Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.

I found this Data on www.combatreform2.com
"Aircraft and Amphibious carriers must submerge to avoid SSC destruction"

1953 RAND corporation make Top secret Study for USAF
"Using the submarine-launched or low-altitude Tu-4 [land-based bomber] surprise attack, the enemy can destroy
a major part of SAC potential at relatively small cost in A-bombs and aircraft.
With no more than 50 aircraft and bombs, two-thirds or more of SAC bomber and reconnaissance aircraft could be destroyed."

Putting a Aircraft in Tincan or Model 640 by Heinemann

Edward H.Heinemann must have read that RAND study.
he began to make Design sketches for Figher aircraft fore submarine USS Halilbut.

USS Halibut had hangar for Regulus II missiles
Heinemann propose a turbojet attack aircraft with a flying boat hull. later called Douglas model 640
to fit in Regulus II Hangar, aircraft's wings, tail fin, or nose section would be fold
launch by JATO rocket, land on see. be pull aboard the submarine by a telescoping crane.

unknown project for Illustation

I think Heinemann Obsession for Small Lightweight Fighter like A-4 Skyhawk Start with Model 640 ;D
more on A-4 Rival
The Navy did not pursue Heinemann's proposals

USS Grayback SSG-574
in magazine "Mechanic's Illustrated" show this speculative Picture of USS Grayback

the Aircraft are Convair SeaDart, Wat would make a some Sense for a Submarine Aircraft Carriers

Flying Carpet

The Navy's aircraft development office the Bureau of Aeronautics the most ambitious one,
called Project Flying Carpet The Boeing study: AN-1 AN-2 Design

See Picture an1drawing.jpg

AN-1 is a The nuclear-propelled submarine of 500 feet (152,4 meter)long, dispalace 9260 tons and
Carry eight Grumman F11F Tiger Aircraft in tow large Hangars the Tiger are Launch by Rocket booster (ZELL)
The catapult would be elevated to the vertical (90 degrees) to launch aircraft.
The pilot would climb into the aircraft while it was still in the hangar,
then an automated system would move the aircraft onto the catapult.

More on Grumman F11F Tiger here
More on Grumman F11F Tiger here

The aeronautics bureau conducted a feasibility study to investigate the submarine weight, stability, and
equilibrium using an F11F conventional aircraft stowed in the Regulus missile hangar of USS Grayback!
The plan was, eventually, to replace the Mach 1+ F11F fighter with a Mach 3 aircraft.

The aircraft would land aboard the submarine through the use of an innovative hook-and-cable arresting system.
An aircraft that had to set down at sea could be brought back aboard the submarine by crane.

unknown project for Illustation

the study want replace later the Mach 1+ F11F fighter with a Mach 3 Fighter aircraft.

the study calculated that the AN-1 submarine would cost 1.5 as much as a Polaris missile submarine.

see picture aan2drawingcu.gif
AN-2 a aircraft-carrying submarine with similar hull lines to the AN-1, but the AN-2 would operate VTOL tailsiters!

"The Boeing study noted that "flight deck operations in the conventional meaning of the word do not exist." It
estimated a ground crew could launch four VTOL aircraft within 5.5 minutes of surfacing and eight aircraft in just
over nine minutes. If the aircraft engine start used self-contained starters rather than shipboard power, those
times could be cut. The study further concluded that, under even the most adverse sea conditions, the time to
launch all eight aircraft would be 18 minutes. To compensate for the adverse conditions, the ground crew would
move the aircraft, via deck tracks, to the amidship launchers closest to the ship's center of buoyancy."


