Possible to build a modern submarine aircraft carrier?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimboman
You couldn't use it like a conventional carrier, but for small 'surprise' surgical strikes it would be useful. Stick an Osprey or a Blackhawk on it and special forces could use it as well.


Current USN submarines can work with SEAL teams minus the Helicopter.


Submarines have long been used for special operations - carrying commandos, reconnaissance teams, and agents on high-risk missions. Most special operations by U.S. submarines are carried out by SEALs, the Sea-Air-Land teams trained for missions behind enemy lines. but in most scenarios only submarines guarantee covert delivery.


link


Completely impractical at the moment of course, but if somebody wants to write a sci-fi novel...


Your spot on there. Now if you were to explore the angle of Cargo carrying Submarines you would have a feasible idea that two World Wars gave us a glimpse of the potential of.
I don't think that we will see fleets of cargo carrying subs any time soon but the concept is possible with today's technology.




posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   
The picture is either Scinfaxi or Hrimfaxi, Yuktobanian carriers.
Ace Combat 5 - Great Game.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitry
The picture is either Scinfaxi or Hrimfaxi, Yuktobanian carriers.
Ace Combat 5 - Great Game.


If you mean this pic



then it's actually a submarine cutaway drawing from either 'Thunderbirds' comic or 'Stingray' comic, both of which are based on Gerry Anderson puppet series. I know because I've got the full-size page of that picture at home (so can't check which comic it's from cause I'm supposed to be working).

[edit on 3/4/07 by jimboman]

[edit on 3/4/07 by jimboman]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
No - Not that one, the original one from the Host



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
No idea what that one is, sorry.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
right on Dimitry

Scinfaxi



i think the need for underwater aircraft carriers will become reality when the world's navies start deploying supercavitating torpedos/missiles rendering current aircraft carriers and carrier battle groups vulnerable.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I remember reading an article back in the mid 80's in the US Naval Institute Magazine Proceedings about a submarine aircraft carrier.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Why not design aircraft that can also travel underwater?? any takers ??



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
What i mean is like instead of having to land the plane why not be able to dock it on the sub using VTOL and as the craft is able to travel under the surface it could be linked by maybe an umbilical thingy and locked into position on the sub, it may save space and size .




posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Supercavitation could completely change the nature of undersea warfare, says Galeotti, turning the traditional cat-and-mouse game, with vessels sneaking around as quietly as possible, into a cacophonous dogfight. "If we do get supercavitating vehicles, we're not going to be talking about big submarines," he says. Small supercavitating craft might instead be sent out by a mother ship on short-range attacks, wheeling about to get a good line of sight for their underwater machine guns. "It is like a shift into airborne warfare," says Galeotti.


Supercavitating Submarine


Scientists at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, Rhode Island demonstrated in 1997 a fully submerged launch of a supercavitating projectile (with air injected in its nose) with a muzzle velocity of 5,082 feet (1,549 meters) per second, making it the first underwater weapon to break the sound barrier. More recently the U.S. unveiled supercavitating bullets. That program was inspired by the menace posed by harbor mines during the Gulf War. The slow and dangerous job of disarming mines often falls to divers because bullets lose momentum and direction after traveling a few feet through water, which is thousands of times denser than air. But supercavitating bullets fired from planes or helicopters could pierce and detonate mines from a safe distance.


Supersonic Submarine



DARPA Underwater Express

DeepAngel

i guess its also possible to launch future subfighters (sub and fighters, get it?
) while the aircraft carrier is submerged by sending it off in the same way we currently launch torpedoes from submarines, through compressed air.

and these future subfighters should be rocket-powered while underwater so they can supercavitate and perhaps transition to jet propulsion while they're airborne.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Cor,

Imagine the G's on launch but i get the idea ..



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   

while the aircraft carrier is submerged by sending it off in the same way we currently launch torpedoes from submarines, through compressed air.



Rethink this through carefully. Very carefully.

Orangetom



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   
One possibility has occurred to me.
For those of you who keen on the concept of a submarine aircraft carrier you could attempted to produce a working concept model.

