Possible to build a modern submarine aircraft carrier?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   


With the current technology, is it feasible to build a modern submarine aircraft carrier?

Even though the weapon was used during WW2, it seemed to me that it was overlooked while surface carriers were considered the primary weapon of choice in naval warfare in past, present and future, but I was hoping that submarine aircraft carrier would have some potential.


How much would you think cost for such a boat?

Its probably certain it would carry fewer aircraft because of a smaller size of the boat, unless we decided to build a bigger boat the same size of the Nimitz class or bigger.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of having such boat?




posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
It took hours on the surface to launch the planes. They had to be disassembled to fit into the hangar, so to launch them they had to sit on the surface and reattach the wings to them. And they could only carry two planes. Great for psychological warfare, not so good for real damage.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
The idea seemed good at the time, but technology just didn't exist back then for the weapon to be taken full advantage of.

You might be on to something now there Delta because maybe the conditions and technology has advanced far enough that we can build a large enough submarine that aircraft can be launched without having to be dismantled while surfaced. Or maybe new aircraft all together could be designed to accompany the ship?

One can always fantasize I presume. By the way where did you get that photo?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It took hours on the surface to launch the planes. They had to be disassembled to fit into the hangar, so to launch them they had to sit on the surface and reattach the wings to them. And they could only carry two planes. Great for psychological warfare, not so good for real damage.


That was then, this is now. Its not just 2 planes, and not about attaching wings anymore that is considered an obstacle.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies


One can always fantasize I presume. By the way where did you get that photo?

Shattered OUT...


Thats classified.


Just kidding, it looks like it was photoshopped and similar to the Typhoon class submarine in my view.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
You're still going to have a SERIOUSLY limited amount of space to put planes. It would be more of a psychological weapon than a really effective weapon. You might not have to attach the wings anymore (in the case of a swing wing design), but unless you're going to build a HUGE launching platform, you're not going to have many planes.

Another drawback is how to recover the planes. In WWII they used floatplanes. They would land next to the carrier, and they had a crane to put them back on the deck. If you want to land them back on the sub, you just doubled your size. It would be a MONSTROUS submarine, and probably not able to dock in most of your bases, because they aren't deep enough for it.

You could put VTOLs on it, but even if you use them, you're still looking at a huge size to it, and places like Pearl Harbor, which is one of the USN's major shipyards in the Pacific can barely take some of the newer CVNs.

[edit on 4/2/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're still going to have a SERIOUSLY limited amount of space to put planes. It would be more of a psychological weapon than a really effective weapon. You might not have to attach the wings anymore (in the case of a swing wing design), but unless you're going to build a HUGE launching platform, you're not going to have many planes.

Another drawback is how to recover the planes. In WWII they used floatplanes. They would land next to the carrier, and they had a crane to put them back on the deck. If you want to land them back on the sub, you just doubled your size. It would be a MONSTROUS submarine, and probably not able to dock in most of your bases, because they aren't deep enough for it.

You could put VTOLs on it, but even if you use them, you're still looking at a huge size to it, and places like Pearl Harbor, which is one of the USN's major shipyards in the Pacific can barely take some of the newer CVNs.

[edit on 4/2/2007 by Zaphod58]


I was going to mention VTOL aircraft that currently has come into existence that the Japanese nor the U.S. had during WW2.
But you already mentioned it.

But as I have mentioned before that this type of boat would carry fewer aircraft unless its bigger. It would still have significant impact both tactical and psychological if the aircraft are stealthy. Fewer aircraft could achieve much than conventional aicraft in my opinion.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by deltaboy]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
You're thinking far too small, all of those problems can simply be solved by building things larger. Also with today's technology getting smaller and more integrated, construction of mass vessels is even more plausible than before.

All it really needs is enough resources and enough backing to happen. If you want it hard enough it can happen.

And Delta, the pic looks like it's from a video game to be honest because I recall seeing it else where just can't remember where.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   


Heres another pic of a submarine aircraft carrier. Of course this is an old artist concept of what it could look like. But I was pointing out that it could have a flat landing deck for the VTOL aircraft, instead none in the first pic I posted. Unless the deck was opened as a hangar for aircraft to land in, and it closes.

