why have we not built a super battle sub-carriers? (surely its possible)

is there a limit to how big we can build submarines?

why have we not built a super sub carrier, could be like an aircraft carrier but its a submarine.

Could be uses for tropp, vehicle movements also possible carry nukes or even some sort of helicopters and harriers verticle take off craft.

[Edited on 5-1-2004 by blobby]

The concept of carriers was useful as planes had a low attack range. Meanwhile bombers can bomb nearly any target on the world without landing, probably getting re-fueled in the air.

So after all I think it's that simple reason why nobody bothers to built a big carrier. There is nothing to carry anymore.
Oh and think of the $$$

Good idea! But of course, I'm rather biased, as I once drew up one... Called it the "Trilon" for land, sea, and air attack.... But I agree with the above poster....it isn't economically feasible, given current logistics...

But, imagine the surprise factor! That'd really be the only advantage.....of such a craft.

Subs have been used as transports and as carriers..

And there have been also purpose build vessels for these tasks..

The whole idea however isnt practical anymore, that is if it ever was..

As far as I know submarines are the most expensive piece of battle equipment. Mainly for it's ability to be watertight. And they are already huge. But anyway, think of the design, cost, maintenance, and the biggest problem of all: sealing it against water. But I agree that would be the coolest thing to see, I would think.

The case of $$$ isn't that important if the concept would be approoved by the strategists and it would be profitable. Also, it always can be a Navy black program.

The idea is actually very good, today there is a chance to build sub supercariers, but carrying small, fast and easy to manouver units.

Of course, this changes the entire concept of underwater war. Todays subs are too big to be carried by an even bigger submarine, but if submarine units like jet fighters were introduced, war underwater would look just like air war.

This is a very interesting article, about the effect of supercavitation, which actually can revolutionise naval war.
Warp Drive Underwater

[Edited on 5-1-2004 by Johnny]

There are a myriad reasons against the idea.

Submarines are stealthy. It begs the question do you need a stealthy aircraft carrier? Aircraft carrriers by their mission can't be stealthy (they port around 80-100 aircraft in the Super carriers and 40-60 aircraft in the Marine support versions) They are a portable airport and have a variety of missions. They also require a huge task force to keep them safe. (subs, destroyers, crusiers and the such). How are you going to support a subcarrier?

So if you analyze it what mission does that leave you?
stealthy air insertion? That's a possibility, but you'd have to convince ALOT of money people that, that is a worthy reason to spend the money.

hrxll

lol..

I got thing fuc-ked up in my mind..

Giant sub to carry large numbers of smaller subs..

Ok..



I think that this wont happen..

But there have also been these..

Submarine carrying (or used to tow to near objective..) migdet submarines..

Like X-Craft and KAITENS..

X-Craft!

Kaiten! ("Turning of the Heavens")

i was reading this and it made me think of the old roll playing game i use to play ( somewhat still do although rarely ) RIFTS... the undersea's book had a american submersable carrior " uss. ticonderoga" i always thought it was the most kickass concept for a ship not to mention "f*** off " huge

I did see a program on television about submarine launched armed uav which could be land after completion of its misions. US DOD is working on it.

www.navsea.navy.mil...

www.senate.gov...

Ah a fellow Rifts player.... excellent...

Yes, the Ticonderoga did kick ass in the game world, but it just isn't feasible or practical in reality. That's exactly what I thought of when I read the first part of this thread actually.

The New Navy's gear has some interesting ideas for future naval equipment and weaponry, but I doubt most of it would ever come to light for our reality-based world.

I too played RIFTS, hehe... and that goes right into my point. To have undersea "fighters" you'd have to have submerged objectives/targets....and you really don't see an awful lot of that.... No target = No weapon designed to destroy it



Ahh, but that already exists, in the form of long-range stealth fighters and bombers....so it nixes that too...

Bottom line, there really isn't a logistical role for sub-carriers...too much money in one easy to hit target.....as you'd never be able to have such a behemoth run silent...

I agree completely Gazrok. There needs to be a role that this project would fill, but there is no need for it. It's not practical at the present, if ever.

Think about it.
The reason subs are so successful is because they are quiet and hard to detect. They also do not have that many people on board. The US's biggest sub, the Trident (Ohio) Class have about 189 people, MAX! A carrier, on the other hand, has over 5,000! That's a lot of people, and they aren't going to be quiet. Also, with all the work that goes on in maintaining aircraft is noisy. And, having to surface to launch aircraft totally defeats any quietness that the boat might have.

The size needed to make this feasible also makes this design almost impossible. Think of the space needed to store food, people, parts, etc...

Sorry to bust your bubble, but this whole idea is not practical at the moment. maybe in a couple of decades, just not anytime soon. Perhaps if it was automated, with few to no people and UAV's, it could be possible, and much more practicle, who knows....

Well, that's my two bits. Take it from a submariner, I can tell you more than you want.

I have been wondering that myself, as many Japanese submarines in WW2 carried a seaplane on board for scouting.