- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 3,739
- Reaction score
- 2,709
Not meaning to be rude, but, what on earth were they thinking/drinking/smoking/sniffing? There is a pun/comic sketch in there somewhere...
Foo Fighter said:Not meaning to be rude, but, what on earth were they thinking/drinking/smoking/sniffing? There is a pun/comic sketch in there somewhere...
sferrin said:Foo Fighter said:Not meaning to be rude, but, what on earth were they thinking/drinking/smoking/sniffing? There is a pun/comic sketch in there somewhere...
Did you hear the one about the nuclear powered Mach 3 flying submarine. . .
Orionblamblam said:Note: Mach *4* manned nuclear powered flying submarine from Convair.
Personally I would question the use of "aircraft carrier" for this submarine and all three previous ones.covert_shores said:Finally, the Covert Shores article on AN-1. http://www.hisutton.com/USN_AN-1_Submarine_Aircraft_Carrier.html
dan_inbox said:The AN-1 would be even less, as it cannot recover and refuel its fire-and-forget planes.
You're right, my bad. I completely missed that part in 2008. Thanks.Orionblamblam said:Aircraft recovery was integral to the AN-1 design. As described a few years ago in this very thread, recovery was via the X-13 approach.
dan_inbox said:Still, the concept looks very hairy:
Orionblamblam said:That's why I always like the General Dynamics submarine aircraft carrier more. Not only less nutty landing, but larger capacity.
GWrecks said:Orionblamblam said:That's why I always like the General Dynamics submarine aircraft carrier more. Not only less nutty landing, but larger capacity.
Isn't that the one that has VTOL aircraft and an an actual flight deck?
I only saw very small pictures but it appeared to have some sort of aircraft equivalent to a VLS. Or am I interpreting it wrong?
The Diamondback air-to-air missile was studied by the Naval Ordnance Test Station from 1955 to 1958. It was designed as an infrared and passive-radar guided missile powered by a storable liquid-fueled dual-thrust rocket motor. Armament options included a continuous-rod high-explosive or a low-yield (0.75 kT) nuclear warhead. Performance specifications called for a cruise speed of Mach 3 at up to 24400 m (80000 ft), and maximum range for tail attacks was to be about 25-32 km (15-20 miles). The Diamondback project was terminated before any missiles were built.
Grey Havoc 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.....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.
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.....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."
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.
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.....
Are you thinking of the "Skyhook" concept tested by BAE during the 1980s?
IDesafortunadamente, solo obtuve una copia de 1955 de ese libro de Eagle. ¿Alguna posibilidad de ver ese portador de TV21, de Thunderbirds o Stingray strip?
Saludos,
Barry
Mi escena favorita de la serie de televisión UFO, finales de los 60, principios de los 70:
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxNHMz5lSTA
Todo lo que buscamos, un portaaviones submarino de
En tiempos de guerra fría, solo el enemigo era diferente ...
¿Pero nunca vi al caza aterrizar y regresar a su portaaviones?
The most video material provided again by the one and only Scott Lowther aka "Orionblamblam".Found And Explained said:This Aircraft Carrier Could Go Underwater... IMPOSSIBLE Submarine Aircraft Carrier - An 1 + An 2
https://youtu.be/y1DUxM-FtZ8
Gerry Anderson was a pro, making a living from his work rather than being employed to produce flights of fancy aimed at bamboozling politicians into parting with government funds.Good Lord, Gerry Anderson's stuff was more realistic.
Reminds me of a Ghostsbusters quote "You've never worked for private industry. They expect results.Gerry Anderson was a pro, making a living from his work rather than being employed to produce flights of fancy aimed at bamboozling politicians into parting with government funds.Good Lord, Gerry Anderson's stuff was more realistic.
A very unrealistic design but a cool What-if nonetheless.Probably more a Whiff than a real concept, but I still like this model. IRL it would be quite loud and heard by SOSUS just after leaving Poljarny. B) ;D
arronlee33 said:Russia Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Submarine Model Unveiled [1080p]
Such a great channel.The most video material provided again by the one and only Scott Lowther aka "Orionblamblam".Found And Explained said:This Aircraft Carrier Could Go Underwater... IMPOSSIBLE Submarine Aircraft Carrier - An 1 + An 2
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. Just a minor critique.
Video:
View: https://youtu.be/y1DUxM-FtZ8
Code:https://youtu.be/y1DUxM-FtZ8