The death of Svetlana Aronov

F-35 shown obsolete on previous posts

   Svetlana Aronov went walking her dog in Manhattan, was reported missing, and she and her dog were later recovered dead from the East River.  The Franklin Delano Roosevelt, FDR, Drive runs along the East River.  Along a section of it one can cross over the drive on pedestrian bridges and then enter a narrow walkway, 10-30 feet, that runs directly alongside the seawall of the East River.  Svetlana Aranov most likely entered at71st St. and then turned south.  This is the location of the Hospital for Special Surgery, they specialize in joint and athletic surgeries.  After walking some blocks south she would cross over another pedestrian bridge and return to York Avenue.  This was apparently her usual dog walking route.  Her dog was fairly small.

   Just south of the 71st St entrance and at various points along the seawall are cleats.  Cleats are metal devices with horns at either end,  this allows for ropes to be wrapped around the cleat with the horns holding the rope in place.  The cleats are used to tie for docking boats and, more usually for the East River, barges.  The photograph shows the cleat just south of 71st St.  What is noticeable is the amount of the railing that has been removed to have access to the cleat.
   The opening on the side of the cleat is about 8 inches wide by 16 inches high (20 cm x 45 cm).  Obviously that is enough for a small dog to fit through.  But the dog would have to have a reason why.

   Sparrows frequent the walkway.  On one occasion, I
saw a sparrow perch on the seawall.  When it flew, it dropped down and flew about 2 feet off the face of the seawall and about 6 feet above the water surface.  It would repeatedly perch, fly along the wall and perch again.  I only saw a sparrow doing this once.
   The reason a sparrow would do this is to avoid hawks.  When pigeons fly form Roosevelt Island, the short distance to the Manhattan shore, they fly 6 feet above the water.  That way, if a hawk tries to make a diving attack the hawk will kill itself in striking the water, being unable to stop or turn in the short distance.  That would force the hawk to attack form the same level and give the pigeon the chance to escape in a turning and burning maneuver.  The closeness to the water, and seawall, protects against hawk attacks.  Hawks certainly attack pigeons, I once saw a pigeon crash to the ground on Broadway on the upper east side of Manhattan.  After striking the ground, it flipped and flailed against the pavement.  Its movements were futile because its head had been ripped off.  I do not think that a collision with a building could do that.
   But let us now consider a small dog.

 
    The pigeon flies about 6 feet off the water.  The tide range in New York harbor is about 6 feet.  At high tide, the water surface is about 4 feet below the top of the seawall.  When she disappeared the tide was about
 1-1.5 ft above low water.  That means a sparrow would fly about 2.5 below the top of the seawall.  If the dog stands by poking its head through the cleat opening, the sparrow would fly almost in front of the dog's face.  All the dog has to do is jump impulsively at eh bird, a,b, above.
   The dog sees the sparrow on the seawall and then the sparrow flies towards where the dog is walking.  Curious, the dog pokes its head through the opening.  The dog sees the bird fly past and jumps, then strangles on its leash.
   She does not know what has happened, walking somewhat ahead of the dog, but feels the tug on the leash handle and the dog struggling.  She climbs the railing to lift the dog but the concrete around the cleat is badly eroded and she steps on a broken section, loses her balance and falls into the water.  Her legs had bruises below the knee consistent with her shins hitting a horizontal bar of the railing in climbing over.  Water forced up nostrils can cause a loss of consciousness.  She loses awareness and drowns.  The leash and dog fall into the water and also drown, the leash potentially weighing down the dog.  The dog was found still wearing the leash.
   The entire action could have taken less than 15 seconds.  She fells the tug on the leash, not unexpected when walking a dog, but the tug is unusual.  This could take 1 sec.  She stops and moves her left foot, which is to the east, back, 0.5 sec.  She finishes turning her upper body, 0.3 sec.  She focuses her eyes, 0.2 sec.  She realizes the leash is trailing through the opening, 0.4 sec.  She is 10-15 ft ahead of the opening and hurries back, 3 sec.  She looks over railing, focuses eyes, 0.2 sec, reacts, 0.2 sec.,  does not think she can pull dog through opening, decides to climb railing.  Places arm over railing and weight on top, 1 sec places right leg over railing, 0.5 sec, places left leg, 0.5 sec, drops right foot to concrete, 0.;3 sec, drops left foot, 0.3 sec, squats down, 0.5 sec grabs leash 0.3 sec stands lifting dog 0.5 sec, shifts foot 0.3 sec, falls.  Those numbers add up to 10 seconds.  She might have spent a few seconds thinking or trying to pull the dog up through the opening.

  The photograph to left shows the concrete at the first cleat south of the 69th street pedestrian bridge but the concrete around all the cleats is severely eroded.
   The reason why the cleat directly south of 69th St is likely is that the Hospital for Special Surgeries is built overspanning the FDR and the walkway.  There are large heavy columns alongside the walkway to support the building which obscure the view of drivers of the walkway, along other areas the walkway is in full view of the traffic.  The fact that nobody saw anything makes this the most likely location for the accident, this or another cleat under the hospital.

