations; it can operate at the surface.

Payload: The platform should be capable of transporting 8 operators, as well as all of their equipment, with a total cargo weight of 2000 pounds.

Depth: The operating depth of the platform will be constrained by balancing the need to reduce depth in order to minimize structural loads and snorkel complexity with the need to increase depth in order to minimize any potential signatures that could be generated by perturbing the free surface. The effect that the submerged platform will have on the free surface is exponentially proportional to the depth, therefore the platform should be able to operate at a relatively shallow depth and only have the snorkel affect the free surface.

Speed: The speed of the platform in each mode of operation must allow the system to complete a tactical transit (1000 nm airborne,100 nm surface ,12 nm sub-surface) trip in less than 8 hours. This 8 hour time must include any time required by the platform to reconfigure between modes of operation.

Are you serious? Let me find a site...

OK, here's the list. I would not plagiarize another list and make something up.

www.technovelgy.com...

They also made a proposal for the Cormorant.

www.darpa.mil...

That'll teach me to get a cite though.

Not at all. Keep me honest, bro. I slipped up. It's rare - you caught it. Srsly.

On the topic
I have seen that old Soviet design before. They really tried hard to make that into a viable article.

So I don't doubt your design requirements memory.

I just had that list above in an Excel file and forgot where I found it.

On the Manta type design I posted above, I'd think they'd want to closer that front window thing by making a 'beak' type tilt down shield like closing the 'mouth' of it.