posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 01:53 PM
I know what you mean by this longbow!!
"I don't understand the people who want underwater carriers... WHY? The US subs already have strike capabilities with their Tomahawks. The SSNs
carry not that much, but for example Ohio SSGNs have more than 150 Tomahawks each. That's enough, there is no need for somthing such costly and
complicated as underwater carriers."
For some reason this seems to be a huge fancy. The watertight aspects necessary to launch a manned airplane are huge and complex. So are the support
systems necessary to be fed into the watertight launch aspects. Keeping a fueled airplane on hand ready to go..in a underwater boat is a hazardous
prospect at best. These kinds of things are done in a completely Isolated tube where a casualty can mean ejecting the platform if necessary.
For example...the dangers....I was astonished to learn years ago that the Russians used Liquid fuels in their early Boomers. Liquid Oxygen or Liquid
hydrogen. Do you realize how hazardous that is??? Or even something like Hydrogen Peroxide.
Unmanned vehicles are the way to go. They are much more simple and practical.
I have worked on Boomers, Fast Attack boats, and Carriers and I know what the watertight aspects necessary for the integrity of the hulls. It is a
huge undertaking at best. Launching a manned airplane from a submarine is dangerous and subjects the boat to dangers for which it is not practical to
design and overcome when other current surface platforms will suffice much better.
This is a nice fancy in the minds of some peoples and seems to be difficult go get out of their souls. It is just not practical in the face of
better more economical ways of getting things done.