Military recon powerboat concept

It would be capable of much greater carrying capacity, which translates to longer mission time w/out refuel/resupply, range, and mission flexibility. Just off the top of my head right now.

 

By flying them off tankers , which can be easily fitted with flight decks, you have surveillance, investigation and retribution. In the past Israel had armed gunships constantly flying , in order to strike whenever the opportunity arose. now UAV,s carry out the function. Israeli fighters fly to be a visible presence. The UAVs have their own tasks.

It makes sense to keep highly trained personel out of harm's way. Appropriate technology is on its way.

Pericles

 

The weight requirements to keep an UAV airborne is still an issue that prevents it from packing a heavy punch. The only example of an UAV that packs firepower stronger than man-portable weapon that I can think of off the top of my head is the Israeli Harpy, which is almost more cruise missle than UAV anyway.

Not to mention the limitation of progamming autonomus response in UAVs, and the inherent unreliability in having remote controlled weapon over a long range. While it may be tempting to keep trained personnel out of harms way, the modern technology still can't do that without sustaining a loss in capabilities. I doubt we have the tech to program an effective dogfighting UAV, or long range radio control device that can cut through all interference, natural or man-created.

And I'm not sure I want to have that sort of tech available, maybe it's because the SkyNet in the Terminator movies scared the beejeezus out of me.

Unmanned platform's role these days are to support manned mission, not the other way around. And I believe any military procurement and planning need to take that in mind.

 

I promised someone to post a few of the bookmarks I have on this topic. So here they are.

http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd/sbir/sbir032/sbir108.html

http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Jun06/SN_H_05_02.html

http://www.engadget.com/tag/uav

 

Eisenhower's Acute Observation

I'm not sure I remember that film sequence, but I get a little concerned myself about an 'all powerful, all seeing, government', particularly after what this latest administration has promoted. I keep thing back about this statement by Eisenhower when I was growing up:

President Dwight Eisenhower, January 17, 1961 ​

My fellow Americans, this evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. We have been compelled to create a permanent armament industry of vast proportions. Three-and-a-half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

 

I want in on "this" and feel that I should feel bad about it, but I want to get my project built.

If only the HoverFairy would answer my dreams.

 

Big Brother will be Watching

Here's an example of what's coming. Imagine this technology greatly expanded and/or in the hands of a dictatorial government

Automatic License Plate Recoqnition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j_On_1zRig

 

Looks like a good tool to have, I better keep up with my insurance.

 

Ain't that bad working for The Man. They've been footing my bill for awhile now lol.

A truly dictatorial evil tyranical government would actually care about license plate search result and the idea of getting the right man?

 

"The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

The more Gov attempts to do , the bigger the chance for the "employees of last resort" to screw it up.

Still dreaming of enforced borders , and constitutional money.

FF

 

How wrong is that? It's not fins it's hulls just like it is on a normal cat. The SES skirts are there to provide lift to decrease the wetted surface. I seen this boat a couple off times and it stay afloat well abow water without it's fans running.

The MTB's they used in Vietnam was also off norwegian design in norway called tjeld class MTB fitted with british Napier Deltic engines.

The americans bought penguin rockets from norway for years now.

http://www.hoverclubofamerica.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=460&hl=Skjold

Intresting thread

 

I take the term hull to be the part of the watercraft which floats. In a SES there is a hull and it has side extentions which are designed to keep the pressurize air "captured". The SES will never float on the side extentions alone therefore I don't think of them the same as I would a catamaran as the function is completely different even though their is a resemblance.

The ones which changed history, should I thank you?

PTF
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/ptf3.htm

Another link:
http://www.ptfnasty.com/ptfnorway.htm

 

Then how do they float when the fans is stoped? or when they change the skirts? They tear 2cm a hour at 50knot last time I heard
If you removed the skirts it would become just another cat maybe doing only 45-50 instead off 60knot.

I don't think annything the americans brought into vietnam changed mutch except a extra grave now and then.

http://www.wis.co.uk/justin/deltic-engine.html

 

All hovercraft and SES craft can float on their hulls (not sidewalls). They either have foam filled hulls or air tight chambers for this purpose. This can be a problem in heavy seas should they lose lift power. In heavy seas they may become not much more than a top heavy raft being tossed by the waves. Not a good situation because they can capsize then - just a warning.

I guess I need a picture to help explain the message here, it always helps me so indulge me.

A Comparison of Power Catamaran Hull Types
RePrinted from the Spring 2000 Issue of Power Multihulls Magazine
by Prof. Jacob van Renen van Niekerk
http://www.multihullsmag.com/magazine/articles/cathulls/cat hulls.htm
Characteristics of Type-F

NOTE: Click the link above and read about the differences, the pictures are worth a thousand words.

StianM, because you made me do an image search I found some new stuff, so it was not a waste of time. Below is what I found.

Hull is where the lift fans empty, not the side sponsons/sidewalls.
http://www.stepi.re.kr/researchpub/abstract/ABAA-1996-022-006.HTM



More images:
http://www.dyferry.com/usefulinfo_type_2.asp




More (hull is upper part with fans):
http://www.ivt.ntnu.no/imt/courses/tmr4217/introduction/air_cushion_support.html




SES - nice visual of many types:
http://www.australianhovercraft.com/design_effects.htm


Sidewall SES (typical)
http://www.australianhovercraft.com/design_effects.htm
may also be propelled by water jets





Aircat, with wide buoyant hulls .........not a typical SES - might be sole example. Looks to be similar to what you thought all SES were like based on their outside look. The side sponsons/sidewalls on this craft do provide some lift, although I doubt it's more than 15% of overall.
http://www.australianhovercraft.com/design_effects.htm

 

I'm not aruing the priniple, but the error is your statement.

Your statement is that the boat float on the aircoushin alone.