People already make Radio Controll model planes and submarine. You would have to be prepared to tackle the project your not likely to find any documentation on how to build a model submarine aircraft carrier. Also you may encounter and have to solve problems that would be en counted in real life.

In the real world there is no need for a submarine aircraft carrier because there is nothing that it could that cant be done with current forces. However it would make a great working concept model if a hobbyist could build one.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Besides the excellent reasons given by Brother Stormhammer, there are a couple of things that occurred to me which I have not seen mentioned.

First, storing aviation fuel in a submarine sounds like something I would avoid with every fiber of my being. A fire on any ship is a serious situation, its most likely 10 times worse on a sub where air supply is a factor.

Secondly, Fumes from the fueled aircraft, if not vented, will build up in hanger area and ignite at the slightest spark. If that area is constantly having to be vented then you seriously affect your air supply levels.

Third, many of your maintenance procedures cannot be preformed under the deck, and thus not on a submarine.

Between these factors making the sub have to surface constantly, you also have to be on the surface to launch and recover. With all this time spent on the surface, you might as well just design the carrier to be a surface craft from the start.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Defcon5 you have raised some very good points.



Originally posted by defcon5
First, storing aviation fuel in a submarine sounds like something I would avoid with every fiber of my being. A fire on any ship is a serious situation, its most likely 10 times worse on a sub where air supply is a factor.



There would have to be way of cutting off oxygen to parts of the boat while the air supply was maintained in other areas of the submarine aircraft carrier.



Secondly, Fumes from the fueled aircraft, if not vented, will build up in hanger area and ignite at the slightest spark. If that area is constantly having to be vented then you seriously affect your air supply levels.


The hanger area would have to be vented before diving. Some kind air filters would have to be used in order to ensure that the air remains breathable. Unless the boat is Nuclear powered it will have to surface at some stage and then there would be a chance to vent the hanger area.

As for maintenance procedures they would have to be adopted so they could take place in a large enclosed area.



Between these factors making the sub have to surface constantly, you also have to be on the surface to launch and recover. With all this time spent on the surface, you might as well just design the carrier to be a surface craft from the start.


I most certainly agree with that sentiment.


[edit on 4-4-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
currently playing Supreme Commander.

they have these great experimental units that take an hour (real time) to build.

two of the experimental units are submersible carriers. follow the link
supremecommander.com...
, go to the menu on left>game info>experimental units and watch a pretty nice video detailing em, you'll see two different concepts.


Crazy nice RTS i recommend for my gamer ppls



[edit on 4-4-2007 by Philadelphite]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
There is a huge problem with supercavitation: Steering. Fast enough.

If you are in some supersonic underwater craft than what would happen if you hit one of the many undersea creatures that dont exist in the air and therefore complicate things.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
You have another problem not often spoken about .

Current submarine technology allows submarines to run along at a sufficient speed. ( Classified).

The problem is not hitting a underwater mountain though obviously by past history this has happened. I know of several such incidents.

The problem is design crush depths. At fast speeds it would only take a slight mistake in depth or dive angle to go below design crush depth. How much time would this take at supercavitation speeds. Not much ..a few seconds..and this may be on the long side.
This is the real problem here. Do they cover this practicality in those games..or is it some Si Fi ...flashdance cure??

You must have an absolute fail safe way to prevent this occurence.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
One of the things I like about having such a platform is that its ability to work alone. After all since the surface carrier needs dozens of ships to provide a protective screen, not to mention resupplying from auxiliary ships. The SAC-Submarine aircraft carrier would not need any protection since stealth is its best protection. The SAC must surface to resupply, but that can be compensated to do that in a protective and clear area. After all don't all attack subs also do that when rearming or resupplying from a tender ship? Also the SAC could lift ASW helicopters to provide protection against any possilbe enemy subs while rearming or resupplying. Just my thought.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I also wanted to mention was that there could be a submarine tender which could help decrease (meaning less exposure) detection while resupplying and rearming.






top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join