CNN.com

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

And to continue on...
funding tests of some of the Cormorant's unique systems...after which DARPA will decide whether it will fund a flying prototype.

In other words, proof of concept. Not an actual project (yet). Another PopSci dream?

I'll predict, right now; if this thing is actually made, and actually flies a mission -- the first time it "lands" in the water to be retrieved, some enemy will claim with much cheering and shooting of small arms into the air, that they shot down the aircraft over water, and sank it.

__________________
http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats...033/prj:6/.png

This isn't really a new concept... the Japanese had subs that could launch planes in WWII. I believe they were called sentoku, and at the time were the largest subs ever built (bigger than many surface ships, in fact). I'm not sure if there was any mechanism for getting the planes back into the subs directly, though. I think they had to land nearby, then be moved back in.

Anyway, they had sub-based bombing attacks on the Panama Canal and San Francisco planned, but never went through with them.

__________________
"It's turtles all the way down."

It looks like other countries had them too and looks like you are correct on the name of at least one of them. Yes; seaplanes. (see planes run, run plane run)

The difference here...the plane can be launched from underwater.

This will happen. Militaries all over the world are switching reconnaissance and light strike aircraft to UAV/UCAV types, wherever possible. Lighter, longer-ranged, and most importantly- cheap.

As for the sub-launched option, it's not far-fetched at all. A BGM-109 "Tomahawk" is a cruise missile that is essentially the same concept. The military (Navy) wants to stay as large, and have as large a budget as possible, meaning changing over the role of ballistic missile nuclear submarines (SSBN), and aircraft carriers.

I didn't mean to imply that it won't happen. I am just doubtful that it will be any time soon.
Not quite the same. The simple fact that we are talking jet vs rocket, ballistic vs aircraft, and strike vs recover makes it a different animal.
Again; not that it won't happen, but let's not debate the feasibility until we test some of the concepts.

It's a fait accompli, for the reasons I stated.

- Jet-driven UAV/UCAV is a proven concept in several militaries.
- The folding wing is not a big hurdle, and presents a significantly less difficult design constraint, than say- the V-22 Osprey helicopter, which will never see front-line use (or be part of any Presidential evacuation).
- Recovery is not a big hurdle either. Even assuming the footprint of the Cormorant is unable to accomodate wheeled landing gear, a sled is a feasible cheap add-on, as is a parachute.

It's too good of an idea (for the US Navy) to fail. Cheap, no one dies, and best of all- Cold War relics like SSBN's can be kept in commissioned inventory.

The idea of underwater launched aircraft was, as far as I know, first described by Edgar P. Jacobs in his comic masterpiece "The secret of the Swordfish", the first in the series of "Blake and Mortimer", in 1946. Some more info on the aircraft can be found here. Good drawings of it from the comic (except for the cover) aren't available, due t copyright reasons.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Taken individually, you're right, the technology is proven. There are differences in this application, and the whole idea here is that they are going to make some tests to be sure. Even if everything goes smoothly, we still don't have the prototype, or the contract for the prototype, let alone a contract for an actual craft. I'm just being patient until I hear some more details. The article said it was difficult, and explained why. Do you not believe them?
True, but any that go underwater?
Agreed
From the article: an airplane that starts and ends its mission 150 feet underwater.
I agree.

I don't want to sound argumentative because I'm not, but I get the impression that you think this is tried, true and tested. It could be...All I'm trying to convey is that there are a few more steps to go. (Plus, I have a very low opinion on how PopSci presents articles... as in where's my flying car?)

Hmmmm... let's see... Okay- as far back as 1984, G.I.Joe conceived of such a thing(I,II,III,IV). Not quite built-to-scale, but hey- it's more elaborate than PopSci ever got.

Yeah, I do agree with you on that one, bawse.

UAVs, grrr....

Underwater launch would be something new; however submarine carriers overall aren't a new idea even for the US, back in the 50s the F2Y Sea Dart was considered for submarine basing.

__________________
Rule 8. Mockery and derision have their place. Usually, it's on the far side of the airlock.

Something else to rob NASA budgets for.

I don't see the connection. Cormorant is DARPA funded. Since it's military, NASA isn't involved.

It all has to come out of the same budget.

Are you saying the defense budget and the Nasa budgets are the same? I thought Nasa was a seperate appropriations bill.

Edit to add:
I'll agree to the fact that the entire Federal budget is the same. Given that, you can say any defense initiative, patriot act and Katrina funding has not only cut NASA, but has made a cut across the board.
Educate the people... Many that I talk to say that spaceflight is not necessary. IMO That is the root of the problem, and bubbles up by government reacting to that.

Like what was said before all the technologies pretty much exist today. We can launch nuclear missles from underwater, so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to develop an unmanned aircraft [like the Predator drones] and package it inside a similar envelope. Once in the air, the missle splits apart and the aircraft unfolds...viola!

But retrieving the craft without surfacing the sub seems a tad bit trickier. I doubt they would want to degrade the silence of an Ohio submarine by strapping an airplane to it, or towing it along.

The major hurdle, as I see it, would be getting the program through the Pentagon's procurement process, but I have no doubt it will exist someday provided the will to continue remains.

__________________
"It was a crime of passion! Not premeditated dentistry!"

Cormorant is supposed to land on water, then get picked up by a surface ship (or a surfaced sub).

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

The M2 submarine did this ages ago.

__________________
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995

I get the feeling this thread has gone full circle and is repeating itself.