[ExI] robo-rescue

[Keith Henson]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 7:20 PM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:

>
>
> *From:* Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] robo-rescue
>
>
>
> *>…Spike, I have been following the reports from Ukraine. They take down
> Russian copters with the least expensive, FPV drones…*
>
>
>
> *Agreed.  The commies don’t have the same kind of countermeasures we do.*
>

The Russians are no longer communists. Don't know exactly what to call them
but they are not not communists. Their countermeasures are as good as we
have, maybe better after years of war.

*>…A battleship is defined by huge guns…*
>
>
>
> *It was at one time.  But that has been a long time ago Keith.  There is
> no reason to carry huge guns now and hasn’t been for a long time.*
>
>
Then it is not a battleship.

>
>
> *>…and enough armor to stand up to a projectile…*
>
>
>
> *Projectile Keith?  Indeed?*
>
>
>
Look up the history of battleships, try the Wikipedia article.

*>…from another battleship of the same gun size. This is not the current
> situation…*
>
>
>
> *Ja, of course it isn’t.*
>
>
>
> *>… Your submersible idea is not impossible, but there is no way it would
> be called a battleship…*
>
>
>
> *Are we really distressing over a name?  *
>

Yes. Consistent terminology is necessary for meaningful communication.

*For a system which has no precedent?  What should we call a ship which
> carries drones, has all flat plate exterior (for radar minimization), rides
> on hydrofoils at relatively high speeds, can submerge and sit quietly
> indefinitely, has no crew, has no guns, with a primary mission of being
> anti-surface ship?  What would you call such a device?  Shall we call it a
> schmattleship?  *
>

Whatever you want, but don't use a term with a very well determined
historical meaning for something entirely different.

>
>
> *>…BTW, nobody uses diesel for main propulsion; it is all turbines…**
> Best wishes,  Keith*
>
>
>
> *I was thinking generators.  A Diesel spins a generator inside the
> (nearly) rectangular solid part of the ship, then the drive screws are
> electric (in order to reduce their cross sectional area down there under
> the water.)  Think of a catamaran-like hull with the screws aft, with very
> little of the twin hulls submerged during high speed dashes.*
>
>
>
> *The reason Diesel would be a good fit for that application is that a
> floating snorkel on a flexible tube could allow it to breathe while
> underwater.  I have no objection to imagining a gas turbine however.  A
> Diesel might be more efficient, *
>

No. You really should look into the subject before making such statements.
Diesels are at most 35% efficient. I am not sure they use them on ships
(they should) but combined cycle turbines are typically 60% efficient.

*but gas turbine works too.  Either way, the idea is to generate electric
> power to turn drive screws for (probably) short high speed surface dashes,
> the kind of maneuver a submarine cannot do without burning up huge amounts
> of fuel.*
>

Current nuclear attack subs do over 50 mph underwater.

*  After a few minutes dash on the surface, it would glide right back down
> under the surface and disappear, with buoyancy tanks filled with compressed
> air, ready to pop up nearby and raise bloody hell with enemy surface ships,
> for which it knows the location after being informed by satellites.*
>

When I was at Burr-Brown way back in the early 70s, I designed parts for
Navy Sonobuoys. They were dropped in the ocean by the thousands by sub
hunters. Look up how easy it would be to find and destroy such a vessel

>
> *Another consideration would be cost.  A Diesel-generator doesn’t cost
> much, which is important here because the system I am proposing is itself a
> drone as well as a drone carrier.*
>
>
>
> *Come on Keith, lets see some of that magic Henson imagination sir.  We
> read your books. *
>

You have not. I never published a book

* We are looking for a ship of some kind which can skate along the surface
> at about 80 km/hr, submerge indefinitely, launch drones against enemy
> surface ships, then dip back out of sight as soon as the drones are
> launched.  Do let us not get tangled up in names, but rather think of the
> mission.  The mission is to own the Strait of Hormuz, for which the Navy
> has had a century to develop tools.  What do you suppose they invented.
> Feel free to propose a name and feel freer to write a SciFi story or book
> using a schmattleship.*
>
> Sheesh.
Keith

>
>
> *spike*
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260611/77597ab5/attachment.htm>