1963 plans for US Submarine Aircraft Carriers with 20-30 STOL Aircraft AND 27 IRBM !
size of 40 feed (12,192 meter) high 300 feet (91,44 meter) long, 80 feet (24,384) wide and 12000 tons displacement.
feature Retractable Conning Tower, tow Aircraft Catapults. Submarine Power by tow nuclear Reactor.
see Picture ssncvPROCEEDINGS1963.gif

but the Navy's show a ultimate lack of interest in aircraft-carrying subs.

found in Internet
Called Submarine Aircraft Carriers J-10
I have NO Idea is this a Project or only SF-Fan Art ???
see Picture J10

I think the makers of the anime "Macross Zero" must have stumbled across the same concept. Amongst all the other 21st century nonsense there's a fighter-launching sub an awful lot like one of these. :

Thanks for the information. I saw the first picture on another forum but have never seen the others.

The "unknown project for Illustation" reminds me very much on a HS P.1216
and a sky hook . ??? Such a combination could make at least some sense,
I think.

Michel Van said:

1963 plans for US Submarine Aircraft Carriers with 20-30 STOL Aircraft AND 27 IRBM !
size of 40 feed (12,192 meter) high 300 feet (91,44 meter) long, 80 feet (24,384) wide and 12000 tons displacement.
feature Retractable Conning Tower, tow Aircraft Catapults. Submarine Power by tow nuclear Reactor.
see Picture ssncvPROCEEDINGS1963.gif

Click to expand...

Do you have more information on this... such as where the drawing came from?

It's from an issue of USNI Proceedings. I think I've got the original somewhere.

The "unknown project for Illustation" reminds me very much on a HS P.1216

Click to expand...

It is, IIRC. That is the cover from "Strike from Beneath the Sea", but it only gets a small caption on the inside cover.

RP1

form orginal text http://www.combatreform2.com/submarineaircraftcarriers.htm
"Drawing from the September 1983 Proceedings, "Sink the Navy" by Captain Charles C. Pease, U.S. Navy who in
the 1963 Proceedings published a proposal for a submarine aircraft carrier, complete with catapults and arresting
gears (15). Now that V/STOL technology is beginning to mature, the submersible aircraft carrier may be more
feasible than she was 20 years ago. The first step toward a "sinkable" carrier might be a helicopter hangar
installed in a submersible fleet auxiliary."

Clark C. Abt, "The Submarine-Aircraft Carrier," Proceedings, October 1963, pp. 149-153.

The "unknown project for Illustation" reminds me very much on a HS P.1216

Click to expand...

sounds british ...
by the way had Russia plans for Submarine Aircraft Carriers ?
they had study 621 a Cargo Submarine...

And on the end paper of :'Submarines with wings' Terry C Treadwell-Conway Maritime.1985
Back paper reads:..The latest idea's from British Aerospace showing the Skyhook recovering
and launching two rather futuristic Sea Harriers from a nuclear submarine..

RP1 said:

It's from an issue of USNI Proceedings. I think I've got the original somewhere.

Click to expand...

If you do, I'd appreciate a copy/scan of the article. At your convenience...

by the way had Russia plans for Submarine Aircraft Carriers ?
they had study 621 a Cargo Submarine...

Click to expand...

I haven't found any equivalent to that AN US designs from the Soviet side. An excellent book to find all that designs is "Cold War Submarines"


The 621 (Illustrated on page 230) was not a cargo sub but an aircraft capable LST sub (3 La-5)

New info about Soviet Project 621.

This week I'm at reading with The Kremlin's Nuclear Sword by Steven Zaloga


On page 16-17 we can read that this subs where designed to "capture forward US air bases in remote locations and use it to launch Tu-4 attacks on the continental United States in the event of a war".

AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

Boeing, 1958...

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

Somewhat it resembles a Typhoon-class submarine.

Why all these concepts of submarine-carrier has never come to life??
Too much expensive?
No mission?
Too complex by a technical point of view?

And what if in using VTOL?

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

First of several drawings. Drawing of *far* better quality, quantity and resolution will appear in a forthcoming issue of Aerospace Projects Review.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

An-2 with vertical silos.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

archipeppe said:

Too much expensive?
No mission?
Too complex by a technical point of view?

Click to expand...

Yes to all.

And what if in using VTOL?

