What the Hell is this Behemoth Craft?
Rob Arndt
U.S. Department of Defense ( DoD ) Advanced Special Projects may
consider bringing a superwarfighter - larger than a battleship -
onboard, a strategic sea-based aerial vessel spacecraft employing
multiple environment ( sea, aerial, space ) capabilities combining a
variety of defense stealth applications and strategic advanced energy
weapon delivery systems. Rather than old technology gun and ammunition
laden 'amphibious landing crafts' or 'land-sea crafts', defense /
defence may consider new super-warfighter vehicles approaching that of
an 'aerial submersible', 'aerial submarine', or 'airsub'. Combining
strategic defense stealth advanced directed energy weapon delivery
systems into an extremely large vessel, a Submersible AerialSpatial
vehicle or Cosmic Submarine Spacecraft may appear to be a larger-than-
life case reality as seen in this 'super sub space shuttle' photo
( immediately above ) in dry dock. This behemoth vessel / craft is
secretly docked, and believed near Hokaido, Japan. A close-up, of the
original photo, reveals several small-framed asian men wearing white
laboratory coats beneath this mysterious yet extremely large craft
that is akin to those seen in BattleStar Gallactica films. Is this an
official government vessel? A new superwarfighting machine? Why is
everyone so shy or bashful mentioning about its details? Could be,
development came from private funding, or never approved by any
Congress, Parliament, President, or Prime Minister. So, who - other
than a Howard Hughes type - could build such a behemoth craft?
Rob
Dan
Try a movie or sci fi group.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
o...@uakron.edu
histogram on the pic.
Steve
Ken S. Tucker
Disregarding Rob's queer photo, these units are non-fiction,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle
Most have heard of the desire to build a flying sub, well
that's a tough spec. Somewhere in the evolution of such
a machine 'could' be a submersible Ground Effect Vehicle,
that wouldn't actually fly, but might skim the surface very
quickly, and be able to submerge, which is easier.
(A Mallard duck is natures flying sub).
What's the spec? A vehicle that can skim at 200+ knots,
stop and then submerge, would be one hell of a military
machine! I say let's build it, think of the tourist potential,
man I could make money with something like that, and
rent it to the military for extra $$'s.
I see transoceanic travel, skimming along but submerge
if the weather sucks.
Ken
Dan
stench inside from all the sea sick passengers.
vaughn
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:cd0a602e-33fd-466d...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> I see transoceanic travel, skimming along but submerge
> if the weather sucks.
...and while submerged, to be powered by what? If your idea is to
submerge to avoid bad weather, that means going considerably deeper that
snorkel depth to find calm water. I can tell you from personal experience
that things can get very uncomfortable at anything shallower than (say) 200'
depth.
Vaughn
Ken S. Tucker
Suppose we stabilize with feedback, the B1 does that with
a cheap pair of canards.
Ken
Dan
Take a look at ocean swells. Flying at a fixed distance over the
surface means you will be rising and falling continuously. Add any wind
blown waves and you get bounce. Maybe you can compensate for bounce with
a feedback loop provided you fly below maximum ground effect.
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:cd0a602e-33fd-466d...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I see transoceanic travel, skimming along but submerge
> > if the weather sucks.
>
> ...and while submerged, to be powered by what? If your idea is to
> submerge to avoid bad weather, that means going considerably deeper that
> snorkel depth to find calm water. I can tell you from personal experience
> that things can get very uncomfortable at anything shallower than (say) 200'
> depth.
> Vaughn
Then use a 200' snorkel and/or use modern electrics, battery
and motor. Also as I replied to Dan, the craft could run closer
to the surface with stabilization.
IMO, technology is sufficiently advanced to build a Sub-GEV.
Ken
MajorOz
...ain't the way TFTA worked (works) for the last 35 years.
Why not upgrade the Caspian Sea Monster? Looks like a great test bed
for the concept.
cheers
oz......there I was.........200 ft off the
deck..........F-111.........hands off the
stick..................squishing rattlesnakes at
Edwards...............
Dan
Terrain following as used in aircraft is well below maximum ceiling
for the airplane. In ground effect vehicles it's conceivable the vehicle
could exceed its ceiling should the terrain suddenly drop. In that
case the vehicle will cease to fly.
At 200 ft AGL you aren't in ground effect so your altitude is
controlled by radar via computer which can average any minor variations.
