DARPA: Flying Submarine?, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 11-10-2008 @ 09:06 AM by intelgurl

DARPA wants a submarine that can travel 1,850km in the air, 185km on the water's surface or 22km underwater, and do it in less than 8 hrs.

This reminds me of the already debunked sub launched F-15 taking off out of the water like a sub launched ICBM. However this is not nearly as sexy as that, nope - this is an 8 passenger craft for inserting small cladestine teams into a hot point.

Here's the link - I think this will likely run out of funding before anything is actually made. "yawn..."

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 09:25 AM by noobfun

Because the flow conditions of being underwater are so different to being airborne, due to the fluids' respective densities, DARPA also envisages a platform that reconfigures for the two different domains.

its a transformer!!!

..... just with men in it and not a cool robot .........

reply posted on 11-10-2008 @ 10:30 AM by Now_Then

Originally posted by intelgurl

That looks to me very much like a WIG craft (wing in ground effect craft) The Ruskies made some wicked lookking ones - ecept they called em ekronoplans or something.

That would be pretty good if it is used for covert things, sneak under radar etc. I can't imagine it diving at great speed, it would prob 'land' on the water and dive.

Talking about Submerines and flying things - these Cormorant thingies look pretty cool.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 12:17 PM by Badge01

reply to post by intelgurl

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

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.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 12:41 PM by groingrinder

I think the wings are too big so I am designing my flying sub to be more like a cruise missile. Underwater, it will swim like a fish in silent mode, or use jets like a squid in cruise mode.

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 12:59 PM by groingrinder

reply to post by Now_Then

You just gotta love those Ekranoplanes!! We need stuff like that over here. There should be Ekranoplane races every year from Hawaii to Okinawa or Hawaii to Australia.

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 06:54 PM by intelgurl

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by intelgurl

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.

Not so unrealistic if you consider advanced technology research in supercavitating and residual benefits of extreme plasma stealth techniques.
Additionally the craft people witness that transition so unrealistically from water to air generally exhibit traits of antigravity propulsion of some type and not the typical thrust type that is common place and considered the norm.

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 08:47 PM by Badge01

reply to post by intelgurl

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

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!

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 06:26 AM by solidshot

Given the shortness of the wing's in the image i assume this will only skim the surface of the water like the Caspian sea monsters used to? i would be interested to see just how quickly the could transfer from above water operation to below as well? for instance i assume they couldn't crash dive any where near as quickly as a submarine due to having to shut down the engines and stow the props so that they aren't ripped of as they hit the water?

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 09:35 AM by Badge01

reply to post by solidshot

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

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)

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

[edit on 13/10/2008 by Badge01]

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 09:52 AM by Desert Dawg

I don't see such a craft as a viable deal unless anti-gravity is part of the equation.

Making it light enough to fly requires lightweight aircraft construction.
That wouldn't allow much depth to be attained.
Systems to close watertight hatches - motors, levers etc. would add a lot of weight perhaps negating the flying capabilities.

I do like GroinGrinders - appears to be subsonic - craft and what looks
to be surface skimming abilities - which is flying in ground effect when you get down to it.
Transitioning to floating looks to be time consuming - closing hatches etc.

Lack of stealth seems to be a problem as well.

Then again, with some of the composites we're coming up with nowadays, perhaps the lightweight/strength requirements for such a craft could be done.

Interesting vehicle to say the least, but it'll take a bit before we get there methinks....

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 09:53 AM by buddhasystem

The Soviets were working on
this project in early 30s (75 years ago!).

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 10:06 AM by groingrinder

I started thinking about flying subs recently while working on a 3d model of the Sea View from "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea". While I loved the flying saucer look of their flying sub, it seemed totally unrealistic for it to dive into the ocean and keep on going.

If you had antigravity technology where you are enclosed in a field of some sort, then I suppose it could work that way. You probably would not need ballast in a case like that.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 12:01 PM by Badge01

reply to post by Desert Dawg

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

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.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 12:03 PM by Badge01

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

This is a simulation but it looks interesting:

YouTube Link

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.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

EDIT: Citation added, but after Buddahsystem's comment. Sorry.
www.technovelgy.com...
[edit on 13/10/2008 by Badge01]

[edit on 13/10/2008 by Badge01]

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 12:26 PM by buddhasystem

reply to post by Badge01

Wow... If you look at the required ranges, -- the airborne, naval and sub-surface, they are virtually identical to the numbers in the Russian design document from 1934... Too much of a coincidence. Plagiarism?

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 12:40 PM by Badge01

reply to post by buddhasystem

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

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.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 12:51 PM by buddhasystem

reply to post by Badge01

Sorry, I take it back (I can't find the link on which I based by "theory"). The info in the one I presented above actually has numbers that are about 60% of what you quoted. That makes more sense.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 01:07 PM by Badge01

reply to post by buddhasystem

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

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.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 01:26 PM by kilcoo316

The wing area needed to lift the submarine pressure hull along with the engine operation means this concept will almost certainly stay on the drawing board (i.e. its a pipe dream).

Would be neat all the same - but what use is a 10 mile submerged infiltration if any half decent air defence system has blown you out of the sky 30 miles out... oh wait... it now needs low observables too?

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^