Aircraft Carriers

Obi Wan Russell said:

Cool! I'll take three! Can you deliver them a week Tuesday?

Click to expand...

I can only start taking orders next Tuesday...for delivery at a undetermined date in the future...but I need the cash (and lots of it) upfront. Still want to deal?...hehehe.

Obi Wan Russell said:

My only concern would be how watertight could the lifts be made as this may be a restricting factor on diving depth, but assuming this is soluble this vessel would be a much more frightening prospect than a Typhoon class SSBN, simply because it would be used!

Click to expand...

I personally believe the technology for water tight hatches on subs is pretty well defined and could be applied to make the lifts water tight. They would be thick and the sealing mechanism would be expensive...but it could be done. There would probably be some compromises on overall depth, but I still believe she could be kept well below the covergence layer.

Such a vessel or undersea Phibron would need several SSNs to protect it as it transited. Probably have a layered defense much like a normal Phibron or CSG with some close in assets and others out along the various threat axis.

bd popeye said:

Intresting Jeff..That ship better have some excellent sound dampening devices!..Nice Idea!

Click to expand...

Below the surface, all of those antennae, railings, etc. would retract into the hull and be sealed over. The entire thing would be covered with an acoustic coating.

I remember a sub launched version of SEA CAT was developed in the seventies to provide subs with a measure of AA defence against ASW helos, although it never entered service. Do you think a VLS with associated radars would be a worthwhile option for AA defence of the Sub-Phibron, either on the 'Big Boat' or it's escorts? when it is on the surface and launching aircraft it won't be able to dive as quickly as a normal sub simply because of the need to clear the decks.

Obi Wan Russell said:

I remember a sub launched version of SEA CAT was developed in the seventies to provide subs with a measure of AA defence against ASW helos, although it never entered service. Do you think a VLS with associated radars would be a worthwhile option for AA defence of the Sub-Phibron, either on the 'Big Boat' or it's escorts? when it is on the surface and launching aircraft it won't be able to dive as quickly as a normal sub simply because of the need to clear the decks.

Click to expand...

I think such an AA defense is absolutely critical. In the orignal post (and in the book) I mention that the SSLHPN has, on the aft deck, 2 X 24 VLS cells. If you look close, yyou can see them there. They are principally for standard missiles and 4-pack ESSM missiles. The sub itself, while surfaced, would use the PARS seen on its sail, it would be a three panel version.

Obi Wan Russell said:

Lowering the Landing craft to the sea seems to me to be a straightforward proposition... if they are stored on the hangar deck on wheeled cradles (or on rails set in the hangar floor) then moved out UNDER the aft lift(s) where they attach to points under the lift platform and thus can be lowered to sea level. This seems a logical low cost way to get round the ship not having a well deck aft. If the lifts can carry a couple of tomcats (and I wouldn't want to drop one of them on my foot... That's my dad's way of implying something is heavy!) then they should be able to handle landing craft underslung beneath them.

Click to expand...

An LCAC weights good 85t and can carry 60-75t. So I think you'd have to make at least two goes to bring one LCAC to the water. That would make things difficult if you want to put 12 HMMWVs into it. You'd have to attach them all under the lift and lower them onto the LCAC. (I couldn't find a source for the lift capacity of one lift; but I would presume around 60-70t?) That would at least push the limits of that lift.
Here you probably need a retractable platform at hanger floor level. Because if you attach the LCAC to the lift, you have to push it outward. Since it's not under the attachmentpoint it will start to swing and come back against the hull.

Obi Wan Russell said:

Cool! I'll take three!

Click to expand...

Here's your second. This is the pure carrier version, really a sea control carrier.

Single helo landing pad in the back, two STO positions forward, no individual well decks on the sides. Armed with 2 X 24 cell VLS fro Standard and ESSM.

Air wing:

30 - JSF VTOL
3 - AEW V-22
3 - ASW V-22

Ok jeff a couple of questions about your CVSSN...

1) How will the jet shop test and check engines? That exhaust and noise has to go somewhere.

2) How will aircraft maintenance crews peform "maintenance turns" on aircraft? They have to be done you know.

3) Will there be females in the crew? There presently are no females on USN subs.

Sorry but I wuz in da' real Navy

bd popeye said:

Ok jeff a couple of questions about your CVSSN...

1) How will the jet shop test and check engines? That exhaust and noise has to go somewhere.

2) How will aircraft maintenance crews peform "maintenance turns" on aircraft? They have to be done you know.

3) Will there be females in the crew? There presently are no females on USN subs.

Sorry but I wuz in da' real Navy

Click to expand...

I'd imagine the only way to do engine runs whilst submerged would be to connect them to a snorkel mast and run at periscope depth for a while, although this would have to be done judiciously to avoid detection. Even at night the exhaust gas would be a giveaway to infra red detection gear.

bd popeye said:

Ok jeff a couple of questions about your CVSSN...

1) How will the jet shop test and check engines? That exhaust and noise has to go somewhere.

2) How will aircraft maintenance crews peform "maintenance turns" on aircraft? They have to be done you know.

3) Will there be females in the crew? There presently are no females on USN subs.

Sorry but I wuz in da' real Navy

Click to expand...

As to the first two, that would have to happen while the vessel was surfaced and could either occur topside, or in the hangar spaces where they could have a rig which would have the capability for large openings on either port or starboard sides (or both). Clewarly, a concept like this owuld have to be vetted out with individuals exactly like yourself and others in their areas of expertise to identify the issues and correct them in the design...but I believe it could be done.

As to women onboard, the US Navy will have to determine that. It wasn;t too awful long ago when there were no woman onbaord carriers out to sea either. So either continue the submarine tradition, or open it up based on what the NAvy decides.

I like the idea/concept of CVSSN, and IMO aircraft that could be launched & recovered while it's submerged are going to make it more flexible- no need for the flightdeck and crew, and weather won't be a factor.



The idea of underwater capable aircraft!

They could be ejected from the CVSSN, surface, and then take off/land as hydroplanes do- using the ocean as a flight deck!

A strike aircraft launched underwater from a submarine.... interesting, very interesting. Wonder what it might look like...