Slashdot Mirror
The World's First Supercavitating Boat?
An anonymous reader writes "For decades, researchers have been trying to build boats, submarines, and torpedoes that make use of supercavitation — a bubble layer around the hull that drastically reduces friction and enables super-fast travel. Now a company in New Hampshire called Juliet Marine Systems has built and tested such a craft, and says it is the world's fastest underwater vehicle. The ship, called the 'Ghost,' looks like two supercavitating torpedoes with a command module on top, and can carry 18 people plus weapons and supplies. The company is in talks with the U.S. Navy to build a version of the ship that can guard the fleet against swarm attacks by small boats. The question is how well it really works, and whether it can be used reliably and effectively on the high seas."
The summary contains a link that doesn't have an href attribute.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I guess even the editor didn't try to read the article?
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/juliet-marine-systems-inc-announces-the-first-super-cavitating-ship-ghost-127461283.html
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I've tried the link in IE, firefox, and crome and it doesn't appear to work? I searched around and found pictures and more info. http://deskarati.com/2012/01/19/worlds-first-super-cavitating-watercraft/
This is a Mac, what you have there is an embarrassment to your fellow computer users.
Is it just me or is that link missing a href? It doesn't link anywhere.
It's just you. It works fine for everyone else.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
So true it was underlined!
Since when is a 'underwater craft' referred to as a 'boat'?
Since the dawn of the submarine era. Even the Germans do it in U-boats.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Calling a sub a "boat" is actually the standard way of referring to a sub in the Navy. It's not an affectionate term, it's a standard one. If you called a sub a ship while you were in the Navy, you'd get corrected immediately.
Now, whether you thought that was proper for subs outside the Navy, I don't know. However, since this is being shopped to the Navy, it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to call it.
That's because
A sub is always a boat. Navies have always called them boats, that's why your submariner friend calls it that.
You might not like it, but "boat" is the correct term.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Is this a submarine or not? Wikipedia calls it a surface boat, while the linked article is unclear. Anybody have some solid info on this thing?
The Ghost shown on the Juliet Marine web site (http://julietmarine.com/) is a surface ship that doesn't look anything like two torpedoes. In fact, if anything, it looks similar to an original Start Trek series shuttle craft with bigger (and fold-able) wings. Also Ghost was announces in Aug 2011, so where's the news exactly?
Ouch. That article was so full of buzzwords and hype that my brain started cavitating.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
This is not a submarine.
FTA: like a high-tech torpedo, except part of the craft is above water—
And the picture shows the entire boat is above water except the drive.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The drive unit looks like two torpedoes. Look at the out of water picture.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
1) As far as I can tell, the command module never submerges. Could be wrong on that bit though.
2) The inventor also calls it an airplane. " “It’s almost as much an aircraft as it is a boat,” says its inventor, Gregory Sancoff, the founder and CEO of Juliet Marine Systems, a private company in Portsmouth, NH."
3) The article says it "looks like something out of Star Trek" and links to a bad image of a Romulan Bird of Pray. The drydock picture next to the link looks a lot more like a TNG/DS9/VOY-era shuttlecraft with grossly extended nacelles.
I believe "submarine" is just the adjective of "submarine boat" - as in literally "a boat (that goes) below the sea"
The main compartment of the Ghost vessel, which houses the cockpit and controls, sits above the water in between two torpedo-shaped pontoons or “foils,” which are submerged and create all the buoyancy and propulsion for the craft.
Would be interesting to see it in the open ocean with the high waves. If the wave height is higher than the boat clearance it's similar to hitting the water surface at 100 mph. A nosedive at such a speed means the cockpit becomes a 12-seat grave.
Now it's the Navy's turn - nuclear, rail, speed and stealth.
Frankly, the nuclear powered rail gun is probably going to be the biggest improvement in a long time. The navy will develop it for their new magnetic rail launch system for jets off a carrier, then move it to direct attack..
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
20120097086 FLEET PROTECTION ATTACK CRAFT AND UNDERWATER VEHICLES (39 figures) and
20110226173 FLEET PROTECTION ATTACK CRAFT (36 figures)
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
This type of boat is probably too limited in usefulness to be adopted by the navy. In terms of R&D capabilities it feels a lot like the experiments from the 1960s to develop militarized hydrofoils - the Canadian HMCS Bras d'Or being one good example. Despite impressive stability and speeds in excess of 60 knots (70mph), the limited load capacity and range made the prototypes unsuitable for military use.
The biggest hit, however, was the introduction of missiles. The difference between 20 and 30 knots isn't all that important when you're defending against a Sea Sparrow running at 500 mph. In WWII there were lots of destroyers running in excess of 35 knots. Now it's just the nuke-powered ACs that do top speeds, and everyone else is more worried about conserving fuel.
That means the proposed boat is really just a replacement for patrol vessels or stealth assault craft, and it doesn't look like the advantages of the design outweigh the compromises in handling, noise, carrying capacity and cost.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
I would buy a surak-class shuttle instead. Am I the only one who thinks it looks the same? [1]
[1]: http://application.denofgeek.com/images/m/75spaceships/main/surak.jpg
"Sancoff said that what’s in the patent filing isn’t quite how it works."
That should be forwarded to the examiner and the book closed.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Put a big wing on top and it would look more like a Lambda-class Imperial Shuttle
...mmm, kinda?
Since the article is talking about a boat, resting on two underwater foils that use supercavitation to reduce friction so the *boat* goes faster :/
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Ouch. That article was so full of buzzwords and hype that my brain started cavitating.
But did it *super*cavitate? Inquiring minds want to know! :)
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
This article makes no sense.
"The angle of the struts that connect the foils to the command module is adjustable—so the craft can ride high in choppy seas and at high speeds (so waves don’t hit the middle part), and low in calm water and at lower speeds.
“We’re basically riding on two supercavitating torpedoes. And we’ve put a boat on top of it,” Sancoff says."
Ok, so it's a hydrofoil...
"The propellers are powered by a modified gas turbine—a jet engine—housed in each foil; the air intake and exhaust ports for the engines are in the struts."
Yep, definitely above water... boat... not submarine....
"Yet its rumored speed is at least 80-100 knots—over 100 mph. That’s not going to challenge the top speedboat records—there have been hydroplane efforts (riding on the water surface) that have exceeded 200 mph (174 knots) and even 300 mph (261 knots), some with fatal results—but the Ghost is faster than any previous underwater vehicle, Sancoff says."
wait... what? It's a surface vehicle that's faster than any previous underwater vehicle? Why doesn't he just invent a Jet airplane and make the same claim?!?
"he Ghost provides a much smoother ride than what Navy SEALs are used to"
ok... so the ride is smoother. So far this seems like its only benefit.
"As for the craft’s audio profile, Sancoff is proud of its “silent propulsion” system that includes a sophisticated muffler system for the engines. You can’t hear it from 50 feet away, he says."
Ok, it's powered by JET ENGINES but you can't hear it from 50 feet away? um... yea...
You know who builds subs for the Navy? Electric Boat.
Basically, scientists say the "supercavitating boat" is basically a bunch of BS and/or not that likely. Hype as usual.
Which scientists? Supercavitating torpedoes go back to the 1970s Shkval for Russian models and the more recent Barracuda for the Germans. Making a catamaran above a pair of them does not seem implausible.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Navies, smugglers, pirates.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
What floats is a ship.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
After seeing firsthand what Juliet Marine built with $5 million, Kinsella said, “If you were taken around by a handler from Lockheed or Grumman or Northrop or any of them, and they told you, ‘We developed this on $150 million,’ you wouldn’t bat an eye.” He told the story of a meeting with Avalon and its fund investors. Someone asked Sancoff, “How did you get to be so capital efficient in your company?” Kinsella relays, “He leaned on the podium and said, ‘Because it was my money.’”
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
http://julietmarine.com/pdfs/HighSpeedBoatDriver.pdf . Anyone got a death wish? this thing is probably uncontrollable.
I assume as long as he is the only one skilled in the art it stands...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
No.
That just means the patent doesn't describe how this particular one works. It might describe part of how it works, it might describe a completely different approach, etc.
It also means that some part of the design isn't protected by that patent, which you would expect give the article also says "exactly how this is done is a trade secret" - and one thing can't be both a trade secret and a patented. I can however, combine a patented invention and a trade secret - just if the secret ever gets out I can't stop others from using it.
My Navy brother yells at us when we use boat to refer to a non-submarine, too. Boat = underwater, ship = above water.
-SaNo
i like the german version "unterwaterboot" for comedy value
Now it's the Navy's turn - nuclear, rail, speed and stealth.
They should really hire some people who know Latin though. After the "velocitas eradico" railgun fiasco, I wouldn't be surprised if the motto for this thing is "cavitas pecuniae".
Set your phasers on "funky"!
This is like a supercavitating hydrofoil. This is not like a WiG (Wing in Ground) craft. Similar to a cement mixer full of bowling balls falling off a cliff, it is loud and fast (and I assume can be dangerous, too). It is not like a ham sandwich. It's not a big truck. It's not something you just dump something on.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Boat. not Torpedo. Carrying a pair of torpedos in the water with supercavitating propellers on the front does not mean the boats supercavitate. Claiming a catamaran can go through the water would require more than just the "torpedos" to supercavitate. RTFA. A catamaran above the water is substantially different than the claims at hand - which is *underwater*.
I didn't say a thing about torpedos, because that's not even a question here.
It sounds like they use an envelope of bubbles to encase the nacelles in air to reduce the friction between the nacelles and the water. If it works for increasing the speed through water, maybe the same methodology can be applied to increase speed of travel through air.... Surround the craft with a vacuum to reduce air friction. Maybe call it superturbulence.
A gunboat definitely goes above water, but is still a boat.
I did a little research on some of the claims in the article;
From the article;
It was there, in 2000, that he first got inspiration for Juliet Marine and the Ghost ship. Sancoff was sitting in a conference room when he heard the U.S.S. Cole had been attacked off the coast of Yemen by a small boat loaded with explosives.
The USS Cole was attacked while in port tied up along a jetty refueling. All of it's radars and weapons systems were down and the ship was defenseless. An innocent looking small boat moved up to the hull and exploded. That was a port security failure and nothing to do with the weapons capability of the Cole. Referring to that incident in the context of massed small boat attacks is bunk.
From the article;
I looked at the Fleet Battle Experiment Juliet Final Summary Report and nowhere did it mention a high number of losses due to small boat attacks. Even if the statement is true, Juliet took place 9 years ago and I bet there has been a lot of learning and experimentation since then.
Now lets look at the technology. In general it works by a propeller spinning so fast it creates enough low pressure behind the propeller to boil the water and create water vapour which reduces drag along the rest of the sponson. Here are a few issues;
1. The way a propeller works is that it pulls in water that is approaching the propeller at one velocity and ejects it at a higher velocity from the back of the propeller. This creates a low pressure area behind the propeller. If the velocity differential is enough the low pressure is enough to lower the boiling point of the water and cause it to turn to water vapour. This large velocity differential in generally obtained when a vessel is accelerating or decelerating. There is a point at which the velocity of the ship approaches the maximum velocity of the water ejected from the propeller. This will decrease the low pressure to a point at which cavitation will stop.
2. Propeller cavitation is very hard equipment. I know the chief engineer on a ferry and he cringes every time he feels cavitation. He knows that they just spent thousands of dollars on propellers, bearings and shafts just because some sod at the helm didn't slow down at the right time. Anyone who has traveled on a ferry has experienced cavitation. It usually occurs during docking and the whole ship shakes. When propellers cavitate is is not a smooth process. Bubbles of water form on the back of the propeller, detach and then water slams back in. This causes damage to the propeller. How long can the new ship go before expensive overhauls? Drag racers are rebuilt after every run, is it really feasible to use that same model on a warship? It may work on torpedoes but they are one use weapons.
The article makes several references like "to reach very high speeds at relatively low fuel cost." The question is relative to what? A conventional boat attempting 100 knots or a 30kt destroyer. If comparing with a high speed boat they may be less but pound for pound it is a lot more than a DDG. If the range of one of these vessels is only a few hundred mile it will be difficult to get in theater and spend much of it's time sitting next to a ship refueling.
I love the following statement;
Its fuel efficiency means it has greater range and can run longer missions than conventional boats and helicopters.
There is always an issue when using relative terms; in general they are meaningless.Technically speaking a 1% increase in range is longer. What is the actual difference in range and is it enough to self deploy? The military does not expect a helicopter to self deploy, hence the need for helicopter carriers but it does expect its ships to self deploy. Sure the navy could use a cargo vessel to carry the new s
Look at SWATH type boats. They are basically two torpedoes with a catamaran on top.
Yep. A division of General Dynamics. In rotten Groton (CT).
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
My Navy brother yells at us when we use boat to refer to a non-submarine, too. Boat = underwater, ship = above water.
The way my navy friend explained it to me is that ships carry boats. If what you are on has lifeboats, then it's a ship.
Also to say they can't be detected by sonar is wrong - they can't be detected by sonar from behind or directly in front, since the boat would be moving faster than the sonar waves straight on going forward (unless the boat also absorbs sonar, that is).
Technically, a ship was a surface water craft (a boat) that had three masts and a bowsprit. Everything else had other names. When large boats no longer had masts or bowsprits the definition changed. Subs have just always been boats, no matter how large.
It may describe something similar. I i invent something and patent it, then if I go and invent something similar it doesn't make the previous patent invalid.
Here is a diagram from the patent application that shows the entire vehicle. It definitely looks like a shuttle craft, but the "two torpedoes" are right there, longer than the command pod (with props on the front, no less).
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Forgive me for seeming stupid, but have we not invented things better than this twice over?
Britain invented hovercraft (perfected by America and Russia) and the former USSR invented the Ekranoplan or skimmer.
Both work on the principle of having as little contact with water as possible. Hovercraft in particular are fairly simple to build and are very difficult for torpedoes to target, as well as being most useful for navigating in shallow coastal waters or even on mudflats (also rather good over sand in deserts). This system is incredibly noisy underwater, to the extent that any marginally aware enemy would detect its presence rapidly and at the very least send out aircraft for a look to see what was there. As other posters have pointed out, it may be able to out-run conventional surface ships, but cannot outrun cannon fire from an aircraft.
Also to say they can't be detected by sonar is wrong - they can't be detected by sonar from behind or directly in front, since the boat would be moving faster than the sonar waves straight on going forward (unless the boat also absorbs sonar, that is).
For your claim to be true, it would have to be moving around 3300 mph. Not likely. Cavitation generates a huge amount of noise. For a "supercavitating" torpedo you don't care because the target can't outrun it or often react fast enough to make evasive maneuvers.
It would also be nice if the article made the distinction between cavitating and injecting air at the bow. Air injection at the bow has some beneficial benefit for drag (not called friction in water) and acoustic (isolates hull noise from the water), but it also generates its own broadband noise.
AND captain nemo called the nautilus "[his] submarine boat". I think he deserves to name it!
The concept of this "ship" (if we can call it a ship, that is) is actually not that new
Back in the 1980's, someone tried to build a merchant container ship that used the principle of a catamaran, that could, reportedly, travel in a speed of over 100 knots per hour
And according to the news report that I read, that ship supposed to be very fuel efficient too
This "ship" only adds in the option of supercavitation
My question is - how long before Russia and China come out with their own ship with similar capabilities?
What I mean is, the technology behind this "ship" is not new, supercavitation has been studied and researched to death for decades
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Some scientists say it is a bunch of BS, entrepeuner says "It's done, we are just equiping the prototype with the military so they can field test it".
Or, to be short, we'll know by 2014 or 2015 if that thing is running at the Middle West. If so, it is real.
Rethinking email
Or the headline writer could just not be an asshole and call it a sub or submarine.
Their they're doing there hair.
travel in a speed of over 100 knots per hour
That's a heluvan acceleration! Knots == nautical miles per hour
antipaucity
Frankly, the nuclear powered rail gun is probably going to be the biggest improvement in a long time.
Don't forget LASER Anti-Missile Systems... which forces the enemy to use guns, too.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hovercraft are noisy as shit and much bigger than this. Since this system is noisy underwater, it's for the purpose of attacking unaware enemies with shitty technology.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Lots of surface vessles are ships, he's just an idiot that was under water for a while and wan't to feel elite. You can either correct him every time he does it or accept that he will be your children's "crazy uncle" on the topic and nod your head and smile condescendingly when it happens.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
In addition, the claim is made by the inventor that the US Navy has no defense plan in place WRT small boat swarms, so his is the only solution. Wrong.
I can attest that is a blatant falsehood, and that our Navy does indeed train for exactly that sort of warfare. I don't think it is revealing any sensitive info to point out the fact that a certain well known, very-fast-boat manufacturer has an ongoing contract with the Navy conducting offshore exercises using 40-50' "attack" boats powered by twin or triple 250-300hp outboard engines. I've hung out many times with the guys running those boats, and they do not operate in any sort of "blacked out" manner. They use public and privately-owned marine facilities, and conduct operations in broad daylight within areas used by recreational offshore fisherman, so I am sure that the inventor is aware of them as well. These boats can easily run in excess of 70mph, and while they may be very high-dollar craft in the consumer market, they cost less than $500K apiece.
The one advantage his invention has over these conventional hulled boats (other than raw speed) is that this is a wave piercing design, which as stated ITFA is better for the health of those aboard. That said, I seriously doubt it has anywhere near the maneuverability of more conventional offshore craft such as those I mention above. The turning radius would have to be *extremely* large with that cat hull configuration, and even moreso at super cavitation speeds. And how large a sea state can it run in? Keeping that pod above water and waves at 200mph (or even 1/4 that speed) would be absolutely critical. Water being non-compressible, one good impact would likely render that platform unusable. So - it's very fast, but can't turn/maneuver for shit, and will primarily be useful only in areas where seas will remain relatively calm.