In ground effect inertia in large vehicles could smooth the ride a bit.
Have you noticed the Caspian Sea Monster tends to be a fair weather
animal? That's because it's not very far off the water and running into
a wave is potentially deadly.
I'm not saying it can't be done, people have built ground effect
vehicles. I just wonder if it's worth it. LCAC is a hover craft that can
raid a beach from over the horizon. What would a ground effect vehicle
offer other than potential range? Where would one launch it? LCAC is
launched from the inside of a big boat.
BTW, have you any idea how hard it is to sleep through TFR
overflights by F-111?
Keith Willshaw
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:cd0a602e-33fd-466d...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> Digital rendering The lighting is even in intensity if you do a
>> histogram on the pic.
>> Steve
>
> Disregarding Rob's queer photo, these units are non-fiction,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle
>
> Most have heard of the desire to build a flying sub, well
> that's a tough spec. Somewhere in the evolution of such
> a machine 'could' be a submersible Ground Effect Vehicle,
> that wouldn't actually fly, but might skim the surface very
> quickly, and be able to submerge, which is easier.
> (A Mallard duck is natures flying sub).
>
Submerging is easy, its coming up again which is the real trick
> What's the spec? A vehicle that can skim at 200+ knots,
> stop and then submerge, would be one hell of a military
> machine! I say let's build it, think of the tourist potential,
> man I could make money with something like that, and
> rent it to the military for extra $$'s.
>
The problem is that submarines and flying machines, even
ekranoplans have some what contradictory requirements.
Submarines need to be strong enough to withstand considerable
external pressure. This requires a strong (and heavy) hull with
minimal penetrations.
Aircraft need to be lightweight and have large openings
for air breathing engines
> I see transoceanic travel, skimming along but submerge
> if the weather sucks.
> Ken
Keith
Dan
I suppose the sudden ingestion of water into the engine(s) could be a
tad detrimental to future function. Then again, a minor miscalculation
when entering the water from flight could bend the vehicle a bit and
spill the pilot's beer.
Keith Willshaw
At 200ft no snorkel will work , the pressure at that depth is 6 atmospheres.
The best electric submarines could manage about 120 nautical miles
on battery at a speed of around 2 knots, the endurance at 16 knots was
less than an hour.
Keith
Dan
would assume.
vaughn
> Then use a 200' snorkel
That is just crazy, for a range or reasons.
>and/or use modern electrics, battery
> and motor.
I refer you back about 3 posts ago when you said the thing had to (at least
almost) fly. So we can assume that weight is an issue? Battery
propulsion barely works in submarines, giving only very limited range,
speed, and submerged endurance. Even at that, battery technology only
works in submarines because weight isn't an issue. But for your flying
(skimming) submarine, weight is suddenly important. So my question still
stands; how will you power this craft when submerged?
> Also as I replied to Dan, the craft could run closer
> to the surface with stabilization.
Which would take even more energy and add even more weight...
> IMO, technology is sufficiently advanced to build a Sub-GEV.
I respectfully disagree.
Vaughn
Bill Shatzer
> At 200ft no snorkel will work , the pressure at that depth is 6 atmospheres.
But the pressure inside the hull is one atm.
nada
Scott Lowther
> https://zsjbhw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1mxWhCOJCJyZKaBcpQttBT3yXTTq_Ky...
>
> Is this an
> official government vessel? A new superwarfighting machine? Why is
> everyone so shy or bashful mentioning about its details? Could be,
> development came from private funding, or never approved by any
> Congress, Parliament, President, or Prime Minister. So, who - other
> than a Howard Hughes type - could build such a behemoth craft
Who could *possibly* build such a vehicle? Why... how about the video
game company "Namco," who designed and rendered this "submarine aircraft
carrier" (named either Hrimfaxi or Scinfaxi) for their "Ace Combat 5"
Playstation game?
http://reinforcements.wordpress.com/ace-combat-super-weapons/
Ah, but then, this is Bob Arndt, who considers the existence of napalm
to be proof of supersonic German supersaucers. And this, I imagine, will
be Bob's next "Oh, look, the USAF is ripping off from the Luftwaffe
again" example:
http://www.freewebs.com/unionofpower/Air%20Forces%20Pix/Hresvelgrback.jpg
Dan
> On Jul 4, 11:34 pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
> > https://zsjbhw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1mxWhCOJCJyZKaBcpQttBT3yXTTq_Ky...
> >
> > Is this an
> > official government vessel? A new superwarfighting machine? Why is
> > everyone so shy or bashful mentioning about its details? Could be,
> > development came from private funding, or never approved by any
> > Congress, Parliament, President, or Prime Minister. So, who - other
> > than a Howard Hughes type - could build such a behemoth craft
>
> Who could *possibly* build such a vehicle? Why... how about the video
> game company "Namco," who designed and rendered this "submarine aircraft
> carrier" (named either Hrimfaxi or Scinfaxi) for their "Ace Combat 5"
> Playstation game?
>
> http://reinforcements.wordpress.com/ace-combat-super-weapons/
I'm sure aren't also believes space aliens worked closely with the Nazis.
>
>
> Ah, but then, this is Bob Arndt, who considers the existence of napalm
> to be proof of supersonic German supersaucers. And this, I imagine, will
> be Bob's next "Oh, look, the USAF is ripping off from the Luftwaffe
> again" example:
> http://www.freewebs.com/unionofpower/Air%20Forces%20Pix/Hresvelgrback.jpg
As for that last picture, I think i saw one once. OK, so I was in the
middle of a mad dog party....
o...@uakron.edu
effect boats well, his remarks were:
Ride was rough to say the least.
Nasty enviro damage, killed lots of fish in shallow water.
Noisy fuel hog , even with its advantage over aircraft for a given
cargo weight.
Lousy turn radius
Water ingestion problems in the intakes
Didn't handle storms well in surface mode.
Other then those issues, he said they are a fun ride once you get
over the barfing stage.
Steve
WaltBJ
2) WIGs have a nasty habit of diving intio rogue wavs and at 100 knots
that's rough on the inhabitants.
3) A snorkel is just a another way to sink yourself when it breaks.
4) As a kid we tried using a WW2 surplus gas mask as a snorkel. Guess
what - 3 feet down you can't suck any air down from the surface. They
work on subs because they aren't very deep and the diesels suck in the
air. But when a rogue wave - or just one bigger than average - floods
te snorkel and the valve shuts the diesels now suck the air out of
your ears and your lungs. Joy.
5) If that thing is real and not CGI maybe the Japanese have invented
the pirate-proof tanker. But then we have two already - Wisconsin and
New Jersey. Or is it Iowa? Too bad they're laid up.
Walt BJ
WaltBJ
puilled! Ooh the girls! Oops I wasnt ssupposed to talk about it. Oh,
well, what can they do -
BJ
Keith Willshaw
"Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message
news:h2r96a$37m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
True enough but you still have the problem of sucking the
air for the diesel and discharging the exhaust gas from the
engine against the pressure drop that 200 ft of pipe will
give you and thats without the nasties that happen when a
wavetop slams the masthead valve shut.
Keith
Ken S. Tucker
On Jul 5, 2:37 pm, "vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESS...@gmail.FAKE.com>
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:2ea237d7-f894-4bb0...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Then use a 200' snorkel
>
> That is just crazy, for a range or reasons.
Of course it is, but the objection was ludicurous.
But I can easily imagine a 50' streamlined composite
snorkel folded to the back for storage, then deployed
at an angle of say 45 deg at say 10 knots, what do
you want?
> >and/or use modern electrics, battery
> > and motor.
>
> I refer you back about 3 posts ago when you said the thing had to (at least
> almost) fly. So we can assume that weight is an issue? Battery
> propulsion barely works in submarines, giving only very limited range,
> speed, and submerged endurance.
Your using "very limited", "barely works" what does that mean,
those are subjective and borderline erroneous. The spec may
call for 20 mph submerged for 24 hours, we haven't discussed
that yet, what do you want?
> Even at that, battery technology only
> works in submarines because weight isn't an issue. But for your flying
> (skimming) submarine, weight is suddenly important. So my question still
> stands; how will you power this craft when submerged?
Suppose the composite hull is the battery,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090702080358.htm
add this proven (ultracapacitor) technology to the recipe,
http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/
and we have some serious power storage.
The electric motor of choice would be an ultra light,
superconducting, high efficiency, virtually silent compact unit,
what hp do you want?
> > Also as I replied to Dan, the craft could run closer
> > to the surface with stabilization.
>
> Which would take even more energy and add even more weight...
Well those same stablizers will operate in the air too,
FlyByWire, gotta have them doing double duty.
> > IMO, technology is sufficiently advanced to build a Sub-GEV.
>
> I respectfully disagree.
I get "no respect" anywhere else, so I'll reply to your post.
Suppose we go for a two man, fair weather vehicle, armed
with 2 torpedoes. The unit is off loaded and skims to the
critical area (practically invisible) at 200+ knots, lands and
submerges on ultra quiet electric, listens for the target and
bingo...
> Vaughn
What are we going to do if the competition developes it 1st?
Ken
ren2...@yahoo.com
> add this proven (ultracapacitor) technology to the recipe,http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/
> and we have some serious power storage.
>
> The electric motor of choice would be an ultra light,
> superconducting, high efficiency, virtually silent compact unit,
> what hp do you want?
>
> > > Also as I replied to Dan, the craft could run closer
> > > to the surface with stabilization.
>
> > Which would take even more energy and add even more weight...
>
> Well those same stablizers will operate in the air too,
> FlyByWire, gotta have them doing double duty.
>
> > > IMO, technology is sufficiently advanced to build a Sub-GEV.
>
> > I respectfully disagree.
>
> I get "no respect" anywhere else, so I'll reply to your post.
> Suppose we go for a two man, fair weather vehicle, armed
> with 2 torpedoes. The unit is off loaded and skims to the
> critical area (practically invisible) at 200+ knots, lands and
> submerges on ultra quiet electric, listens for the target and
> bingo...
>
> > Vaughn
>
> What are we going to do if the competition developes it 1st?
> Ken
Among the things beoing ignored is vibration. Grabbing my handy copy
of "Atlantic Escorts" by DK Brown, who spent a career designing
warships, we find this about the KM's Type XXI "Electroboot"..."eddy
shedding from the mast and periscope caused such severe vibration that
the the usable speed (ie: for snorkeling) was 6 knots" (The snorkel on
a Type XXI was considerably shorter than 200 feet). Any long thin tube
is going to vibrate when it passes through a liquid, so unless you
have repealed some laws of physics, that problem is going to confront
you. And it gets worse the longer the snorkel which mnwas that the
vibration problem would eneventually forcieyou to virtually heave to
submerged to use it. And, BTW, a snorkel is NOT a "cloak of
invisbilty" - Allied radar (both airborne abd ship mounted) was
picking up snorkel heads in 1945 tests. To top it off, any internal
combustion engine leaves a trail of ionized exhaust in its wake and
sensors have existed since the Fifies to follow the trail back home.
Dan
slammed shut. Diesels tend to demand a lot of air and I imagine the
sudden pressure drop inside the vessel when the snorkel closed would be
rather significant.
Jeffrey Hamilton
> Scott Lowther wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 11:34 pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> https://zsjbhw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1mxWhCOJCJyZKaBcpQttBT3yXTTq_Ky...
>> > > Is this an
>> > official government vessel? A new superwarfighting machine? Why is
>> > everyone so shy or bashful mentioning about its details? Could be,
>> > development came from private funding, or never approved by any
>> > Congress, Parliament, President, or Prime Minister. So, who -
>> other > than a Howard Hughes type - could build such a behemoth
>> craft Who could *possibly* build such a vehicle? Why... how about the
>> video game company "Namco," who designed and rendered this
>> "submarine aircraft carrier" (named either Hrimfaxi or Scinfaxi) for
>> their "Ace Combat 5" Playstation game?
>>
>> http://reinforcements.wordpress.com/ace-combat-super-weapons/
>
>
> I'm sure aren't also believes space aliens worked >closely with the
> Nazis.
Me too, the *Zylons*. They hate humanity as well.
>>
>>
>> Ah, but then, this is Bob Arndt, who considers the existence of
>> napalm to be proof of supersonic German supersaucers. And this, I
>> imagine,
>> will be Bob's next "Oh, look, the USAF is ripping off from the
>> Luftwaffe again" example:
>> http://www.freewebs.com/unionofpower/Air%20Forces%20Pix/Hresvelgrback.jpg
>
>
>
> As for that last picture, I think i saw one once. OK, so >I was in the
> middle of a mad dog party....
