Submarine launched fighters {please help}

I am looking for any info or pictures about two projects: submarine launched Douglas A4D [model 640] modified by Edward H. Heinemann and Boeing Flying Carpet with modified F-11F.

Here is article:

Meanwhile, in the US, the development of nuclear propulsion sparked some interest in aircraft-carrying submarines, prompting the Office of Naval Research to issue a solicitation for proposals. In response, Edward H. Heinemann, an aircraft designer who preferred to be called an innovator, developed a series of design sketches for a fighter aircraft that could be carried aboard the nuclear-powered submarine Halibut that had been specifically designed to carry and launch guided ballistic missiles. Halibut was commissioned in January 1960 and could carry four Regulus II missiles in a massive bow hangar.

Heinemann’s sketches indicated how a new-design aircraft or his versatile Douglas A4D Skyhawk could fit into the submarine’s hangar with minimum modification. The basic Halibut hangar was 80 feet long. The new-design aircraft was the Douglas model 640, a turbojet attack aircraft with a flying boat hull. It would be catapulted from the surfaced submarine, would come down at sea, and would be recovered aboard the submarine by a telescoping crane. Depending upon modifications to the hangar, the aircraft’s wings, tail fin, or nose section would fold for shipboard stowage.

The Navy did not pursue Heinemann’s proposals, but there were several other proposals for nuclear-propelled, aircraft-carrying submarines. The Navy’s aircraft development office—the Bureau of Aeronautics—sponsored the most ambitious one, called Project Flying Carpet.

Boeing Aircraft Co. undertook the extensive feasibility study of aircraft-carrying submarines for the project. The secret study employed, initially, hangar configuration and hull lines based on the Halibut design and the S5W propulsion plant used for the Thresher-type submarine.

The Boeing study proposed a near-term submarine carrier configuration—designated AN-1—that would carry eight high-performance aircraft in two large hangars, built into the forward hull. The nuclear-propelled submarine would be some 500 feet long and displace 9,260 tons on the surface—larger than any US submarine then planned, including the 380-foot-plus Polaris ballistic missile submarines.

The starting point for AN-1 aircraft would be a modified Grumman F11F Tiger turbojet fighter. The aircraft’s standard folding wings (for carrier use) would be supplemented by a folding tail fin, and it would employ a large rocket booster for launch from a “zero length” catapult. The catapult would be elevated to the vertical (90 degrees) to launch aircraft. The pilot would climb into the aircraft while it was still in the hangar, then an automated system would move the aircraft onto the catapult.

The aeronautics bureau conducted a feasibility study to investigate the submarine weight, stability, and equilibrium using an F11F conventional aircraft stowed in the Regulus missile hangar of USS Grayback. Grayback could carry two Regulus II missiles, one in each of two hangars faired into her forward superstructure.

The plan was, eventually, to replace the Mach 1+ F11F fighter with a Mach 3 aircraft. The aircraft would land aboard the submarine through the use of an innovative hook-and-cable arresting system. An aircraft that had to set down at sea could be brought back aboard the submarine by crane.

Initially, designers expected each aircraft-carrying sub to be able to haul aircraft fuel, weapons, and other stores for 10 missions per aircraft—a total of 80 missions per submarine. That estimate grew during the preliminary design process to at least 160 missions, with only minor changes in the submarine design.

Designers developed a subsequent AN-2 variant aircraft-carrying submarine with similar hull lines to the AN-1, but the AN-2 would operate vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. The sub would carry these VTOL aircraft in eight vertical hangars built into the hull forward of the sail structure. The below-deck configuration of the AN-2’s forward hull would differ considerably from the AN-1, while the after section of the submarine—containing crew quarters, control spaces, propulsion, and reactor plant—would be similar.

The Boeing study noted that “flight deck operations in the conventional meaning of the word do not exist.” It estimated a ground crew could launch four VTOL aircraft within 5.5 minutes of surfacing and eight aircraft in just over nine minutes. If the aircraft engine start used self-contained starters rather than shipboard power, those times could be cut. The study further concluded that, under even the most adverse sea conditions, the time to launch all eight aircraft would be 18 minutes. To compensate for the adverse conditions, the ground crew would move the aircraft, via deck tracks, to the amidship launchers closest to the ship’s center of buoyancy. The Boeing study calculated that the AN-1 submarine would cost about half again as much as a Polaris missile submarine.

