Dipper - SSBN-launched aircraft

CJGibson

CJGibson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
26 May 2011
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
2,692
In Kew the other day, while looking at UK Defence Research Projects Committee papers on TSR.2, I snapped a page and sent it to TSRJoe. Joe noticed that there was an interesting project at the bottom of the page - Dipper, a 1963 US project for an aircraft to be launched from an SSBN.

Anyone know anything about this?

Chris

Dipper_SPF.png
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230618_133341_Microsoft 365 (Office).jpg
    Screenshot_20230618_133341_Microsoft 365 (Office).jpg
    229.1 KB · Views: 93
Last edited:
Complicated problem. The aircraft needs to be able to survive a sea pressure at launch depth, and I can't imagine going from 150ish feet deep straight to atmospheric pressure being good for a pilot.
 
why did you decide that they were gonna launch it from the depth (they did not)?
 

Attachments

  • CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-025.png
    CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-025.png
    80.3 KB · Views: 85
  • CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-023.png
    CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-023.png
    51.5 KB · Views: 60
  • CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-021.png
    CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-021.png
    52.5 KB · Views: 50
I doubt though that HASEL was related to DIPPER
 

Attachments

  • CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-019.png
    CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-019.png
    96 KB · Views: 49
  • CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-020.png
    CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-020.png
    148.5 KB · Views: 45
  • CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-021.png
    CIA-RDP89B00709R000400830001-3-021.png
    52.5 KB · Views: 56
In the early years of Polaris the submarines had to operate closer to the target than with the Polaris A3 acquired by the UK.
Regulus remained in service too during this period up until 1964.
Not sure though what an aircraft launched from a Polaris SSBN was supposed to do. It might be used to do recon like the proposed RS70 in a manned or unmanned version or deliver conventional weapons. Neither seem a.good use of the tube when land based aircraft could be bigger and carry better payloads.
 
20 minutes on the surface at a time when the Sovs had hardly any major surface ships or long range aircraft was reasonable but by 1964 the situation had changed.
 
uk 75 said:
20 minutes on the surface at a time when the Sovs had hardly any major surface ships or long range aircraft was reasonable but by 1964 the situation had changed.
Click to expand...
20 minutes on the surface, when all the high command were WW2 Veterans and used to being underwater in a minute or less. The Halibut had particularly enormous ballast tanks and very little reserve buoyancy, to try to get underwater faster after launching.
 
CJGibson said:
In Kew the other day, while looking at UK Defence Research Projects Committee papers on TSR.2, I snapped a page and sent it to TSRJoe. Joe noticed that there was an interesting project at the bottom of the page - Dipper, a 1963 US project for an aircraft to be launched from an SSBN.

Anyone know anything about this?

Chris
Click to expand...
Very interesting! The last aircraft-carrying submarine that the U.S. Navy entertained (ignoring UAVs) that I was aware of is an Electric Boat study from that same year. But that submarine was really a submersible aircraft carrier. Is there more information on the following page? Also, what is the location of this file in the archives?

Jacob
 
I seem to recall that Harpoon was developed to attack Soviet submarines (Golf-class?) on the surface during the missile launch period.

OR350 and OR357 were to be equipped with SLARs and IR systems to detect and locate such vessels. Once true SLBMs were developed there wasn't a great need for such kit.

Chris
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom