• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
789
Reaction score
48
Not meaning to be rude, but, what on earth were they thinking/drinking/smoking/sniffing? There is a pun/comic sketch in there somewhere...
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
199
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. . .
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
627
Reaction score
69
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
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
627
Reaction score
69
Also this site might contain some projects:
http://www.combatreform.org/submarineaircraftcarriers.htm
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,310
Reaction score
177
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
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...



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

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

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
199
Orionblamblam said:
Note: Mach *4* manned nuclear powered flying submarine from Convair.
Humble apologies.
 

Attachments

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
558
Reaction score
52
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,310
Reaction score
177
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
dan_inbox said:
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.
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
558
Reaction score
52
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.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,310
Reaction score
177
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
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?



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

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
114
Its not a good Cold War project unless it has a touch of nuttiness about it.
 

GWrecks

Big Wingy Thingy
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
77
Reaction score
1
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?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,310
Reaction score
177
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
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:



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.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
670
Reaction score
7
Website
www.hisutton.com
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.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,959
Reaction score
169
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

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,959
Reaction score
169
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)
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,959
Reaction score
169
I think it had a weapons bay, but I'm not sure of the details, sorry!
 
Top