However, the Navy did not pursue the aircraft-carrying submarine. Defense analysts have offered a number of reasons: a questionable operational requirement for submarine-based aircraft; bureaucratic opposition to a ship concept developed by the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics, not the Navy’s Bureau of Ships; and a shortage of submarine construction capability since the Navy was accelerating the construction of both torpedo-attack submarines and Polaris missile submarines.

link

Originally posted by matej
The Boeing study noted that “flight deck operations in the conventional meaning of the word do not exist.” It estimated a ground crew could launch four VTOL aircraft within 5.5 minutes of surfacing and eight aircraft in just over nine minutes. If the aircraft engine start used self-contained starters rather than shipboard power, those times could be cut. The study further concluded that, under even the most adverse sea conditions, the time to launch all eight aircraft would be 18 minutes. To compensate for the adverse conditions, the ground crew would move the aircraft, via deck tracks, to the amidship launchers closest to the ship’s center of buoyancy. The Boeing study calculated that the AN-1 submarine would cost about half again as much as a Polaris missile submarine.

What a fascinating post.
I wonder how much time it would take to recover the aircraft? 18 minutes for launch figure 3 times that minimum. The surface is not a safe place for a sub to be. I also wonder why they considered this for fighters? I could see this having merit at the time for a small fairly long range nuclear capable bomber, but fighters. I love the A-4 and think that it was one of the greatest planes of all time, but it just has too little range for something like this to work. I have a bunch of aviation books and if I find anything I'll post it for you.

Well, i guess that it's possible, but the problem would propably be that the planes would take so much space that it wouldn't make any sence, Cos the subs would have to be REALLY big... And it would produce a lot of sound when launching and putting the planes on the deck wich doesn't work with the 1 sub rule. You have to be as quiet as you can, cos' that's the subs strongest weapon... Nice idea though...

check this out >> www.abovetopsecret.com... on USA's sublaunched planes


[edit on 6-8-2005 by Stealth Spy]

ive found a video on the internet ov a f15 being launched from underwater it doesnt look very real but i wanted to no ur opinion. wre can i put it on da net so i can posta link

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
check this out >> www.abovetopsecret.com... on USA's sublaunched planes


[edit on 6-8-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Yeah, but a UAV and a fighter isn't exactly the same thing... even though they work in the same way in princip... It's a million times harder to put a plane in the air from a sub then a UAV...

Originally posted by f_16 pilot
ive found a video on the internet ov a f15 being launched from underwater it doesnt look very real but i wanted to no ur opinion. wre can i put it on da net so i can posta link

Its faked if you searched for Sub launch planes this video has been covered many many many many many times.

If you want to land a plane on a submarine, the plane would have to be going very slowly. There was an old UAV that was used on a ships other than carriers, but they were caught with a net, which would not be very easy with a manned aircraft. This is assuming the UAV is not disposable, or lands somewhere else.

What would be kool is a UAV that has thrust vectoring that can point its nozzles 70 degrees down wards and just comes in almost vertically and really slowly. you see a UAV with its nice curves almost gliding down on to a sub. that would be sweet but thats just my mind running away from me.

Sorry to burst you bubble, but this isn't new! The Idea of putting aircraft, and fighters in paticular on a submarine is over 60 years old! The Concept of making submarines into aircraft carrier was first concived in World War 2. The concept really took off fallowing the battle of Mid Way, when the US demonstrated the effectiveness of air attacks against an enemy navy by sinkng most of the Japaneese Navy using torpedo and dive bombers. The idea was to protect the aircraft carriers from aerial attack by hideing them under the water. I'm not sure why the concept disappeared.

Tim

Originally posted by ghost
Sorry to burst you bubble, but this isn't new! The Idea of putting aircraft, and fighters in paticular on a submarine is over 60 years old! The Concept of making submarines into aircraft carrier was first concived in World War 2. The concept really took off fallowing the battle of Mid Way, when the US demonstrated the effectiveness of air attacks against an enemy navy by sinkng most of the Japaneese Navy using torpedo and dive bombers. The idea was to protect the aircraft carriers from aerial attack by hideing them under the water. I'm not sure why the concept disappeared.

Tim

Hey,

Erm sadly Tim, this is incorrect. The concept of fitting fighters to submarines was before and during World War 1. The Orginal Idea was was when the Imperal German Navy placed a Friedrichshafen FF29, balanced accross the bow of the U-2 submarine and headed for the English Coast. Then the British Countered this with the trials of the British E-22 Submarine , fitted with two Sopwith Schneider Seaplanes.

These trials where partial successes and slowly carried forward. There where a number of nations that attempted the Idea but did not go pass the testing phase. The British being a fine example but ended with the lost of the submarine and her crew.

