Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.

Not meaning to be rude, but, what on earth were they thinking/drinking/smoking/sniffing? There is a pun/comic sketch in there somewhere...
 
Foo Fighter said:
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. . .
 
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
 
Also this site might contain some projects:
http://www.combatreform.org/submarineaircraftcarriers.htm
 
sferrin said:
Foo Fighter said:
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...

Art-2-USBP21.jpg


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

Note: Mach *4* manned nuclear powered flying submarine from Convair.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Note: Mach *4* manned nuclear powered flying submarine from Convair.

Humble apologies.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    54 KB · Views: 399
covert_shores said:
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 )
 
Orionblamblam said:
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.
 
dan_inbox said:
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?

06f.jpg


That's why I always like the General Dynamics submarine aircraft carrier more. Not only less nutty landing, but larger capacity.
 
Its not a good Cold War project unless it has a touch of nuttiness about it.
 
Orionblamblam said:
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?
 
GWrecks said:
Orionblamblam said:
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:

v1n6ad2.gif


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.
 
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.
 
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):
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.
 

Attachments

  • diamondback.jpg
    diamondback.jpg
    11.8 KB · Views: 455
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)
 
I think it had a weapons bay, but I'm not sure of the details, sorry!
 

Attachments

  • SMACS5.jpg
    SMACS5.jpg
    73.7 KB · Views: 322
  • SMACS7.jpg
    SMACS7.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 326
Once you have Polaris and then Tomahawk available for tube launch the need for a strike aircraft launched from a submarine seems hard to justify. Cant really see why a submarine needs a fighter or ASW defence aircraft embarked.
 
Once you have Polaris and then Tomahawk available for tube launch the need for a strike aircraft launched from a submarine seems hard to justify. Cant really see why a submarine needs a fighter or ASW defence aircraft embarked.
I was just wondering, what exactly was the tactical benefit of this? Your first strike would be a surprise, but if its a high value target, you will have put air defence at the site. After the first strike, you just put a blob on the map, saying carrier.....

Cool as hell, but Cyprus, UK, etc are still unsinkable......
 
Dear Fluff,
Submersible aircraft carriers would be most valuable in the Arctic Ocean, where they could roam freely under the ice and only surface to launch or retrieve airplanes. Submarines are extremely difficult to detect under ice unless you have pre-laid underwater microphones to "listen."
 
Dear Fluff,
Submersible aircraft carriers would be most valuable in the Arctic Ocean, where they could roam freely under the ice and only surface to launch or retrieve airplanes. Submarines are extremely difficult to detect under ice unless you have pre-laid underwater microphones to "listen."
ok, thanks, I guess USA would have only had a couple then. Would presumably led to an underwater arms race, smaller, faster etc. to try and kill these big ole girls.....
 
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.

Are you thinking of the "Skyhook" concept tested by BAE during the 1980s?
They built a ground/shore test rig based upon a construction crane and snagged (launched and retrieved) a two-seater Harrier several times.
Production versions would be electronically stabilized to compensate for rolling, pitching and yawing ships' movement in rough seas. The Skyhook included a re-fueling nozzle to refuel while the Harrier hovered alongside the ship. Skyhook could also swing a Harrier inboard and lay it on a cradle full of fresh torpedoes, missiles, depth charges and external fuel tanks. Most deck-handling functions would be automated. The long term goal was to hang Skyhooks from frigates with flight deck barely big enough to launch ASW helicopters (e.g. Sikorsky Sea King).
 
I was just wondering, what exactly was the tactical benefit of this? Your first strike would be a surprise, but if its a high value target, you will have put air defence at the site. After the first strike, you just put a blob on the map, saying carrier.....

Well, it's not exactly that easy to find a carrier... especially the one that could dive.
 
Yes that is Skyhook, with a P.1216 it looks like. A similar image from another angle appears on the back cover.
I think this was an artist's speculative work for the cover. Although Treadwell covers Skyhook in the text, no submarine like is actually shown inside the book, but Hybrid Warships does contain a similar concept with a flat broad deck/hangar aft of the conning tower.
 
Desafortunadamente, solo obtuve una copia de 1955 de ese libro de Eagle. ¿Alguna posibilidad de ver ese portador de TV21, de Thunderbirds o Stingray strip?

Saludos,
Barry
I
Mi escena favorita de la serie de televisión UFO, finales de los 60, principios de los 70:
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxNHMz5lSTA

Todo lo que buscamos, un portaaviones submarino de
En tiempos de guerra fría, solo el enemigo era diferente ... :D

¿Pero nunca vi al caza aterrizar y regresar a su portaaviones?

¿This old fashioned vintage guy?
 

Attachments

  • gerry_andersons_ufo_skydiver_sheet_1_of_3_by_arthurtwosheds_d83iknl-fullview.jpg
    gerry_andersons_ufo_skydiver_sheet_1_of_3_by_arthurtwosheds_d83iknl-fullview.jpg
    94.7 KB · Views: 158
  • skydiverFrontRear.jpg
    skydiverFrontRear.jpg
    37.3 KB · Views: 139
  • skydiverTopLeft.jpg
    skydiverTopLeft.jpg
    102.2 KB · Views: 125
  • skyOneBottom.jpg
    skyOneBottom.jpg
    37.3 KB · Views: 119
  • skyOneTop.jpg
    skyOneTop.jpg
    40.8 KB · Views: 124
Found And Explained said:
This Aircraft Carrier Could Go Underwater... IMPOSSIBLE Submarine Aircraft Carrier - An 1 + An 2
The most video material provided again by the one and only Scott Lowther aka "Orionblamblam". :)
Edit:
IMHO I am not quite so pleased of the CGI aircraft models shown in this video. Some aircraft standing vertical on the submarine carrier look kitbashed to me. The front fuselages remind me of a F-104, a F-4 Phantom and of a Harrier. :confused: Just a minor critique.
Video:
View: https://youtu.be/y1DUxM-FtZ8

Code:
https://youtu.be/y1DUxM-FtZ8
 
Last edited:
Good Lord, Gerry Anderson's stuff was more realistic.
Gerry Anderson was a pro, making a living from his work rather than being employed to produce flights of fancy aimed at bamboozling politicians into parting with government funds.
Reminds me of a Ghostsbusters quote "You've never worked for private industry. They expect results.
 
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
arronlee33 said:
Russia Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Submarine Model Unveiled [1080p]
A very unrealistic design but a cool What-if nonetheless.
 
Found And Explained said:
This Aircraft Carrier Could Go Underwater... IMPOSSIBLE Submarine Aircraft Carrier - An 1 + An 2
The most video material provided again by the one and only Scott Lowther aka "Orionblamblam". :)
Edit:
IMHO I am not quite so pleased of the CGI aircraft models shown in this video. Some aircraft standing vertical on the submarine carrier look kitbashed to me. The front fuselages remind me of a F-104, a F-4 Phantom and of a Harrier. :confused: Just a minor critique.
Video:
View: https://youtu.be/y1DUxM-FtZ8

Code:
https://youtu.be/y1DUxM-FtZ8
Such a great channel.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom