Submersible Aircraft

[juiceclark]

It appears the military wants to hand-out money for the development of a submersible aircraft. If I were a naval architect, especially one that worked with light-weight carbon fiber and ceramics, I'd love to work on this project.

http://www07.grants.gov/search/search.do;jsessionid=JGMFWLJLG2GJYYj4DDKrG7xhpqg11T0H6n2ybF3vHK7WbfQFXvPK!1804673657?oppId=42978&flag2006=false&mode=VIEW

Seems to my untrained eye the easiest way to do that would be to take a winged hovercraft (hotlinked below) and make the craft submersible. The cockpit could be covered easy enough...but the engine is another thing I guess:
http://www.hovercraft.com/content/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=34_53

short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FViP5izaj8E&feature=related

[daiquiri]

Now that's really wicked. It's obvous that it's not time of economic crisis for everyone. The military guys always have enough money for their sick ideas. :rolleyes:

[StianM]

I would guess the hard part is to make sure the engine is sealed be four submerged.
I guess for a gas turbine or a jet fresh water should be no problem.
I also think the big glass surfaces in the cockpit would prove a challenge if going to deep.
I'm sure it can be done, but not shure if it's worth the trouble.
Did not the Germans have catapult's for aircrafts on some of there big submarines?

[clmanges]

How do you take an aircraft -- which must be lightweight to fly -- and make it submersible, which means being built heavily enough to withstand the pressure involved?

Sounds like another oxymoron, kinda like "military intelligence."

[StianM]

How do you take an aircraft -- which must be lightweight to fly -- and make it submersible, which means being built heavily enough to withstand the pressure involved?

My lucky guess is small depths.

Maybe flood the engine witch would not be a probleme for a jet if submerged in fresh water (did anyone see the testing of the rolls royce engines for airbus on discovery?)

Carbon or titan hull has allot of strength and is light.

I don't really see the point.

It would be a much bether point to build submerged aircraft carriers. then you would not nead to compromise the aircrafts performance in the air.

[Jimbo1490]

Keep a round tube architecture for the fuselage which doubles as pressure vessel. Use the wings for ballast and fuel and then their hollow and non-ideal cross-section (for pressure tolerance) is not a liability.

Jimbo

[kenJ]

I've seen recovered turbojet engines from helicopters that had to ditch. A hot engine dunked in salt water is not a pretty sight. Perhaps the idea is to transport to the fight underwater then launch in surprise mode. Recover ashore or on a carrier.

[kach22i]

How do you take an aircraft -- which must be lightweight to fly -- and make it submersible, which means being built heavily enough to withstand the pressure involved?

Sounds like another oxymoron, kinda like "military intelligence."
You flood it (wet cockpit), but as you pointed out near impossible to do.

[kach22i]

Seems to my untrained eye the easiest way to do that would be to take a winged hovercraft (hotlinked below) and make the craft submersible.
Home built hovercraft (like the UH shown) are typically fiberglass over foam (composite) construction, they float like crazy.

Might want to use aluminum instead.

[Ike]

Seems to me I saw such a thing in Popular Mechanics or Popular Science back in the 60's. It wouldn't be cheap, but It can be done.

[yipster]

http://www.waterufo.net/flyingsubs/NavyFlyingSubHtml1_files/image001.gifhttp://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/9-http://lh4.ggpht.com/abramsv/SEY3LIUJ3BI/AAAAAAAATbw/rvvQGY-GfR8/s640/lrg_flying_sub.jpg
started a search on idiot, ***** and crazy than typed
flying submarine (http://images.google.nl/images?gbv=2&&hl=nl&q=flying+submarine&&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=20) and submarine flying (http://images.google.nl/images?gbv=2&hl=nl&q=submarine+flying&btnG=Afbeeldingen+zoeken) and a world of sf opens
http://i.livescience.com/images/060301_spy_plane2_02.jpg

[kach22i]

Thinking cruise missile in reverse as a good place to start?

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Cruise-Missiles-1985.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/RGM-109C-Launch-2.jpg

[kach22i]

This old post may be of interest:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/sci-fi-boats-anyone-20047-5.html
In an earlier post I noted that technology has overtaken the imagination of the best writers. Some of us have been thinking that a fast surface craft that can also submerge is far out. Dang if someone hasn't built a prototype: 40 knots on the surface, dive to 600 ft and stay down for 48 hours. They are talking with the military, also with offshore oil support companies.The crew capsule shown will be swapped out for a pressurized capsule in the deep diving version.

http://www.hyper-sub.com/product.hs600m.php

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/02/apsubmarinedesigner070211/

[ancient kayaker]

The first thoughts that occured to me were:

Engine to be non-air breathing
Thin wing profiles, maybe lifting fuselage
Fuel tanks to be floodable (usual internal bag arrangement of course)
Floodable fuselage with wet-suited pilot

However, one caveat: the award ceiling is a little low, $0

Have to wonder what for it's for though. Does it have to fight as well? What could this do that a sub that could launch a plane or a minisub that could launch a RPV couldn't? It's not gonna be either a good plane or a good boat.

[daiquiri]

Basically, in order to fulfill the requirements, that contraption will have to be a combination of a very bad airplane and a vary bad submarine.

[juiceclark]

The first thoughts that occured to me were:

Engine to be non-air breathing
Thin wing profiles, maybe lifting fuselage
Fuel tanks to be floodable (usual internal bag arrangement of course)
Floodable fuselage with wet-suited pilot

However, one caveat: the award ceiling is a little low, $0


No ceiling on any project means lots and lotsa money.

I'd surmise they'd like a craft that could fly Navy Seals fairly close to shore from a large ship way offshore. The remaining mile or so to the beach could be reached via scuba while their flying thingy could submerge so the enemy couldn't find and destroy their transportation back to the ship while they're onshore.

[ancient kayaker]

That's the closest explanation so far but I would have thought a submersible surface effect craft would be more practical for that kind of mission; fast, decent payload, under much of the radar, existing technology. Of course, I have a good 50% of my thinking capacity intact never having been a part of the military, so it has to make sense to me.

I think your right that the plane part is the important bit and the submersible part is subordinate. The mission is limited by what a bad aircraft can do but they want to do it fast. So far we have shallow depths, short mission, limited support, and of course hostile shore. Keep 'em coming!

Wonder if a different approach would work on this. A plane drops a small automatic submersible "taxi" offshore, the troops take a 'chute trip down and the plane goes back to Momma while the sub does a preprogrammed run-away-and-hide. After the troops do their dirty work they call up the taxi. The return trip is slow but your job's done. The 'plane can also run a support or diversion mission. An unmanned sub can be dropped by 'chute, self-deploy and report status before the troops are committed.

That's assuming there is an actual use for this thing and we have figured it out. This is much more fun than designing real boats.

Another damn afterthought: there's nothing about a pilot or a manned requirement in the announcement.

[kach22i]

Maybe somebody was just thinking it's about time that the old TV series Voyage to the "Bottom of the Sea" came about.

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/other/sl_seaview.htm
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/other/sl_seaview_0039.jpg

http://members.fortunecity.com/jpayne/Planes4.html
http://members.fortunecity.com/jpayne/fs1a.jpg

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Voyage-Sea/6628
http://www.tvshowsondvd.net/graphics/news3/VoyageBottomSea_S2V2.jpg

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=227692
http://www.culttvman.com/assets/images-SFTV-2005/dmerrimanmoreflysub1017.jpg

http://flickr.com/photos/15675500@N00/2092896067
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2174/2092896067_1d0fbebe14.jpg?v=0

Then there is this:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002029.html
http://www.defensetech.org/images/cormorant.jpg
A while back, I briefly mentioned the Cormorant, Darpa's idea for a sub-launched flying drone. Reader DS points us to the agency's quick write-up of the 19-foot "multi-purpose unmanned aerial vehicle," or MPUAV.

[Loveofsea]

here you go!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYqYIldZdI

[juiceclark]

Here you go again....made the same way too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RrOT-nA7a8&feature=related

Back to reality...I'd love one of these WASPs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJARrc40imk

[rasorinc]

Re: sub/plane I wonder what the Skunk Works told them. If they are not involved then there must be a good reason. They do not only work on Air Force projects. Just a thought.

[corrupt]

how do you know its been planned for this planet, might seem a mental thought but they really have been looking at europa and thats just a light atmospere with ice and water for a planet basically, i know what your thinking, he's been on the sea water AGAIN haha