Mark Miodownik, a materials scientist at King’s College London, announced the new proposal at the Royal Institution’s Christmas lecture which is set to be broadcast on BBC4 at the end of the month. Speaking about the concept of a ‘space elevator’, Miodownik said, “The idea of an elevator into space has been around for some decades now and was popularized by Arthur C. Clarke, the science fiction writer, in his 1979 book The Fountains of Paradise. However the idea was never practical because there was no material strong enough to support its own weight over the huge distance necessary to reach from Earth to space.” “What has changed is the discovery of carbon nanotubes, a form of carbon that can be woven into fibers. They are still under development [and] in theory they are strong enough to reach into space.”
If it was constructed, such a cable would need to be kept under tension by the forces of gravity and outward centrifugal acceleration. In theory, the counterweight, which would keep the whole thing stable, would be a docking and refuelling station for future space missions. In fact, NASA has pledged $3 million over the next five years to research the idea and is working on scale models.
Carbon nanotubes are a modern material with tremendous potential. While they are less than 1/50,000 the width of a hair, when wound together a string the width of a sewing thread could hold the weight of a car. In theory, it could support the 30 tons per square millimetre needed to constructed such an incredible system. Miodownik added, “Carbon nanotubes are still under development but they are the first material we have seen that could be strong enough for this task.”
Obviously we are all up to speed on basic material science underpinning carbon nanotubes but there is a lot of potential and a ton of lateral applications. As the research advances so should we not shirk our responsibility to move our doctrines forward (at least in theory).
What concerns me (to some degree) is the almost linear mindset in the way we perceive submarines. From a material science/design perspective and subsequently from a platform doctrine/parent navy perspective.
What fundamentally concerns me is the launching of mk-48 torpedoes from the mothership when on station in wartime. It is unquestionably 20th century. It remains a deadly tactic to be sure but it is predictable (potentially a 'one-shot' strategy).
Personally I perceive modern submarine design (particularly from a weapons embarkation and deployment perspective) as virtually archaic. This is not to unfairly critic modern designers but to highlight (what I perceive to be) a long period of material science stagnation. Granted it is one thing to discover material science advancements it is very much another thing to approach successful defence project integration.
Nevertheless my view holds firm that modern submarines are octopuses of the deep without their 'optimum' natural defence. That is to say they are without their tentacles. Without the ability to protect their mothership by the deployment of weaponry external from the mothership to maintain 'optimum' levels of stealth even amidst a live battlespace.
In a sea denial mission when the mothership comes on station it can settle into a minimal 'high stealth' maneuvering state. On station all mk-48 torpedos (or future weapon variants) are immediately released from the mothership in a carbon nanotube 'tethered' state. They are positioned (using UUV tech) hundreds of nmiles from the mothership in all directions dependent upon strategic imperatives. They maintain combat system integration via optic fibre link entwined in the carbon nanotube tether.
I expect a 'return home' functionality to built into future torpedo development. In essence a marrying of UUV conceptual research with our existing mk-48 ADCAP strategic alliance. No longer is passive sonar the domain of the mothership...save that discussion for another day.
A mothership will deploy 10-12 of these tethered mk-48/UUV 'tentacles' allowing a sea denial strategy to range 1000's of nmiles simultaneously.
We can rewrite any number of doctrines potentially. We can 'peer into' the box on station without exposing the mothership to historical levels of risk (ISR). We can spread wide in a coastal defence scenario or we can project force forward allowing us to 'stay and fight' as opposed to 'fight and flight'.
As SSK we need to be able to both maintain the integrity of our stealth and deploy multiple warheads simultaneously from different vectors.
I wont go into it right now but the design methodology of 'weapons embarkation' should be re-written. Its a non-negotiable IMO.
**Some of the above discussion is technologically 'rudimentary' in the sense that it raises more questions than answers. Nevertheless I thought I would contribute it anyway.**
