[Rygian]

I wonder why the title clarifies "for rescue ops".

Is there anything inherent to this technology that prevents it from being used for anything else? The article body insists on "demonstrations relevant to specific defense operations" which sounds quite broad and not limited to rescue ops in any way.

[philipwhiuk]

It sounds less aggressive.

[morkalork]

Sounds nice and friendly, just like all those autonomous drones for SAR

[m463]

wonder what people thought when "the war department" became "the department of defense"

[nilamo]

- Very fast - avoids radar/detection - water based

My first assumption is that this is for stealth ops. "Rescue" doesn't need those features.

[K0balt]

TBF, You never know when you might need to sneak up on a shoreside compound, go in and “rescue” a bunch of people from their beds, and get back out undetected.

[moffkalast]

Congratulations, you are being rescued. Please do not resist.

[mrweasel]

Fast and water based I can sort of see, but there's no point to it avoiding radar. The range of 180 miles (assuming I read that correctly) also makes it pretty pointless for search and rescue. You would have to know where someone is, the weather must be good enough to land on water, and they can't be more than 60 miles away.

A NH90 helicopter is faster, at 190mph (300km/h) and have longer range at 500 miles (800km). It also doesn't have to land to rescue someone.

[nozzlegear]

> but there's no point to it avoiding radar

As other commenters have pointed out, search and rescue doesn't mean you're not going to get shot at. I agree with everyone else though that it's obviously going to be used for more than SAR.

[jjice]

Stealth and rescue can go hand and hand, no? I guess stating “rescue” still may bury the lead in that case.

[1970-01-01]

It's too low to do anything else. Snipers would decimate an entire attack squadron.