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.


Possible to build a modern submarine aircraft carrier?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:55 PM
I've never really considered the idea of a true submersible aircraft carrier to be in any way feasible, but while discussing the replacement of vanguard ( and the reuse of the very young hulls, that ended with us hoping for the MOD to fund a conversion in line with the Ohio class SSGN, though with a rather more usefull payload to act as dedicated carrier defence ans well as stand off cruise missileer) with a few friends we hit upon the idea of a dedicated area denial submarine, vast beasts roughly 2.5-3 times the size of an SSBN, replete with all the modern submarine stealth features, with a dedicated fleet of UCSV's and the ability to launch UCAV's from what are pretty much ICBM tubes, which would then recover to a conventional craft.

A ridiculous idea, but a nice one nonetheless

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:42 PM
A few people have made mention of the Russian Typhoon class submarine. These things are huge-they even have a spa onboard for the officers.

There was talk from the Russians of removing the missile tubes on a Typhoon and utilizing all that space for cargo.

If they could turn these things into cargo ships, it seems reasonable to think that a few VTOL aircraft (helicopter or Harrier-type jet) could be put in that space. Large doors would have to be fitted in place of the missile silo doors.

Storing enough Av-gas, spare parts, and related maintenance equipment could probably be accomplished, but in abbreviated amounts. Such a Typhoon modification would probably be used in "special operations" type aviation missions (hit-and-run style raids against high value targets).

They will never have submarine aircraft carriers on the scale of a conventional surface carrier. There does not seem to be a tactical need for such a weapon. However, we could probably pull it off. If the Japanese did it with WWII technology, we could do it today.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:20 AM
What about a means of transport that can go underwater and in the air and on the ground about the size of an aeroplane or a sub…..that could deploy both land vehicles, mini-subs, and craft…now that would be impressive….

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:14 PM
reply to post by andre18

For something that complicated of that size, it wouldn't pay. I doubt it would be able to take enough cargo to make its development worth it.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:25 PM
The US navy is working with Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works to develop a UAV that could be launched from a SSGN.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:22 PM
Well, if anyone has played Ace Combat 5, you could do it like the hrimfaxi, and have aa runway on the back

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:04 AM
After reading all these post I can't help but think despite how cool a aircraft carrying submarine would be, it probably wouldn't be a very good sub or carrier, too many design limitations, logistical, and practical issues. It would be a desaster waiting to happen.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:22 PM
speaking from within the Navy, and currently in a shipyard (wont say which one), there is currently no interest or need for such a thing. furthermore, Big Navy won't waste its precious money on such things, especially with the new Gerald Ford Class in the works.

the technolegy is easily workable, especially with UCAVs. but again, there is no need for it, as the US has more carriers than it knows what do do with.

posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 07:43 AM
reply to post by ShatteredSkies

That image is from the Namco Bandai video game Ace Combat 5. That is a CG illustration of the fictitious ship named the Hrimfaxi and the Scinfaxi.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:11 PM
What about a destroyer?

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:10 PM
This idea has also come to my mind for quite some time now. I am amazed at the response of this idea. I think it will be such a great investment that it would leave the rest of the world in the stone age.

If this project does happen soon in the future I would like to be alive still. This would be the MOTHER of all warships and a great national treasure. It would take a few geniuses to pull something off this big, but I believe it not to be impossible. Anything can be made possible if you just believe.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:23 AM
The Russians seem to like helicopter carriers and submarines quite a bit, one would think they'd have come up with something like a combination (perhaps in the pipeline or even secretly out there; the point is stealth after all). I'd think you could make a sub-carrier to carry 2 to 4 harriers or helicopters depending on how big it is, and with today's aircraft that actually is a lot of firepower--all you need for most missions.

I guess it's just a lot easier to launch a missile and blow everything up.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:40 AM
This is the age of the UAV's!

You guys seem to be thinking traditional aircraft like the helicopters and Harriers, UAV's are the way to go to make a sub into an aircraft carrier... Realistically any current cub could be a carrier just by having UAV's that can be released from the torpedo / missile tubes, then float to the surface and take off.

Small, cheap and expendable, unlike meatbags in multi million pound jets!

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:09 AM
reply to post by Now_Then

That's not a sub-aircraft carrier really then. It's just a sub that can launch UAV's through it's torpedo tubes. Not nearly as revolutionary, you hardly even have to change the subs you have. Probably a useful adaptation but not of interest to speculate about IMO.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by CapsFan8]

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:22 AM
reply to post by CapsFan8

UAV's are aircraft!! The sub would carry them (in fact I have a feeling they do right now... or at least they are testing/developing them) ergo the sub is an aircraft carrier.

Okay they are not manned, but were are almost at the point where the person in the vehicle is the limiting factor... Why bother to spend billions on a sub/carrier that is launching obsolete aircraft?? Considering that a sub of that size really looses many of the advantages of submarines AND there is a very much cheaper option on the table - cheaper and more versatile.

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:45 PM
quite honestly i think you all are thinking too hard about this, this sub would have to be huge yes, but we will only need one if feasable. the pacific ocean is massive and extremely deep so we could house it there. it would practically have to be an underwater city, the design would be simple in the means of defense aircraft launch and recovery

ask my anything

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:39 PM
Any SSGN/SSG is an aircraft carrier. The aircraft just take one way trips, without pilots.

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Viking04
Any SSGN/SSG is an aircraft carrier. The aircraft just take one way trips, without pilots.

Viking has it exactly correct.

I dont know if any of you are aware of it but the future of the Nimitz class carriers is in Stealth Aircraft ..manned and unmanned.

There have already been tests of unmanned Aircraft both landing and taking off of Nimitz class carriers. The F 35 mockups have already been brought on board for the deck handling crews to move them on the flight decks and in the hanger bays to check practical and feasable handling.
It is being said in certain circles that the F35 and F22 may be the last manned fighter type aircraft made for the military.

Unmanned stealthy aircraft have already refueled Unmanned stealthy aircraft in mid air. These unmanned aerial aircraft..have also been refueled from manned aircraft.

The tomahawk is an unmanned aircraft capable of being launched from a submarine or another aircraft. At one time the military had them on tracked vehicles deployed in Europe.

The problem with a submarine is that it is risky to resurface and recover aircraft. It would be better to have them recovered elsewhere or not recovered at all.
In case no one ever told many of you ...submarines are most vulnurable when they surface and when they first dive..just like an airplane....approach and take off is when most accidents and crashs take place.

So why would you want to jeopardize a very expensive submarine by having it recover aircraft. They are vulnurable enought when they launch.

Have any of you seen close up...a water tight hatch capable of taking great pressures of the deep. I can assure you it is not like anything you have ever seen at the local Auto Zone or Home depot/Lowes. This means also...very very expensive and close tolerance fit. THe bigger the hatch, the more expensive and difficult it is to make and keep water tight.
This is why your aircraft would be small and also unmanned.

What do you folks think an SSGN submarine is?? It is capable of launching about 150 plus unmanned aircraft.
And yes...these types of unmanned aircraft have also been launched from torpedo tubes.


posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 11:29 AM
Figured I would find this concept being discussed on this site, I have been dreaming of this type of sub for years.

Surely its not about how effective the sub would be or how many planes it could fit in it but the power of the weapon on board the plane and the planes capability to land back in the sub. Of course this is relating to its effectiveness as a weapon - in all other aspects it is about the subs design.

Now if you could build a stealth sub, fit it with stealth planes armed with powerful enough weaponry you would have a devastating ace up the sleeves for surprise attacks etc

But as others have said the subcarrier would be massive and whats more very expensive - but on the other hand you could bring an entire country down before the war has begun with a couple of stealth subcarriers.

But would the subcarrier sacrifice defensive capability and/or speed to cater for the enormous weight strain of an airfield, facilities and planes and if so i see what people mean about the negative aspects of damage as how would the ship protect herself if detected - would an escort not reduce the ships stealth ability (if it even could be stealth, as it would have to be a true giant)

posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 09:13 AM
A submarine aircraft carrier needs to be a vessel for which the aircraft is unmanned. It needs to be a vessel for which the aircraft are not recovered by the submarine but by some other means or not recovered at all.

Manned system require to much life support equipment and thereby increasing the complexity/size of the aircraft and decreasing the reliability of said aircraft.

Submarines alone are very very expensive. When you add all these other support systems for manned aircraft becomes even more so.

You already have submarines in existence which launch aircraft...they are called Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.
There is speculation that submarines will in the future be launching reconnaissance aircraft and then recovering them by other means....helicopter or such. But this would only be for specific demand targets as much of this is already being done by Predators, Global Hawk, and or satellite resources.

Submarines already launch aircraft.

In the future, if some of you are not following the trend lines, much of military aircraft will be unmanned.

edit on 15-7-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in