   In summer, particularly on weekends, the walkway can be a little crowded.  But this was winter on a weekday, the movement of people is intermittent, there can be gaps of 15 minutes between people.
   The concrete around the cleat was eroded by steel hawsers used to anchor barges over the years, the steel is harder than, and erodes the concrete.
   I cannot say that I can prove that this is what happened but it fits all the known facts.  And there is the old Sherlock Holmes adage, " when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the answer".  Well, maybe not every possibility has been eliminated but there had to be some reason for her to have climbed the railing.
   This might be the only instance of the history of New York in which a sparrow caused someone's death.

Gulf Oil Spill

F-35 proved obsolete on a previous post

see also:  YouTube/ drochmhada/ The Gulf oil spill could have been stopped

The complete incompetence of handling the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Macondo well, Deepwater Horizon drill rig, was astounding.  The basic goalwas to stop the flow of oil, the one thing that was not done was to physically collapse the pipe.  What makes this particularly pathetic is that the US government pays lots of people to study how to collapse metal structures in the design of atomic bombs.

  The situation was similar to the drawing at left.  There was an outer pipe, p, and a drill stem, s.  The fact that the pipe bent at several acute angles shows that it was made of highly ductile steel.  If it had not been it would have split and cracked at the bends.
   The first goal is to remove the stem so the pipe can be collapsed in a fairly smooth manner.  In 2, the arm of an underwater robotic vehicle, URV, inserts a pipe , the end of which has a ring of thermite, aluminum based, high temperature incendiary material.  If the stem is 6 inches in diameter, with the stagnation pressure of a fluid being
one half the mass density times velocity squared, the radius of the stem would be 1/4 of a foot and its area would be 1/5 foot squared, allowing a velocity of
40 ft/s,  12 meters per second, seawater has a weight density of 64 lbs per cubic foot which divided by 32, the acceleration of gravity in ft per second squared, gives a mass density of 2 slugs (mass) per cubic foot, the total pressure is 1/5 ft sq X 1/2 X 2 X 40 X 40 = 320 lbs.  A reasonably shaped rod and ring charge of thermite would have a pressure resistance of less than 100 lbs, the URV arm should be able to insert it.  Petroleum has less density than seawater and so the forces would have been even less.
   In 3, a bracket, b, is shown attached to the stem to prevent it falling into the pipe.  The ignition of the thermite charge burns through and separates the upper section of the stem, freeing it for removal.
   In 4, charges, c, are added on the upper and lower sides of the pipe.  The explosive chosen would be one with high impulse but low brissance.  Impulse is the integration, roughly multiplication, of force times time.
Brissance is the ability to shatter, it is a function  of the detonation speed of the explosive.  For this purpose the high velocity explosives would be excluded and explosives such as ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder would be used.  The charges would be used successively to flatten the pipe.  The center of the top of the pipe should move down faster than the rest of the upper pipe causing the pipe to indent, not actually shown.

























   The edges of the bending are problematic in terms of obtaining a fully effective seal and the emplacement of a section of metal with a rounded outer edge and an ogive inner section would enable the pipe to bend around it with the metal serving as a space-filling seal.  As the pipe collapses it will expand outward as pi = 3.14 and the pipe will expand by about 1/2 its diameter.  That means that the filler, ogive, metal would have to be curve similarly and would have to expand with the pipe.  On possibility is to have two sections of the metal joined by tubes with one couched inside of another and a strong spring internally to spread the metal sections.  Extensions from the metal could protrude from the end of the pipe and hook over the end of the pipe to secure the metal in position.  An other option is to place thermite charges on the4 widest section of the metal and using the ignition of the thermite to weld the metal onto the pipe.
   They had months to work on this and for some reason this was not tried even on experimental sections of pipe.  That means that the persons doing the work were idiots.   There would be some hammer effects as the constrictions of the pipe would cause the fluid to slow, but the closing of the blow out preventer, if it had worked,  would have caused a much greater hammer effect in the well.  the hammer effects in the pipe section with any cracking, would not have made the situation much worse.

New army

F-35 was shown to be useless in an earlier post

   Precision weapons have shown themselves to be militarily superior, yet the Us army has not adapted to their best use.

   Big gun tanks must have a clear sighting of their target in order to use their weapon, but this is completely obsolete.  In e, is shown a light armored vehicle with a tethered helicopter using a laser on the helicopter to illuminate a heavy tank before firing a mortar shell which can laser track and attack the thinner roof armor of the tank.
   The tethered copter would have an altitude of about 500 feet with copper wires or 1 000 feet with aluminum wires, aluminum does not conduct as well but weighs only about 1/4 of copper.  A 100 lb copter at 5 lb/sq ft disc loading would have a downdraft rate of flow of 63 ft/s theoretical or 84 ft/s allowing for inefficiencies.100 X 84 / 550 (lb-ft/s, 1 horsepower) = 16 hp.  100 X safety factor of 5 = 500 lb.  Aluminum and copper can each have a strength of 50 000 lb/sq in, so, 500 / 50 000 = 1/100 inch.  1 sq in of aluminum weighs 1 lb/ft,1 sq in of copper weighs 4 lb/ft.   Aluminum wire is 0.01 lb/ft divided between positive and negative wires.; copper is 0.04 lb/ft.  There would need to be a plastic teardrop cross-section jacket on the wires for insulation and streamlining against wind.  It might have 0.03 sq in of area, plastic weighs 100 lb/cu ft or 0.7 lb/sq in / ft.  The insulation might weigh 0.02 lb /ft ( 0.03 X 0.7).  Aluminum total is 0.01 + 0.02 = 0.03 lb /ft.  Copper total is 0.04 + 0.02 = 0.06 lb /ft.  For the copter, 16 hp motor weighs 16 lb, other equipment could bring a total weight of 50 lb, allowing 50 lb for wire weight.  50 / 0.03 = 1 670 ft for aluminum.  50 / 0.06 = 830 ft for copper.500 ft and 1 000 ft allow for error.
   The copter would have to be able to operate at 10 000 ft elevation or higher.  That would require downdraft velocities to be 20% higher, so a 20 hp engine would be needed.
    The height of the wires comes into effect if there is a significant elevation difference of the target above the vehicle with mortar.  In almost any other circumstance there is no advantage to the big gun, if there was significant tree cover to obscure the laser the tank would have to maneuver around the trees and would have its optics blocked by their trunks.
    If the muzzle velocity of the mortar is 1 000 ft/s, its maximum range, v squared divided by g = 1 000 X
1 000/32 = 30 000 ft.  Range varies as the sign of twice the elevation angle.   At 3 miles, say 15 000 ft its elevation would be 15 degrees.   The cosine of 15 degrees is about 0.97, the horizontal speed is 970 ft /s minus drag losses.  Time of flight to 15 000 ft is about 15.5 sec.  A tank gun with a maximum range of 2.5 miles would take 3 seconds to strike its target.  But the mortar vehicle would fire from behind cover so the tank would be unable to fire and would be killed.  The mortar system could be fitted to the tank but the tank would still be no more than equal to the light armor.  Heavy armor is obsolete as a main battle system and is only useful as direct fire field artillery to support infantry.  Adding the mortar system does give it greater flexibility in fire support and could be useful in urban warfare for being able to see over buildings and fire onto unseen streets.  The copter is also useful for general reconnaissance from any armored vehicle enabling the crew to elevate their viewing position at will.  At night, with the electric motor the copter would be fairly stealthy and could be left up indefinitely.  During the day it might be hoisted up and down to prevent it being used to target artillery at the vehicle.  There would be a winch at the lower end which would reel and unreel the cable.  The mortar system would be fitted onto the back of the turret.
    The light armor vehicle would have a light machine cannon and a 4 man crew; driver, light cannon gunner, vehicle commander and aimer to target vehicles with the mortar. The system could also be fitted to armored personnel carriers to both kill tanks and provide fire support for dismounted infantry.
   The mortar could be mounted as a series of tubes, c or with the breeches in a revolver base, d.  The cluster of tubes would have the individual tubes factory reloaded after use.  For the revolver, an option is to have 2 concentric revolvers with 2 barrels, each ring feeding one barrel.  One ring could contain anti-armor, such as explosively formed penetrators, while the other could have high explosive for anti infantry.
   The propellant charge would be divided into 7 sections, g.  The sections could be separated by steel partitions and would have a plastic cap on top to prevent them from firing from the ignition of the other charges.  If the barrel is 6 ft long, the charge will burn in the barrel for 0.012 sec, that should be short enough not to burn through the plastic cap.  When the shell has left the barrel the other charges may be detonated to reduce crew hazard in handling.  The maximum range is proportional to the number of charges fired, at shorter ranges, reducing the charges reduces the flight time if a high arc is desired on the flight path.  At 1 000 ft/s the time to 2 000 feet fired at a low angle would be 2 seconds but the flight angle would be only 2 degrees.  Fired at a high arc the shell would take 1 000/ 32(gravity) = 30 seconds to stop and an equal time to fall, or 60 seconds.  With only 1 charge fired the time would be 5.5 s and the angle would be 15 degrees.  Steeper angles give a better approach to the turret roof and a better angle of attack.
   For maneuvering, the mortar shell could have thin tubes lined with tiny propellant charges in its tail fins a, b. The propellant charges could be fired in sequences to develop the desired angle of rotation of the shell.  This would mean no moving parts and higher reliability.  Similar maneuvering jets could be installed on aerial bombs for precision guidance, again, eliminating moving parts.
   1 lb of high explosive has about 20 000 000 (20 million) lb-inches, of energy.  Each piece of propellant would need about 5-10 lb-inches of energy or about 0.000 001 (1- 1 millionth) of a lb.  Allowing for explosives to weigh about 100 lb/cubic ft and the energy of the propellant to be 1/2 of that of high explosive, propellants are known as low explosives or deflagrating explosives, their speed of detonation is lower and they tend not to shatter surrounding materials when detonated, there are 1 728 cubic-inches/ cubic ft, the propellant charge would be 0.033 inches in each direction. A silicon base etched with electrical contacts could have those small charges installed with a separation of 0.07inches or, maybe, 12 per inch. The individual propellant charges would be capped with plastic to weatherproof them.  The plastic coating would also inhibit one charge igniting the others.  It would also add mass to the discharge, increasing the momentum transfer for the same energy of ignition.  The fins might have 1.5 inches of propellant or 18 charges with two sides giving 36 charges.  Allowing the tube assemblies to be separated at 0.25 inches along the fin, and the fins to be 3 inches long, would give 3/0.25 X 36 =432 charges per fin with 8 fins, one at every 45 degrees.
   When approaching closely to the turret top, the tail fins on the lower side of the shell could be blown off, the transfer of momentum causing the shell to rotate more vertically, allowing it to fire almost vertically downwards into the turret if using an explosively formed penetrator.
  A smaller version of the copter could be carried in a back pack case and be deployed after being set on the ground and opened, f.  When under fire, the copter could be deployed and the precision mortar shells used to destroy hostile defensive positions, then rifles and grenades could be used to clean up anything left.  It would revolutionize infantry combat.  In addition, there were 2 US posts in Afghanistan that were almost overrun, the copter would have allowed them to see the attack coming and better defend themselves.
  This system could have been built in 1975, the M1 Abrams tank should have never been built and was obsolete before production.  It also shows that the entire Reagan defense build-up was a completewaste of money spent on obsolete garbage.
   I sent this to both DARPA and the army, one does not read their mail and the other ignored it.  One might think that in the middle of a war the government might take seriously ideas that can help fight the war, but one would be wrong.  The reason why the people at the defense department are idiots is because the presidents are idiots.  Stupid people hire other stupid people.  Political appointees are given ever higher positions without regard to their previous failures, if the hang around Washington long enough, they will eventually be given control of an entire department, which they can then destroy.  One of the saving graces of engineering is that slack will usually save your ass, there is usually enough give in engineering systems that small errors can be compensated by the system rather than causing failure.  The same must be true of the United States, there must be enough slack to allow for total incompetence not to destroy the country.  This would explain how, after over two hundred consecutive years of presidents being morons and losers,  the nation has still survived.
And then there is the matter of the house and senate armed service committees.  Not only do the members of those committees not know what they are doing, they do not even know what questions to ask.  One would think that they would all resign, not only from the committees but from congress, in embarrassment, but I guess they just this country and want to do more damage to it.
   The government has a research staff of tens of thousands, including both public and contract workers.  They have a research and development budget of billions.  I have a research staff of 0 and a research budget of 0, if I can figure this out and they cannot, they have to be thumb sucking imbeciles.
   They say they are going to save money on defense; they need to replace the entire air force, replace all of the ground armor vehicles and rebuild navy ships, there will be no cost savings.

Bad Navy III

F-35 is obsolete and other fun facts.

  The navy is planning on building a remote control helicopter called the Firescout and base it on destroyers.  Back in the day of autogyros there was a joke; with an autogyro  you got half the speed for twice the horsepower.  A similar truth exists for helicopters, from basic rotor analysis the disc loading, weight divided by area of the rotor, times the magic number of 800 (actually 793, but whose counting) gives the speed of air downflow squared in feet per second.   That number must be increased by about 1/3 to allow for actual loses.  That speed times the weight divided by 550 ( lb-ft/sec, the number for horsepower) gives the horsepower required for static lift.  At cruising speed the horse power required is about 1/2 that.  So, for weight, W,
and disc loading of 5 lbs/square foot, square root of 5 X 800 = 63 X 1 1/3 = 84.  Hp = W X 84 / 550/ 2 =
0.076 or 7.6 % of weight.  A winged UAV has weight divided by lift to drag, times speed, in fps, divided by propellor efficiency, divided by 550.  A UAV can easily have 20:1 lift to drag at a speed of 400 fps, 270 mph.
Propellor efficiency could be 80%.  W/20 X 400 / 550 / .80 = 0.045 or 4.5%.  Fuel use is proportional to horsepower.  The UAV could have over 50% longer endurance and, allowing a speed of 200 fps, 130 mph, for the helo, over 3 times the range. The Firescout is stupid.  They only place it can be justified is over land where it can hide by flying low over ground cover.

   Rather than build a UAV as a helicopter, it is more efficient to launch a winged UAV with a helicopter.  Suspended underneath the helicopter, b, is a small robotic plane attached to a tether, c.  Underneath the plane are two jaws which close over a triangle which can be raised from the top of the UAV. The helicopter hovers over and attaches to the UAV which is placed on the helideck.  The helicopter rises and flies forward until the UAV has achieved flight speed of 120 mph or so.
   For recovery, the helicopter would approach from the back of the UAV.  This prevents the rotor downwash from destabilizing the UAV, the downwash moves relatively downward and backward from the helicopter.  The little plane on the cable would have an electric motor and propellor to enable it to maneuver freely.  It would be positioned over the triangle of the UAV after the triangle is raised.  It would then close its jaws to allow the helicopter to lift and land the UAV.
   The UAV would be stored with its wings and empennage folded, d, e.  On the deck the UAV would be placed on a cart for moving.  In the hangar one UAV would be lifted by its triangle and then brackets would be swung out from the wall for support, a second UAV would be left on a cart and stored underneath the first.  The hangar would have to be wider so vertical launch tubes for missiles located between the hangars would have to be moved and the ship would need a larger hull.
   The destroyer would be able to lauch reconnaisance and project force over 1 000 miles form its location.   It would be a good idea to add a laser tracker to cruise missiles sot the UAV could target them.  There would be a delay in awaiting the arrival of cruise missiles and the UAV could be provided with bombs or missiles for on board carriage.  The size of the UAV would depend upon the size of helicopter available.  The Seahawk, the naval version of a Blackhawk, should be able to lift at least a 6 000 lb UAV.
   Accompanying destroyers could provide reconnaissance for a carrier, freeing up carrier deck space.
   A ship larger than a destroyer could be built.  Instead of two hangars, like a destroyer, it could have three, instead of one bay in each hangar it could have four.  The rearmost bay would have 1 helicopter and 2 UAVs, the other 3 bays would have 2 UAVs on each wall and a movement corridor in between.  That would give 3 X 4
+ 2 = 14 UAVs in each hangar X 3 hangars = 42 UAVs total.
   Destroyers have about 100 vertical launch tubes, VLTs,  for Standard missiles ( anti-aircraft and anti-ship) and cruise missiles (ground attack).  The bigger ship could have 200 VLTs, 100 for Standard missiles and 100 for cruise missiles.  The ship would be a mini aircraft carrier.  10-15 would be kept at sea, in the event of a crisis, they would move towards it and begin launching UAVs for reconnaissance, the pilots would be linked to the UAVs through satellites and would be stationed at shore bases.  If a carrier battle group is dispatched the ship would provide most of the surveillance and reconnaissance for the carrier.  If a Marine landing groupi dispatched it would provide reconnaissance and secondary air strikes to assist them.  It would be equipped with low signature UAVs as well as Aegis radar and a 5 inch gun so it can self deploy without any additional escort.  It would weigh 15 000- 20 000 tons empty.
  A second ship could be built with 3 or 4 hangars and a speed of 20-25 kts.  It would be equipped with high endurance, propellor-driven, UAVs.  It would carry only light cannon for defense. It would be useful in locations such as Somalia and to support Marine landing groups if there is only limited air defense.  It would also weigh
15 000-20 000 tons but would have longer endurance and more fuel and supplies for the UAVs.
  The navy has shown concern for a swarm of small boats attacking naval vessels.  A UAV patrolling beyond the horizon would provide advanced warning of approach.  The UAV could also carry laser guided mortar shells, see post New Army, which it could drop from altitude on small boats, guiding them by laser to each target.  The operator for the UAV could be aboard ship and use line-of-sight radio to avoid satellite delays.  The mortar shells do not need to be guided continuously form being dropped, they could be dropped from 30 000 ft and guided by laser below 5 000 ft allowing shells to be dropped consecutively without awaiting the previous shells detonating.  This attack method could also be used against a column of ground vehicles to support marine landing forces.
   A UAV such as this, as well as a tethered copter, such as post Bad Navy II, could also be installed on Coast Guard high endurance cutters to increase their search and surveillance capabilities.
  This was another suggestion ignored by DARPA and the navy.

Bad Navy II

Previous posts showed the F-35 is obsolete, electric highways beat gasoline.

  Anti-ship missiles should be militarily worthless.

   The best way to stop anti-ship missiles is with a giant shotgun.  It would fire projectiles shaped like small bolts, a with a ridged cutter head, b.  The cutter head would have a streamlining cap perhaps made of plastic, or soft metal such as aluminum, a.  The ridges on the cutter head are to dig into the material of the missile and cause a stress concentration to split and penetrate the material.
    The energy of the bolts would be kinetic, the sum of the velocity of the bolt plus the velocity of the missile.  If the muzzle velocity of the bolt is 1 000 ft/sec, it might be travelling at 800 ft/s at contact with the missile.  If the missile is travelling at 1 000 ft/s (speed of sound is 1 100 ft/s) the total velocity is 800 + 1 000 = 1 800 ft/s.  Kinetic energy is one half mass times velocity squared, for 100 lb-ft of energy, 1 800 X 1 800 = 3 240 000.  Times 1/2 = 1 600 000, mass is weight divided by 32 ft/ s/s (acceleration of gravity), 1 600 000 / 32 = 50 000 for 100 lb-ft weight = 1/ 500 lb.  3 cubic inches (cu.in) = 1 lb of steel ( steel weighs 560-600 lb/cubic foot, 1 cubic foot = 1 728 cu.in.)   1/500 of 3 cu.in = 1/160 cu.in, if the bolt takes up half the volume of a box containing the bolt the box would be 1/ 80 cu.in  If the bolt is 8:1 length to width = 1/8 inch wide and 1 inch long, or a little less.
   At 100 lb-ft of energy, the bolt would, if stopped in 1/8 inch or 0.01 ft would generate an average force of 10 000 lb for 0.000 01 sec, the relative velocity goes from 1 800 ft/s to 0 for an average of 900 ft/s over
0.01 ft.  If it stops in 0.1 ft, it would generate 1 000 lb of force for 0.000 1 sec.  Test bolts would have to be fired at missile bodies to determine whether that is adequate to degrade the missile and cause failure.
   When it strikes the missile, g, that energy would rupture the nose cone and the debris would strike the radar antenna if not penetrating further.  The energy is the equivalent of a 100 lb block being dropped from 1 foot onto a nail.  The Russians have a missile referred to some by some as the Sizzler, it approaches at 3 000 ft/s.  The energy would be proportional to 3 800 X 3 800 = 14 400 000, over 4 times as much energy > 400 lb ft.
Damage to the forward end of any vehicle flying above the speed of sound, such as the Sizzler, creates large aerodynamic forces, at sub-sonic speeds there is disturbed flow but the forces are significantly less.
   The question is how much energy is needed to seriously disrupt if not destroy the missile.  The bolts could strike the nose cone or winglets as well as gauging out material along the length of the missile body.
  A missile might have a protective plate of armored steel, maybe 1/2 inch thick.  For a missile 6 inches in diameter the armored plate would weigh about 5 lb, for a missile 8 inches in diameter, it would weigh about
 8 lb.  The plate would be in back of the radar antenna.  The nose cone might be shattered and the antenna destroyed but the armor would protect the electronics and allow the missile to continue to fly inertially guided unless the damage to the nose cone, body and winglets are so severe as to destabilize the missile.
   If an approaching missile travels at 1 000 ft/s and can turn at even 9 gs  it would have a turning radius of
3 500 ft. If the diameter of the shotgun blast is designed to be 80 ft at the point of contact, the missile would have to turn 40 feet to avoid intercept, at 3 500 radius, that would require over 500 feet of forward movement or about 1/2 second of flight time.  1/2 second for the shot gun would be 400-500 ft of flight so the intercept would occur within 500 feet of the ship.  The missile has to be destabilized relatively quickly to be effective.
   80 ft diameter = 5 000 sq ft area.  If the missile is 6 inches in diameter it has 1/5 sq ft of area.  Allowing 2 bolts per area to allow for uneven dispersion of bolts = 10 bolts/ sq ft., or a total of 50 000 bolts.  At 1/500 lb per bolt, the bolts would way 100 lb in this example.
   The shotgun would be a smooth tube with a propellant charge at the back and the cluster of bolts, c.  They would be mounted in clusters of perhaps 9-12, e.  They would be mounted every 50 ft of the length of the ship, d.  To ensure a high probability of intercept, perhaps 3 would fire simultaneously, d.  By spacing them every 50 ft, the firing is down the length of the missile and there is no need to consider deflection.  The 3 firing also cover a wider range of motion of the missile.
   If the tube of the shotgun is 6 inches diameter, the radius would be 3 inches, which would allow 24 rows of bolts at 1/8 inch each.  The middle row would be at about 12, which would have 6 X 12 around the rows or
72 for the average number of bolts in circumference (bolts are 1 at center then 6 in first row, then 12 in next, etc.).  72 X 24 rows = 1 700, or some more.  For 50 000 there would be 30 stacks of 1 700, if they are 1 inch long that would be 30 inches.   In front of the bolts the tube could be 5 feet long plus 2.5 feet, 30 inches, for the bolts and maybe 0.5 feet, 6 inches for the propellant charge, or a total of 8 feet.  To accelerate to       1 000 ft/s in 5 feet of barrel, the equation is velocity squared equals 2 times length times acceleration, assuming constant acceleration.   So 1 000 X 1 000 / 2 X 5 = 100 000 ft/s or, /32 = 3 000 g.  For 100 lb of bolts, 100 X 3 000 g = 300 000 lbs of force / 3 X 3 X pi, area of tube, = 11 000 psi.   For a 6 inch wide tube 6 X 11 000 = 66 000 lb per inch across the tube wall.  That can be 1 inch total wall, 1/2 inch wall thickness.  6 inch X pi = diameter, 1.5 feet.   Steel weighs 560-600 lb / cubic foot, for 1/2 inch, 1/24 foot = 24 lb per foot of length, X 1.5 circumference = 36 lb / foot, X 8 foot length = 300 lb.  Allowing thicker wall near end, end cap, 100 lb of bolts and propellant, total = 500 lb.  Having separate tubes for each firing guarantees reliability and rapid firing over a gun which is sequentially loaded but adds substantial weight.  If there are 12 tubes in each cluster that would be 12 X 500 or 6 000 lb, maybe 10 000 lb, 5 tons, with all mountings.  For 12 on each side and another 2 at the stern, that would be 26 X 5 tons or 130 tons total weight.  US destroyers weigh at least 8 000 tons dry and empty, the weight is added above the waterline and would have to be compensated by ballasting, the weight should not be excessive.  Fired 3 at a time, and allowing for some random distribution of missile attacks, at least 8 clusters should be firing, at 12 tubes divided by 3 = 32 missiles defended on each side of the ship.
   The bolts could all be embedded in a solid block of plastic so they would be fired down the tube as one unit.  After leaving the tube the plastic could ignite, that energy causing separation and dispersal of the bolts.  The entire tube could have a cap of plastic over its end to seal and weather proof the tube.  The volume of the tube could be filled with inert nitrogen instead of air to aid storage and prevent oxidation.  With firing the nitrogen will pressurize and blow off the plastic end cap.  The tubes can be reloaded at a factory after use for re-use.
   After the 3 fire, the central one could fire again to increase missile damage.  That would reduce missiles defended to 24 per side.
    Above the ship could be stationed an electrically driven tethered helicopter, f.  It would be perhaps 500 ft above the ship.  It would have a body roughly resembling a flying saucer on the underside of which would be lens-photo chip assemblies which would continuously monitor the ocean for unusual movement signalling a missile approach.  Underneath, it would have camera-laser assemblies.  The laser would illuminate any object suspected of being a missile, simultaneously measuring its velocity through Doppler. The camera would allow identification of the object, with, or without, human intervention.  If the tethered helicopter and cable weigh
2 000 lb and the disc loading is 5 lb/sq ft, the rotors would have to be 23 ft diameter and it would need 350 hp, 270 kilowatts of power plus generator inefficiencies.  The cable would have the communication line plus power cord and would be used to winch the copter down when not deployed.   The copter could have contra-rotating rotors and with electric power would have a low thermal signature and could be fairly stealthy.  The speeds of naval ships are, however, the least efficient speed for helicopters, at faster speeds the forward motion produces additional lift through the rotor blades, at naval speeds the rotors are producing all lift through downforce and also have to overcome the additional drag of forward flight.
   Getting a good dispersion pattern for the bolts is extremely difficult.
   The navy has shown concern over an attack by a swarm of small boats.  At close range, the bolts would shred a small boat and can fire quickly to defend against repeated boats.   The tethered copter could also use lasers to aim mortar shells to attack boats, see post New Army.
   This is another idea ignored by both DARPA and the US Navy.

