5 ms·

This feels off, though. We may be at the point where it is hard to keep any particular thing quiet, sure. But we are also at the point where it is rather easy

by taeric 2y ago

This feels off, though. We may be at the point where it is hard to keep any particular thing quiet, sure. But we are also at the point where it is rather easy to park a ton of things around that are very easy to keep quiet until we want a lot of noise. That is, if you are going to first principals, I have to ask why you don't have a ton of unmanned drones down there. Literally remove the need to move somewhere for the people on board.

lazide 2y ago
Communicating with the drones is nearly impossible.
- taeric 2y ago
  Missed this thread, apologies. I would take "nearly impossible" to be akin to "very expensive." Which is not to say that any of the difficulties just flat go away. But you don't necessarily need long range communication. I now realize the other thread is taking my point to be that this is trivially doable. That was also not my intent. My point was simply that "reducing to first principals" is a bit silly if you are going to maintain the requirement that you have a big enough vehicle to sustain a crew. Even a minimal crew imposes some massive design constraints that you don't necessarily have if you reduce the problem down. (In general, oddly, I meant my comment mostly as a criticism of "first principals" thinking on this. Too many of those analyses bring in base assumptions that are often invisible to the people arm chairing it.)
  - travisjungroth 2y ago
    > Missed this thread, apologies. I would take "nearly impossible" to be akin to "very expensive." I’m certainly no expert, but I don’t think that’s the case here. Radio waves don’t penetrate water that far. Communicating with an untethered vehicle deep underwater is impossible. At the surface, trivial.
    - taeric 2y ago
      I would include dropping tethers to many places as part of a viable plan? Though, to your point. Not trying to be an expert or to second guess any expertise out there. I was really only meaning to question the "first principals" idea of reducing it to something that still requires radio waves to penetrate deep into the water. There is no need to keep the idea that it has to remain in radio contact with something far away. You would want it to be able to establish contact, and there will be prioritized methods to do that based on plenty of other variables. Not trivial, mind. But there is already nothing trivial about going underwater.
      - lazide 2y ago
        Trying to do what you’re proposing without being detected (the primary use case for military submersibles) is what is essentially impossible, since communicating via sound is of course doable - and also would entirely compromise their purpose. Hooking to previously unhooked tethers (or keeping drone like submersibles tethered over long periods of time), or communicating via radio underwater is just not practically useful. Like ‘tens or hundreds of meters’ type limited range, when kilometers is typical ‘close’ range. The reason why crews are required (except for limited research/investigation use cases), is because of these communication issues.
        taeric 2y ago
        We are likely comparing different scenarios, then? I'd assume defense has a different set of requirements from infiltration. To be sure, you need a lot more flexibility for defense that projects farther than you can put a stake in the ground. (Well, tethers in the water, here.) But I would assume you could almost certainly invest in and build both?
        lazide 2y ago
        Not really, no. If the opponent knows where all the defense equipment is, they can often bypass or destroy it in a first strike too. And any common tethering point is not only a weak link (since it’s fixed), but a way to find every piece of equipment that interacts with it (since it has a easy to find location). The exception maybe purely passive equipment, like SOSUS microphones. But drones are going to make noise when operating, and they’ll point to the tethering point - and every other tethered drone even if it’s not yet operating. The deep ocean is the definition of the ‘dark forest’ problem.
masklinn 2y ago
> I have to ask why you don't have a ton of unmanned drones down there. Literally remove the need to move somewhere for the people on board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_... It's extremely hard to communicate long distance underwater, especially to do so discreetly.
- taeric 2y ago
  You presume it has to be incredibly long range? I'd be surprised if that is necessarily the case. Could also flat out do cables to many of them at rest. Is it fool proof? Almost certainly not. It doesn't have to compete with perfect, though. Just with what we have right now.
  - masklinn 2y ago
    > You presume it has to be incredibly long range? No. But you seem to presume engineers working on underwater communication are brainless morons.
    - taeric 2y ago
      No, I presume most of the press is brainless morons when it comes to talking about what the military is likely doing.
      - AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
        I assure you, you realize very quickly that most of military procurement are also brainless morons when you have to talk to them. There's a big disconnect between the military and actual engineering. Yes, that one magic Xilinx part is cool, but you don't need to blow $10k extra on literally everything you buy. They suffer buzzwords and fads the same way everyone in civilian C suite does.
        taeric 2y ago

by taeric 2y ago

lazide 2y ago

Communicating with the drones is nearly impossible.

