Well obviously someone remembers Voyage to the bottom of the Sea and the flying sub

What happens when a 173mph submarine runs into a whale, large shark or giant squid? How about discarded fishing nets or a few underwater mines?

Gee .. it looks like the flying submarine from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.. from back in the 60's time frame.. any takers on a bet that the designers watched it as kids or saw reruns?

Wild, wooly, and wonderful. I love the Nautilus 1000. The part about stealth followed by the description of its drive left me LOL. Supercavitating air bubbles produced by massive lasers on the front sound really stealthy, don't they? VBG. Well, she's sleek and beautiful, in any case. I hope they make her.

Well, as we've found out, when it's based on nature, it has a much better chance of 'survival' or creation in the real world.

<p> While I find the concept of dissolving drones clogging up intakes intriguing, the Nautilus as shown is a ridiculous hydrodynamic dud. The manta ray is shaped as it is because: 1. it uses its wings for main propulsion, so they must be large enough, 2. it swims slowly, so the viscous drag on these wings is less of an issue, and 3. it is pressure-equalized with the surrounding water, so these flat surfaces need not sustain pressure loadings. <p> But for a submarine that uses wings for steering only, these surfaces are grossly oversized, and they would cause devastating form drag at any but the slowest speeds. Not to mention that they seem ideally designed to reflect sonar pulses from surface-based sub hunters. And the shape is just about the worst possible for pressure support, so the actual pressure hull would have to be confined to the central tubular section. <p> I realize that this design has been put forward by "graduate and apprentice engineers" but the Navy did have a chance to vet these concepts; and besides, even graduate and apprentice _engineers_ ought to know better. This thing looks like it's been dreamed up by graduate and apprentice filmmakers. What is the UK doing wrong with its tech education? <p> I have no major issues with the remaining designs, although the wing planform of the Flying Fish looks fishy to me. But that's a minor detail, compared to the preposterous Nautilus.

The Nautilus 100 'Mothership' was ripped off directly from the scout sub from 'Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea' TV series.

Yes, it does look quite a lot like the sub from VTTBOTS, and also I believe it was Jacques Cousteau who came up with a similar idea in the late 60s or early 70s for a mini sub that was made out of two dishes of high strength steel welded together with a flat or recessed viewing port on the front edge. I don't know the spelling of the word, but it was French for "saucer". Anyone else remember that thing? How long could a dissolving drone muck up the works of a sub? Wouldn't it eventually completely dissolve? Ah yes, plasma batteries, I saw some for sale on eBay by the same good folks who are also purveyors of warp coils, flux capacitors and such. They have a sale going on right now for torque, fifty kilo bags of the stuff for only one hundred pounds Sterling. If you need stream line, they've got that too, 100 meters for only 30 quid! Prop wash? That's the real deal of the day, 100 cubic meters for only 50 quid! How do they maintain those prices?!?! Yeah, right.
Randy

While somewhat reminiscent of "Voyage to the bottom of the Sea", I find the designs are more reflective of a short-lived TV series called "SeaQuest DSV" Whatever the inspiration, go for it! New materials and science will allow, if not force, new designs.

No amount of "new materials and science" will allow you to blissfully ignore the three main constraints that any submarine is subject to, that is: high pressure, flow resistance, and sonar detection. And the Nautilus is a fail on all three counts.