Sublime submarines: How sea warfare could look in 2067


Blackleaf
#1
Fish-shaped torpedoes and dissolving parts could be examples of how submarine warfare could look in 50 years' time.

Young British scientists and engineers from UKNEST, which promotes science, engineering and technology for UK naval design, took part in a challenge to design the futuristic subs...

Sublime submarines: How sea warfare could look in 2067

The Royal Navy encourages engineers to look ahead 50 years, designing the future of underwater warfare and keeping Britain safe.


Monday 28 August 2017
Sky News


The Royal Navy designed the challenge for futuristic ideas. Pics: Royal Navy/PA

Fish-shaped torpedoes and dissolving parts could be examples of how submarine warfare could look in 50 years' time.

Young British scientists and engineers from UKNEST, which promotes science, engineering and technology for UK naval design, took part in a challenge to design the futuristic subs.

The Royal Navy designed the challenge to "imagine what a future submarine would look like and how it would be used to keep Britain safe in decades to come", a spokesman said.


Participants were to 'imagine what a future submarine would look like'

The results included unmanned eel-like vessels with sensor pods which dissolve to hide from the enemy and a manta ray-shaped mothership with a surface that can morph in shape.


Rear Admiral Tim Hodgson said future engineers should be pushing boundaries

Commander Peter Pipkin, Fleet Robotics Officer, added: "With more than 70% of the planet's surface covered by water, the oceans remain one of the world's great mysteries and untapped resources.

"It's predicted that in 50 years' time there will be more competition between nations to live and work at sea or under it. So it's with this in mind that the Royal Navy is looking at its future role, and how it will be best equipped to protect Britain's interests around the globe.


Results included vessels with dissolving sensor pods and a mothership

"Today's Royal Navy is one of the most technologically advanced forces in the world, and that's because we have always sought to think differently and come up with ideas that challenge traditional thinking.

"If only 10% of these ideas become reality, it will put us at the cutting edge of future warfare and defence operations."


The Royal Navy says such ideas could put it at the cutting edge of future warfare

Rear Admiral Tim Hodgson, the Ministry of Defence's Director of Submarine Capability, said the engineers of the future should be encouraged to be "bold, think radically and push boundaries".

"From Nelson's tactics at the Battle of Trafalgar to Fisher's revolutionary Dreadnought battleships, the Royal Navy's success has always rested on a combination of technology and human skill.


More than 70% of the planet's surface is covered by water, making it an important resource

"The pace of global innovation is only going to increase, so for the UK to be a leader in this race it needs to maintain its leadership in skills and technology.

"Hopefully this project has inspired the next generation of British scientists to be bold in their ambitions and I congratulate them for their inspiring work."

Sublime submarines: How sea warfare could look in 2067
Last edited by Blackleaf; Sep 3rd, 2017 at 06:25 AM..
 
Curious Cdn
#2
Are they going to be rid of the rum ration and lash by then?
 
Blackleaf
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Are they going to be rid of the rum ration and lash by then?

They got rid of the rum ration in 1970, unfortunately.
 
Danbones
#4
but not the lash eh?
 
Blackleaf
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

but not the lash eh?

That's not used now either. Shame.

"Black Tot Day" - 31st July 1970: Royal Navy sailors queue up for their last ever rum rations on the very day the practice ended.



Rum had actually been given as a daily ration to ratings as far back as 1655, but the practice was formalised in 1740, when Admiral Edward Vernon decreed that half a pint of rum, split into two servings and diluted to four parts water, one part alcohol, should be issued to sailors each day.

In 1824, the ration had been halved in an attempt to solve discipline issues in the navy; as early as 1850, the Admiralty’s splendidly-named Grog Committee had even recommended its abolition. Though the daily tot survived, officers lost the right to it in 1881 and warrant officers in 1918.

By 1969 the ration had fallen to an eighth of a pint of rum a day for those over the age of 20. Senior ratings could drink their tot neat; juniors were now made to dilute theirs to two parts water, one part rum.

In December that year, responding to an enquiry from MP Christopher Mayhew, the Admiralty conceded that the rum ration was incompatible with the safe operation and maintenance of the complex machinery on board Royal Naval vessels.

A debate in the House of Commons in January came to the same conclusion, and as a result, the final tots of rum were issued at six bells in the forenoon watch (11am) on July 31 1970. The decision was unpopular among sailors, though they would be allowed an extra can of beer a day in compensation.

Some ratings wore black armbands to receive their final tot; in one training camp, HMS Collingwood in Fareham, Hampshire, sailors held a mock funeral procession to commemorate the occasion, complete with a coffin flanked by drummers and a piper.



July 31, 1970: 'Black Tot Day' for British sailors as Royal Navy discontinues daily rum ration - BT
 
Danbones
#6
the courage quotient went down somewhat though since
 
Curious Cdn
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

They got rid of the rum ration in 1970, unfortunately.

Yeah. so did we.
 
Danbones
#8
I am afraid to look to see if we are still being billed for it though
 
Curious Cdn
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

I am afraid to look to see if we are still being billed for it though

The ships are dry now but only recently after some stupid people got really obnoxious in San Diego a few years back during a Rimpac exercise and embarrassed an Admiral.
 
taxslave
#10
If past experience is anything to go by the briddish won't be in the submarine warfare business except as slow moving surface targets for other navys to practice on.
 
Blackleaf
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

If past experience is anything to go by the briddish won't be in the submarine warfare business except as slow moving surface targets for other navys to practice on.

Or they could be like HMS Conqueror sinking the Belgrano.
 
taxslave
#12
Not if the three we got sucked into buying are any example of British sub technology. Something to do with insisting on using Prince of Darkness electrical components.
 
Blackleaf
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Not if the three we got sucked into buying are any example of British sub technology. Something to do with insisting on using Prince of Darkness electrical components.

The faults were your faults, not the Royal Navy's.
 
Curious Cdn
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Or they could be like HMS Conqueror sinking the Belgrano.

... a WWII era US built cruiser ...

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Not if the three we got sucked into buying are any example of British sub technology. Something to do with insisting on using Prince of Darkness electrical components.

They are all fixed up now ... finally.
 
Blackleaf
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

... a WWII era US built cruiser ...

Yep. And HMS Conqueror sank her, the only ship ever to have been sunk during military operations by a nuclear-powered submarine.
 
MHz
#16
You forgot to include the technology that allows torpedoes to travel at 200+mph today.
The air and the sea patrols will be done with drones. Perhaps they should be working on subs that carry containers or LNG under the ice. (and hurricanes, etc) Ones with big sails to catch the natural currents.

Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Yep. And HMS Conqueror sank her, the only ship ever to have been sunk during military operations by a nuclear-powered submarine.

Is that why it was done?? for another one for the record books.
 
taxslave
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The faults were your faults, not the Royal Navy's.

Nope. One of them didn't even get here before catching fire.
 
Blackleaf
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Nope. One of them didn't even get here before catching fire.

A fire which highlighted Canadian naval incompetence and questioned Irish search and rescue capabilities.
 
taxslave
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

A fire which highlighted Canadian naval incompetence and questioned Irish search and rescue capabilities.

Afire which hilighted briddish incompetence and shoddy construction.
 
Blackleaf
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Afire which hilighted briddish incompetence and shoddy construction.

It highlighted Canadian incompetence, not only during the sailing of the ship but in buying obsolete technology and not checking it over before you use it after it had spent years rusting away unused.

The Canadians were the incompetent mugs and the British were the ones laughing all the way to the bank, like Del Boy and Rodney selling a daft Aussie an old, second-hand car with dodgy brakes and crappy engine for a huge price.



 
White_Unifier
#21
the UK's already planning a war for 2067? Have you decided on the enemy yet, or still focused on the technical details for now?
 
taxslave
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

It highlighted Canadian incompetence, not only during the sailing of the ship but in buying obsolete technology and not checking it over before you use it after it had spent years rusting away unused.

The Canadians were the incompetent mugs and the British were the ones laughing all the way to the bank, like Del Boy and Rodney selling a daft Aussie an old, second-hand car with dodgy brakes and crappy engine for a huge price.



Nice spin but no truth.
 
Bar Sinister
#23
I would hope that by 2067 the world would have given up on war. But nothing like fueling the defence industry.