Did'nt we think of that in the Second world war?
Iconoclastic Pentagon paradigm-mangler boffins at DARPA have done it again, unveiling plans for cunning floating modules which could be tipped off cargo ships out at sea and then drive about and snap themselves together to form floating offshore bases. The new DARPA plan is called Tactically Expandable Maritime Platform (TEMP …
Did'nt we think of that in the Second world war?
In that the British built floating airstrips out of pontoon like units I believe they did.
But certainly Mulberry harbour units
I believe the floating base was called Britain.
A 1:1 scale model of the British Isles was constructed and towed to a point several miles south of the actual British Isles. The actual Britain was camouflaged to blend in nicely with the North Sea, and the Jerrys never knew.
I think Lord Mountbatten had a plan in WW2 to build giant ice aircraft carriers out of ice-crete (or some silly name like that). It was comprised of sawdust mixed with water and frozen and was a lot stronger than ice alone. So, aircraft carriers made from frozen chipboard.
"Firstly, there will be a relatively normal effort to create a snap-together instant ISO-box kit which would turn the host ship into a useful platform"
Then paint it green and call it Thunderbird 2.
Paris, she’s a thunder bird too.
One can just imagine the fate of a special container washed overboard by accident. Wandering the ocean, desperately trying to mate with whales, icebergs and passing yachts. And really, do we need another excuse to drop stuff in the sea?
Close, it was called Pykecrete after its inventor Geoffrey Pyke. It was a mixture of wood pulp and water which was then frozen into blocks that took ages to melt. The pulp not only made it harder to melt, but made it less brittle. There's even a story that Pyke demonstrated its durability by shooting a block of the stuff in front of some top brass. The bullet not only failed to penetrate the Pykecrete, it ricocheted off and injured an American officer.
Churchill and Mountbatten were huge fans of the idea, and it even got a Codename - Habbakuk - which not only sounds like the noise you make when choking, but its even all Biblical and apocalyptic: "Behold ye among the heathen, and regard and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told to you.” Which as a mission statement, is pretty awesome.
A small plant was set up in Canada (home not only of lots of trees, but truly ball-busting cold) and a demonstration pykecrete barge was built. It survived several summers before actually melting.
Habbakuk itself was cancelled when long range bombers were available and the German Navy pretty much abandoned the Atlantic war.
I think it was actually a guy called Geoff Pyke - there's a book about him called Pike, the Unknown Genius who proposed to Mountbatten the idea
The water/woodpulp mix was called Pykrete
You cannot even start to imagine the number of containers lost at sea each year...
Well, can we all go back there now & get off this shithole?
....Lego boats, then?
that is all
Floating fortresses are exactly what we need in the war against Eurasia, er I mean Eastasia comrade!
With actual ships.
A nice idea in theory, but apart from covert special forces usage, this is a far fetched pipe dream. Aircraft carriers are big for a reason, you need the height above the waves to launch jets/helis, enough space for fuel and even more space for the crews to service them. Low slung container made runways do not cut it!
Parking that much expensive kit on an unprotected cargo ship which is worth considerably less than the kit itself is also a big no no. Now having an non-descript cargo ship sailing through a disputed strait, dropping off containers for those sneaky spec ops guys to go and launch some missions, hidden under the radar... Sounds like just the sort of thing they would want to do. The evidence would have to be sunk after the mission though.
It is actually wrong because of different reason. What's the point of shipping all those containers already in full shape? Flat pack them, IKEA style. Then add huge balloon inside and drop them to water. I don't really think propulsion and self-building capabilities are really so important. It's more about having some kind of machinery to haul them together so they can be joined.
Then when you have first layer, add some cranes and build second one. It will be high enough over waves and stable enough. Then you can add customised parts like comms, weapon systems, etc. Also building from cheap containers will make it really hard to destroy. Fire the torpedoes and destroy side containers. Big deal, drop few more and attach where destroyed ones were. At the end of operation, just take expensive stuff with you and let cheap floaters go down.
Generally brilliant idea, although needs little refinement. Maybe Blighty should start doing it?
Surely the point of this is, that its not meant for combat operations and its not expected to be fired on. It's for situations like Haiti where the airport was clogged up and the sea port damaged.
Aircraft can't carry vast amounts of cargo and they needed to use shallow draft barges to get into the sea port which don't move fast enough at sea get there quickly. So deploy a floating port in deeper water that normal ships can use and use aircraft from there to ferry cargo the short distance inland. The temporary base doesn't need to provide full service maintenance for the aircraft they can be rotated out of the area as needed. Much easier and more efficient than deploying an aircraft carrier.
Where is the reference to the plucky British Mulberry harbour?
Britain Invented Everything
And there was also the Swiss Roll
Like nanobots..... only bigger
Sail the ships out to where you need them, then.... wait, what was the point of step 1 again?
Because once you tip them overboard and they link up, you have something big and flat rather than something tall and narrow.
