Register here

Author Topic: Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.  (Read 66030 times)

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7141
    • 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: 7141
    • 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.