Mine was a *Purple Jesus* party.....it induces a similar effect I
believe....
cheers.....Jeff
vaughn
>> > Then use a 200' snorkel
>>
>> That is just crazy, for a range or reasons.
>
> Of course it is, but the objection was ludicurous.
> But I can easily imagine a 50' streamlined composite
> snorkel folded to the back for storage, then deployed
> at an angle of say 45 deg at say 10 knots, what do
> you want?
You were the one who suggested a 200 foot snorkle as a way of crusing
below the surface turbulance. How is a 50-foot snorkle supposed to help?
> Your using "very limited", "barely works" what does that mean,
> those are subjective and borderline erroneous. The spec may
> call for 20 mph submerged for 24 hours, we haven't discussed
> that yet, what do you want?
Typical battery-powered submerged performance of a conventional sub is
around 2 knots for 24 hours. I call that "very limited". I would call 17
knots (20 mph) pretty damn good by comparison, but that would still compare
badly to most any nuclear submarine. .
>
> Suppose the composite hull is the battery,
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090702080358.htm
Did you bother to read the above? Only good for low power applications, and
no mention of it also serving as a pressure hul (or any type of structure)l.
If we are free to assume technology that does not exist, let's give our
submarine WARP DRIVE!
> add this proven (ultracapacitor) technology to the recipe,
> http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/
> and we have some serious power storage.
Again, did you bother to read the material? Maxwell's biggest unit has a
power density of only 2.53 Wh/kg. Even lead acid batteries will give you
several times that (25 Wh/kg). Lithium battery technology will give you
something like 200 Wh/kg. For comparison, diesel fuel has a power density
of 13,762 Wh/kg .
(Here is a reference: http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Energy_density )
Nope, you still need to tell us how your submarine is to be powered. You
haven't done it yet.
>
> The electric motor of choice would be an ultra light,
> superconducting, high efficiency, virtually silent compact unit,
> what hp do you want?
Yes, but before we bother, tell us what is going to power the motor!
> What are we going to do if the competition developes it 1st?
Highly unlikely since the technology doesn't seem to exist, but in that
case we could simply steal the technology from our competition. ;-)
Vaughn
Gordon
> And, BTW, a snorkel is NOT a "cloak of
> invisbilty" - Allied radar (both airborne abd ship mounted) was
> picking up snorkel heads in 1945 tests.
Not to toot my own horn, but up to twenty years ago, I routinely found
submarines by detecting their masts and periscopes by radar. Longest
range was ~ 12 miles, but that was with a REAAALLLY crappy radar, not
intended for such use.
> To top it off, any internal
> combustion engine leaves a trail of ionized exhaust in its wake and
> sensors have existed since the Fifies to follow the trail back home.-
"Sniffer"... ayep. Worked GREAT out at sea - worthless within about
100 NM of shore.
v/r Gordon
David E. Powell
> On Jul 5, 10:00 am, o...@uakron.edu wrote:
>
> > Digital rendering The lighting is even in intensity if you do a
> > histogram on the pic.
> > Steve
>
>
> Most have heard of the desire to build a flying sub, well
> that's a tough spec. Somewhere in the evolution of such
> a machine 'could' be a submersible Ground Effect Vehicle,
> that wouldn't actually fly, but might skim the surface very
> quickly, and be able to submerge, which is easier.
> (A Mallard duck is natures flying sub).
>
> stop and then submerge, would be one hell of a military
> machine! I say let's build it, think of the tourist potential,
> man I could make money with something like that, and
> rent it to the military for extra $$'s.
>
> if the weather sucks.
Sounds like a Japanese movie made in the 1960s called _Ataragon._
David E. Powell
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:cd0a602e-33fd-466d...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
The Russkies tried submersible aircraft in the early 1930s, as I
recall. Torpedo planes that could double as torpedo boats or even
submerged craft. It didn't work out to well and even that was very
shallow submergence, and isn't even getting into quieting. Sounds like
a really bad idea. Unless Star Trek shields are invented or something,
and the Russians didn't have those.
Though they did have Stalin saying "GET IN THAT FLYING SUB COMRADE
TEST PILOT!" So some people did, but it didn't work out too well.
David E. Powell
Early snorkels were known to bust eardrums when a wave topped them.
Pressure differential like a guy I knew who lost one in Vietnam when a
door on his cargo plane let go.
vaughn
"Dan" <B24...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:vjo4m.16768$_S2....@newsfe17.iad...