Bad Navy I

Previous posts showed: the F-35 is obolete, electric highways can replace gasoline at less cost.

By 1975 the navy needed to completely redesign their torpedoes.  They did not and now have obsolete weapons systems.

   Torpedoes should not approach at shallow depths using only acoustic detection, they should approach at medium depth, 200-300 feet, using acoustic detection for proximity then using either laser scanning, ambient light detection or strobe lighting for terminal attack, a.  If the water is to shallow to allow for a deeper approach, the torpedo should deliberately porpoise, broach, to scan the ship at a distance of about 1/2 mile.
   In water, at a speed of 40 knots, 70 feet per second, the lifting force is 1/2 X density X velocity squared =
1/2 X 64 lbs per cubic foot (weight density of water) / 32 (acceleration of gravity) X 70 X 70 = 4900 lb/sq.ft.
That number is multiplied by the coefficient of lift and a second term to account for the winglets finite extent.  If the winglets are 2 feet squared, that is 9800 lbs times other factors.  The torpedo weighs maybe 3000 lbs.  It shoud be possible to ahve a turning rate of at least 1 g, 32 ft/second squared.  At 70 ft/sec, turning radius equals velocity squared divided by acceleration = 70 x 70 / 32 = 150 feet.  At a depth of 200 feet the torpedo can turn and attack the target upwards form underneath where it is more likely to destroy vital areas of the target ship.
   At 45 kts, 77 fps, 77 X 77 /32 = 190 ft radius, 200 feet would be deep enough.
   The chief advantage is that the torpedo cannot be spoofed. Acoustically a false target can be created, but the visual mass of the ship cannot be fooled.  The one option taht might exist is to paint the underside of the hull in a crackle pattern to simulate the uneven light from ocean waves, enabling the ship to blend in somewhat against the ocean surface.
    At a is shown a laser scan, but ambient light might be sufficient to create a shadow outlining the ship.  The other option is to use a strobe light similar to cruise missiles to illuminate the ship.  Water absorbs and diffuses light so a balance must be struck between adequate depth for torpedo operations and maximum depth at which the torpedo can visually resolve the ship.
    At b is shown the torpedo deliberately broaching to scan for the visual target of the ship in shallower water, again, this is to prevent acoustic spoofing.  At a range of 1/2 mile, a cannon shell fired form the ship to strike the torpedo would take 1 second at 2600 feet / second to arrive.  In addition, the cannon would have to slew into position before firing.  1/2 second to rise and 1/2 second to fall would mean the torpedo would exit the water at 16 feet per second upward velocity which would cause gravity to stop its upward velocity in 1/2 second.  For 70 ft/sec that would mean .23 radians or about 14 degrees exit angle.  If the wiglets produce 1 g, the downward velocity would stop after 4 feet of water depth, actually more allowing for angle of attack of the winglets, but still less than 10 feet.  Most ship hulls need more than 10 feet of draft so there should be plenty of water or torped operations whenever a target ship can operate.  The one difficulty is wave height, since the torpedo must rise high enough over wave crests to see the target ship.  This means the torpedo must rise at a sharper angle and spend more time exposed out of the water, but the waves will produce radar returns which will help to hide the torpedo and the waves themselves block radar until the torpedo rises above them.
   c and d show the winglets folded inside the torpedo body and opened for usage.
   e shows a rocket motor added to overcome the drag of the winglets and the net undisplaced weight of the torpedo.  The rocket motor would be integral with the propeller shaft and its nozzle would be in the propeller hub.  The spinning should have no significant effects on the rocket motor operation.  For a torpedo weighing 3000 lbs the negative buoyancy might be 300 lbs. another 300 lbs could account for the winglet drag for a total of 600 lbs.  At 200 feet depth the arc ditance would be 300 feet, at 70 ft/sec = 4.3 sec, say 5 sec.  600 lb X 5 sec = 3 000 lb-sec, solid fuel rockets have a specific impulse ( lbs of thrust X seconds of thrust / lbs of propellant) of 250 seconds.   3 000 lb-sec / 250 seconds = 12 lbs of propellant.  That amount of weight could be accommodated on the propellor shaft.  Owing to the back pressure of sea water at depth and some inefficiencies in the design shape of the motor, more fuel would be needed. But even 20-30 lbs would not be excessive.  Thermal coatings inside the propellor shaft would prevent it form softening during the five seconds of rocket burn.

