Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,947
Reaction score
510
Wow,

Great info Ryan, thank you for posting.
 

masher47

Yesterdays dreams...
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
131
Reaction score
559
Convair released a movie that showed the F2Y being refueled and maintained in the well of a ship as shown above for the P6M
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636
Commencement Bay Class Conversion Seaplane Tender thread.
commencementbayseaplane-jpg.76079
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636
Some relevant posts from the 'BAE SYSTEMS Nimrod MRA.4' thread:
As it turned out only the RAF wanted such a fast ASW aircraft, everyone else went for props (Atlantique, Orion, Il38).
Not quite. The USN's Martin P6M Seamaster for example was killed off by the perceived need to pour money into covering rather large Polaris program cost overruns.
I think Seamaster was a nuclear highspeed bomber, not ASW. Admittedly the difference now is minimal, although I'd expect the 'backseaters' to have a view, as at least the seamaster gave everyone a bang seat.

Seamaster was nominally an offensive minelayer. The USN rationalized that as a "sea control" role, the idea being to mine Soviet naval bases and bottle up their subs and surface ships in the early stages of a conflict. But it was clearly designed around delivery of large nuclear weapons. The "minelaying" mission was pretty much a fig leaf to get around the directives limiting the USN to sea control, rather than strategic nuclear strike. It was never an ASW patrol aircraft.
While they did use the minelaying role to help obfuscate the Seamaster's nuclear strike role, the United States Navy treated the aircraft's mine warfare capabilities quite seriously as well. Memories were still fresh of the mauling the navy had received in the Korean War from sea mines, so being able to freely & rapidly deploy both conventional and atomic sea mines across whole theaters was rightly considered vital to help counter sortieing Eastern Block naval forces (including their own mine warfare forces!).

Fair point. They were also very aware of the analysis in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, which showed how effective mine warfare had been in crippling Japanese coastwise shipping.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
688

Attachments

  • Windtunnel model of Grumman Design 143 Bushfire AAM for Martin P6M SeaMaster.jpg
    Windtunnel model of Grumman Design 143 Bushfire AAM for Martin P6M SeaMaster.jpg
    148.3 KB · Views: 110

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636
I don't think there would have been enough deck space left with the conversion to operate them. Does make me wonder though if they considered a optional small detachment of VTOL fighters for more vulnerable operating areas. Imagine something like a couple of P.1154 supersonic VTOLs operating from her!

EDIT: Via Hushkit;
1627028333718.png
 
Last edited:

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
218
Reaction score
332
According to this apperantly Bruships also looked into a Submarine Tender for the Seaplane Striking force.

I found it here.

Anyone got anymore information on it?
 

Attachments

  • sea-plane-tender-submarine.jpg
    sea-plane-tender-submarine.jpg
    25.6 KB · Views: 94
Last edited:

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
338
Reaction score
235
Memories were still fresh of the mauling the navy had received in the Korean War from sea mines, so being able to freely & rapidly deploy both conventional and atomic sea mines across whole theaters was rightly considered vital to help counter sortieing Eastern Block naval forces (including their own mine warfare forces!).
"atomic sea mines"??
That seems like a bad idea for a whole bunch of reasons. Do you have evidence that they exist/existed in reality or as a serious proposal? I can almost see a rationale for the Soviets to think about such a weapon to deliver a knockout blow to a USN carrier, but what use would the US have for them?
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
218
Reaction score
332
Memories were still fresh of the mauling the navy had received in the Korean War from sea mines, so being able to freely & rapidly deploy both conventional and atomic sea mines across whole theaters was rightly considered vital to help counter sortieing Eastern Block naval forces (including their own mine warfare forces!).
"atomic sea mines"??
That seems like a bad idea for a whole bunch of reasons. Do you have evidence that they exist/existed in reality or as a serious proposal? I can almost see a rationale for the Soviets to think about such a weapon to deliver a knockout blow to a USN carrier, but what use would the US have for them?
The Baker shot of Operation Crossroads was a test of one such mine. With the idea behind them being that you only need a handful to lovk down an area, say a Strait.

With them being effective on both surface and subsurface threats.

The subsurface part was a biggy since beforehand you need hundards per kilometer to keep a sub out. But with nukes you only need one per 500 to few thousand meters depending on yield. Have the nuke in the center of a web of sensors? A sub will a bad time...
 

iverson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
537
Reaction score
461
Memories were still fresh of the mauling the navy had received in the Korean War from sea mines, so being able to freely & rapidly deploy both conventional and atomic sea mines across whole theaters was rightly considered vital to help counter sortieing Eastern Block naval forces (including their own mine warfare forces!).
"atomic sea mines"??
That seems like a bad idea for a whole bunch of reasons. Do you have evidence that they exist/existed in reality or as a serious proposal? I can almost see a rationale for the Soviets to think about such a weapon to deliver a knockout blow to a USN carrier, but what use would the US have for them?
The Baker shot of Operation Crossroads was a test of one such mine. With the idea behind them being that you only need a handful to lovk down an area, say a Strait.

With them being effective on both surface and subsurface threats.

The subsurface part was a biggy since beforehand you need hundards per kilometer to keep a sub out. But with nukes you only need one per 500 to few thousand meters depending on yield. Have the nuke in the center of a web of sensors? A sub will a bad time...
You also only needed to consider blocking a relatively small number of major fleet bases and connecting seaways if your enemy was expected to be the USSR.

Nuclear sea mines were undoubtedly a bad idea when you consider the ramifications. But, in the post-WW2 period, few did. Here in the US, we scared ourselves silly thinking about Red Menaces of one sort or another, and fear tends to make people ignore consequences in the rush to find security. A lot of terrible ideas were seriously considered and, in many cases, actually fielded.
 

RLBH

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
414
Reaction score
350
You also only needed to consider blocking a relatively small number of major fleet bases and connecting seaways if your enemy was expected to be the USSR.
The threat of nuclear mines was also one of the initial drivers for the development of minehunters in place of minesweepers. Clearing nuclear mines by sweeping means you very quickly run out of minesweepers. And possibly ports.
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
338
Reaction score
235
Memories were still fresh of the mauling the navy had received in the Korean War from sea mines, so being able to freely & rapidly deploy both conventional and atomic sea mines across whole theaters was rightly considered vital to help counter sortieing Eastern Block naval forces (including their own mine warfare forces!).
"atomic sea mines"??
That seems like a bad idea for a whole bunch of reasons. Do you have evidence that they exist/existed in reality or as a serious proposal? I can almost see a rationale for the Soviets to think about such a weapon to deliver a knockout blow to a USN carrier, but what use would the US have for them?
The Baker shot of Operation Crossroads was a test of one such mine. With the idea behind them being that you only need a handful to lovk down an area, say a Strait.

With them being effective on both surface and subsurface threats.

The subsurface part was a biggy since beforehand you need hundards per kilometer to keep a sub out. But with nukes you only need one per 500 to few thousand meters depending on yield. Have the nuke in the center of a web of sensors? A sub will a bad time...
So instead of a bunch of moderately costly but expendable mines, you use a bunch of less expensive sensors and one fabulously expensive atomic weapon that you can't afford to have fall into enemy hands. I can't think of anyway to link the sensors to the mine other than acoustically or via cable. The former would make it easy to detonate the mine (easy unless it's just offshore a city you're fond of) once the first sensor is examined. The latter would make it easy to locate the mine once the first sensor is found.
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636
The former would make it easy to detonate the mine (easy unless it's just offshore a city you're fond of) once the first sensor is examined. The latter would make it easy to locate the mine once the first sensor is found.
Not necessarily. There are a fair number of ways to rig a sensor network's topology to make an opponents life quite miserable for example, and that is even before you get to things like active booby-traps.
 

iverson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
537
Reaction score
461
<snip>
So instead of a bunch of moderately costly but expendable mines, you use a bunch of less expensive sensors and one fabulously expensive atomic weapon that you can't afford to have fall into enemy hands. I can't think of anyway to link the sensors to the mine other than acoustically or via cable. The former would make it easy to detonate the mine (easy unless it's just offshore a city you're fond of) once the first sensor is examined. The latter would make it easy to locate the mine once the first sensor is found.
I'm not sure that the the nuclear mine would be more costly. Tactical nuclear weapons were frequently justified on cost. We tend to underestimate just how expensive even relatively unsophisticated conventional munitions can be. The nuclear mine could combine the same or a even a less advanced sensor package as that in the conventional weapon with a vastly more effective explosive charge and thus achieve a higher kill probability per mine. Hence fewer mines required to deter an opposing fleet.

Historically, mines are mainly an area-denial weapon: the enemy knows that they are there, and the knowledge constrains its actions. I suspect that nuclear mining efforts would have been targeted mainly at choke points that Soviet submarines would have to transit when leaving their bases in war time. Deployment delays due to uncertainty and precautionary mine hunting at the start of a war would presumably give NATO time to concentrate its ASW ships, planes, and submarines to thwart a large-scale breakout by the Soviet submarine fleet.
 
Top