The inventor speaks glowingly about his $20-million-dollar-per solution becoming a multi-billion dollar industry. To me, knowing what I know about water craft, it seems to me as if he is selling the US Navy a marine version of TSA body scanners. Another Federal boondoggle...
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
Interesting theory, but not really true. For example (the first one that comes to mind) the three-masted schooner (spelling?) had a bowsprit and three masts but was a schooner. Most things had "other names".
Everything had lots of names, actually, as sea-faring didn't have an authority or intellegence requirement world-wide. So like computers its all jargon from top to bottom. Actually telling the difference between Boat and Ship is like telling the difference between LAN and WAN, which piviots on your definition of "local".
Like religion, the names and meanings were wholly dependent on what you learned and from whom instead of having any real basis in fact.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Yet another iteration on the SES (Surface Effect Ship). It isn't quiet. In fact it literally roars out its position. It isn't fast enough and maneuverable enough to evade a missile or cannon. It can't outrun the latest Russian Shkval torpedoes. It is a fuel hog. It can't carry much armament or material. Its a pain to be onboard (too noisy).
Navy needs to concentrate more on small missile-equipped remotely-piloted (or small crew) boats. Think cheap fast PT boats + cheap fast missiles.
Then he doesn't know what a boat is, even by the Navy's definition (of which there are several).
My particular favorite way to differentiate between the two is this (at least for modern vessels, don't know enough if it holds for old sailing vessels):
The difference is in how they turn. A boat tends to lean in towards the center of the turn while turning. A ship tends to lean away from the center of the turn while turning.
I think the movie Battleship actually displays this (at least for ships, in particular a DDG). Though the movie is horrible overall and is best avoided.
Supercavitationistic Bubblicious Warships,
The enemy don't have this stuff, It's only found on our ships,
Faster than the Russian navy, Chinese or Qatar ships,
Supercavitationistic Bubblicious Warships.
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle aye,
It goes a hundred knots per hour and uses little fuel,
Looks just like the Bird of Prey from Star Trek #2,
The DoD they can't believe the small size of the bill,
The sucker was developed for just $150 mil....
Yes, I missed a part of the definition - all three masts must be square rigged. Schooners use a fore and aft rig. Dictionary.com also omits the requirement to have a bowsprit. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ship
Ship did have a precise definition, and what you said about sea-faring isn't really true because most of the designs were copied by cultures in contact with one another. Also, the English navy (a central authority) gave everything they saw, and it's those names and definitions, and descendants thereof, that we use in English today.
The writer of the article claims that the super cavitating boat would be invisible to sonar, sorry that is completely wrong. Cavitation is one of the easiest things for sonar to pick up.
"Juliet Marine Systems [...] says it is the world's fastest underwater vehicle"
Except that it's not an underwater vehicle. It's a surface boat riding on two underwater pontoons. Not much different from a hydrofoil in structure. So they've built a surface boat that is faster than any underwater vehicle, something which is true for thousands of boats already in existence.
-deane
An actual submarine didn't truly exist until the USS NAUTILUS with the advent of nuclear propulsion, allowing it to stay submerged for extended periods of time. Basically the only limiting factor was onboard supplies for the crew (and of course the mental strain of being underwater in confined spaces for weeks on end). Before that, the correct term was submersible because the the boat could only stay down for as long as the batteries and/or oxygen lasted and needed to surface so the diesel engines could be used for propulsion, recharging the batteries and exchanging the air supply. The German's had some designs during the later part of WWII that had huge batteries and sleek hull designs that could power the boat for long stretches of time (and even some other experimental power sources) but eventually they would need to use snorkels to draw in air so the diesels could be run while being close to the surface. These German U-Boat designs were the basis for the Cold War U.S. Navy's GUPPY program and provided a big leap forward in sub design. The first submersibles developed were small and called boats because they were, at times, carried on the decks of ships. So technically, the first submersibles were actually boats because of their small displacement and the fact that they weren't true underwater crafts. Over time, the designs changed and the displacement increased considerably to the point where, technically, they shouldn't really be classified as boats, but seeing that navies are fanatically traditional, the term stuck and is still used today.
Such as the Iranians are advertising using small ekranoplanes are easy to deal with, as long as Phalanx systems can point downwards. This looks like a solution in search of a problem - and given the pointers about logs/whales from other posters - what happens if this baby hits a significant underwater obstacle at 100 knots? (I assume the navy will run that test under remote control to avoid severe injury to human operators.) Presumably a large part of the above-water noise dampening is achieved by simply directing engine exhaust into the supercavation bubble - which enhances the effect. I can't see this as a practical SEAL delivery boat.
All US Navy boats have a maximum speed of 30 knots. It's in the manual.
That is all.
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.