The United States Navy's "Rock-Site" concept for underwater base

[Michel Van]

found this on conspiracy site so take the info with cautious

The United States Navy's "Rock-Site" concept calls for placing large, permanently manned installations deep beneath the bed of the ocean.
Such facilities could be tens or even hundreds of miles out to sea. Tunnels could be driven beneath the sea floor, extending hundreds of miles up and down the Atlantic, Pacific and/or Gulf of Mexico Coasts.
The tunnels could originate on land and extend out under the ocean for many, many miles.
Alternatively, a manned undersea base could be constructed beneath the sea floor with no connection with land whatsoever. The technology to do this has existed for decades.
The world's oceans and seas contain many potential "Rock-Site" locations. These sea mounts off the coasts of Iberia and Africa are strategically located near the busy sea lanes of the North Atlantic and the vital Strait of Gibraltar at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea. United States Navy, circa 1960s.

The Rock-Site Concept, by C.F. Austin. NOTS TP 4162. U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, California, October 1966

if this is a real proposal
Got someone more info about this program ?

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD0803366

http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD0830378

http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD0830816
http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD0859983

 

[Grey Havoc]

United States Navy interests over this period were driven by fears of
losing freedom of navigation rights along foreign coasts and the closure of
straits, if extended territorial seas became the norm. Offshore exploitation was
viewed by the Navy as a complicating nuisance in conducting anti-submarine
warfare (ASW) in time of national emergency, and in deploying new technology
hydrophone arrays (Project Caesar). In the 1960's, continental shelf deployment
considerations for deterrent systems (silo based Polaris missiles and a complete
undersea submarine base (Project Rocksite)) led the Navy's argument against
leasing of United States offshore areas. However, when the projects' costs were
determined to make the space program's budget seem like a drop in the proverbial
bucket, the Navy's objections were dropped. This opened the way for a clear
Department of Defense position, concurring with that of the State Department, in
favor of coastal state jurisdiction over expanded continental shelf areas.34



34. Ibid, pp. 66-71 passim. [Lawrence Juda, Ocean Space Rights (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975)]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a266645.pdf

 

[Michel Van]

big THx grey havoc for the info

 

[Rickshaw]

Would a "silo based Polaris" based on the ocean floor need any special strengthening to withstand the intense pressure down there when it was launched?

Also, wouldn't launching from a fixed base give away the base's position, thereby inviting retaliation?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Would a "silo based Polaris" based on the ocean floor need any special strengthening to withstand the intense pressure down there when it was launched?

Also, wouldn't launching from a fixed base give away the base's position, thereby inviting retaliation?

Some modification/customization would have been required (encapsulation is one possibility), but, from what is known, missile bases would have likely mostly been sited in relatively shallow waters such as the Continental Shelf. As for launches giving away their position, the bases would have probably been reserved for second strikes and follow-ups, not to mention tricky enough to retaliate against (or strike first!) with strategic systems such as ICBMs in the first place.

On the general concept of Rock-Site, here's a short online article from a few days ago: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2d6b26e2b3b5

 

[Grey Havoc]

Just came across a reference to Project TIDAL:

Project TIDAL--Sea-Launching Encapsulated Missiles as Advanced Sea-Based
Deterrent, Naval Missile Center, 18 November 1966.

The purpose of Project TIDAL was to demonstrate the feasibility
of encapsulating POLARIS missiles as an advanced sea-based
deterrent. A one-third scale POLARIS model was used to accomplish
the following objectives of the program: (1) Provide a capsule
that will protect the missile from pressures present at launch
depth; (2) Provide a method of separating the encapsulated missile
from its capsule; and (3) Provide a method of causing the encapsulated
missile to dwell or hover at a predetermined depth for
a predetermined time.

Static tests were conducted on land in a firing tank.

The method employed to encapsulate the missile is to house it
in a tubular pressure hull which has removable end covers. The
covers are ejected as the capsule is floating vertically at the
water's surface. Diaphragms under each cover continue to keep
the missile dry until the time of missile/capsule separation.
The method used to separate the missile from its capsule is to
launch it out of the capsule under its own thrust. The motor
exhausts into the water rupturing the bottom diaphragm, and the
top diaphragm is ruptured by the missile as it leaves the capsule.
A pneumatic buoyancy control mechanism attached to the bottom
cover is used as the method for causing the capsule to dwell about
a predetermined depth prior to raising it to the surface for
launch of the missile.

The conclusions were as follows: (1) Launching of a POLARIS A3
missile from a tubular capsule floating vertically in the water
(with a diaphragm at the top and bottom ends) appears to be
feasible; (2) Based on the design investigated, a dwell mechanism
is a feasible method of causing the capsule to dwell about a
predetermined depth; and (3) The base pressures expected at ignition
are less than 160 psi, which is approximately the pressure
the POLARIS A3 is designed to meet.

 

[Grey Havoc]

On a contemporary note: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-07/china-pushes-plan-for-oceanic-space-station-in-south-china-sea

Last nail in the coffin of the Seabed treaty, if one was needed.