View Full Version : How realistic is this really?
04-11-2011, 01:19 PM
I am trying to find threads about how realistic is this really.
I see a couple of issues. Feel free to add your own.
1) The vehicle itself looks like it will not be able to operate in anything worse than calm and following seas. Swells over 5ft would completely submerge it if you goal is to keep the bulk of the vessel underwater and still have solid stantions above the waterline to mount GPS receivers, etc.
Since the vehicle is so close to the surface all the time, the surface noise must be absolutely brutal. As far as all the bulky GPS stuff, can't really drag all this equipment through the water and a totally submerged vehicle is more visually stealthly and has a 'cool' factor. But the trade off for 'cool' is power(batteries), drag, manuverability, sea state operational limits (from the stantions rising up out of the water).
Sorry DARPA, if you really want to be cool anyway, tow the GPS, etc. package on pontoons via a cable(s). Hard mounting is just plain dumb (if the vehicle looks anything like what is depicted in the game)
2) What about BearTrap?
3) If I were a sub commander or was a trawler captain supporting a sub commander, I would poke several severe holes in one of these things every chance I got... if I knew it was there. I am surprised points, a lot of points, are not deducted for using the 'ping' button.
04-11-2011, 03:07 PM
You bring up some valid points, but keep in mind that this is only a prototype system, and some features may be (as in, almost certainly are) exaggerated. With that said though...
1) First, the thing has 14 feet of hull above the water. It's going to take more than 5ft swells to upset it. I'd say around 10ft max. And that wouldn't be too much of a problem as you don't get swells above 10ft too often without there being a storm involved, which would kind of preclude the operation of surface vessels for tracking anyway, no? With that said, I also still don't see what the problem is with having GPS and radio equipment mounted on the hull itself. I'd much rather have it there than on a towed platform which may break loose...
2) Not familiar with "BearTrap," sorry.
3) I'd really like to hear how you'd go about "poking holes" in it as a sub captain. And doing so as a supporting surface ship would likely be quite difficult too. That's kind of the point behind the "Maximum Effort" mission.
Of course, this is all just speculation anyway based on what they show us in the game. The final product may be radically different and may have taken these points into account. I'm particularly interested in the propulsion systems, namely how they managed to pack all that equipment in the lower hull yet still have room for a bunch of sensors (and fuel), but that's just the geek in me.
04-11-2011, 03:15 PM
the thing is seriously huge. Look at the credits video, towards the end, after the credits have gone by, you see a Coast Guard Defender RHIB next to it... note the relative size of the two craft!
04-11-2011, 03:19 PM
1) As mentioned, they are actually quite tall, and with 14-15ft above water, there is about 40+ ft of draft. This is similar, or at leat approaching, in ratio to a oil rig, or even an iceberg. You don't see them rolling around that much. I admit, at first glance, it looks unstable, but the more I thougth about it, the more i realized it would be a very stable platform. And as mentioned in other threads, it runs on Diesel turbines, with global range, not batteries.
2) think those were outlawed many years ago
3) Check the scoring thread, as mentioned in the DARPA mission specs, it is inteded to be OVERT, not Covert. That's why the ping penalty is so low. It is low enough to be basically non existant.
And shooting one of these in international waters would not be the same as shooting down a UAV that has penetrated your airspace, this would be more akin to shooting down a spy satellite because it crossed over your country. International space/waters are just that, international. Sinking one of these would be tantamount to an act of war. The russians used to do this exact thing during the cold war with their spy trawlers. So what if the drone is following your sub, it's actually not doing anything harmful to you.
04-11-2011, 06:03 PM
the thing is seriously huge. Look at the credits video, towards the end, after the credits have gone by, you see a Coast Guard Defender RHIB next to it... note the relative size of the two craft! Seriously! I thought this was ment to be launched out the back of the LCS when I first heard about it. Damn its big. :haha:
04-11-2011, 09:31 PM
I was thinking dropped out the back of a C-130. :)
04-12-2011, 08:07 PM
Yah. I noticed how big it was on the ending credits as well. Check out some hypothetical specs on aviation week. Something about this thing reminds me of the Hunter-Killers from Terminator... except its the sea version.
A 30 day trail duration is the goal so no doubt it has to be big for that kindof fuel endurance.
What I'm curious about is the unit cost. Its about 260 tons without a crew or need for great pressures, so that's good for cost savings... however it will need multiple top notch sonar tranducers which will be expensive. I'm going to guess 120-220 million dollars per unit. That's about 1/10th the cost of a SSN.
04-12-2011, 08:07 PM
I'm starting to get a little concerned over whether the DB and scenarios are appropriate considering that the ACTUV is intended to be used as an overt, not covert, trail. As it stands, in 3 of the 4 missions it is very possible to establish a covert trail, and you are rewarded heavily on the scoreboard for doing this.
DARPA may wish to consider asking SCS to remove the active intercept baffles or programming an occasional "crazy ivan" maneuver to clear said baffles.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.