Register here

Author Topic: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.  (Read 66040 times)

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4082
Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« on: August 31, 2007, 03:07:52 am »
I found this Data on www.combatreform2.com
"Aircraft and Amphibious carriers must submerge to avoid SSC destruction"

1953 RAND corporation make Top secret Study for USAF
"Using the submarine-launched or low-altitude Tu-4 [land-based bomber] surprise attack, the enemy can destroy
a major part of SAC potential at relatively small cost in A-bombs and aircraft.
With no more than 50 aircraft and bombs, two-thirds or more of SAC bomber and reconnaissance aircraft could be destroyed."

Putting a Aircraft in Tincan or Model 640 by Heinemann

Edward H.Heinemann must have read that RAND study.
he began to make Design sketches for Figher aircraft fore submarine USS Halilbut.

USS Halibut had hangar for Regulus II missiles
Heinemann propose a turbojet attack aircraft with a flying boat hull. later called Douglas model 640
to fit in Regulus II Hangar, aircraft's wings, tail fin, or nose section would be fold
launch by JATO rocket, land on see. be pull aboard the submarine by a telescoping crane.

unknown project for Illustation

I think Heinemann Obsession for Small Lightweight Fighter like A-4 Skyhawk Start with Model 640  ;D
more on A-4 Rival
The Navy did not pursue Heinemann's proposals

USS Grayback SSG-574
in magazine "Mechanic's Illustrated" show this speculative Picture of USS Grayback

the Aircraft are Convair SeaDart, Wat would make a some Sense for a Submarine Aircraft Carriers

Flying Carpet

The Navy's aircraft development office the Bureau of Aeronautics the most ambitious one,
called Project Flying Carpet The Boeing study: AN-1 AN-2 Design

See Picture  an1drawing.jpg

AN-1 is a The nuclear-propelled submarine of 500 feet (152,4 meter)long, dispalace 9260 tons and
Carry eight Grumman F11F Tiger Aircraft in tow large Hangars the Tiger are Launch by Rocket booster (ZELL)
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.

More on Grumman F11F Tiger here
More on Grumman F11F Tiger here

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!
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.

unknown project for Illustation

the study want replace later the Mach 1+ F11F fighter with a Mach 3 Fighter aircraft.

the study calculated that the AN-1 submarine would cost 1.5 as much as a Polaris missile submarine.

see picture aan2drawingcu.gif
AN-2 a aircraft-carrying submarine with similar hull lines to the AN-1, but the AN-2 would operate VTOL tailsiters!

"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."


1963 plans for US Submarine Aircraft Carriers with 20-30 STOL Aircraft AND 27 IRBM !
size of 40 feed (12,192 meter) high 300 feet (91,44 meter) long, 80 feet (24,384) wide and 12000 tons displacement.
feature Retractable Conning Tower, tow Aircraft Catapults. Submarine Power by tow nuclear Reactor.
see Picture ssncvPROCEEDINGS1963.gif

but the Navy's show a ultimate lack of interest in aircraft-carrying subs.

found in Internet
Called Submarine Aircraft Carriers J-10
I have NO Idea is this a Project or only SF-Fan Art ???
see Picture J10


« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 03:27:05 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline rabid stoat

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 11
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2007, 04:55:02 am »
I think the makers of the anime "Macross Zero" must have stumbled across the same concept. Amongst all the other 21st century nonsense there's a fighter-launching sub an awful lot like one of these. ::)

Thanks for the information. I saw the first picture on another forum but have never seen the others.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7897
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2007, 08:05:57 am »
The "unknown project for Illustation" reminds me very much on a HS P.1216
and a sky hook .    ???  Such a combination could make at least some sense,
I think.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2007, 09:07:11 am »

1963 plans for US Submarine Aircraft Carriers with 20-30 STOL Aircraft AND 27 IRBM !
size of 40 feed (12,192 meter) high 300 feet (91,44 meter) long, 80 feet (24,384) wide and 12000 tons displacement.
feature Retractable Conning Tower, tow Aircraft Catapults. Submarine Power by tow nuclear Reactor.
see Picture ssncvPROCEEDINGS1963.gif

Do you have more information on this... such as where the drawing came from?
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline RP1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • I see the truth in it.
    • RP1 dot net
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2007, 10:43:54 am »
It's from an issue of USNI Proceedings.  I think I've got the original somewhere.

Quote
The "unknown project for Illustation" reminds me very much on a HS P.1216

It is, IIRC.  That is the cover from "Strike from Beneath the Sea", but it only gets a small caption on the inside cover.

RP1
"Just your standard-issue big gun."
- Batou, Ghost in the Shell

http://rp-one.net/

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4082
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2007, 11:21:21 am »
form orginal text http://www.combatreform2.com/submarineaircraftcarriers.htm
"Drawing from the September 1983 Proceedings, "Sink the Navy" by Captain Charles C. Pease, U.S. Navy who in
the 1963 Proceedings published a proposal for a submarine aircraft carrier, complete with catapults and arresting
gears (15). Now that V/STOL technology is beginning to mature, the submersible aircraft carrier may be more
feasible than she was 20 years ago. The first step toward a "sinkable" carrier might be a helicopter hangar
installed in a submersible fleet auxiliary."
 
Clark C. Abt, "The Submarine-Aircraft Carrier," Proceedings, October 1963, pp. 149-153.

Quote
The "unknown project for Illustation" reminds me very much on a HS P.1216
sounds british ...
by the way had Russia plans for Submarine Aircraft Carriers ?
they had study 621 a Cargo Submarine...
I love Strange Technology

Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2007, 11:29:54 am »
And on the end paper of :'Submarines with wings' Terry C Treadwell-Conway Maritime.1985
Back paper reads:..The latest idea's from British Aerospace showing the Skyhook recovering
and launching two rather futuristic Sea Harriers from a nuclear submarine..

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2007, 01:05:59 pm »
It's from an issue of USNI Proceedings.  I think I've got the original somewhere.

If you do, I'd appreciate a copy/scan of the article. At your convenience...
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2007, 05:43:54 pm »
Quote
by the way had Russia plans for Submarine Aircraft Carriers ?
they had study 621 a Cargo Submarine...

I haven't found any equivalent to that AN US designs from the Soviet side. An excellent book to find all that designs is "Cold War Submarines"

http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Submarines-Construction-1945-2001/dp/1574885308/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0301693-1808060?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188607294&sr=1-1

The 621 (Illustrated on page 230) was not a cargo sub but an aircraft capable LST sub (3 La-5)

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2007, 01:36:09 pm »
New info about Soviet Project 621.

This week I'm at reading with The Kremlin's Nuclear Sword by Steven Zaloga

http://www.amazon.com/Kremlins-Nuclear-Sword-Strategic-1945-2000/dp/1588340074/ref=sr_1_1/104-6982050-1731157?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192912102&sr=1-1

On page 16-17 we can read that this subs where designed to "capture forward US air bases in remote locations and use it to launch Tu-4 attacks on the continental United States in the event of a war".

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1225
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2008, 07:13:55 am »
If anyone can find the old Eagle Book on Aircraft from the early 60s I am pretty sure they have a submarine aircraft carrier drawn in there, launching jets from its bows, torpedo fashion.

TV 21 the children's comic from 1964 has an excellent submarine carrier vertical launching its jets.

UK 75

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 927
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2008, 03:16:49 pm »
Unfortunately only got a 1955 copy of that Eagle book. Any chance of seeing that TV21 carrier - from Thunderbirds or Stingray strip?!?

Regards,
Barry
"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3369
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2008, 03:51:00 pm »
If anyone can find the old Eagle Book on Aircraft from the early 60s I am pretty sure they have a submarine aircraft carrier drawn in there, launching jets from its bows, torpedo fashion.

TV 21 the children's comic from 1964 has an excellent submarine carrier vertical launching its jets.

UK 75

Rick Random?

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2008, 07:50:39 am »
Boeing, 1958...

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1474
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2008, 07:54:50 am »
Somewhat it resembles a Typhoon-class submarine.

Why all these concepts of submarine-carrier has never come to life??
Too much expensive?
No mission?
Too complex by a technical point of view?

And what if in using VTOL?

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2008, 07:56:12 am »
First of several drawings. Drawing of *far* better quality, quantity and resolution will appear in a forthcoming issue of Aerospace Projects Review.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2008, 08:01:34 am »
An-2 with vertical silos.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2008, 08:05:11 am »
Too much expensive?
No mission?
Too complex by a technical point of view?


Yes to all.

Quote
And what if in using VTOL?

VTOL aircraft were the plan. With the AN-1/AN-2, "Flying Carpet" boosters were to be used for takeoff, and landing was to be accomplished as a "tailsitter," which would certainly be entertaining on the high seas.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2008, 08:08:17 am »
An F11F modified for VTOL flight and for launching from the USS Grayback submarine (not from the AN-1/-2 subs).
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2008, 08:09:39 am »
The Mach 3 plane designed for use on the AN-1/-2 subs.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10825
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2008, 10:32:25 am »
Interesting stuff, if a bit far fetched.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2008, 11:12:29 am »
The tailsitter landing - like the X-13 - was about the only part I'd consider far-fetched. Otherwise the concept wasn't much different from Regulus or ICBM storage aboard subs.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11101
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2008, 12:12:09 pm »
The X-13 wasn't quite a tail-sitter.  Snagging a cable is probably a bit easier than landing like the Convair/Lockheed tail-sitters. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2008, 12:29:39 pm »
The X-13 wasn't quite a tail-sitter.  Snagging a cable is probably a bit easier than landing like the Convair/Lockheed tail-sitters. 

The "flying carpet" aircraft for the AN-1/AN-2 worked the same. Still, it'd be a hair-raising operation.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

avatar

  • Guest
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2008, 03:10:02 pm »
tell that to the combat reform people , they are more gung ho about these types than the freakiest secret projects geek!