The Idea was readopted during the Second World War with the French Surcouf and then the creation of a small German Rotorcraft. The Japanense were the only military that produced fleet Submarine Aircraft carriers, with the I-400

As for the Submarine A4... there is a small problem with that information. I have a paragraph from May 1985 from Ed Heinemann. Stating that the the A-4 was developed from a design that his design department was asked during the late 1940s in the US Office of Naval Research in DC. The small wing from the A-4 was developed from this submarine project. There was never a submarine version of the A-4, the A-4 was merely designed with data from this model.

The model you speak of is the Douglas Model 640.

Sources: Strike From Beneath the Sea
Terry C. Treadwell

- Phil

Thanks gooseuk. Info that you posted is exactly what I am searching for. I know that there were many ideas of submarine planes. Together with my friend we are writing article about this and we found more than 30 concepts, from which some are nearly 100 years old:

first world war Germany: Friedrichshafen FF-29a, Hansa-Brandenburg W.20, LFG Roland V.19 BU Stralsund
1ww Great Britain: submarine E22 with fighters Sopwith Schneider
US Navy: tests Caspar-Heinkel U 1, Macchi M.16 a J.V Martin K-IV (KF-1), Design No.20 (Cox-Klemin XS-1 a XS-2, Loening XSL-1 a Martin MS-1) and submarine S-1
1 ww France: submarine Surcouf and fighters Besson MB-35, MB-410 and MB-411
1 ww Italy: submarine Ettore Fieramosca and fighters Macchi M.53 and Piaggio P.8
after 1ww Great Britain: submarine M-2 and fighters Parnall Peto and Parnall Prawn
after 1ww soviet: Četverikov SPL on submarine class P
after 1ww Poland: hydroplane Nikol A-2 on submarine Orzel
2ww Germany : Focke-Achgelis Fa 330 Bachstelze and Fa 336, Flettner Fl 282 Kolibri and Arado Ar 231 on submarine class IX a XI
2ww Japan: tests Caspar-Heinkel U 1 and licensed copy Jokosho 1-go, plane Jokosho 2-go (E6Y1, inspired by type Parnall Peto), Watanabe E9W1 and Jokosuka E14Y1, and japanese submarines with these planes submarine I-400 and I-25 class, with fighters M6A1 Seiran,

...also soviet Project 621 with Lavotchkine La-5, american studz Rand, Skyhook concept, Lockheed MAVTUS, soviet APSS and APL, Pigmej, Specnaz and many more.

But I wrote, that I am searching only for DOUGLAS MODEL 640 and PROJECT FLYING CARPET. Nothing less, nothing more. Till then I found one Model 640 picture.



And one last message: The planes did not land on submarines, but near submarine on the water. They were then moved to the submarine by crane. Because that short or vertical landing is not needed.

I have a lucky day. Another pictures:

BTW: it is time for the new logo....

The Japanese are the only nation to use a submarine launched aircraft.

In 1942 one was used to bomb the US mainland in an attempt to start forest fires.

Originally posted by gooseuk
Erm sadly Tim, this is incorrect. The concept of fitting fighters to submarines was before and during World War 1. The Orginal Idea was was when the Imperal German Navy placed a Friedrichshafen FF29, balanced accross the bow of the U-2 submarine and headed for the English Coast. Then the British Countered this with the trials of the British E-22 Submarine , fitted with two Sopwith Schneider Seaplanes.
- Phil

Hey thanks Phil! I have never heard of that before. Maybe you could provide a link so we can learn more about this.

Tim

Originally posted by ghost
Hey thanks Phil! I have never heard of that before. Maybe you could provide a link so we can learn more about this.

Tim

Greetings,

To be honest, its hard to find information in this rather odd section of naval history, althought there are some rather good books out there for reference material.

The book I mentioned earlier is the best that I have come accross. I have found that the websites information are either mistaken or have some minor defects in the facts or the orders in which the events happened. If you wish I suppose I could scan some of the key chapters in, but I am sure that there would be a copyright issue. PM for more information if you wish, I will do my best to provide you with information.

- Phil

Here's info on the Japanese I-400. Sub/Aircraft Carrier.
These were actually produced and almost saw action.

The U.S. Navy boarded and recovered 24 submarines including the three I-400 submarines, taking them to Sasebo Bay to study them.........Most of the submarines were taken to a position designated as Point Deep Six, about 40 miles (60 km) west from Nagasaki and off the island of Goto-Rettō, were packed with charges of C-2 explosive and destroyed.
en.wikipedia.org...