Undersea pods to hold US war supplies

The Navy wants to build unmanned platforms that it can place in the depths of the the world’s oceans to  have them float to the surface when the military needs the supplies or equipment stored within them.

It sounds almost like the plot from a movie like the Transformers. Machines rising from the bottoms of the oceans to attack the world’s citizens. However, this effort isn’t science fiction.

Engineers with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency have begun researching how these platforms could sustain the pressure caused by the depths of the ocean, and then respond to controllers after what could be years or decades without any activity. DARPA calls it “falling up” or “just-in-time payloads.”

“To make this work, we need to address technical challenges like extended survival of nodes under extreme ocean pressure, communications to wake-up the nodes after years of sleep, and efficient launch of payloads to the surface,” said Andy Coon, the DARPA program manager, in a statement.

The U.S. military is transitioning to a Pacific-centric defense strategy that will see units operating in the expansive Pacific region that is often a logistical nightmare. Much of the time and money to operate in the Pacific is spent transporting supplies and equipment throughout the region.

“The goal is to support the Navy with distributed technologies anywhere, anytime over large maritime areas. If we can do this rapidly, we can get close to the areas we need to affect or become widely distributed without delay,” Coon said.

Navy leaders want to use the international waters to their advantage. Navy officials want to keep the supplies and equipment at an arms reach and then summon it when it is needed. Of course, there are plenty of challenges to it, not just technical challenges but political ones. Would the international community allow the U.S. to store their war supplies throughout international waters?

45 Comments on "Undersea pods to hold US war supplies"

  1. Big stealthy objects suspended in the ocean? Or. would these things be able to move? Tons of technical issues here, and making something big enough to be of value while not to have other issues (like undersea nav) is going to be tough.. But cool idea

  2. Will the International community allow the US to do it? …No
    Should we do it anyway? …Yea!

  3. Any nation trying to prevent us from building these should be reminded of us saving them from Imperial Japan and asked if they really think China won't repeat that aggression.
    Seriously though; considering international waters allow ships of all kind, why should what is essentially an unmanned submarine be any different? And why should the international community even have a say?

  4. Leaning towards this replacing the land BM deterrent force. Hide siloes in submersible barges, move them around at night or tow by submarine. Let float to surface and fire BMs upon signal receipt.

  5. I can see the movie!

    "Pod Pirates"….

    A rogue band of international misfits plans to seize a hidden cache of millions of MRE's; personal sanitary kits, and reflective belts in order to embarrass the Pentagon into releasing Bradley Manning and the guys doing time at Leavenworth who drained the snake on the tollybons.

    Starring Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Sean Connery and a team of cardiac and gerontology specialists.

    Rock'em sock'em kisses you never got. It's combat engineers charging side by side with Greek hand bags. Showing the world a new way to fight as they use bulldozers like bazookas, bayonnets like bullets. That is all.

  6. It makes more sense than developing supersonic transports to deliver socks, MREs and diesel to troops around the world.

  7. So – Maritime Prepositioning Ships that are water-tight, sinkable and re-floatable?

  8. stephen russell | January 16, 2013 at 8:49 pm | Reply

    Saw similar idea on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, placing ICBMs undersea fixed for defense, but tha was 60s Sci Fic then.

  9. Hm. Interesting. It seems reasonable to suppose the Navy must be thinking about a MASSIVE amount of material to store, that is pretty much the only way it would be worth it. There are technical issues, those seem somewhat surmountable in time. There is likely a depth limit, which thus places limits on locations, which thus makes it harder to keep secret. What would keep an adversary from hacking the wake signal and/or sabotaging an unsecured pod? Or worse taking it all for themselves? Would the plan be to keep an attack sub on station indefinitely? Surround it with hydrophones? I'm not sure I'm a fan.

  10. I see the new pirate business, too.

    In any event, a great way to spend taxdollars.

  11. What?? Just more wasteful spending of the taxpayer dollars. It will never end….

  12. Misinformation.

  13. Please tell me this is a joke….Right?

  14. If you put one of these every five hundred miles or so, you could keep an LCS fully supplied and at sea for weeks!

  15. Autopods, transform and roll out!

  16. Bad Idea, how are we going to prevent them from being used against us? If someone figures out how we retrieve them and copies it, how will we even know until to late.

  17. In world war 2 the US Army developed Pigeon Guided Bombs and they actually worked, but it was such a strange concept that they never used it in combat. This may be one of those strange ideas. if nothing else, it may get new technologies for long term storage of perishables.

  18. I am no expert in laws of the sea, but what distinguishes these from abandoned wrecks etc that can be salvaged by anyone?

  19. Clearly such a major investment in the American taxpayers' money, materiel, and intellectual property rights must be vigilantly defended 24/7 from both the Commies and the 47%/OW terrorists.

    IOW, USN spec sharks with LASERS!

  20. Since we are apparently using the logistics playbook of old Bond villains, I assume we are also investigating dormant volcano and orbiting space stations as basing options.

  21. Um… is it just me, are aren't we facing sequestration and a massive deficit?

    How much, and who pays for it? (We already know the answer to this)

    What is next? Burying supplies underground for the Army to use? We have excellent case studies (i.e., your local landfill) from which to draw expertise.

  22. Simply use the sea to regulate internal pressures. Outside sea ( first layer of water ( next lower pressure of water ( and on till you get to the stuff you want sent up) water) water) open sea. Have check valve set to various psi highest on outermost encapsulated barrier. Once you let extend to surface tethered to bottom to a fixed location drop the outer shell till it surfaces.

