PDA

View Full Version : Submarine Aircraft Carriers?



lazarus
March 24th, 2013, 14:03
83527
83528
83529

Now I'm just getting silly. However. The question was asked, and it got me to thinking-always dangerous!- How in the heck would you pull that off?
Even a V/STOL submarine Carrier would be huge if it could carry a meaningful airgroup. Its no good to stuff a flight deck on a TYPHOON or OHIO.
Boeing studued the idea in the late 1950's and came up with the AN-501, a 650 ft Triton derived ship that carried 6 folded up F-111F's in individual pressure hulls, ZELL launched from the surface after a laborious extraction-erection-unfold cycle- with no way to recover the aircraft unless there was a conventional carrier handy-sort of negates the purpose. So, I started with a requirements definition.

Has to use exsisting and planned aircraft already in inventory. No X technology.
Must be able to recover aircraft.
Must have a meaningful airgroup. I'm using the 20-27 A/C size arrived at in the Sea control ship studies.
Must be able to launch aircraft with in a few minutes of surfacing.

I arrived at a multi pressure hull , double hull arrangement, 2 cylindrical pressure hulls side by side attop a larger pressure hull. The lower hull, or hulls if it is desirable to use several for whatever reason; houses engineering, operations, accomidation. The upper pair of pressure hulls are divided into 3 water tight compartments. Port side aft, Hanger space, midships is hange/handling room, which connect athwarts to the stbd side handling room. The Stbd side handling room has the deck elevator. Both handling rooms connect though pressure doors (big, yes. But think of a sphereical shut off valve, and you are on the right track...) to their respective aft hanger, athwarts through a connecting pressure hull, and forward to a launch chamber. Port and Stbd launch chambers have the cat, and space for one ready aircraft - or submersible, as the ship should be able to launch and recover air and submarine craft-behind pressure doors at both ends. The aircraft can then be made ready submerged, and launched as quickly as the ship can surface, open the forward doors, and start the aircraft. Recovery is by conventional axial deck and cables, single elvator stbd side, and a single cat port forward. Think of the British arrangement of Furious, Glorious and Courageous interwar. The Sail is large enough for its own pressure hulls for conning and Prifly, and to house deck junk, masts ect, and is set on the Stbd side. The hull form of such a ship is going to have to be of a type more suited to higher speed surface steaming than a full submerged submarine hull; as the ships purpose is to fly off aircraft, it must do so from the surface. Again, a Triton type hull rather than an Albacore type hull. Remember; Triton was designed to operate on the surface with a carrier group as a radar picket ship, and dive to get out of harms way.
Loads of problems with all of this. Such a submarine will be big- light carrier sized, and will be unweildy. The submarine hull will be very wet due to its hull shape and limited freeboard, and will not be as fast as a fleet carrier. The multiple pressure hulls will make the ship expensive to build, and are inefficient in use of hull volume. The double hull gives lot of volume for consumables, but make the boat prone to being noisy submerged due to flow noise from limber holes and vents required by such an arrangement. Last, the inherent difficulties of C3I with submarines. Submariners learned from the Kreigsmarine not to spend alot of time radiating in the EM-Uboats talked too much on the radio, and paid the price from HFDF location- ELINT, nowadays. It is also difficult to communicate with a submerged submarine. Only VLF and ULF can be received by a submerged boat, and the baud rate is very low, so messages tend to be short- eg: WW3 has started. Oh Crap!(EAM) or Hey Bozo! Surface for Message!- tacticaly worthless. Blue green laser has shown some promise as an alternative, but has not been oberationaly deployed beyond a few short range airborne mine hunting applications- MAGIC LANTERN, for instance.
For FSX purposes, these are doodles to wrap my head around the idea and size things out. I did not model the pressure hulls, only decks and casings, and a ramp instead of an elevator to access the hanger and forward launch lock, and kept it all basic. The USS Flying Fish is CATOBAR- has arresting wires, and a catapult on the flying deck and in the launch chamber.
The Soviet version is a S/TOVL ship. I used left over bits and bobs from other sub projects to keep it simple while I work out details. Both have pretty much identical hulls, just stylistic differences to look Soviet or American, in the classic cold-war-fab-50's style.

Have fun!

warchild
March 24th, 2013, 14:11
:::LOL:: Say hello to the WWII japanese I-400 class submersible aircraft carrier. The aircraft ( 1 ) lived in the "hangar" at the tail end of the catapult, and would be pulled out and have its wings rotated into place before launching..

83530

jetstreamsky
March 24th, 2013, 14:38
Intended to carry 2, but actually carried 3 aircraft in an extended hangar.

warchild
March 24th, 2013, 15:15
that is one big boat. But did it have a way to retrieve the aircraft after they landed???

jetstreamsky
March 24th, 2013, 15:36
Seiran aircraft could be catapulted with or without floats which were stored in water tight compartments and attached when needed.


there's plenty of good info at


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichi_M6A

jetstreamsky
March 24th, 2013, 15:41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarine-borne_aircraft

Interesting list of submarine borne aircraft, who knew?

jetstreamsky
March 24th, 2013, 15:45
Then of course there's the Skydiver from the UFO series and SeaQuest from Voyage Under The Sea :wiggle:

jetstreamsky
March 24th, 2013, 15:48
Perhaps if the idea had caught on, the Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 and the Convair F2Y Sea Dart could have evolved into sub compatible machines.

lazarus
March 24th, 2013, 17:58
Quite a few submarines were built to carry aircraft. The fly in the ointment being too few aircraft carried to be effective; long launch cycle leaves the boat vulnerable; and recovering along side-again the long recovery cycle leaves the boat exposed to attack, and is sea state dependent. In the case of the I-400's and the planned Panama Canal strike, the Serians were to be launched without their floats to extend range and warload, ditching along side if the pilots elected not to do the 'Cherry blossom falling down' thing.
The other down side with the idea of a SCVN is that an Aircraft carrier, like Battleships in the Dreadnought era, are mostly political weapons, deterring an agressor, or demonstraiting resolve by being prominently visible; a submarine's strength is uncertainty and invisibility. However; if the anti-ship ballistic missile can be made into an effective quick, accurate strike weapon (not a political weapon like the PLA's much touted DF-21C. The PLA simply does not have the C3I assets or technical ability to produce those assets-yet. But do not discount them lightly!) the CVBG is going to have to evolve to survive. It was an interesting thought exercise, though.

BTW, both I-400's are in the second sub pack, with hard decks for RCBO gauge equipped float planes. Here in the library.

heywooood
March 24th, 2013, 19:41
why would a submersible carrier need to carry manned aircraft?

you could carry a schload of UCAVs on a submarine built for that purpose - more than enough to effectively provide top cover - or conduct covert bombing runs..and recover them on a nice flat deck aft of the sail

warchild
March 25th, 2013, 04:02
Welll, that must be the questions the americans asked at the end of WWII. In 1947 they started using Gato class submarines to launch a series of missile tests using "loon" missiles, which were actually little more that updated buzz bombs..
83552

Sundog
March 25th, 2013, 15:44
why would a submersible carrier need to carry manned aircraft?

you could carry a schload of UCAVs on a submarine built for that purpose - more than enough to effectively provide top cover - or conduct covert bombing runs..and recover them on a nice flat deck aft of the sail

Lockheed Cormorant (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-lockheed-martin-swimming-cormorant-submarine-launched-uav-from-skunk-works-210750/)

Also, nice work on those hypothetical Submarine Carriers Lazarus. They look like fun to me. :)

seawing
March 30th, 2013, 08:38
Hi Lazarus,

I just tried out the USS Flying Fish - it's a great idea, I must say. I have some comments, though. It appears to be very small, even for a relatively small F-18. So, I think it would be more realistic to plan with STOVL aircraft and helicopters instead (like your Russian version). Would it be an idea to have a hydraulically extendable ski-jump - extending like a blast pad, only in several segments? Otherwise the catapults would need extension.
Also, the sail is very large (especially high). As the sub is already such a large vessel, I think it could do with a smaller sail that would not hinder flight operations. It should still render a quite unobstructed view around the ship.
I had the same bouncing problem here that I had on PoW as well. Might this be a problem with the deck's hard surface in FSX? I never had such problems on any other carrier so far.

Please keep it up - having a diving carrier is such an intriguing idea!

Seawing

lazarus
March 30th, 2013, 21:21
Yeah, Flying Fish is Independence sived- could be bigger, but I was trying to keep the size down to a realistic value. I can resize it-scale it up, which I think it needs anyways. The sail is sized so because of the requirement to house several pressure hulls for conning, prifly and deck clutter. Because aircraft would have to be under positive control on the boat at all times, I forsee the need for each aircraft to have its own dedicated handling mule- think of some of the stand in front helicopter mules you see around- so one needs a largish hanger for the deckapes. I am not finding that the deck is bumpier than others on my system. We shall see what the more developed iterations come out like. As indicated, these were doodles I hacked out of my file of sub bits rather than a finished (gaffaw!) offering.