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4082
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2008, 12:14:17 pm »
Somewhat it resembles a Typhoon-class submarine.

Why all these concepts of submarine-carrier has never come to life??
Too much expensive?
No mission?
Too complex by a technical point of view?

And what if in using VTOL?

so fare i know Boeing give Production price for AN series so 1.5 to 2 time more then Polaris sub.
not include development cost for Sub and Aircraft Prototypes
an a Mach 3 VTOL launch from Sub has billions $ price tags.

Mission ?
Surprise attack raid or bombing (Marines, Navy, C.I.A.)
defence of Polars Sub for enemies force
nuclear counterstrike

technical point of view?
a nightmar for pilot and sub crew
surface sub, pull Jet out hangar, move them vertical and launch them FAST ( even on ruff sea)
return mission the Pilot hat to land vertical on Flightdeck and not fall in to sea
lower down, then get fast in Hangar and Dive Dive Dive

and now start the fun for maintenance crew
crawling in Hangars, check the Jets replace faulty parts, rearm and refuel the Jets...

a annular wing Jet like SNECMA Coléoptère make more sense in AN-2 sub
how ever to land a Tailsiter VTOL on moving deck is really hell on earth for Pilots

A Jet seaplane makes more sense here
had Convair ever prosed a Sub Aircraftcarry with F2Y Sea Dart ?

I love Strange Technology

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2092
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2008, 03:51:16 pm »
That has to be the most awesomely loopy idea I've seen in a while. Reminds me a bit of the steam-electric K-class, of which it was said simply: "Too many damn holes."

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 153
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2008, 05:30:28 pm »
Boeing, 1958...



How did this design happen? I thought they didn't HAVE crackpipes in 1958!

Seriously, I'd seen some of these but I'd always thought that their mission profile WAS that of a Regulus. That is, fly one way drop nuke and land or bail out over Turkey.

That recovery by the sub was considered is remarkable. I'm no airdale, but even a Brodie rig would seem preferable to tail sitting, and preferably something akin to skyhook, but then you'd need to be figuring on using a Kestrel which is a UK plane that hadn't flown yet.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2008, 05:41:54 pm »

That recovery by the sub was considered is remarkable. I'm no airdale, but even a Brodie rig would seem preferable to tail sitting...


Landing would have been accomplished used a setup similar to this:



Note that the landing rig shown here wasn't sloshing back and forth in the waves.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

avatar

  • Guest
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2008, 11:14:45 am »
does this submarine aircraft carrier become more feasible if we use unmanned aircraft?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11101
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #30 on: March 25, 2008, 11:22:16 am »
does this submarine aircraft carrier become more feasible if we use unmanned aircraft?

Apparently not.  DARPA cancelled the USN/LockMart effort to develope a UCAV that could be launched from SSGN tubes and recovered.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

avatar

  • Guest
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #31 on: March 25, 2008, 01:19:39 pm »
that whole cormorant type thingy?

Offline Charles Gray

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2008, 06:23:35 pm »
does this submarine aircraft carrier become more feasible if we use unmanned aircraft?

It depends on what you mean by "aircraft carrier"  Remember a major use for CVN's is sustained air support--and a sub just isn't going to be able to play in that arena. 
  If you mean "Carry a few UAV's to extend the subs sensor range and possibly provide an option to launch strikes on very high value targets..."  Then it becomes a little more viable, although we'd still have to ask if it would be worth the cost when compared to long range missiles launched from air/surface units.

avatar

  • Guest
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2008, 09:06:21 pm »
I think apart from those combat reform types and a few others nobody as of now is proposing a sub aircraft carrier that can replace the high volume operations of a CVN ... however as you said this might  be a good idea for select strikes .. given that the tactical ICBM idea will invite unnecessary repercussions from "near Peers" and a Stealthy UAV might just have more flexibility than a single use cruise missile.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2008, 09:27:12 pm »
I would expect that the mission of these SSVs would be to provide fighter support to the US Navy's then (1950s) planned nuclear strike force of Martin P6M Seamster seaplanes. The Seamaster force was planned to have a range of deployable basing options including surface ships and barges protected by the Convair Sea Dart and submarines. The later would provide FRAPs close to the Soviet Union but without a SSV would have no significant anti-air protection from Soviet counter-strikes.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

avatar

  • Guest
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2008, 10:10:28 pm »
given the range and capabilities of that 'patrol bomber" I doubt if  it would ever have been "forward deployed"

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1474
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #36 on: March 26, 2008, 02:44:37 am »
I remember, back to mid-80's, to have read something about a Submarine-CV obtained by modifing a SSBN (in which the ICBM area would be substitute with an hangar) coupled to "Skyhook" concept (so popular in the 80s).

In this way such ship could exploit a fleet of 4/6 Sea Harrier to achieve attack missions.

Anyone remember something more about it??

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4082
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #37 on: March 26, 2008, 02:58:27 am »
I love Strange Technology

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1474
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #38 on: March 26, 2008, 03:41:12 am »

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2008, 06:49:24 pm »
Extract from “Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines” by Norman Polmar and K.J. Moore (Potomac Books). Posted here for educational purposes. For more from this excellent book check out Google Books or buy a copy:

http://www.google.com/books?id=cP4KPxaB8DQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cold+War+Submarines&sig=Fp6wv15Sx0igtfdZHDWvp_3a3-w

Project Flying Carpet

Immediately after the war the U.S. Navy gave little thought to aircraft-carrying submarines (at the time designated SSV). A Submarine Officers Conference in 1946 noted, “No design studies should be made on this type of submarine at this time unless the Chief of Naval Operations believes that the need for such a type submarine may be required in the near future.”
The development of nuclear propulsion led to some interest in aircraft-carrying submarines by the Office of Naval Research (ONR). In response to an ONR solicitation, aircraft designer Ed Heinemann – he preferred to be called an innovator – developed a series of design sketches for a fighter aircraft that could be accommodated in the massive bow hangar of the Regulus missile submarine Halibut (SSGN 587), completed in 1960. Heinemann’ sketches for ONR indicated how a new-design aircraft or his versatile A4D Skyhawk could fit into the submarine’s hangar with minimum modification. The basic Halibut hangar was 80 feet (24.4 m) long. The new-design aircraft was Douglas model 640, a turbo-jet attack aircraft that would be catapult launched from the surfaced submarine, would come down at sea on its flying boat hull, and would be recovered aboard the submarine by a telescoping crane. Depending on modifications to the hangar, the aircraft’s wings, tail fin, or nose would fold for shipboard stowage.
The Navy did not pursue Heinemann’s proposals.
During this period there were several proposals for nuclear-propelled, aircraft-carrying submarines. The most ambitious proposal was sponsored by the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics, responsible for aircraft development. The extensive feasibility study of aircraft-carrying submarines – called Project Flying Carpet – was demonstrated by the Boeing Aircraft Company. The secret study employed the Thresher (SSN 593)-type S5W propulsion plant and, initially, hangar configuration and hull lines based on the Halibut design.
The near-term submarine carrier configuration – designated AN-1 – would carry eight high-performance aircraft in two large hangars built into the forward hull. The submarine would be some 500 feet (152.4 m) long and displace 9,260 tons on the surface, larger than any U.S. submarine then planned, including the Polaris 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 a large rocket booster would be used for launching from a “zero-length” catapult. The launchers would be elevated to the vertical (90°) to launch aircraft. The pilots would climb into the aircraft while they still were in the hangar, before being moved onto the launcher by an automated system.
The feasibility of stowing conventional aircraft in Regulus II missile hangars as well as submarine weight, stability, and equilibrium was conducted using the Grayback (SSG 574) with an F11F aircraft.
An improved, Mach 3 aircraft eventually was to replace the F11F, a Mach 1+ fighter. The later aircraft would be recovered through the use of an innovative hook-and-cable arresting system. In an emergency, an aircraft set down at sea could be brought back aboard the submarine by crane.
Stowage would be provided for aircraft fuel, weapons, and other stores for ten missions per aircraft, that is, a total of 80 missions per submarine. During the preliminary design process, it appeared feasible to increase the number of missions to at east 160 with only minor changes in the submarine design. The pressure hull would have three “sections” – hangar I, hangar II, and the after section, which contained control, crew, reactor, machinery, and related spaces. The after section would have six compartments.
The AN-2 variant aircraft-carrying submarine had similar hull lines to the AN-1. However, this variant would operate Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) aircraft, carried in eight vertical hangars built into the hull forward of the sail structure. Thus the below-deck configuration of the forward hull (hangars I and 11 in the AN-1) would differ considerably from the AN-1.
Noting that “Flight deck operations in the conventional meaning of the word do not exist,” the study indicated that four VTOL aircraft could be launched within five minutes of surfacing and eight aircraft in just over nine minutes. These times could be reduced substantially if the engine start and run-up time was accomplished by self-contained starters rather than using shipboard power. Under the most adverse operational launch sequence, the time to launch all eight aircraft was estimated to be 18 minutes. (Adverse sea conditions would be compensated for by moving 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 (based on 1958 estimates):
Nautilus (SSN 571) $75 million
Halibut (SSGN 597) $85 million
Polaris SSGN $100 million
AN-1 carrier $140-150 million
The aircraft-carrying submarine was not pursued. A number of reasons have been put forward: A questionable operational requirement for submarine-based aircraft, bureaucratic opposition from the Bureau of Ships to a ship concept developed by the Bureau of Aeronautics, and the shortage of submarine construction capability because the Navy was accelerating the construction of both torpedo-attack submarines and Polaris missile submarines.

U.S. Boeing AN-1

Displacement   9,260 tons (surface) 14,700 tons (submerged)
Length                498 ft 6 in (152.0 m)
Beam                44 ft 3 in (13.49 m)
Draft                23 ft 7 in (7.19 m)
Reactors                1 S5W
Turbines                2
Horsepower   15,000
Shafts                2
Speed submerged   16 knots
Torpedo tubes   4 533-mm bow, 2 533-mm stern
Aircraft                8
Complement   163 (includes 12 officer pilots and 2 flight officers)
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2008, 08:14:05 pm »
Extract from “Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines” by Norman Polmar and K.J. Moore (Potomac Books).

They had some odd errors:
1) The project was not called "Flying Carpet." The flying carpets were the turboject boosters to be used by the aircraft, not the subs themselves or the project as a whole.

2) The F11's were not meant for the AN-1, but instead for use on the USS Grayback submarine (a Regulus-launching sub). The AN-1 was designed for the VTOL aircraft, as seen in the drawings above.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11101
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2008, 08:22:19 pm »
that whole cormorant type thingy?


Yep.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 927
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #42 on: March 27, 2008, 01:53:44 pm »
Nuclear Regulus sub design - could this also be used for the F11's?

Regards,
Barry
"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"
« Reply #43 on: March 27, 2008, 02:39:43 pm »
Nuclear Regulus sub design - could this also be used for the F11's?

In principle, yes.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline macca

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 4
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2008, 12:18:51 pm »
Unfortunately only got a 1955 copy of that Eagle book. Any chance of seeing that TV21 carrier - from Thunderbirds or Stingray strip?!?

Regards,
Barry

http://www.grahambleathman.co.uk/images/subaircraftcarriermed.jpg

Cheers
Paul M

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7897
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2008, 12:32:06 pm »
My favourite scene from the TV-series UFO, late '60s, early '70s:

Everything we are looking for, a submarine aircraft carrier from
cold war times, just the enemy was different ... :D

But I never saw the fighter landing and coming back to its carrier   ???
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 927
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2008, 12:57:56 pm »
AH! U.F.O. a TV show that greatly influenced my taste in design and probably my favourite TV show ever... apart from Dr Hwo and Babylon 5. Not really a topic for discussion in this thread though... :-[

Regards,
Barry

"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4082
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2008, 01:44:33 pm »
ohh yes the good old times of
Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet..., UFO, Space 1999 and Dr. Who

back to UFO SkyDive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyDiver
they never explane how the Plane get back to Sub.

most of mecha design in UFO is by Derek Meddings



I love Strange Technology

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 927
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2008, 02:59:24 pm »
I think you're forgetting Mike Trim - he designed the Mobile, Moon Mobile, Moonbase, Seagull X-Ray, SID and an unused Interceptor design. Whereas Derek did Skydiver, Interceptor, Lunar-shuttle and carrier and the 6 wheel jeeps inherited from Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun.

Regards,
Barry

"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #49 on: June 28, 2008, 02:24:47 pm »
Ahem: Aerospace Projects Review has a 50+ page article on this concept... lots of detailed diagrams.

http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/ev1n6.htm
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4082
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #50 on: June 29, 2008, 01:41:49 am »
Ahem: Aerospace Projects Review has a 50+ page article on this concept... lots of detailed diagrams.

http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/ev1n6.htm

I have read now ev1n6
the article on US Submarine Aircraft Carriers is fantastic !

thanks Scott
I love Strange Technology

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #51 on: July 30, 2008, 08:43:46 am »
And concepts keep emerging (no pun intended, but,... oh well). In 1965 RAND Corp studied a couple of concepts for submersible aircraft strategic penetrators as one of possible alternatives to AMSA.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #52 on: July 30, 2008, 09:54:04 am »
And concepts keep emerging (no pun intended, but,... oh well). In 1965 RAND Corp studied a couple of concepts for submersible aircraft strategic penetrators as one of possible alternatives to AMSA.

I briefly considered adding those to the APR article... but the sketches are so rudimentary, and the descriptions so at odds with what's actually show, that I decided agaisnt it. As far as I coudl tell, the Rand studies were not based on any actual engineering.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #53 on: July 30, 2008, 09:59:34 am »
Yep, normally RAND didn't engineer, they used work from contractors. Don't know if there were actual contractors' work on the submersible strategic penetrator study.

Offline airman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1047
    • my blogs
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #54 on: July 30, 2008, 02:45:22 pm »
If you are passionate of anime, also in "Macross Zero" appears a submarine aircraft carrier, and probably the people of "Studio Nue" that make mecha for anime series, know many things about these thinks , including the "Cold war submarine aircraft carrier projects"  ;D
writers , bloggers , content-curators ,  music composer and passionate of militaria and uchronia

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 917
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #55 on: September 12, 2008, 02:41:03 am »
If you are passionate of anime, also in "Macross Zero" appears a submarine aircraft carrier, and probably the people of "Studio Nue" that make mecha for anime series, know many things about these thinks , including the "Cold war submarine aircraft carrier projects"  ;D

And also one in the "Full Metal Panic" animes.

Offline dy031101

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 7
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #56 on: September 13, 2008, 08:14:41 pm »
If you are passionate of anime, also in "Macross Zero" appears a submarine aircraft carrier, and probably the people of "Studio Nue" that make mecha for anime series, know many things about these thinks , including the "Cold war submarine aircraft carrier projects"  ;D

And also one in the "Full Metal Panic" animes.

In the so-called "Alternate History" anime "Konpeki no Kantai", Japan the Superhero Nation used three of an improved version of I-400 submarines to sink the Big E (with torpedoes) and destroy the Panama Canal (with attacker floatplanes).
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 08:32:10 am by dy031101 »

Offline moin1900

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 462
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2008, 09:00:34 am »
Submarine LST
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/soviets_giants.html  

Here a very very good preview of the book
"Cold War Submarines"
by Norman Polmar, Kenneth J. Moore
Please look here
http://books.google.com/

Many greetings
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 06:02:32 am by moin1900 »

Offline Weaver

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #58 on: June 13, 2009, 12:45:43 pm »
For all those frustrated Skydiver fans who wanted to know how it docked, someone did it for you.... ;D


Offline Just call me Ray

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 680
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #59 on: June 13, 2009, 12:56:50 pm »
...oh...kay...?
It's a crappy self-made pic of a Lockheed Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), BTW
Even Saddam realized the hazard of airplanes, and was discovered hiding in a bunker.
- Skydrol from Airliners.net

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 153
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #60 on: June 16, 2009, 05:15:28 pm »
Soon shall the middle kingdom be gleefully avoiding the trespass of the foreign devils whose vexation the wonderful weapon shall cause to be great.

http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/2009/06/chinese-navys-strategic-nuclear.html

Yes boys and girls, It's an aircraft carrying, submarine tending....boomer.

Of course, given how badly I tend to embarrass myself in Japanese ( and English for that matter)I should not make fun of bloggers grammar when he's posting in what to him is a very hard and alien language.....but the concept is a bit silly.

I should add that on the whole, that blog is actually interesting. 




Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #61 on: October 04, 2009, 08:53:59 am »
And it is the fake, or better to say what-if design of some internet enthusiasts.

http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/2009/06/user-originality-peoples-liberation.html

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #62 on: June 17, 2012, 06:45:08 am »
I'd like to suggest that this thread and the An1/AN2 Submarine Aircraft Carrier thread be merged.


topics merged
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 01:18:42 am by Jemiba »

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8038
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #64 on: January 24, 2017, 10:39:50 am »
Reminds me of these pre WW2 USN submarine designs where they stored the aircraft in a similar fashion:


Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2071
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2017, 11:35:37 am »
Probably more a Whiff than a real concept, but I still like this model. IRL it would be quite loud and heard by SOSUS just after leaving Poljarny.  ;) B) ;D
Quote from: arronlee33
Russia Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Submarine Model Unveiled [1080p]

Code: [Select]
https://youtu.be/ya8oHIeV50s
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1225
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #66 on: June 12, 2017, 03:08:21 am »
In one of the 1950s Eagle Books on either Ships or aircraft there was a small
black and white drawing of a nuclear submarine launching a Buccaneer style
aircraft from its bow doors.  Would love to find it. If I do I will come back.

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1225
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #67 on: June 12, 2017, 03:29:43 am »
Eagle Book of Ships and Boats 1959, but cannot find the pic.
have found some great art from the TV 21 world of 2066.
The Northrop F5 fighters are fun

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2868
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #68 on: June 12, 2017, 09:24:10 am »
Being straight out of the Stingray TV show, wouldn't these be better suited for the Theoretical & Speculative Forum or some such?  This is from the mind of Gerry Anderson and his crew, not actual aircraft designers or naval architects.

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1225
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #69 on: June 12, 2017, 11:46:04 am »
Tom S
So page 4:of this post is fine with you then?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2868
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #70 on: June 13, 2017, 06:30:04 am »
Tom S
So page 4:of this post is fine with you then?

Hoestly, no, it all seems very out of place in this thread.  But I'm not going on a crusade here, just gently suggesting we try to keep things on-topic a bit. 

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4082
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #71 on: June 13, 2017, 07:06:53 am »
Tom S
So page 4:of this post is fine with you then?

