Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects.

[Fluff]

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.

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.....

Cool as hell, but Cyprus, UK, etc are still unsinkable......

 

[riggerrob]

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."

 

[Fluff]

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."

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.....

 

[riggerrob]

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.

Are you thinking of the "Skyhook" concept tested by BAE during the 1980s?
They built a ground/shore test rig based upon a construction crane and snagged (launched and retrieved) a two-seater Harrier several times.
Production versions would be electronically stabilized to compensate for rolling, pitching and yawing ships' movement in rough seas. The Skyhook included a re-fueling nozzle to refuel while the Harrier hovered alongside the ship. Skyhook could also swing a Harrier inboard and lay it on a cradle full of fresh torpedoes, missiles, depth charges and external fuel tanks. Most deck-handling functions would be automated. The long term goal was to hang Skyhooks from frigates with flight deck barely big enough to launch ASW helicopters (e.g. Sikorsky Sea King).

 

[Dilandu]

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.....

Well, it's not exactly that easy to find a carrier... especially the one that could dive.

 

[Michel Van]

Are you thinking of the "Skyhook" concept tested by BAE during the 1980s?

if that is the system the Illustration is showing ?

 

[Hood]

Yes that is Skyhook, with a P.1216 it looks like. A similar image from another angle appears on the back cover.
I think this was an artist's speculative work for the cover. Although Treadwell covers Skyhook in the text, no submarine like is actually shown inside the book, but Hybrid Warships does contain a similar concept with a flat broad deck/hangar aft of the conning tower.

 

[fightingirish]

This Aircraft Carrier Could Go Underwater... IMPOSSIBLE Submarine Aircraft Carrier - An 1 + An 2

The most video material provided again by the one and only Scott Lowther aka "Orionblamblam".
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

https://youtu.be/y1DUxM-FtZ8

 

[Phantom Fanatic]

This Aircraft Carrier Could Go Underwater... IMPOSSIBLE Submarine Aircraft Carrier - An 1 + An 2

The most video material provided again by the one and only Scott Lowther aka "Orionblamblam".
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

https://youtu.be/y1DUxM-FtZ8

Such a great channel.

 

[F.L.]

I've found that on wiki :

A more economical plan was also conceived to convert World War II fleet submarines to carry a seaplane version of the A4D Skyhawk in a similar manner to the Regulus missile-equipped SSGs, using hydro-skis for takeoff as the Sea Dart did.

With this source : Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute.

Submarine aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Does anyone know more about this ?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I've found that on wiki :

With this source : Friedman, Norman (1994). U.S. Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute.

Submarine aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Does anyone know more about this ?

First I've heard of it.

I can't imagine why you'd want a Skyhawk or a Sea Dart on a sub instead of Regulus/Regulus II. You're not packing any more aircraft into the hull by using a Skyhawk, and the Regulus has longer range.

 

[F.L.]

I've found that the Skyhawk derived submarine fighter jet was the Douglas Model 640.

Never Say Never Again: Aircraft/Amphibious carriers must submerge to avoid SSC destruction

 

[F.L.]

I also found this plan in the "Seaplane jet fighter" thread, which shows different proposals designed to be fitted into a Regulus hangar.
The second is a modified A4D with folding wings, tail and nose.

 

[Hood]

Indeed you will find a couple of threads that cover the Douglas 640 on this site:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/seaplane-jetfighters.645/page-2#post-73987
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/douglas-model-640-seaplane-a-4.7017/#post-161182

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-4-skyhawk-rival-designs.258/#post-5722

 

[moin1900]

Convair Super Hustler
(submarine launched variant) sketch

Super Hustler, FISH, Kingfish, And Beyond (Part 1: Super Hustler) | Code One Magazine

Article on Convair Super Hustler.

www.codeonemagazine.com

DIPPER - SSBN launched Aircraft

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/dipper-ssbn-launched-aircraft.32781/

 

[Scott Kenny]

First I've heard of it.

I can't imagine why you'd want a Skyhawk or a Sea Dart on a sub instead of Regulus/Regulus II. You're not packing any more aircraft into the hull by using a Skyhawk, and the Regulus has longer range.

Also, recovering anything but the Sea Dart is going to be sketchy.

So if you can't recover the plane, it's only carrying one nuke, and Regulus II is faster and longer ranged; why are we trying to use a manned aircraft?

 

[Yellow Palace]

So if you can't recover the plane, it's only carrying one nuke, and Regulus II is faster and longer ranged; why are we trying to use a manned aircraft?

You can at least recover the pilot, who presumably offers some advantage over a big box of electronics. Which, depending on the date and your cynicism, is either greater accuracy, or greater potential to win medals.

 

[F.L.]

General Electrics Design A submarine aircraft-carrier :

 

[F.L.]

General Electrics Design L small submarine aircraft-carrier for 10 aircraft and with two elevators :

 

[Hood]

I have split out all the fictional stuff into the Theoretical, Fake and Generic Projects section where it belongs.