> I read accounts of u-boat crewman writhing in pain when the snorkel
> slammed shut. Diesels tend to demand a lot of air and I imagine the sudden
> pressure drop inside the vessel when the snorkel closed would be rather
> significant.
I was in the Aux Machinery space in the USS Patrick Henry once when the
diesel was started without a source of air (except what was in that room).
It ran for about 30 seconds until a safety switch was triggered by the
resulting vacuum. It was like being transported from seal level to the top
of a high mountain in a matter of seconds. Breathtaking!
The problem turned out to be an air damper that was mistakenly closed,
but it took us quite a while to figure out how to get the air in the
compartment equalized. If someone had chosen that particular time to trip
the compartment door open, they would either have been smashed or launched,
depending on which side of the door they were on.
Vaughn
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:cca42c1b-842a-4768...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Then use a 200' snorkel
>
> >> That is just crazy, for a range or reasons.
>
> > Of course it is, but the objection was ludicurous.
> > But I can easily imagine a 50' streamlined composite
> > snorkel folded to the back for storage, then deployed
> > at an angle of say 45 deg at say 10 knots, what do
> > you want?
>
> You were the one who suggested a 200 foot snorkle as a way of crusing
> below the surface turbulance. How is a 50-foot snorkle supposed to help?
You can have a 50' snorkel if you want.
Recall the sub-GEV spec, you can have a bottle of LOX
if O2 is your problem, see Apollo program.
> > Your using "very limited", "barely works" what does that mean,
> > those are subjective and borderline erroneous. The spec may
> > call for 20 mph submerged for 24 hours, we haven't discussed
> > that yet, what do you want?
>
> Typical battery-powered submerged performance of a conventional sub is
> around 2 knots for 24 hours. I call that "very limited". I would call 17
> knots (20 mph) pretty damn good by comparison, but that would still compare
> badly to most any nuclear submarine. .
Whoa, you mathing the specs with a big fat nuke sub,
designed for a different mission and throwing numbers
without any ref.
How about the sub-GEV giving you 40 knots at 200'
submerged for 4 hours? (20 knots for 16, 10 for 32, etc.).
> > Suppose the composite hull is the battery,
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090702080358.htm
>
> Did you bother to read the above? Only good for low power applications, and
> no mention of it also serving as a pressure hul (or any type of structure)l.
> If we are free to assume technology that does not exist, let's give our
> submarine WARP DRIVE!
> > add this proven (ultracapacitor) technology to the recipe,
> >http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/
> > and we have some serious power storage.
>
> Again, did you bother to read the material? Maxwell's biggest unit has a
> power density of only 2.53 Wh/kg. Even lead acid batteries will give you
> several times that (25 Wh/kg). Lithium battery technology will give you
> something like 200 Wh/kg. For comparison, diesel fuel has a power density
> of 13,762 Wh/kg .
> (Here is a reference:http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Energy_density)
>
> Nope, you still need to tell us how your submarine is to be powered. You
> haven't done it yet.
It's ready to go, all that's needed is a clear specification.
> > The electric motor of choice would be an ultra light,
> > superconducting, high efficiency, virtually silent compact unit,
> > what hp do you want?
>
> Yes, but before we bother, tell us what is going to power the motor!
>
> > What are we going to do if the competition developes it 1st?
>
> Highly unlikely since the technology doesn't seem to exist, but in that
> case we could simply steal the technology from our competition. ;-)
If the tech is half as good as I foresee, it could eat our
SSN's , SSBN's and CVN's, like a Spitfire can eat a blimp.
Like a loon can eat a fish, want some loony tunes,
http://www.trak4.com/earco/index.html
(I (we) designed that little piece of equipment for birders).
As a military weapon, with man out of the loop, it's
very nearly an Exocet.
Ken
Beausaber
> > To top it off, any internal
> > combustion engine leaves a trail of ionized exhaust in its wake and
> > sensors have existed since the Fifies to follow the trail back home.-
>
> "Sniffer"... ayep. Worked GREAT out at sea - worthless within about
> 100 NM of shore.
>
> v/r Gordon
Quite true - from the pollution from shore based power plants,
factories, millions of cars, etc - but given the size of this beast it
ain't gonna be lurking in the shallows!