Submarine Landing Craft...

See mainly the Project 621. It is one of only four post WW2 submersible aircraft carriers that I found. Of course, I am writing about really considered proposals, not fictions in someone´s head.
 
There were parallel projects in the US. Friedman "US Submarines Design Evolution, post-war" has infos and a draft of 1958.
 
I know this is an old thread, and more about submarines that carry landing-craft, but some years ago (about 1991 IIRC) the Seaforth Group produced this brochure, from which I've enlarged the section about the S-60 submersible landing-craft. Quite how close to the shore it could get, and how long the inflatable pathway would have to be for a craft drawing 4m are not mentioned; I think they'd have done better carrying fewer personnel and more equipment, like 20 SBS with full kit, for insertion/recovery rather than attack.

Paul M
 

Attachments

  • seaforth-leaflet.JPG
    seaforth-leaflet.JPG
    109 KB · Views: 1,011
  • s.60.JPG
    s.60.JPG
    50 KB · Views: 907
macca said:
I know this is an old thread, and more about submarines that carry landing-craft, but some years ago (about 1991 IIRC) the Seaforth Group produced this brochure, from which I've enlarged the section about the S-60 submersible landing-craft. Quite how close to the shore it could get, and how long the inflatable pathway would have to be for a craft drawing 4m are not mentioned; I think they'd have done better carrying fewer personnel and more equipment, like 20 SBS with full kit, for insertion/recovery rather than attack.

Paul M
Click to expand...

Well Paul, I must admit, that's just one of the most useful designs I've ever seen!! But the big LPD in the background might reveal their presence... For a Over the Horizon assault these would surely be perfect!! Any chance you could scan in the brochure in a larger size, so it's readable? Thanks!!
 
I don't suppose it's worth mentioning the semi-submersible North Korean insertion craft the North Koreans (and Iranians) more than allegedly (if not absolutely certainly) have?
 
Some of that techniques should be adapted on the Advanced SEAL Delivery System. :)
 
The design above would be even more effective if made broader with a shallow draft and with the capacity to quietly change its buoyancy (such as inflatable bladders within the ballast tanks). Then it could head in to shore completly submerged but come to surface to cross sand bars and for the actual unloading of troops. The unloading hatch seem seems awfully likely to get swamped in the surf if the sub remains submerged.
 
Or it could go the way of those Russian tank designs: Use solid fuel rockets to push it up the beach... :eek:
(of course, it would give the location of the landing away)
 
fightingirish said:
Some of that techniques should be adapted on the Advanced SEAL Delivery System. :)
Click to expand...

Especially if it would be deployed from a Ohio class SSGN, or even an enitire new class of submarine landingboat.
 
That Seaforth brochure is A3 and my scanner is only A4, so I had to shrink it and stick it back together - here are the two halves in a bigger size.

The year must have been earlier than 1991, because Seaforth apparently went bust in 1987. I went to a few RN Equipment Exhibitions around that time, but can't remember at which one I scrounged the brochure.

I don't believe any of the subs in the brochure was built - I think Seaforth were trying to get into the sub market generally, because they advertised they were buying an obsolete Oberon-class for updating and sale.

That LPD in the background (either my Dad's old ship Fearless, recently scrapped, or Intrepid, being scrapped on Merseyside) couldn't have launched that submersible landing craft anyway, as it's about 3m draught and their docks could only take LCUs which drew 1.7m.......maybe it's acting as a diversion, or maybe that's the defender the SLC's are avoiding!

Paul M
 

Attachments

  • scan0008a.JPG
    scan0008a.JPG
    509.2 KB · Views: 740
  • scan0009a.JPG
    scan0009a.JPG
    532.6 KB · Views: 736
macca said:
That Seaforth brochure is A3 and my scanner is only A4, so I had to shrink it and stick it back together - here are the two halves in a bigger size.

The year must have been earlier than 1991, because Seaforth apparently went bust in 1987. I went to a few RN Equipment Exhibitions around that time, but can't remember at which one I scrounged the brochure.

I don't believe any of the subs in the brochure was built - I think Seaforth were trying to get into the sub market generally, because they advertised they were buying an obsolete Oberon-class for updating and sale.

That LPD in the background (either my Dad's old ship Fearless, recently scrapped, or Intrepid, being scrapped on Merseyside) couldn't have launched that submersible landing craft anyway, as it's about 3m draught and their docks could only take LCUs which drew 1.7m.......maybe it's acting as a diversion, or maybe that's the defender the SLC's are avoiding!

Paul M
Click to expand...

Thanks for the larger size!

As for the launching ship... You can actually see SLC's coming out of the LPD's well deck...

Quote from the borchure:

"Typical operational scenario for the
submersible, is deployment from the mother
vessel from a range of up to 30 miles from
the target area, the submersible navigates
sub-surface to the chosen delivery site."

Still, it's only for the borchure, wo we will forgive the technical problems with that... :D
 
I know it's an old thread but biefly posted about the Submersible landing craft on Covert Shores. This thread was an excellent source. Hopefully more info will ome to light, http://www.hisutton.com/Submersible%20Landing%20Craft.html
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom