Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.

Orionblamblam said:
Ahem: Aerospace Projects Review has a 50+ page article on this concept... lots of detailed diagrams.

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

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

thanks Scott
 
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.
 
Skybolt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Dynoman said:
A design study for Project HAZEL.

Interestingly a submarine launched version!

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3.pdf
Click to expand...
hesham said:
index.php


index.php
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
Finally, the Covert Shores article on AN-1. http://www.hisutton.com/USN_AN-1_Submarine_Aircraft_Carrier.html
 

Attachments

  • USN_AN-1_side.jpg
    USN_AN-1_side.jpg
    153.9 KB · Views: 670
  • USN_AN-1_fighter940.jpg
    USN_AN-1_fighter940.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 671
covert_shores said:
Finally, the Covert Shores article on AN-1. http://www.hisutton.com/USN_AN-1_Submarine_Aircraft_Carrier.html
Click to expand...

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....
 
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...
Click to expand...

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
 
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...
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

Humble apologies.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    54 KB · Views: 402
covert_shores said:
Finally, the Covert Shores article on AN-1. http://www.hisutton.com/USN_AN-1_Submarine_Aircraft_Carrier.html
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the one that has VTOL aircraft and an an actual flight deck?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • diamondback.jpg
    diamondback.jpg
    11.8 KB · Views: 459
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!
 
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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom