It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

austrailian submersible aircraft carrier

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
i remember a few years back of seein a picture of an A4 skyhawk on a submarine.
does anybody know about this?




posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Nope. But if I remember rightly, the Japanese in WW2 had a submarine which could launch an aircraft. Maybe they got the idea from there.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
if i remember the japanese used one of those to attack us but they only started a small forest fire



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by robbie1989
if i remember the japanese used one of those to attack us but they only started a small forest fire


Not to my recollection, only times Japan attacked the COUNS was when one of their subs shelled some desolate US costal community; and when their high alt balloons fell on northwester US forests. No Japanese aircraft attacked the CONUS during WWII.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I think he might be talking about Oz, or maybe he is confusing it with the ballon bombs the Japanese used...



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by robbie1989
i remember a few years back of seein a picture of an A4 skyhawk on a submarine.
does anybody know about this?


Submarine or barge? Their are photos of the old A-4's on barges running around. Australia hasn't used A-4's since they were retired in 1984 and sold to New Zealand.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
He he . . . those suckers of New Zealanders . . . we got rid of our old aircraft and got money for it!


In the inter-war years, there seemed to be an obsession with sticking aircraft onto submarines.

This is one of the British 'M' class Monitors, first layed down in 1916, commisioned four years later. It was converted in 1925 to carry a specially built Parnall Peto reconaissiance aircraft.



 


The Sen Toku seaplane carrier. Laid down 1943, comissioned about 2 years later. The class was specially designed with air attacks on the U.S.'s West coast and the Panama Canal in mind.





 


There was also Frances Surcouf, laid down in 1921. This was a very fancy boat. It carried twin 8-inch Model 1924 guns that had a range of 34, 340 yards/31, 400 metres with 271 pound/123 kilogram shells. The Besson/ANF Mureaux MB 411 recon airplane was there to accurately spot shots and report on the targets condition.
The boat also had a compartment to hold 40 prisoners.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
The Aussy A-4 Skyhawk on the U-Boat deck is here.

www.skyhawk.org...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
The Aussy A-4 Skyhawk on the U-Boat deck is here.

www.skyhawk.org...


< beats head against wall >

that picture is in the humour section : DOH!

PLEASAE attempt a modicum of critical thinking - if you cannot detect the obvious errors that condem that picture as photoshoped , you are not fit to be left unnattended



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   


He he . . . those suckers of New Zealanders . . . we got rid of our old aircraft and got money for it!


Actually, we ended up screwing ourselves. The F/A-18s were supposed to be able to provide a certain level of fleet support, but couldn't, and so we paid the Kiwi's to come across to Oz, base out of the very same airfield (Albatross) the aircraft were based out of before, and all in all ended up paying somewhere in the order of three times the amount than if we had kept the A-4s ourselves. The Kiwi's couldn't believe their luck!



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
How do you land on that?!



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
They don't. The aircraft are seaplanes, meaning they land on water. Ingenious, really.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Gosh, I'm all excited about this! Just look at this picture from the same site! Aren't those Aussies clever!

I suppose it's because they're all upside-down in Australia. It makes all the blood rush to their heads.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Astyanax]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   
I saw yesterday on the history channel that the Japanese had a submarine that was able to launch 3 aircrafts bombers, during WW2. I don't remember it's name unfortunately.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   
WestPoint23,

It did happen actually.

en.wikipedia.org...

Though I recalled it as you did, a random shelling of a pair of coastal targets by a subs deck gun.

Submarine launched missiles are of course vastly more effective at delivering massed instantaneous fires today but the notional concept of a submarine aircraft carrier IS STILL A GOOD ONE.

If only you are not fooled into the "I know! Let's ditch our airplane and recover it for reuse!" idiocy.

The simple fact of the matter is that even a cheap cruise missile is going to run you well over a 100 grande and while that comes with some advantages (sealed body outside the pressure hull, no need to carry and transfer separate fuel, no need to to wait for a full radiusX2 return etc. etc.) the fact of the matter is that if you can combine VTOL capabilities with a FLAT DECK (ala Typhoon) and an _overhead_ forward translating hatch (water pressure holds the door down and forward motion keeps it pressed back to assist with the seal) to a double decker pressure hull, it becomes possible to launch airpower that can both target and drop for itself using miniature PGM like the Viper Strike or LOCAAS type weapon to further extend the range and reattack options. These being on the order of 40-60 grande in mass production would then mean that the drone itself (which would never be directly exposed) and the mission costs (500-1,500 dollars per hour) would be your driving variables for cost.

Of course it's unlikely that you would have a conventional submarine design at that point.

Something more like a wedge or flattened ovoid comes to mind but this too gives some structural advantages, most noteably inherent to the idea of removing the sail and easing port reloads through a much larger hatch access while employing a relay buoy system or offboard satellite controls. This being one submersible which would NOT be used as an SSN would in turn mean that it COULD be built and employed, much more cheaply as either an AIP hybrid (massive hydrogen tanks) or as an overall smaller nuke boat. Even as a combined SSGN/Special Mission styled 'covert airpower asset' for supporting special warfare operators that could not officially be supported by surface assets in the theater.

Obviously you will need to work on some things. Such as survivability issues if the upper hangar floods and the boat wants to turn turtle. And probably some kind of inflateable skirt or high-blow + floodable/extendable stabilizers to give you adequate freeboard and prevent excess roll and heel during air ops in rough seas.

Unfortunately, we have evolved an ideal of making subs do everything for so long (with all the gold plate problems that entails) that it seems 'natural' to force the specialization of airpower assets to support /their/ needs rather than taking a good long look at what a sub can, could and should be _optimized_ to achieve to support the warfighter /inland/.

Such is what happens when you fail to fully address if not redress the assymetry in design specialization inherent to a blue water, high intensity, force now facing cheap-and-deep threats inshore.

Assets like Jimmy Carter are moronic in simply cut-and-splice continuing the problem of single platform specialists too valuable and at the same time too restricted (no VLS at all) to be useful in total-dominance leveraging the kinds of forces (small and covert) and the kinds of battles (sustained LOIC) that they will engage in with opfors that are both primitive and ubiquitous.

I'm sure we have some level of 'standin' capability inherent to a small production run of torpedo encapsulate ISR systems like Sea Ferret. But throwaway spotter drones don't do enough to make prolonged warfare or warfare at depth workable for the small SWO team to be safe and thus -commitable- to otherwise risky ops. Despite what is said and done to promite black special warfare cadres, there is no surety of 'unacknowledged' warfare by intermediaries either.


KPl.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Huh, so they did launch an aircraft, I stand corrected, guess the Japanese were full of "firsts" against the US.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Westpoint23,

>>
Huh, so they did launch an aircraft, I stand corrected, guess the Japanese were full of "firsts" against the US.
>>

Yeeeeah.

I'm still waiting for the 'first' discovery of a balloon bomb with Unit 731 gift totes attached somewhere in our Northwest or Canuckia. Maybe at the bottom of a Great Lake. I mean hey, if they can shut down all news of an attack that killed 5 kids and a wife. THEN turn around and let Ishi off the hook to start up Green Cross 'pharmaceuticals' and live a happy life. It's pretty clear that there is a driving agenda beyond that of 'Truth, Honor And The American Way, Sometimes' (being the Victors and having a hypocrites view of the Germans and all).

That said, the viability of small aircraft attacks does raise the question of an Op Chastise type mission (even one which was /flown in/ as saboteurs or kamikazes) against the Canal in the early war years.

Given we were fully mobilized and actually gave a damn about losing, I doubt if losing a single lock would have disrupted things for more than six months but the question becomes _which_ six?

IIRR, the USN effectively replaced the RN in the Mediterranean after they lost their last carrier there (for Torch etc.). And I'm sure there were War Materiel shipments from the West Coast (or raw materials to it) which would have been equally missed going 'round the Horn or cross-country by rail.

IMO, if you already have the kernel of a suicide capable corps as proven by countless acts of ground war stupidity in China, Burma and Guadalcanal, what you do is launch an Emily or Mavis flying boat from Ulithi or even the Home Islands with a 2,500-5,000kg warhead (ala Mistel). Refuel them once or twice with these gigantic subs. Offload the real pilots to let the 'volunteer' get aboard, then have him fly a compass bearing into the lock gates at dawn.

Two or three such engagements with the same basic level of 'follow the water then searchlights forward' technology as the Brits used would have made for quite a "Ha-ha! Back Atcha Bleepholes!" reverse Doolittle in 1942-43.


KPl.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
who ever came up with this subject better look into things before they post
being in the RAAF i have nor heard or seen this type of submarine.


MDIA Special Agent
AUS/USA



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   
I still wonder how a country that had hundred if not thousands of highly trained airmen ( and they were very well trained; out of all proportion to resource availability imo) could lose a carrier based war when they had airmen willing to sacrifice themselves from day one! With such flying skill it's basically impossible not to hit a carrier and with early war ship board anti aircraft capability not much of the US pacific fleet would have been left in operation for very long.

It sickens me that a nation can waste lives so willing given ( knowing you might die for the cause, in a month or five years, and knowing you will die for the cause in five hours are very different things imo) so inefficiently when a hint and nod from the air group commander, on any given Japanese aircraft carrier, could have changed the pacific war dramatically even assuming the farce that was Midway somehow managed to repeat itself. One can only speculate what would have happened to the "Germany first doctrine" with no operational carriers in the Pacific and Hawaii under constant battleship bombardment.

It's not that i think a Japanese or a German victory would have made the world a batter place to live in ( i don't) but that leaders who demand such sacrifice so often proceed to squander it!

Kurt's example of damaging the Panama Canal, with a suicide raid, is just one of those opportunities that went unexploited and while i know that allied aircrew also sometimes 'suicided' themselves ( normally when wounded or uninterested in being taken hostage) a organized campaign while things were not yet going very badly would have been far harder to bring about imo.

I hope this is not understood as me trying to detract from all the millions of men who received virtual suicide missions any ways; the power of denial and a positive frame of mind ( as i understand it must be more denial than anything else) can still allows for some really unwarranted optimism...

Anyways....

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join