It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


News about the CVN-21

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:34 AM

Originally posted by rogue1

Actually westpoint you are wrong my friend, a Japanese sea plane did take off from a Japanese I400 class submarine. It's mission was to drop fire bombs over the forests of Oregon to start a huge bushfire.

Here is the full story westpoint if you want to educate yourself.

I'm awfully sorry to add a post to this, but Westpoint is also right. Japan launched about 10'000 gaz filled baloons with an altimetric bomb under it, which where supposed to be pushed by winds above the PAC to west coast. only a few hundred of it succeeded to reach the USA, but even for those, the altimetric detonator didnt work well. The only deaths on american ground caused by these was a family, who found one of these devices unexploded on the ground and the childrens played with it, and boum

This can be found in the book "Secret war stories in WWII", reader's digest edition 1968 (yeah its outated, lol)

Now it's also correct that this I - class japanese sub carriers were originally supposed to be attacking and blocking panama canal to avoid the CINCLANT sending the ships liberated by the end of the war in Europe to fight in pacific. check the topic about this on ATS, we talked about it when the I- Class sub wreck was found

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:42 AM
^^^ Yes, the Japanese balloon bombs are common knowledge. However westpoint said that the US had never been bombed by a plane flying from a submarine. He was wrong therefore I am correct.

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:50 AM
However, both of you are right in a way, till these baloons actually took place in the story, and the plane bombed oregon aswell

And everyone is happy.


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 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.

Thanks Longbow,

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:03 PM
rogue1 Your extra hype, I knew that the Japanese had planes to use small planes launched forth their underwater carrier/subs to attack the U.S. But I did not know they actually succeeded in hitting the west coast with one of these planes.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in