Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargamel
What I still don't get though, is the array of sensors and platforms we're being given to work with. Are they seriously using our results to help decide which design bid to accept? Some of the designs are useless at the targets top speed, so throw that out. And then why can one design have uber-sensors, while others have them seemingly pointed in the wrong direction? Why can't they mix and match? If it's a power/size issue, then make the damn thing a bit bigger. I bet some solar panels, wind, and wave generators would work nicely on this thing, etc etc. If they have intentionally designed flaws into the drones to test our tactics, then why the redundancy?
|
I've been wondering about that too. If Gator is fictitious, then I'd say the Remora and Shark designs are both very good. I like Shark a little bit more because of the higher MF speed and longer HF range. It's sonar is OP though, at least in the DW acoustic model anything beyond 4nmi is a waste. Seahorse is nice, but I'd rather have the speed of the others than omnidirectional MF sonar. Seahorse's best feature might be the elevation on the MF--although with its long-range HF sonar it's really necessary. Triton blows. It would rock, though, if it traded MF elevation with the Seahorse's. Short HF range should be paired with high elevation MF.