I could swear I\'ve seen this thing before. Looks really familiar anyway.
17th January, 2012 @ 5:34 p.m. (California Time)
With the potential US military cut-backs
it doesn\'t stand a GHOST of a chance !!!
Awesome technology !!!
17th January, 2012 @ 6:19 p.m. (California Time)
Charles Gaines. You saw something like this in a Jame Bond movie.
18th January, 2012 @ 12:05 a.m. (California Time)
... and what you saw in the James Bond movie was another American prototype.
As for supercavitation, I guess it works similarly as the Russian Shkval supercavitating torpedo:
In this case, the exhaust of its turbopumps is fed from the point of the torpedo, creating a bubble that surrounds it, and allows it to \"fly\" through water at 400kts.
18th January, 2012 @ 2:25 a.m. (California Time)
@Charles Gaines : maybe Street Fighter the movie ? As far as I can remember it looked pretty much the same.
18th January, 2012 @ 2:46 a.m. (California Time)
Looks a lot like US NAVY\'s stealth ship Sea Shadow from \'84.
18th January, 2012 @ 3:10 a.m. (California Time)
My understanding is that supercavitation is very loud through sonar.
18th January, 2012 @ 3:22 a.m. (California Time)
It looks like the little mining ship you pilot in Descent :p
18th January, 2012 @ 3:35 a.m. (California Time)
18th January, 2012 @ 3:55 a.m. (California Time)
My first reaction was a creepy sort of deja-vu.. like the last thing you would see before an attack.
..And Alan, as a musician with some experience in acoustical engineering, I\'d be curious as to why it would be so loud to sonar .. my guess is the air pocket acts as a resonance chamber.. correct?
18th January, 2012 @ 5:20 a.m. (California Time)
Looks like Darth Vader from the front! Lets try it out on some Iranian speedboats in the Strait!
18th January, 2012 @ 8:32 a.m. (California Time)
My first thought is if the military doesn\'t go for it, the drug cartels would be standing in line.
18th January, 2012 @ 9:26 a.m. (California Time)
First, I think the sonar \'footprint\' would deal mostly with HOW you \'distributed\' the air around the hull/cylinder... \"bubbles\" ARE loud, but a \'smooth sheet of air\' might be much less disruptive. I might also suggest that the cylinders be attached at the end of the \'wings\' with VERTICLE connection rather than the current wingtip design. That would put a LOT of the water disruption with the surface on TOP of the cylinder instead of beside it -- where it will \'reflect\' into the water more.
Second, I wonder how \'rough\' the seas can be fore SAFE operation? If it is operating as an escort vehicle to a Fleet, what happens when the seas get very rough --- as the OFTEN do in open water?!
Third, Just HOW fast will it run? Will it be able to out-run an Apache Helicopter? (or \'similar\' attack helicopter from \'opposing forces\'...) And what will the Range be on a single load of fuel? If \"rhtgind\" is right, and drug cartels buy some of these, can WE Stop it from being used by others?
FINAL Question is...would it be COST-EFFECTIVE??! Would we be spending MILLIONS for a piece of equipment with limited improvements of other choices? Would it put the US far-enough \"ahead of others\" to justify this expense in a time of Economic \'crunch\'?
18th January, 2012 @ 10:50 a.m. (California Time)
Nice to see that US taxpayers are still paying for attack craft to invade countries and grab the goodies for our corporations. Small wonder that US taxpayers (the poor people who actually pay taxes anyway) get to foot the bill for a larger war budget than existed during World War II and that is larger than all the rest of the countries in the world combined spend.
How big a stick does our government really need and why does it have to be gold plated? And then of course the stick is increasingly being used to whack in every sense of the word, US citizens as well as foreign nationals.
18th January, 2012 @ 12:27 p.m. (California Time)
Did I miss it? Didn\'t see any mention of how fast it moves.
18th January, 2012 @ 12:31 p.m. (California Time)
Can it maintain the bubble while turning or does it only make use of supercavitation in a straight line?
That's the fundamental problem with supercavitation, it enables a vessel to move really fast in a straight line but as soon as you turn out of the low pressure zone at high speed you essentially run into a brick wall.
If it can't tune the envelope or maintain the bubble while turning the boat will be fast but have a gigantic turning radius.
18th January, 2012 @ 1:57 p.m. (California Time)
Why even be attached to the water? Put wings on it and fly or go ahead and develop that huge Russian ground effects thingamajig.
18th January, 2012 @ 2:18 p.m. (California Time)
To Calson: Private company.
Not government funded, PRIVATE.
18th January, 2012 @ 2:38 p.m. (California Time)
First, it looks familiar because it looks like two or three different attack spacecraft from a couple of the recent (if the last 10 or 15 years can be considered recent) Sci-Fi movies and/or Television shows. Minus, of course, the vertical fin/rudder, whatever. On a more practical note, I wonder if the turning question could be answered by employing a sort of \"Ball Joint\", based on the same principle to allow radical directionality, such as those found on a certain brand of vacuum cleaner? As any of you who\'ve read any of my comments may\'ve deduced, I\'m a firm believer in what might be best termed as \"Cross-Platform Applicability\". In other words, what works in one application, may, with suitable allowances, work in another, seemingly unrelated, discipline. (\"Wheels within wheels are, after all, still \"Wheels\".)
