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."
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!
Article has enough keywords to uniquely locate the original article
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.
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
"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?
There's a difference between cavitation and supercavitation. Supercavitation takes those noisy bubbles that are destroying your propeller and extends them to enclose the entire vessel. This reduces the amount of surface in contact with the water, which greatly reduces drag, and all of a sudden you're rocketing along at 200 miles per hour and don't particularly care if people hear you coming.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
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
But I'm a pretty good troll.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You are either confused or you didn't read TFA. This is a $10 million private sector development. Yes they are trying to interest the Navy/CG but were they really interested is would have been mentioned. If you want to beat on government spending go find a subject where the government is actually doing the spending.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue