|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 01:28 PM by earthman4
|
I see no reason why this aircraft or watercraft would need to carry people. I would think they would be working on remoltly piloted versions.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 01:59 PM by intelgurl
|
Originally posted by earthman4
I see no reason why this aircraft or watercraft would need to carry people. I would think they would be working on remoltly piloted versions.
The entire premise behind the concept is that it be able to carry a team of 8 people. That said, I'm not sure I understand your statement.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 02:11 PM by earthman4
|
Originally posted by intelgurl
Originally posted by earthman4
I see no reason why this aircraft or watercraft would need to carry people. I would think they would be working on remoltly piloted versions.
The entire premise behind the concept is that it be able to carry a team of 8 people. That said, I'm not sure I understand your statement.
I see the future of all warbirds as unpiloted. To continue to build and plan war with humans in the vehicles seems archaic.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 03:56 PM by punkinworks
|
reply to post by earthman4
Some people just dont listen,
The vehicle is designed to insert and recover a covert operations team, its not an attack craft.
Warfare will alway require "boots on the ground"
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 04:10 PM by punkinworks
|
reply to post by intelgurl
Several years ago I read an article about high speed submersible/aircraft design.
At that point there were designs on the drawing board for a dual purpose craft.
The technology is available save for one thing a power plant.
This particular team was looking at a fast attack submersible, that could fly short distances and be sub launched.
There has been breakthroughs in the underwater powerplant, a water breathing jet motor, per se.
They are taking sea water and injecting it into a "swirling chamber" with powdered aluminum.
The mix of sea water and the powdered aluminum starts an exothermic chemical reaction, that reaches very high temperatures, (2000 deg+?).
The expanding gasses(super heated steam) can be used to drive a turbine or as propulsive thrust, just like a jet motor.
The exhaust consists of steam and aluminum salts.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 04:20 PM by waynos
|
I was going to post about the flying sub from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea but I see I am way way late on that one 
I must say that the OP is being a bit disingenuous though (sorry Nat, I love you really) as that design is nothing to do with DARPA, but rather was
created by Flight International to illustrate the article.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:30 PM by Badge01
|
reply to post by kilcoo316
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
From the vid simulation above.
Yes the pressure of doing this would be on the order of 10-20 Gs for the pilot. And it would be like hitting a piece of concrete...ok soft
concrete.
A body hitting water at terminal velocity would be concrete-like.
So G-force, impact pressure. It would be high for an 8 person vehicle.
It might be possible to create a foam wave front sonically, and dive into that but not into seawater.
I think if one of those deep dive subs falls off the crane wrong it can get damaged.
Deep-water manned submersible "Mir-1".
This is built to withstand crush depths. Of course the window isn't pointy. 
Edit: To be generous I'll change it to 10-20Gs above from 20Gs
Edit2: By crush depth that's a little less than one mile in a freshwater? lake.
dsc.discovery.com...
The Mir-1 and Mir-2 submarine pods were supposed to head for the 1,637-meter (5,402 feet) bed of the lake, near Siberia's southern borders
with Mongolia and China. The vessels were due to drop at a rate of 30 meters per second to reach the bottom within an hour and a quarter. In the end,
the Mir-1 submarine went down only 1,580 meters (5,184 feet) and not 1,680 meters as earlier claimed by the crew. There have not yet been reports of
Mir-2's dive attempt. The current record of 1,637 meters was set in Lake Baikal in the 1990s.
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 05:45 AM by kilcoo316
|
Originally posted by punkinworks
The exhaust consists of steam and aluminum salts.
You understand the implications of air bubbles for acoustic (sonar) signature?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 05:49 AM by kilcoo316
|
reply to post by Badge01
I wasn't even considering transient loadings, just static.
If DARPA are envisaging a 'crash dive' into the water, they are even crazier than I thought. Indeed if that is the case - the GAO should haul the
idiots in to explain a total waste of taxpayers money*.
*particularly given the stresses on current public finances the world over after bailing out the greedy twits on wall street who aren't half as smart
as they thought they were.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 01:41 AM by Badge01
|
reply to post by kilcoo316
I'm not saying they are. That vid is just a simulation of a concept as far as I'm aware.
I did want to see if anyone had ideas about the impact of a 'crashdive' like that on both the airframe and the pilot. 
I could envision some kind of 'pulse' weapon which would maybe cavitate, or aerosol or vaporize the surface of the water (as in bubbles reducing the
surface tension in out gases they think might cause ships to sink in the Bermuda Triangle).
www.msnbc.msn.com...
A recent survey revealed the presence of a sunken vessel within the center of one particularly large eruption site, now known as the
Witches Hole.”
“One proposed sinking mechanism attributes the vessel’s loss of buoyancy to bubbles of methane gas released from an erupting underwater
hydrate,” they wrote. “The known abundance of gas hydrates in the North Sea, coupled with the vessel’s final resting position and its location
in the Witches Hole, all support a gas bubble theory.”
No one has ever seen such an eruption, and no one knows how large the bubbles coming off a methane deposit would be.
May and Monaghan created a model of a single large bubble coming up under a ship. They trapped water between vertical glass plates, launched gas
bubbles from the bottom and used a video camera to record what happened to an acrylic “hull” floating on the surface.
But to just 'dive' into the water like that? It's just crazy.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 01:44 AM by b3r6a8d8
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 02:02 AM by Jazzyguy
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 03:13 AM by Badge01
|
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
reply to post by Jazzyguy
Just some help for your links - this is the Pop-Sci page where the image is found:
www.popsci.com...
Some proposals from that article's gallery:
www.popsci.com...
Looks as though there is a lot of work on this kind of project.
Eventually someone will hit on the proper deployment and design.
There seems to be four, or so, major branches:
1. Delivery and Retrieval of SEAL teams;
2. Sub, carrier or aircraft deployment as a parasitic craft.
3. Ability to fly into and out of a water interface.
4. Launch of drones and small UAV from submarines and other vessels, like the German perisope tower launch device, slingshoting a little UAV to get a
look-down capability.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
[edit on 15/10/2008 by Badge01]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
