3 ms·

> 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 he

> 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.
      - taeric 2y ago
        The passive suggestion is basically exactly what I had in my brief imagination. Would have somewhat obvious points of failure that you would have to fortify in somewhat obvious ways. Much like any fence technology on land. But this discussion is largely silly; as you are arguing against it as being some sort of perfect proposal. I thought it was quite clear I don't even really mean it as a serious proposal. Just as one that goes against "first principals" being some sort of golden blessing that is bound to get good results.
        lazide 2y ago
        The responses have been to my original comment that the whole idea is silly, essentially. Because these first principles are fundamental physics limitations. You seem really intent on ignoring these fundamental issues. It’s like trying to argue that habitats on the moon should try to ignore that the moon has no atmosphere. We can, but why? And if you didn’t want arguments, well this is obviously the wrong crowd hah.
        taeric 2y ago
        What is the argument, then? My point is that it seemed off because it was still trying to force a way to find stealth for large containers that have to move. Remove the need for large and movement, and you get different constraints. No need to rely on "fundamental physics limitations" to point out that it will be difficult. And yes, as you add in more constraints, you get more difficulties. So, if you want completely clandestine deployment, that will be far harder. But nobody would be surprised to learn that a military base has lots of latent defenses. Why would this be any different?

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.
    - taeric 2y ago
      The passive suggestion is basically exactly what I had in my brief imagination. Would have somewhat obvious points of failure that you would have to fortify in somewhat obvious ways. Much like any fence technology on land. But this discussion is largely silly; as you are arguing against it as being some sort of perfect proposal. I thought it was quite clear I don't even really mean it as a serious proposal. Just as one that goes against "first principals" being some sort of golden blessing that is bound to get good results.
      - lazide 2y ago
        The responses have been to my original comment that the whole idea is silly, essentially. Because these first principles are fundamental physics limitations. You seem really intent on ignoring these fundamental issues. It’s like trying to argue that habitats on the moon should try to ignore that the moon has no atmosphere. We can, but why? And if you didn’t want arguments, well this is obviously the wrong crowd hah.
        taeric 2y ago
        What is the argument, then? My point is that it seemed off because it was still trying to force a way to find stealth for large containers that have to move. Remove the need for large and movement, and you get different constraints. No need to rely on "fundamental physics limitations" to point out that it will be difficult. And yes, as you add in more constraints, you get more difficulties. So, if you want completely clandestine deployment, that will be far harder. But nobody would be surprised to learn that a military base has lots of latent defenses. Why would this be any different?