|
|
Post by RonMiller on Mar 3, 2006 0:03:33 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Mar 3, 2006 9:07:17 GMT -7
I just read about in PS. Who knows -- maybe it will become operational -- amazing stuff happens these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by exrafbod on Mar 9, 2006 12:29:46 GMT -7
So is it coming or going. Do the arrows point at ingression or air or exhaust of gasses? Ugly sow anyway!
|
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Mar 9, 2006 12:36:59 GMT -7
It's comming -- if you'll pardon the expression.  |
|
|
|
Post by JimCasey on Mar 25, 2006 7:03:18 GMT -7
Well, there's at least one military writer who thinks it may not be a really good idea: www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_060323_cormorant,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl |
|
|
|
Post by ctdahle on Mar 25, 2006 19:35:26 GMT -7
Cool idea maybe, but it makes about as much sense as putting a camera in a telephone...
|
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Mar 26, 2006 12:03:43 GMT -7
I saw this same article somewhere recently. My first impression of the picture of the plane leaving the scene of all the carnage it had wrought was "Boy, it sure looks pleased with itself".
Its expression (implied by the shape of its air intake) reminds me of a kid leaving the scene after tipping over an outhouse, cherry-bombing the school toilets, or something similar.
The objections raised by the writer in the second article seem to have been pretty well addressed by the remote landing, retrieval by remotely operated sub, etc. A super carrier has that same disadvantage of hiding its position with all those attack and fighter aircraft coming from and going to it and it can't submerge either.
And as far as his objections to doing maintenance and test runs of the drone on the sub, they are rather far-fetched. I also seriously doubt that the engine will be left to the elements while in transit but I could be wrong.
The Trident missile that was the former occupant of the tubes in question is/was a rather complex bit of machinery itself and the Navy managed a fairly good level of reliability with them for years. Tomahawk cruise missiles are also fired from tubes underwater and also have a fairly good reliability record.
The big difference with this one and a Tomahawk is that the Cormorant has to be recovered. But I'm sure if the survival of the sub was in doubt that leaving the drone for later retrieval is an option, as is the use of sending the drone to a remote area far away from the sub to lead the enemy on a wild goose chase.
The guy writing the rebuttal to the article sounds like ex-Air Force or Army with his attitude but I could be wrong. They rarely have anything good to say about any new Navy projects.
Should we pursue this? Who knows? But if anyone can make it work I'll bet it would be Lockheed. It would be nice to make those de-Tridented boomers useful again rather than converting them into huge underwater troop insertion vehicles and other uses less worthy of their size and expense.
|
|
|
|
Post by inferalanding on Apr 5, 2006 18:42:13 GMT -7
Looks like something right out of Star Wars.
|
|