Hoestly, no, it all seems very out of place in this thread.  But I'm not going on a crusade here, just gently suggesting we try to keep things on-topic a bit.

i second that

i propose we keep them for moment here under term "In popular culture"
I love Strange Technology

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1225
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #72 on: June 13, 2017, 08:55:35 am »
Cannot really see the problem as none of these things ever
came close to being built. But if you want tighter threads
I would suggest you specify which Cold War projects you have
in mind eg U S Navy or Soviet Navy

Offline GWrecks

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Wingnut
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #73 on: July 24, 2018, 12:08:06 am »
I don't want to sound like an Aerospace Projects Review pirate and am only posting on a phone so getting my point across will be rather difficult but...does anyone know much about that really big submarine aircraft carrier with ~40 aircraft (I think?) posted there? Like, I guess the main thing I'm curious about is the displacement and other statistics. I can kinda get what's going on with that image and won't make a big fuss if I receive no other information.
↑↑↓↓LRLRBA

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 211
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #74 on: July 26, 2018, 03:48:36 pm »
I don't want to sound like an Aerospace Projects Review pirate and am only posting on a phone so getting my point across will be rather difficult but...does anyone know much about that really big submarine aircraft carrier with ~40 aircraft (I think?) posted there? Like, I guess the main thing I'm curious about is the displacement and other statistics. I can kinda get what's going on with that image and won't make a big fuss if I receive no other information.

Well, it would be big, very big.

Predicting displacement is kinda difficult tho. But according to Norman Friedmann 's "Hybrid Warship" book. It quotes old Royal Navy Study on harrier carrier. every harrier needs 2000 ton of displacement.  Assuming same figure for the aircraft. The hangar alone would equal to 80,000 metric tonne.   The submarine carrier itself Thus can easily displace over 100,000 metric tonne.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4082
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #75 on: July 26, 2018, 09:38:54 pm »
Those 2000 Ton displacement for each Harrier,
 
include the Hangar for the Harrier and its spare parts storage
also Tools and equipment needed for maintenance and Fuel & Ammunition for the Harrier mission
next to that, depending on Submarine design, comes per Harrier hangar one Airlock and its Hydraulic system
and launch system like sky crane, what add more to displacement mass.
I love Strange Technology

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #76 on: November 19, 2018, 07:50:30 am »
Finally, the Covert Shores article on AN-1. http://www.hisutton.com/USN_AN-1_Submarine_Aircraft_Carrier.html

COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2547
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #77 on: November 19, 2018, 10:05:14 am »
 :)

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 510
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #78 on: November 19, 2018, 10:29:05 am »
Finally, the Covert Shores article on AN-1. http://www.hisutton.com/USN_AN-1_Submarine_Aircraft_Carrier.html

Definite real aircraft project/ concept?
Hadn’t seen this in any source before (US Secret Project books, etc.) and I had thought (perhaps incorrectly) that submarine based manned aircraft were abandoned relatively early post war (prior to the Sea Dart but not entirely sure how the timelines match up).
If this isn’t the case would love to know more....

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #79 on: November 19, 2018, 01:56:48 pm »
Finally, the Covert Shores article on AN-1. http://www.hisutton.com/USN_AN-1_Submarine_Aircraft_Carrier.html

Definite real aircraft project/ concept?

Very much so, yes.

Quote
would love to know more....

Then boy are you in luck:

http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/ev1n6.htm

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 585
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #80 on: November 20, 2018, 03:15:29 am »
Not meaning to be rude, but, what on earth were they thinking/drinking/smoking/sniffing?  There is a pun/comic sketch in there somewhere...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11101
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #81 on: November 20, 2018, 05:08:49 am »
Not meaning to be rude, but, what on earth were they thinking/drinking/smoking/sniffing?  There is a pun/comic sketch in there somewhere...

Did you hear the one about the nuclear powered Mach 3 flying submarine. . .
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #82 on: November 20, 2018, 06:47:16 am »
Not as absurd as the various cargo submarine projects (Solid cargo if I remember) like XXL sized American projects or a Soviet/Russian Typhoon variant.

I even remember an artist drawing of a 1920's / 1930's italian Submarine- or semi-sumbersible Battleship! where only a minimal conning tower and the main turrets were above water!
Sadly I did not sacved that image and I've seen it like 10+ years ago!

DAMN!
I've actually found it!
https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/archive-gallery-world-war-i-and-iis-most-formidable-warships#page-7
https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2010/11/strange.jpg?itok=c4fcNKK3
« Last Edit: November 20, 2018, 06:53:05 am by Tzoli »

Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #83 on: November 20, 2018, 06:51:01 am »
Also this site might contain some projects:
http://www.combatreform.org/submarineaircraftcarriers.htm

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #84 on: November 20, 2018, 12:38:49 pm »
Not meaning to be rude, but, what on earth were they thinking/drinking/smoking/sniffing?  There is a pun/comic sketch in there somewhere...

Did you hear the one about the nuclear powered Mach 3 flying submarine. . .

You know, that does sound vaguely familiar...



http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=3368

Note: Mach *4* manned nuclear powered flying submarine from Convair.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11101
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #85 on: November 20, 2018, 01:57:59 pm »
Note: Mach *4* manned nuclear powered flying submarine from Convair.

Humble apologies.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2018, 02:06:29 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline dan_inbox

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 469
  • Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #86 on: November 20, 2018, 04:19:41 pm »
Finally, the Covert Shores article on AN-1. http://www.hisutton.com/USN_AN-1_Submarine_Aircraft_Carrier.html
Personally I would question the use of "aircraft carrier" for this submarine and all three previous ones.
In my book, an aircraft carrier is capable of launching and recovering her airplanes. It's the case for none of them.