Trust me, even I would not agree that the aircraft that is launching like a rocket launcher in that pic would not be possible.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by deltaboy]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
hey is that Deep Angel?

here's some info about the game

a visionary look at carrier evolution
USS Angelus

yea its fiction but the reason i posted this info is because it is somewhat related to the topic. got some interesting stuff about supercavitatons and underwater warfare in the future though.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by toreishi
hey is that Deep Angel?

here's some info about the game

a visionary look at carrier evolution
USS Angelus

yea its fiction but the reason i posted this info is because it is somewhat related to the topic. got some interesting stuff about supercavitatons and underwater warfare in the future though.


Don't think that the first pic and this link is related.



Its freaking monstrous. Look at the comparsion to that boat and the Nimitz carrier. Anyways, the boat has sharper angles, the pic I posted does not have those curves.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Dont think there will be any sub aircraft carriers for a while. But its good to keep coming up with different ideas. Keeps things fresh. What I would like to see though, is a flying aircraft carrier. Like the ones in sky captain. Didnt care for the movie,but the concept is nice.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spanishcaravan
Dont think there will be any sub aircraft carriers for a while. But its good to keep coming up with different ideas. Keeps things fresh. What I would like to see though, is a flying aircraft carrier. Like the ones in sky captain. Didnt care for the movie,but the concept is nice.








Probably many many many years.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Nice topic OP.

When I first read the post, I was thinking - well it would have to be a flat top boat, cuz thats how aircraft carriers launch. But here's the thing - With magnetic technology coming to fruition, things are becoming alot different these days.

You can reduce the size of the flat surface ontop of the boat using mag locks. Even the new CVN-X carrier is supposed to be using these new-fangled mag locks to recover birds. Which is not only more quiet, but uses less space to stop the bird then using steal arresting cables.

Secondly, if you can use mag locks to recover birds, you can use them to launch them. If you, per-se - you could figure out a way to mag launch a bird from an inclosed tube (almost sort of like a torpedo, with the opening just above the surface ) you wouldn't have to worry about reassembling aircraft before launch. You just runem from the bay to the tube into the air. Of course recovering them would be a pain in the arse....but i haven't gotten there yet. So stay tuned ;P



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
How effective would a subcarrier be (i'm asking not arguing)? From what i've read so far it might be possible with VTOLs, but how does match or surpass the threat that a modern carrier with supersonic aircraft posses? If they do make this thing, it would be huge. Wouldn't that make it a much easier target to detect and detroy?

Regards,
Maestro



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
Nice topic OP.

When I first read the post, I was thinking - well it would have to be a flat top boat, cuz thats how aircraft carriers launch. But here's the thing - With magnetic technology coming to fruition, things are becoming alot different these days.

You can reduce the size of the flat surface ontop of the boat using mag locks. Even the new CVN-X carrier is supposed to be using these new-fangled mag locks to recover birds. Which is not only more quiet, but uses less space to stop the bird then using steal arresting cables.

Secondly, if you can use mag locks to recover birds, you can use them to launch them. If you, per-se - you could figure out a way to mag launch a bird from an inclosed tube (almost sort of like a torpedo, with the opening just above the surface ) you wouldn't have to worry about reassembling aircraft before launch. You just runem from the bay to the tube into the air. Of course recovering them would be a pain in the arse....but i haven't gotten there yet. So stay tuned ;P


They're NOT using maglocks to recover. They're using electromagnetic catapults to LAUNCH however. They're going to a three wire, instead of four wire recovery system, that uses larger wires, which will reduce the replacement costs, and give a longer time between replacement. They started that with the Ronald Reagan.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I like the idea, but I don't beleive it is a wise concept to invest in. Why? Collateral damage.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
What collateral damage would a submarine carrier cause that current super carriers don't?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I'll let you think about that for a while longer.




posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The Cormorant!!
Has any one seen this before??



Its an unmanned reusable UAV designed to be launched from existing submarine missile launce tubes.

Well not exactly launched like a missile, its released, floats to the surface unfolds its self and flys off!

Recovery is performed by a robot. Pretty cool eh?

Seems pretty cost effective way of making a sub into an aircraft carrier (albeit UAV for now)


Edit: screwed up 1st time!

[edit on 2/4/2007 by Now_Then]





top topics
 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join