Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
Far too easily exploitable. The ability to detect the 'stealth' of a caterpillar drive was discovered in the early 90s and would now be possible for even the greenest of sonar operators. Not to mention the software glitch of considering the subtle sound of the drive a magma displacement would have long been rectified. Hell, you could probably isolate the noise and speed it up 10x on an iPhone never mind a highly sophisticated NATO defense network.
Spending the money on such an obsolete and ineffective (and easily sabotaged) propulsion system would be financially irresponsible. Really the proponents of the caterpillar drive are only clinging to the merits of it as stealth technology to try and limit the potential replacement candidates for aging sub fleets.
|
I don't believe the caterpillar drive went beyond the prototype stage in the 60's. While it was fairly efficient in terms of eliminating the wear and tear of moving parts, The drives themselves were very slow, they required a engine to drive a large generator which would create the current which would pass through the sea water, because of that requirement the caterpillar was expensive and while the drive itself was quiet adding a additional generator to a submarine generates noise.
In terms of mounting one on a submarine I don't believe it got passed the theoretical stage, a surface ship however was created with a caterpillar drive.
While the drive itself could be quiet (no moving parts) the passing of currents through sea water would create gasses and water flow noise. It would also create an electromagnetic field within the duct which would be detectable by a MAD sensor.
The U.S. Navy got better results by simply shrouding a submarines propeller which would literally act like a silencer on a gun.
Interestingly enough the Virginia Class submarine completely abandoned the use of propellers and went with a virtually silent pump-jet propulsion system