Anyone seen this (did search)

Looks VERY fake

www.funnydaze.co.uk...

It is Fake! some Joker took a video of an SLBM test launch and replaced the missile with an F-15.

Tim

Yeah, there was a thread about it on here quite a long time ago. I remember some people were taken in by it but not many.

Deffo fake but would be cool if somthing like that was made!.

Imagine if there were small 'Fighter subs' that could fly around under water like a Jet Fighter and shoot mini torpedoes the size of Sparrow missiles at enemy ships n U-boats n stuff.

Not only seeing that video has gave me that brainwave but i used to play a video game called 'Tigershark' gave me the idea too OH and what else, some jaag programme on the telley what i remember back way a long go when i was a kid, Voyage to the bottom of the sea!
Memories!

www.n-space.com...

Anyone else remember the game?

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Browno]

www.nasm.si.edu...

external image

I think I'm right in saying there have only ever been two water borne jet fighters ever built, the Convair Sea Dart and the Saro Squirt.

ive seen that footage a cuple of times...
was pretty cool the first time i saw it.
that wuld seem like a good idea to make a craft that is able to be in the water and also fly

But the Sea Dart never entered service though i still like it. Could have been kept in Assault ships/ships with no flight deck but the big door at the back which they use to launch landing crafts/speedboats/hovercrafts etc.

It was also supersonic too, shame it never entered USN Service.

It was designed incase the airstrips were heavily damaged so canals/lakes/rivers/the sea n so on would be the substitute.

Could the Convair XF-2 Sea Dart land on runways too?

No, it wasn't supersonic. The Sea Darts performance was in the Hunter, Javelin and F-86 class (around 700mph).

True enough,

>>
www.nasm.si.edu...
>>

However; I recall there being quite a stink for awhile when the Soviets showed a doctored photo of an 'SA/N-8' or somesuch as a conning tower mounted VSHORADS that could be launched from underwater. Turned out to be fake but it worried the P-3 operators quite a bit.

More contemporarily, both the USN (via the Sea Ferret) and the German Navy are working on long-loiter drones and the Polyphem (Fiber Optic Guided Missile) respectively. Which can be used for both recce, to engage threat MPA/ASW helos rather than simply running from the attack, and to hit targets not worth a radar guided AShM.

The reality of life is that /very few/ GWOT targets deserve a cruise missile and the current SSN loadout of mines, torpedos and CM is thus highly inappropriate for the inshore litoral mission.

What we could really use is a new slant-cell loadout of 10-20 micromissiles in the LOCAAS/LAM category that can withstand multiple tube floodings while flying at least 200nm inland with a 1-2 hour loiter AND a return flyout (to a neutral/safe ditching point).

The warhead doesn't need to be much more than 20-50lbs but a full hemispherical lookdown 'bubblecam' (think shopping mall) capability would be nice, possibly as an alternate warhead payload.

As a function of both deep suport to conventional beachhead assaults. And to provide 'close escort' to SOF teams doing the nasty where they officially are not.

In the latter role, if you can have someone sit back and use a ROVER like laptop terminal to track the fighters on the ground, it would do a -whole lot- to help maintain engagement initiative in 'unacknowledged' fights like The Mog where you may be countermarched down a sidestreet with the threat looking to turn in behind and roll you up.

Effectively what this comes down to is Netfires At Sea with a BQM-74 or ADM-141/160 type (slightly larger than LOCAAS) turbo-missile. Delilah EO might also work.

Unfortunately, most people's view of an 'infantry UAV' is a powered RC glider which does 100 knots to <150nm on a prop. And that just doesn't work on the sublaunch profile because they are so far from the fight and have too high an asset value to surface and play I-400 games with 'lets assemble the model airplane!' nonsense.

It's not that the idea of a sublaunch fighter is wrong. It's that the cost and scaling is off for an asset that will never be recovered.


KPl.

This is not entirely the same thing but I remember a US Navy project from the 1980s for vertically launched supersonic fighters. Notice I said vertically launched, not VTOL. I remember seeing artwork that showed a very 'Thunderbirds' scene in which the fighters were parked in rows down each side of an aircraft carrier facing in towards the middle, each fighter was stood on a square platform which rotated 90 degrees so that the planes were launched vertically upwards on full burner, with the planes gone the platforms laid back down flat to form a normal carrier deck for landing.

All in all it was an interesting, but doomed idea. If I can find a picture I'll post it.

I will have to find the book in my library, but I recall a artist conception of a UCAV that was submarine based and could be fired from a Tomahawk VLS tube.

The concept to me is a bit dubious however,

1) To get any recce information from it the sub would have to be at antenna depth.

2) How much endurance / range would such a UCAV have

3) Unless its stealthy, the launch transient as well as the radar return would give away the subs position nicely

4) I guess you could put a sidewinder or a SDB on it but the VLS system on the 688's are designed for Tomahawk missiles so you would be limited to thier launch canister diameter

You are talking about Vought TF-120. Originaly it was General Dynamics project 218V.


external image

Not sure about that artwork Matej, its confusing me because the small picture with the ship is exactly what I was referring to, but the Vought TF120 was a 'flat-riser' V/STOL fighter design, like the Harrier and F-35B. Curious how they have been mixed together in that image??

external image

Here is an underwater launch of an aircraft from a sub, its from the old British TV series UFO.

Its pretty wild, and ahead its time for having a combination aircraft and sub..


media.putfile.com...

[edit on 14-1-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Yes, it can be confusing, but only a little. Vertical launching was one variant of what later became TF-120. Vought and later LTV studied a lot of designs, derived from XV-12A and this is one of them without thrust vectoring. It took of from a vertical ramp and conventionally landed. But tandem fan engine concept was more useful (although more complicated). There are many models, that have common designation TF-120, however they are different (I do not know why).

i find that video halrious for some some reason

DARPA's sub-launched drone concept is here -
www.defensetech.org...

At some point there will be a water launched aircraft. A revisit to the WWII Japanese submarine launch system (albeit smaller scale). Best method would be unmanned. Recon and recovery and back under the wakes.

LINK
external image
Sentoku Type (I-400, I-401, I-402)

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

The better answer for waynos is here:

www.hitechweb2.szm.sk/Xtras/TF-120.jpg