Floating landing strips should be made from Pykrete, Modular Harbours from concrete.
...should lodge a patent infringement. :-)
I wonder if it is still valid - could make the Danes a fortune!
Pods containing specific equipment that can be loaded and unloaded when needed.
A floating Thunderbird 2 then!
No Playmobil re-creation?
"Brains, a small island has been invaded, we need to send out a floating base immediately!"
"Small I-i-island Mr T-tracy? That's Pod 6."
During WWII the British had plans to build a massive aircraft carrier out of ice blocks because we were running out of steel. It's quite fascinating. The ice blocks are actually a composite material mashed up with wood. It's so tough that a bullet from a service pistol bounces straight off of it.
I like the overall concept, save taxpayer money, reduce logistical challenges, hasten asset deployment, but there are a number of huge issues with the entire concept.
Technical issues aside, my money says they won't be able to use OTS containers, they'll have to have specially designed units that cost 75x more than OTS parts.
Plus it'll look really stupid.
I just can't get the image of a bunch of special ops guys jumping out of floating garbage cans. Like a heavily armed Oscar the Grouch.
Also, wouldn't it be funny if the containers were picked up as salvage or by pirates.
I think that it would be a marvellous idea if the pirates had a go at a spec-ops floater. I'm sure the guys on board would love the idea too. No need to get wet to get at the bastards, just take 'em out as they come over the top.
While we are still dropping of containers the pirates will brobably be nicking them for scrap. Look out for smart swiming containers poping up on ebay soon.
The runway/ ski ramp - is not a very big problem. On a large vessel, you'd only need to hydrolic 'decks', or even one may be enough. Alternatively, if the main unit had a crane or lift deck, and a floating run way was added, this would be fine for harriers. All this assumes you have a stabel area and dock so still has limits.
Aircraft carriers are big for a much more fundamental reason - namely that aircraft are big, so a ship carrying multiple aircraft needs to be large. They don't actually need to be that far above the water for the planes to take off and land.
No, the reason this ain't such a good plan is a bit less technical. It's called waves. The average ISO container is 8ft high, and waves are often bigger than this. A lot bigger. Not only does that leave this lash-up with the problem of how to deal with waves crashing over the top (which won't do much for the airworthiness of aircraft on it), but there's the structural integrity problem. If your containers don't ride over the wave like a caterpillar (a workable solution, but one that won't give you a flat deck up top), you'd need your containers bolted firmly enough together that when a wave goes through, the containers in the middle can support the weight of all the containers outside them, and vice versa. On a real ship, this is done through proper structural engineering with big bits of steel. I can't see it working so well with bolted-together cargo containers, somehow.
I was thinking the same thing. Can the welds and joints on a standard container withstand the force of a several-ton aircraft slamming into it at 120 mph? Especially the corners where they connect together? And can it withstand that force hundreds of times without breaking? And, um, where are most of the containers made nowadays?
Seems like a big risk to take with aircraft that costs millions of dollars. But hey, we American taxpayers have tax money to burn nowadays...
I like the idea that non-ISO standards compliant warriors and weapons will be inelegible to take part in warfare. Somalian pirates will never get through the certification process. Job done. World peace ensues.
Unless these building blocks self-assemble into a giant robot with a glowing sword. Now THAT would scare some sea-going baddies crapless!!
Providing they can find missions for this which are within its capability.
No doubt one of these will be an elint container for a discrete monitoring of comms and radar signals.
But remember standard ISO containers are *not* bullet resistant. They do have incredible strength to mass ratios (c 10:1 payload to empty weight is *not* uncommon).
If they can do this for much less money than building ships and aircraft carriers then this is good.
Also they can be dismantled and put beyond use if no longer needed.
It's just a shame that it's the septics doing it, as if the world need's more reach from america. I'd like to see some useful non-war usesfor this too. We could build a town in the middle of the ocean for enviromental research, tourism opertunities etc...
...offshore bases for disaster management. Quite a potential there IMO. Plus the very neat Mulberry idea. No harbor? No problem, we'll bring our own. I'm sure this would have been useful in Port-au-Prince.
and a large penis and scrotum will self-assemble off the coast of Iran.
someone decides they need more disk space on the server and ends up deleting all the program files in the TEMP folder.
Hmmm modules should also contain pop-up weapon placements and com centers - sounds like M.A.S.K. to me
A few containers on top of a container ship would give it a useful bit of self-defence--something like a Phalanx system bolted on top of an ISO container. But what sort of war needs that sort of protection?
Oh, it must be the whole thing about floating self-assembly. Now that's an idea that meets DARPA standards.
Doesn't Emperor Dornkirk of the Zaibach Empire have prior art there?
After sinking the Tirpitz:
"There is no ship in the world that can stand up to two 12,000 bombs and you can tell your sailor friends to go stick it in their pipes and smoke it"
or it won't happen.
So when are Microsoft innovating they're MS standard blocks that dont quite fit the ISO ones, or any of their older ones come to that?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017