Myron J. Poltroonian
18th January, 2012 @ 4:32 p.m. (California Time)
Looks really familiar? well i certainly hope so. It only looks like the boat featured in the greatest movie of all time, Thunder in Paradise staring Terry \"Hulk\" Hogan.
19th January, 2012 @ 8:55 a.m. (California Time)
It may be loud on sonar, but if you are travelling faster than a torpedo it wouldn\'t matter, and with stealth you would have to get a manual lock on the target to fire other projectiles at it.
19th January, 2012 @ 4:22 p.m. (California Time)
The article has two different physical phenomena mixed up. Cavitation is the word for water flashing into water vapor where the local static pressure is lower than the vapor pressure of the water. It depends on the depth, the water temperature and the pressure distribution on the body going through the water. Propellers typically cavitate near their tips under high loading and/or high speed conditions.
Forming a gas bubble around a submerged body is called ventilation. This sometimes occurs accidentally on surface-piercing hydrofoils when air is drawn down onto the submerged portion of the top of the foil by the low pressure there.
This vehicle might very well be fast enough to operate supercavitating, but it would certainly not be the first vehicle to do so. It\'s possible, then that they meant to say \"ventilated\" or \"air-lubricated.\" That wouldn\'t be a first either, though, as experimental craft have used that principle before.
19th January, 2012 @ 4:45 p.m. (California Time)
To the commenter who wondered about this boat in rough seas...
I'm assuming by the size that it's meant to work in coastline areas, so the ride won't get too 'Perfect Storm'-ey, and those problems could be solved anyway by making it completely airtight and tough enough to survive anything the sea throws at it (both pretty standard in western navies I believe. Nothing more embarrassing than losing multibillion$ warship in a storm).
19th January, 2012 @ 7:13 p.m. (California Time)
Wouldn\'t this thing go even faster if the cavitation occured on the bottom of hydroplane fins connected to the bottom of the catermaran pontoons?
19th January, 2012 @ 7:21 p.m. (California Time)
I hope it can submerge and fly and that it can get just big enough to launch missiles.
22nd January, 2012 @ 6:20 p.m. (California Time)
It does not elaborate too much on the goings on underneath the vessel but I would think any \"cavitation\" might be possible hydro fins that raise it up above the surface. The shape of the \"wings\" reminds me of wig (wing in ground affect) boat/aircraft where air is trapped under the cupped shape to assist lift. Those two lifting technologies combined may indeed be what allows the vessel to travel super fast (for a water vessel anyway. :-)
Will, the tink
25th February, 2012 @ 6:50 p.m. (California Time)
I wonder how you keep it from becoming airborne. My professor said that at 55mph a brick will fly. It must have to have control surfaces of some sort.
16th March, 2012 @ 7:49 a.m. (California Time)
Its just the boundary layer effect, check out Coander effect by Henri Coander .
22nd August, 2014 @ 8:27 a.m. (California Time)
If you throw hard, most people can make two bricks fly at the same time in the same direction. The problem comes with keeping it in the air, Some birds fly in air and some in water. Likewise some fish fly through water and some can fly through air.
Above, there is a good definition of cavitation but perhaps a little too complicated. Think more of a submarine and not a ship or small boat, yacht, dingy. As the propeller turns it exerts a force on the water surrounding it and the water exerts a force on the propeller causing it and the submarine to go. As the propeller spins faster it reaches a speed where the water cannot move through the propeller fast enough in a pure liquid state, this is when cavitation occurs. As the water is forced through the propeller it is compressed to a state greater than the surrounding water. As the water moves through the surrounding water and away from the spinning propeller the compressing forces reduce faster than the water can expand and return to its normal state. This causes the water to expand and create a void (think air bubble); as pressure equalizes these voids disappear, the bubble makes a sound as it collapses or pops.
Theadore J Stone
19th January, 2015 @ 12:27 p.m. (California Time)
What happened? Comment bumped away. I was saying this was a fancy up of Wing in Ground Effect, which will be extremely desirable in freight or ferry for both civilians and the military. Speed and reach win. Heavy or light, the faster and more carried over water will be a big deal.
12th February, 2015 @ 2:59 p.m. (California Time)
As a Retired Navy Chief, there are six (6) potential problems I immediately detect with this new JMS "Ghost Ship" being suitable for U.S. Navy's use:
1) It looks to be highly vulnerable to enemy fire. How will damage control be performed on such a ship (I am referring to the larger version, if built)?
2) What will be its performance in Sea States 4 and above?
3) Its endurance: Because it will have an very limited range before it needs to be refueled, it will have to be carried in the well deck of a big-deck amphibious ship. Will it fit inside an amphibious ship? And the requirement to be carried in the well deck of an amphibious ship will limit the ship's availability to help protect carrier battle groups, because very often there are no amphibious ships accompanying an aircraft carrier and its escorts during a 6+ month deployment.
4) Refueling and resupply at sea looks very problematic, if not impossible.
5) Even the larger version will have a very small crew. How will the various weapons, electronic, engine, and other systems be manned by such a small crew?
Longevity. What will be the life-span of the Ghost Ship? It will almost certainly be a high-maintenance ship, requiring frequent repairs and maintenance at sea.
26th September, 2015 @ 7:37 a.m. (California Time)