taeric 2y ago
Missed this thread, apologies. I would take "nearly impossible" to be akin to "very expensive." Which is not to say that any of the difficulties just flat go away. But you don't necessarily need long range communication. I now realize the other thread is taking my point to be that this is trivially doable. That was also not my intent. My point was simply that "reducing to first principals" is a bit silly if you are going to maintain the requirement that you have a big enough vehicle to sustain a crew. Even a minimal crew imposes some massive design constraints that you don't necessarily have if you reduce the problem down. (In general, oddly, I meant my comment mostly as a criticism of "first principals" thinking on this. Too many of those analyses bring in base assumptions that are often invisible to the people arm chairing it.)
- travisjungroth 2y ago
  > Missed this thread, apologies. I would take "nearly impossible" to be akin to "very expensive." I’m certainly no expert, but I don’t think that’s the case here. Radio waves don’t penetrate water that far. Communicating with an untethered vehicle deep underwater is impossible. At the surface, trivial.
  - taeric 2y ago
    I would include dropping tethers to many places as part of a viable plan? Though, to your point. Not trying to be an expert or to second guess any expertise out there. I was really only meaning to question the "first principals" idea of reducing it to something that still requires radio waves to penetrate deep into the water. There is no need to keep the idea that it has to remain in radio contact with something far away. You would want it to be able to establish contact, and there will be prioritized methods to do that based on plenty of other variables. Not trivial, mind. But there is already nothing trivial about going underwater.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Trying to do what you’re proposing without being detected (the primary use case for military submersibles) is what is essentially impossible, since communicating via sound is of course doable - and also would entirely compromise their purpose. Hooking to previously unhooked tethers (or keeping drone like submersibles tethered over long periods of time), or communicating via radio underwater is just not practically useful. Like ‘tens or hundreds of meters’ type limited range, when kilometers is typical ‘close’ range. The reason why crews are required (except for limited research/investigation use cases), is because of these communication issues.
      - taeric 2y ago
        We are likely comparing different scenarios, then? I'd assume defense has a different set of requirements from infiltration. To be sure, you need a lot more flexibility for defense that projects farther than you can put a stake in the ground. (Well, tethers in the water, here.) But I would assume you could almost certainly invest in and build both?
        lazide 2y ago
        Not really, no. If the opponent knows where all the defense equipment is, they can often bypass or destroy it in a first strike too. And any common tethering point is not only a weak link (since it’s fixed), but a way to find every piece of equipment that interacts with it (since it has a easy to find location). The exception maybe purely passive equipment, like SOSUS microphones. But drones are going to make noise when operating, and they’ll point to the tethering point - and every other tethered drone even if it’s not yet operating. The deep ocean is the definition of the ‘dark forest’ problem.

masklinn 2y ago

> I have to ask why you don't have a ton of unmanned drones down there. Literally remove the need to move somewhere for the people on board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_... It's extremely hard to communicate long distance underwater, especially to do so discreetly.

taeric 2y ago
You presume it has to be incredibly long range? I'd be surprised if that is necessarily the case. Could also flat out do cables to many of them at rest. Is it fool proof? Almost certainly not. It doesn't have to compete with perfect, though. Just with what we have right now.
- masklinn 2y ago
  > You presume it has to be incredibly long range? No. But you seem to presume engineers working on underwater communication are brainless morons.
  - taeric 2y ago
    No, I presume most of the press is brainless morons when it comes to talking about what the military is likely doing.
    - AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
      I assure you, you realize very quickly that most of military procurement are also brainless morons when you have to talk to them. There's a big disconnect between the military and actual engineering. Yes, that one magic Xilinx part is cool, but you don't need to blow $10k extra on literally everything you buy. They suffer buzzwords and fads the same way everyone in civilian C suite does.
      - taeric 2y ago