I found this interesting especially the reaction of China.
Murray
Murray
-
Life isn't about how to survive the storm, but how to dance in the rain !
http://sites.google.com/site/intrigu...tivehistories/
(/url) https://goo.gl/photos/ABBDQLgZk9DyJGgr5 -
Interesting post and probably the wave of the future. I'm not sure what the military masterminds have in mind for it but if it's only defense is 31 mph, about 80% of the pleasure craft and 60% of the commercial traffic on the Great Lakes could run it down with ease. I know it will be ranging on the oceans but at that speed it's a setting duck for overtaking and boarding.
Bob -
I have no personal knowledge of this particular ship, but I have worked with DARPA on some of their projects in the past and am somewhat familiar with their modus operandi. Basically, they only fund big-buck projects that have high risk, but offer potentially high payoff. No interest in incremental improvements or sure bets. This approach does produce some breakthrough technologies, but also suffers some big failures. Their final product is usually a single prototype that is turned over to the appropriate military service for further evaluation. The parts of it that work well are integrated into future war-fighting systems, and the parts that don't are placed in the lessons-learned bin.
WRT the Sea Hunter, 30 knots is plenty fast enough to catch up with a submarine, most of which operate at very slow speed to avoid detection. While there may be some interesting breakthroughs in the Sea Hunter's antisubmarine and data processing technologies, the big savings will be in the self-driving approach. An enormous amount of the energy and space on Navy ships is dedicated to housekeeping; ie, feeding and housing the crew. Live crews also don't do well in sea state 8 (30 to 46 foot waves), in which the Sea Hunter supposedly will continue to be able to tolerate.Skip LackieComment
-
While I understand all that and, indeed, agree with the premise - That's a lot of very high technology and investment wandering around with no way to ward off potential boarding and hijacking. If it needs support craft then it's whole premise is negated. I'd be more inclined to say it's got 4 tons of C4 in the hold and 30,000 volts across the deck, just in case.Originally posted by Skip Lackie View Post
I know technically it's an act of war to board or attack another countries warships but I can't see Nuclear Armageddon being waged over a small incident with a third world entity that was commissioned to obtain this technology on the high seas.
I'd just like to see someone saying there are defenses in place to negate interference with the operation of this craft. I'm about as far as one can get from a military defense expert but even I know that 31 mph is not protecting this investment.
Don't get me wrong, I think the premise is viable and valuable but, holy cow, how do we keep it away from those that want the information.
BobComment
-
It's a prototype/demonstration platform, not an operational warship. Presumably, the various technologies and concepts will be tested:
1. against real targets (friendly submarines),
2. in real environments (high sea states),
3. against various countermeasures.
I am guessing that besides the obvious issue of evaluating the ability to remotely navigate an unmanned ship, the tests will also include evaluating on-board and remote data processing, communications and telemetry, equipment deployment and recovery, and self-protection. The development of an operational unit is probably years away, and would presumably include the ability to remotely destroy the sensitive hardware on board.
29-30 knots may seem slow, but it's more than twice as fast as the current (manned) ocean surveillance ships.
Skip LackieComment
Comment