   At right is a depiction of how the torpedo would look with the laser scanner stowed and recessed into the upper fore section of the torpedo and the wiglets stowed for the configuration of approach.  The winglets would be covered by a sleeve which would separate before the winglets open.
   The lower illustration shows the winglets deployed and the laser scanner rotated into its extended viewing position.  There is, by the way, a fish that has eyes that rotate like the laser scanner, normally they are rotated upwards to scan for prey but then they flip forward to enable the actual attack.

   The torpedo body would have to be structurally heavier than current designs and its form would reduce internal space, so:  the warhead would have to be smaller, the range would have to be reduced or the torpedo would have to be built physically larger and heavier.
   A wing-in-ground effect, stealth torpedo plane could be built.  It would fly 10-20 feet off the ocean surface so ship surveillance radars would look down at it against the ocean waves, obscuring its radar return.  The engine inlet would be located under the fuselage to hide it form radar.  The aircraft would be an unmanned drone.
   The aircraft would fly in pairs, a lead aircraft would scan for targets while the trailing aircraft would drop the torpedo for attack.  The trailing aircraft would be far enough away so it would be below the earth's curvature to hide the splash of the torpedo entering the water and preventing the ship form targeting the drones by revealing their location.  They would co-ordinate their movements through GPS or by inertial measurement.
They would be lethally effective at night but easily seen and militarily worthless in day-light.
   The torpedoes for such an aircraft would have to have a dunce cap over their front to prevent damage to the acoustic receiver form striking the water at 400 mph.
   I sent this to both DARPA aqnd the US Navy, neither was interested.

Bombing

Previous posts: F-35 obsolete, electric highways beat petroleum.

   To begin with bombing, start with high altitude flight and lift the bombing drone on a boom  to 40 000 feet, this alloes for efficient engine design through the throttle hook and the theta break.

example of boom from f-35 post

   The idea is to load the bombs on revolving racks and fire them upwards and backwards over the drone.  This precludes the radar signature of opening the bomb bays, reducing the radar signature from the ground.  This is illustrated in c.  The bombs can be coated in a radar absorbing cocoon to reduce radar signature and prevent a radar flash when the bomb emerges revealing the drone location.  Instead the bomb wrapped in cocoon can fall, stabilized by a parachute, allowing the drone to separate.  Explosive tape can then open the cocoon and the bomb will fall to earth with its usual terminal velocity.

   If the bomb has .8 second of rise and an equal amount of fall, .8 X 32 (acceleration of gravity) = 26 feet per second.  If the distance for acceleration is 1.5 feet, the acceleration is 26 X 26 / 2 X 1.5 = 225 feet per second squared or about 7 g.  For a 1 000 lb bomb the force is 7 000 lb.  Allowing for the release of propellant, it might total 10 000 lb.  The drone might weigh 30 000 to 60 000 lb depending on fuel and weapons load. By placing one rack on either side of a single engine, the amount of rotation of the wing downward can be reduced, a,b.  The plunging of the wing will increase its lift, self-stabilizing. The sudden movement could cause an increase in radar return.  The time over the force is 1.5 feet divided by 1/2 the final speed of 26 feet/second = .12 second. 

    The entire drone can be a blended wing body.  Above the bomb rack there would be a bomb door which would be the full width of the bomb and which can be opened for bomb loading and maintenance.  Those would be the only times it would be opened.  In the bomb door would be set a bomb aperture, a smaller door through which the bomb would be ejected for delivery, a,b,d,e.