Click to expand...

VTOL aircraft were the plan. With the AN-1/AN-2, "Flying Carpet" boosters were to be used for takeoff, and landing was to be accomplished as a "tailsitter," which would certainly be entertaining on the high seas.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

An F11F modified for VTOL flight and for launching from the USS Grayback submarine (not from the AN-1/-2 subs).

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

The Mach 3 plane designed for use on the AN-1/-2 subs.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

Interesting stuff, if a bit far fetched.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

The tailsitter landing - like the X-13 - was about the only part I'd consider far-fetched. Otherwise the concept wasn't much different from Regulus or ICBM storage aboard subs.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

The X-13 wasn't quite a tail-sitter. Snagging a cable is probably a bit easier than landing like the Convair/Lockheed tail-sitters.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

sferrin said:

The X-13 wasn't quite a tail-sitter. Snagging a cable is probably a bit easier than landing like the Convair/Lockheed tail-sitters.

Click to expand...

The "flying carpet" aircraft for the AN-1/AN-2 worked the same. Still, it'd be a hair-raising operation.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

tell that to the combat reform people , they are more gung ho about these types than the freakiest secret projects geek!

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

archipeppe said:

Somewhat it resembles a Typhoon-class submarine.

Why all these concepts of submarine-carrier has never come to life??
Too much expensive?
No mission?
Too complex by a technical point of view?

And what if in using VTOL?

Click to expand...

so fare i know Boeing give Production price for AN series so 1.5 to 2 time more then Polaris sub.
not include development cost for Sub and Aircraft Prototypes
an a Mach 3 VTOL launch from Sub has billions $ price tags.

Mission ?
Surprise attack raid or bombing (Marines, Navy, C.I.A.)
defence of Polars Sub for enemies force
nuclear counterstrike

technical point of view?
a nightmar for pilot and sub crew
surface sub, pull Jet out hangar, move them vertical and launch them FAST ( even on ruff sea)
return mission the Pilot hat to land vertical on Flightdeck and not fall in to sea
lower down, then get fast in Hangar and Dive Dive Dive

and now start the fun for maintenance crew
crawling in Hangars, check the Jets replace faulty parts, rearm and refuel the Jets...

a annular wing Jet like SNECMA Coléoptère make more sense in AN-2 sub
how ever to land a Tailsiter VTOL on moving deck is really hell on earth for Pilots

A Jet seaplane makes more sense here
had Convair ever prosed a Sub Aircraft carry with F2Y Sea Dart ?

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

That has to be the most awesomely loopy idea I've seen in a while. Reminds me a bit of the steam-electric K-class, of which it was said simply: "Too many damn holes."

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

Orionblamblam said:

Boeing, 1958...

Click to expand...

How did this design happen? I thought they didn't HAVE crackpipes in 1958!

Seriously, I'd seen some of these but I'd always thought that their mission profile WAS that of a Regulus. That is, fly one way drop nuke and land or bail out over Turkey.

That recovery by the sub was considered is remarkable. I'm no airdale, but even a Brodie rig would seem preferable to tail sitting, and preferably something akin to skyhook, but then you'd need to be figuring on using a Kestrel which is a UK plane that hadn't flown yet.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

Brickmuppet said:

That recovery by the sub was considered is remarkable. I'm no airdale, but even a Brodie rig would seem preferable to tail sitting...

Click to expand...

Landing would have been accomplished used a setup similar to this:



Note that the landing rig shown here wasn't sloshing back and forth in the waves.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

does this submarine aircraft carrier become more feasible if we use unmanned aircraft?

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

avatar said:

does this submarine aircraft carrier become more feasible if we use unmanned aircraft?

Click to expand...

Apparently not. DARPA cancelled the USN/LockMart effort to develope a UCAV that could be launched from SSGN tubes and recovered.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

that whole cormorant type thingy?

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

avatar said:

does this submarine aircraft carrier become more feasible if we use unmanned aircraft?

Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by "aircraft carrier" Remember a major use for CVN's is sustained air support--and a sub just isn't going to be able to play in that arena.
If you mean "Carry a few UAV's to extend the subs sensor range and possibly provide an option to launch strikes on very high value targets..." Then it becomes a little more viable, although we'd still have to ask if it would be worth the cost when compared to long range missiles launched from air/surface units.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

I think apart from those combat reform types and a few others nobody as of now is proposing a sub aircraft carrier that can replace the high volume operations of a CVN ... however as you said this might be a good idea for select strikes .. given that the tactical ICBM idea will invite unnecessary repercussions from "near Peers" and a Stealthy UAV might just have more flexibility than a single use cruise missile.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

I would expect that the mission of these SSVs would be to provide fighter support to the US Navy's then (1950s) planned nuclear strike force of Martin P6M Seamster seaplanes. The Seamaster force was planned to have a range of deployable basing options including surface ships and barges protected by the Convair Sea Dart and submarines. The later would provide FRAPs close to the Soviet Union but without a SSV would have no significant anti-air protection from Soviet counter-strikes.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

given the range and capabilities of that 'patrol bomber" I doubt if it would ever have been "forward deployed"

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

I remember, back to mid-80's, to have read something about a Submarine-CV obtained by modifing a SSBN (in which the ICBM area would be substitute with an hangar) coupled to "Skyhook" concept (so popular in the 80s).

In this way such ship could exploit a fleet of 4/6 Sea Harrier to achieve attack missions.

Anyone remember something more about it??

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

i had some Illustration of that here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2390.0.html

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

Michel Van said:

i had some Illustration of that here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2390.0.html

Click to expand...

Great images.

Many thanks Michel!!!!!

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

Extract from “Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines” by Norman Polmar and K.J. Moore (Potomac Books). Posted here for educational purposes. For more from this excellent book check out Google Books or buy a copy:


Project Flying Carpet

Immediately after the war the U.S. Navy gave little thought to aircraft-carrying submarines (at the time designated SSV). A Submarine Officers Conference in 1946 noted, “No design studies should be made on this type of submarine at this time unless the Chief of Naval Operations believes that the need for such a type submarine may be required in the near future.”

The development of nuclear propulsion led to some interest in aircraft-carrying submarines by the Office of Naval Research (ONR). In response to an ONR solicitation, aircraft designer Ed Heinemann – he preferred to be called an innovator – developed a series of design sketches for a fighter aircraft that could be accommodated in the massive bow hangar of the Regulus missile submarine Halibut (SSGN 587), completed in 1960. Heinemann’ sketches for ONR indicated how a new-design aircraft or his versatile A4D Skyhawk could fit into the submarine’s hangar with minimum modification. The basic Halibut hangar was 80 feet (24.4 m) long. The new-design aircraft was Douglas model 640, a turbo-jet attack aircraft that would be catapult launched from the surfaced submarine, would come down at sea on its flying boat hull, and would be recovered aboard the submarine by a telescoping crane. Depending on modifications to the hangar, the aircraft’s wings, tail fin, or nose would fold for shipboard stowage. The Navy did not pursue Heinemann’s proposals.

During this period there were several proposals for nuclear-propelled, aircraft-carrying submarines. The most ambitious proposal was sponsored by the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics, responsible for aircraft development. The extensive feasibility study of aircraft-carrying submarines – called Project Flying Carpet – was demonstrated by the Boeing Aircraft Company. The secret study employed the Thresher (SSN 593)-type S5W propulsion plant and, initially, hangar configuration and hull lines based on the Halibut design.
The near-term submarine carrier configuration – designated AN-1 – would carry eight high-performance aircraft in two large hangars built into the forward hull. The submarine would be some 500 feet (152.4 m) long and displace 9,260 tons on the surface, larger than any U.S. submarine then planned, including the Polaris missile submarines.