  23. This sounds like a good use for our mothballed subs. Gut the crew quarters for material storage, modify the controls for remote activation and then hide them where there are no fishing trawlers.

  24. Since China makes all of our supplies anyway couldn't we live off our own supplies from their warehouses during any land war in China?

    I am confused as to what we are prepositioning. Is it fuel for Navy ships? I can't imagine we are prepositioning food for use decades later. Ammunition? Missles? Main Battle Tanks?

    In 15 years won't we be using 3D printers to spot manufacture most of our replacement items. Why would you want 10 year old boots from the bottom of the ocean when you can print custom boots designed for your feet in 10 minutes.

  25. I wonder what happens when after several years someone (not subject to our laws) decides to salvage the treasure we've left in international waters…

  26. This is stupid……….

    We have plenty of US flagged islands & atolls to store things. MIdway, Wake, Johnson, Guam, Howland, American Samoa The whole Aleutian chain, The Pacific missile Range……………. All belong to us. Are above the sea, are scattered geographically. Building some crazy underwater fuel & ammo dump is just dumb as the Death Star idea.

  27. Hey enemies! We're putting WEAPONS and AMMUNITION and other COOL STUFF in these PODS, and we're going to leave them all by themselves out here in the great big ocean, ok? Please don't come and take them, ok? (Al-queda): Ahem, sure, we would never do that (he, he, nudge, nudge)

  28. Underwater Weapons Storage Depot = SUBMARINE

  29. Isn't the Glomar Explorer still with us? How big a container do you want to place?

  30. Darpa is full of crackpot dumbasses that shovel taxpayer money into incinerators. This has to be the most retarded idea since the darpa twats dreamt up the IED evading flying humvees.

  31. I see a bigger problems with security. If someone finds it I think it would be more difficult in keeping positive control of it then designing something that could withstand the depths. We have hard enough problems with security on land much less on something that would be hard to get to in a hurry. It would also have to be linked up to some kind of network to get it to initiate what ever start up mechanism. The only way to protect anything from hackers to not connect it to a network of any kind. Even if you made a separate network all it would take is time to locate the landline and connect to it. Cool idea though. I would wander if it would really be less be less expensive than traditional means.

  32. I agree with comments above regarding the security and legalize of doing this in international waters. I respect DARPA throughing out these idea. It be better if they kept them OUT FROM THE PUBLIC. God, what happen to secrets. It works when NO ONE KNOWS.

    Its still stupid idea, were still exploring the ocean. Its not a dead space, its aliving environment. Storing mundane supplies like food, ammunition, etc undersea is risky in shape tidal forces could move it around, bury it etc. Never mind fact people could simply salvage it while their looking for a wreck. It could be on map on a reservation, but it have to be ocean water we own. Too risky. US Martime fleet is better choice for this.

  33. why not use the mothball fleet ships as storage? They could man and maintain them like a floating island system.

  34. Resupply? Obsolete? Test viability? Just some of the downside.
    Interesting concept, needs work

  35. So what happens when equip becomes obsolete? I mean imagine if one was full of digicams. You'd have to float the pod every 12-18 months to rotate out the old stock and put in place the next set of fire excellerate clothing. Hey how about putting the whole uniform board down there?

    Now seriously. Imagine the cost and quantity of whatever you put there. How would it be serviced? Don't put too much scratch behind this one. The politics, science and finances just aren't there

  36. Bad Idea, all it will take is some depth charges to rupture the container, and suddenly no more supplies since they won't float back up, and deep enough they can't recover them with out significant expenditures of time and resources….during wartime….smoke another one guys….

  37. The Navy will be able to do this because with the manpower cuts there will be extra money available for stupidity projects. When you deduct the cost of food, clothing, electricity, etc. for one swabby, multiplied by ??? that's a lot of beans, toiletpaper and 2 Kilo's that can be "pre-positioned" for future use. If you can't dazzle em with brilliance then you baffle them with BS. Sounds about right.

  38. Maybe they will house enemy combatants there…

  39. Very interesting concept. A lot has to be worked out. What would prevent China, North Korea or any other country that hates America from locating and getting our defense supplies. Sense we have proven the space station can stay up without falling to the ground, why not bring the shuttle out of moth balls use them for transportation and put up a few more stations for storage of defense materials? Either way it goes, sea or space, it means jobs for out of work Americans. Go for it.

  40. Smart, lets give the bad guys even easier access to materiel and see what happens.

    Next will be a program to make sure all the materiel can float, that way they big boys can just sprinkle it and wait for it to wash up on the beaches.

  41. all it will take is some strategicly placed depth charges and the whole thing disappears unrecvoverable, into the abyss….epic fail!

  42. There are many factors which affect the these companies and its scheme of working.

    With a lot of SEO Companies out there, it’s no excuse to tell that you have no choice
    or that there is none that fit your needs. The maximum amount of traffic among various search engines
    is shared by Google.

  43. Nowadays no website is providing the precedence depending
    upon the use of Meta Tags. You might only gain more visitors
    if your web site is highly placed or spot on them. Take note that SEO may be a bit
    complicated so you need the SEO tools and techniques to help
    you get started.

  44. I’ve learn some just right stuff here. Certainly
    price bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how a lot effort you place to create the sort of excellent informative site.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*