As far as I'm concerned, the HMS M2, Surcouf and I-400 qualify only as "submarine seaplane tenders".

The AN-1 would be even less, as it cannot recover and refuel its fire-and-forget planes. BTW, are the pilots expected to eject above enemy territory ? or above ocean and be recovered by another sub?
Looks like a project suitable for the ethics of wartime IJN or Nazis with their disregard for the lives of their crews, dubious a for western navy.

(This being said, I understand the marketing appeal of "submarine aircraft carrier", which may well be greater than cold accuracy's  :D )

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #87 on: November 20, 2018, 11:10:40 pm »

The AN-1 would be even less, as it cannot recover and refuel its fire-and-forget planes.

Buh? Aircraft recovery was integral to the AN-1 design. As described a few years ago in this very thread, recovery was via the X-13 approach.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #88 on: November 20, 2018, 11:22:00 pm »
Talking of books, expect one on submarine aircraft carriers next year (not from me).  ;D
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline dan_inbox

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 469
  • Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #89 on: November 22, 2018, 08:07:00 pm »
Aircraft recovery was integral to the AN-1 design. As described a few years ago in this very thread, recovery was via the X-13 approach.
You're right, my bad. I completely missed that part in 2008. Thanks.

Still, the concept looks very hairy: the tail-sitter landings while on high seas as you noted, but also the survivability of the carrier sub during those recovery operations.
And the usefulness of launching only 8 sorties on a given day (unless the carrier remains basically surfaced most of the day) seems restricted to few scenarios.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #90 on: November 22, 2018, 10:53:34 pm »

Still, the concept looks very hairy:

Undoubtedly. Tailsitting landings, even X-13-style, always seemed pretty dubious at the best of times. Putting a computer system in charge of the operation undoubtedly would make it a whole lot easier, perhaps even mundane... but at the time the AN-1 was designed? During wind and choppy seas?



That's why I always like the General Dynamics submarine aircraft carrier more. Not only less nutty landing, but larger capacity.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1056
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #91 on: November 23, 2018, 02:38:49 am »
Its not a good Cold War project unless it has a touch of nuttiness about it.



Offline GWrecks

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Wingnut
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #92 on: November 26, 2018, 09:32:13 pm »
That's why I always like the General Dynamics submarine aircraft carrier more. Not only less nutty landing, but larger capacity.

Isn't that the one that has VTOL aircraft and an an actual flight deck?

I only saw very small pictures but it appeared to have some sort of aircraft equivalent to a VLS. Or am I interpreting it wrong?
↑↑↓↓LRLRBA

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7143
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #93 on: November 26, 2018, 11:41:30 pm »
That's why I always like the General Dynamics submarine aircraft carrier more. Not only less nutty landing, but larger capacity.

Isn't that the one that has VTOL aircraft and an an actual flight deck?

Yup:



Quote
I only saw very small pictures but it appeared to have some sort of aircraft equivalent to a VLS. Or am I interpreting it wrong?

The Boeing design packed aircraft into vertical silos, but the larger GD design kept them in a comfy horizontal hangar and raised them to the deck via an elevator.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #94 on: December 04, 2018, 01:23:27 am »
Does anybody know the armament configuration of Boeing's vtol fighter for the AN-1 and AN-2 designs? Or name or anything?

The placement of the canards seems to preclude most wing or flank mountings.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8038
  • The path not taken.
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #95 on: December 04, 2018, 05:49:01 am »
I think the NOTS Diamondback was one of the weapons proposed for it. A bit about the missile from the designation-systems.net Missile Scrapbook (drawing from same attached below):
Quote
The Diamondback air-to-air missile was studied by the Naval Ordnance Test Station from 1955 to 1958. It was designed as an infrared and passive-radar guided missile powered by a storable liquid-fueled dual-thrust rocket motor. Armament options included a continuous-rod high-explosive or a low-yield (0.75 kT) nuclear warhead. Performance specifications called for a cruise speed of Mach 3 at up to 24400 m (80000 ft), and maximum range for tail attacks was to be about 25-32 km (15-20 miles). The Diamondback project was terminated before any missiles were built.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8038
  • The path not taken.
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #96 on: December 04, 2018, 05:59:41 am »
It also occurs to me to wonder whether the ASM-N-8 Corvus was another weapon mooted, given that one of the roles of the subcarriers would have been to help supress enemy coastal defences to aid conventional or nuclear attacks.

EDIT: The NOTS Hopi may have been another possible weapon.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hopi.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_(missile)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2018, 06:12:00 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #97 on: December 04, 2018, 07:20:06 am »
Thx!

Where would it have carried it?
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8038
  • The path not taken.
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #98 on: December 05, 2018, 07:42:51 am »
I think it had a weapons bay, but I'm not sure of the details, sorry!
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8038
  • The path not taken.
Re: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.
« Reply #99 on: December 05, 2018, 10:05:58 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.