The starting point for AN-1 aircraft would be a modified Grumman F11F Tiger turbojet fighter. The aircraft’s standard folding wings (for carrier use) would be supplemented by a folding tail fin, and a large rocket booster would be used for launching from a “zero-length” catapult. The launchers would be elevated to the vertical (90°) to launch aircraft. The pilots would climb into the aircraft while they still were in the hangar, before being moved onto the launcher by an automated system.

The feasibility of stowing conventional aircraft in Regulus II missile hangars as well as submarine weight, stability, and equilibrium was conducted using the Grayback (SSG 574) with an F11F aircraft.

An improved, Mach 3 aircraft eventually was to replace the F11F, a Mach 1+ fighter. The later aircraft would be recovered through the use of an innovative hook-and-cable arresting system. In an emergency, an aircraft set down at sea could be brought back aboard the submarine by crane.

Stowage would be provided for aircraft fuel, weapons, and other stores for ten missions per aircraft, that is, a total of 80 missions per submarine. During the preliminary design process, it appeared feasible to increase the number of missions to at east 160 with only minor changes in the submarine design. The pressure hull would have three “sections” – hangar I, hangar II, and the after section, which contained control, crew, reactor, machinery, and related spaces. The after section would have six compartments.

The AN-2 variant aircraft-carrying submarine had similar hull lines to the AN-1. However, this variant would operate Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) aircraft, carried in eight vertical hangars built into the hull forward of the sail structure. Thus the below-deck configuration of the forward hull (hangars I and 11 in the AN-1) would differ considerably from the AN-1.

Noting that “Flight deck operations in the conventional meaning of the word do not exist,” the study indicated that four VTOL aircraft could be launched within five minutes of surfacing and eight aircraft in just over nine minutes. These times could be reduced substantially if the engine start and run-up time was accomplished by self-contained starters rather than using shipboard power. Under the most adverse operational launch sequence, the time to launch all eight aircraft was estimated to be 18 minutes. (Adverse sea conditions would be compensated for by moving the aircraft, via deck tracks, to the amidship launchers closest to the ship’s center of buoyancy.)

The Boeing study calculated that the AN-1 submarine would cost about half again as much as a Polaris missile submarine (based on 1958 estimates):

Nautilus (SSN 571) $75 million
Halibut (SSGN 597) $85 million
Polaris SSGN $100 million
AN-1 carrier $140-150 million

The aircraft-carrying submarine was not pursued. A number of reasons have been put forward: A questionable operational requirement for submarine-based aircraft, bureaucratic opposition from the Bureau of Ships to a ship concept developed by the Bureau of Aeronautics, and the shortage of submarine construction capability because the Navy was accelerating the construction of both torpedo-attack submarines and Polaris missile submarines.

U.S. Boeing AN-1

Displacement 9,260 tons (surface) 14,700 tons (submerged)
Length 498 ft 6 in (152.0 m)
Beam 44 ft 3 in (13.49 m)
Draft 23 ft 7 in (7.19 m)
Reactors 1 S5W
Turbines 2
Horsepower 15,000
Shafts 2
Speed submerged 16 knots
Torpedo tubes 4 533-mm bow, 2 533-mm stern
Aircraft 8
Complement 163 (includes 12 officer pilots and 2 flight officers)

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

Abraham Gubler said:

Extract from “Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines” by Norman Polmar and K.J. Moore (Potomac Books).

Click to expand...

They had some odd errors:
1) The project was not called "Flying Carpet." The flying carpets were the turboject boosters to be used by the aircraft, not the subs themselves or the project as a whole.

2) The F11's were not meant for the AN-1, but instead for use on the USS Grayback submarine (a Regulus-launching sub). The AN-1 was designed for the VTOL aircraft, as seen in the drawings above.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

avatar said:

that whole cormorant type thingy?

Click to expand...

Yep.

Re: AN-1/AN-2 submarine "aircraft carrier"

Nuclear Regulus sub design - could this also be used for the F11's?

Regards,
Barry