what is the highest boat speed useable for military purposes? both surface and subsurfaceAFAP?
>>65182830nuclear subs hard speed limit is about 40-45 knots, and they are all noisy af at that speed. The liquid reactor soviet built for the alfas also had a rather short life span.40-45 knots isn't much when modern torpedo could sprint at 70, probably 80 knots.Next breakthrough for submarine tech, at least with regard to speed could only come once someone figure out how to produce antimatter in a much more efficient and faster way. Nuclear reactor ain't going to help you outrun torpedo in anyway.>inb4 muh quiet sub is better and superior just a lame cope, a 500+ knots submarine will be literally invincible, even if we are to take recent chinks boasting of 'quantum submarine tracker'. You can't kill what you can't hit. Plain and simple.That said, it's impossible to get to like 500 knots without something much more energy-dense than nuclear. Materials required to construct such a sub is also have to be able to withstand extreme water pressure. 500+ knots sub would probably require tens of thousands megawatt, if not more. There's no other way around antimatter.>t. pic related
>>65182865for the price of a superfast sub you could do anything else lol good info tho. what about surface ships?
>>65182830Between 30-40 knots.New jersey could clocked 35 knots on light displacement
You can always use more speed
>>65184018Insert Top Gun tune here.
>>65182865Just make the subs out of smaller subs like an underwater Sea Slice.
>>65184018>>65184030cost status?
>>65184128As the line goes "If you have to ask".
Imagine not being able to go 60 knots.
>a 500+ knots submarine will be literally invincible
>>65182865That's assuming a classic teardrop hullform. What if you would change it to a thinner, flatter shape?
>>65184163is this hull good in waves?
If your heart yearns to go fast, subs aren't for you.Subs are for those who get off on being sneaky and doing spoopy shit.
>>65182865>picrel up to 70 knots with just muscle tissuePower is absolutely irrelevant.Google toroidal propeller, using gas bubbles against cavitation etc etc.
>>65184929tbqh i'm mostly curious about cargo and surface logistical stuff t. OP
>>65182865>naval tradition says a 4000t vessel is still a boat when it can submerge>>65183103>what about surface ships?op said boats, not ships
>>65182865>hard speed limit for nuclear subsYou can just have electrical engines so the output isn't limited by the mechanical power of the steamAt that point, just yeet water directly on the reactor and send the steam directly out of the submarine like it's a steam-jet.pro:cool, speedy, kill the ecosystem and contribute to global warming by warming up the oceancon: faggots will try to find cons(fake and gay) about it
>>65184213supercavitating vehicle could be a solution, though it's essentially a rocket, and rocket might not be the most efficient way. Supercav torp has been available for decades, but they cant steer for shit and the range is comparable to ww2 torp, so useless.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301201066_DRAG_DROP_ON_HIGH-SPEED_SUPERCAVITATING_VEHICLES_AND_SUPERSONIC_SUBMARINES>>65183103dont have one>>65185157biomimetic was hinted for possible far future submerged platformhttps://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navys-next-submarine-super-stealthy-now-underwater-16978>inb4 nationalinterest bad>>65186025what you described is still supercav vehicle
>>65188033wrong, I didn't involve having some gay ass air bubble, just shit the steam out of your assI guess if you suck all the water in front of you with your water-breathing nuclear jet engine, it might be similar...
>>65184128>cost status?SVNK
>>65184030WEEEEE
>>65182865>t. pic relatedWhy would you greentext that?>500 knotsWhy such a ridiculous aim? Even russian bs claims for their experimental fush don't go above 200.And that is above the speed you need to run from an ASW helo.
>>65184163lol
