I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
- Jul 19, 2016
- Reaction score
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. . .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...
You know, that does sound vaguely familiar...sferrin said:
Personally I would question the use of "aircraft carrier" for this submarine and all three previous ones.covert_shores said:Finally, the Covert Shores article on AN-1. http://www.hisutton.com/USN_AN-1_Submarine_Aircraft_Carrier.html
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.dan_inbox said:The AN-1 would be even less, as it cannot recover and refuel its fire-and-forget planes.
You're right, my bad. I completely missed that part in 2008. Thanks.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.
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?dan_inbox said:Still, the concept looks very hairy:
Isn't that the one that has VTOL aircraft and an an actual flight deck?Orionblamblam said:That's why I always like the General Dynamics submarine aircraft carrier more. Not only less nutty landing, but larger capacity.
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.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 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.
Grey Havoc said: