Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.

uk 75 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
riggerrob said:
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."
Click to expand...
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.....
 
Michel Van said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Fluff said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Well, it's not exactly that easy to find a carrier... especially the one that could dive.
 
riggerrob said:
Are you thinking of the "Skyhook" concept tested by BAE during the 1980s?
Click to expand...

if that is the system the Illustration is showing ?
177480-758272f65789c74c64376ba5ae8bacdb.jpg
 
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.
 
Found And Explained said:
This Aircraft Carrier Could Go Underwater... IMPOSSIBLE Submarine Aircraft Carrier - An 1 + An 2
Click to expand...
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:
fightingirish said:
Found And Explained said:
This Aircraft Carrier Could Go Underwater... IMPOSSIBLE Submarine Aircraft Carrier - An 1 + An 2
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
Such a great channel.
 
I've found that on wiki :
A more economical plan was also conceived to convert World War II fleet submarines to carry a seaplane version of the A4D Skyhawk in a similar manner to the Regulus missile-equipped SSGs, using hydro-skis for takeoff as the Sea Dart did.
Click to expand...
With this source : Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute.
en.m.wikipedia.org

Submarine aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Does anyone know more about this ?
 
F.L. said:
I've found that on wiki :

With this source : Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute.
en.m.wikipedia.org

Submarine aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Does anyone know more about this ?
Click to expand...
First I've heard of it.

I can't imagine why you'd want a Skyhawk or a Sea Dart on a sub instead of Regulus/Regulus II. You're not packing any more aircraft into the hull by using a Skyhawk, and the Regulus has longer range.
 
Scott Kenny said:
First I've heard of it.

I can't imagine why you'd want a Skyhawk or a Sea Dart on a sub instead of Regulus/Regulus II. You're not packing any more aircraft into the hull by using a Skyhawk, and the Regulus has longer range.
Click to expand...
Also, recovering anything but the Sea Dart is going to be sketchy.

So if you can't recover the plane, it's only carrying one nuke, and Regulus II is faster and longer ranged; why are we trying to use a manned aircraft?
 
Scott Kenny said:
So if you can't recover the plane, it's only carrying one nuke, and Regulus II is faster and longer ranged; why are we trying to use a manned aircraft?
Click to expand...
You can at least recover the pilot, who presumably offers some advantage over a big box of electronics. Which, depending on the date and your cynicism, is either greater accuracy, or greater potential to win medals.
 
TITLE:
OCEAN ENGINEERING
Ocean Technology Department
NUC TP 278

NAVAL UNDERSEA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, SAN DIEGO

DATE: JANUARY 1972

Page: 22
- UNDERWATER HELICOPTER CARRIER WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE HULL (MODEL)
Page: 24
- UNDERWATER AIRCRAFT CARRIER (CONCEPT DRAWING)
- MOBILE UNDERWATER SUBMARINE DRYDOCK (CONCEPT DRAWING)

 
In Jay Miller's X-planes book the X-13 story begins by a 1946 meeting between Claude Ryan and R-ADM Stevens in which are evoked three options : an evolution of the XF5U (that I see well...especially as I never understood why the XF5U could not over when the V-173 could...), a pure-jet VTOL (this led to the X-13...) and a convertiplane with stowable rotor... and that's the one I wonder if someone had any conception of what the R-ADM had in mind ????

PS : just ordered Jacob Gunnarson and Norman Polmar book!!!
 
JC Carbonel said:
PS : just ordered Jacob Gunnarson and Norman Polmar book!!!
Click to expand...
I hope you like it! Your article on the French Navy's use of the Focke-Achgelis Fa 330 and the book you collaborated on with Steve Coates were excellent references that I cited in the chapter on German submarine-launched helicopters/autogyros.
 
I know this is an ancient post.
archipeppe said:
Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

Somewhat it resembles a Typhoon-class submarine.

Why all these concepts of submarine-carrier has never come to life??
Too much expensive?
No mission?
Too complex by a technical point of view?
Click to expand...
Expensive, mission is questionable (even in the 1950s, you had Regulus 1 and 2 available to do a nuclear strike), and they would be painfully complex to make work operationally.

And of course, the primary thing is that the USN was full of submarine officers that had seen combat in WW2 and had been tracked from the air. They would be standing there saying "I have to be on the surface for HOW LONG when launching planes?!?"



uk 75 said:
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.
Click to expand...
IMO the more reasonable mission was Cormorant, which was primarily ISR and comms relay between Special Ops troops and the submarine with a backup strike ability.
 
JC Carbonel said:
In Jay Miller's X-planes book the X-13 story begins by a 1946 meeting between Claude Ryan and R-ADM Stevens in which are evoked three options : an evolution of the XF5U
Click to expand...
Any more info on the submarine-launched XF5U ?

Ryan Model 38 VTOL - 1947 https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ryan-x-13-vtol.5067/post-157495
Ryan Model 38, 84, 112, 115: VATOL Fighters for the USAF and USN https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...15-vatol-fighters-for-the-usaf-and-usn.11601/
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom