Great Fictional World War III book (China & allies VS US & allies)

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Jeff Head said:

Again, thanks for the kind words. Having sold several thousand of the novels on my own now, I know at some point as the numbers grow (and with basically no advertising or promotion budget), that a publisher may get interested.

Here's a pic (rendition) of the SSCVN version of the submersible LPH (amphibious assault vessel) that the US Navy used in the books.

Click to expand...

Well, Mr. Head, it so happens that I've drawn up a plethera of my own unofficial "blueprints" of various designs of submersible aircraft carriers. I settled on one I liked, I hope I can find it. It was quite impressive. I find the idea that an entire carrier battle group can be submerged for months and still coordinate between ships.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Killa_Dilla said:

Well, Mr. Head, it so happens that I've drawn up a plethera of my own unofficial "blueprints" of various designs of submersible aircraft carriers. I settled on one I liked, I hope I can find it. It was quite impressive. I find the idea that an entire carrier battle group can be submerged for months and still coordinate between ships.

Click to expand...

Well, there are some very difficult technological and design issues to address, some of which have been pointed out on this thread, particularly by popeye who has many years experience in the US Navy on carriers.

A submersible sub will, IMHO, never be as capable as the super carriers in terms of its air wing and its war loads.

But, there are some very critical offsetting and positive qualities she would have if she could bring an air wing of 36 capable, multi-role fighter/attack aircraft to bear, particularly if a VTOL AEW and ASW aircraft were also employed. Principally, that is that she could arrive undetected and unexpected any where in the ocean, off someone's coast, near critical shipping lanes, etc.

If accompanied by submersible LPH vessels, and protected by SSNs, it would be a potent force but one requiring a lot of time to develop effective operational plans to make the most effective use of what would be a radically new introduction to sea warfare.

Hope we can see your design of such a vessel on SD some day.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

The beautiful thing about a submarine fleet is that, in the event of war against a superpower like China or a unified Islam as stated in your book, the element of surprise would undoubtedly become a very important thing. Being able to rise out of the sea, launch your planes, and duck back under before the enemy knows what hit them would be awesome indeed.

One of the things I wonder about is how you would launch planes off something like that. I believe the catapult on a supercarrier is something on the order of 300 feet in length. On my drawings (which are what I believe a sub-carrier would look like, definately not 100% accurate), the carrier itself is 400 feet long and the two flight strips are approximately 260 feet long. The catapults are 160 feet long each. I can scan an image and e-mail it to you. It has a scale of 40 feet to 1 inch on the drawing.

Another issue that would need to be addressed is sonar signiature. A sub-aircraft carrier (especially as wide as my Atlantis class) would be as obvious on sonar as a rock band is when one is sitting in a front row seat at a concert. Some sort of sound absorbant material would need to be used, but that would most likely degrade over time with the corosivness of sea water.

I would very much like to see a fully submersible fleet in my life time. When I join the navy, I wouldn't mind being on one of those monsters myself.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Killa_Dilla said:

One of the things I wonder about is how you would launch planes off something like that. I believe the catapult on a supercarrier is something on the order of 300 feet in length. On my drawings (which are what I believe a sub-carrier would look like, definately not 100% accurate), the carrier itself is 400 feet long and the two flight strips are approximately 260 feet long. The catapults are 160 feet long each. I can scan an image and e-mail it to you. It has a scale of 40 feet to 1 inch on the drawing.

Click to expand...

They would be using the F-35 JSF in the VSTOL configuration probably. A shorter, EMAL catapault would be sufficient, taking off in a partial vertcal thrust setting, to get off the deck in a shorter period and with a fuller war load than current pure VTOL or Ski-Jumps afford.

Killa_Dilla said:

Some sort of sound absorbant material would need to be used.

Click to expand...

We already use such material on our existing SSNs, the same would be used here on the SSCVN.

Killa_Dilla said:

I would very much like to see a fully submersible fleet in my life time. When I join the navy, I wouldn't mind being on one of those monsters myself.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you will...and God bless you and you have my own personnel thanks for your willingness to serve. My father was a World War II US NAvy combat vet of the the PTO (I bet you can look that up and tell me what it means...PTO). He commanded an LCI.

One of my son-in-laws is a submariner and his wife (my daughter) works for the US Navy.

I have worked in the defense industry in the past on naval and other military projects.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Thank you very much for your blessings. You may be surprised to know that I've yet a long way to go. I'm only 16 after all, but at an early age, I cultivated a willingness to learn more about the sea, and then later, about technology. After I joined the NJROTC at my high school, I toyed with the idea of becoming a submariner, and then weapons design.

As for my existing "blueprints" (if you could call them that) I would be very interested in showing them to you. I feel the design needs much work, but if I get it right, then maybe it could be used to influence future designs. As for the type of planes used, I opted for the F/A-18 Hornet and the Lightning II Carrier variant or the Marine Corps' VTOL variant. I am sure as designs come off the drawing board, designs for newer, lighter, and more carrier-compatable planes will come available.

I toyed with the idea of an automated flight deck operation system in which the plane was loaded onto the catapult and launched without any hands on deck unless there was an emergency. I am sure as systems advance, that too will become possible.

Can you tell me more about the EMAL catapult? I have heard about it. It sounds like a catapult that uses the same principal as the rail-gun (electromagnets moving the catapult as opposed to the hydrolics of the current system) but I do not know more about the specifics. Are they significantly shorter than the current ones? If so, how short?

The questions could go on and on but I will spare you the need to answer them all. What's the fun if I can't find out for myself? ;-)

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Jeff Head said:

My father was a World War II US NAvy combat vet of the the PTO (I bet you can look that up and tell me what it means...PTO). He commanded an LCI.

Click to expand...

I don't need to look it up. [smug face] I already know it means the Pacific Theater of Operations. I had two uncles that fought during the war. One of them died on Guadalcanal, the other was bayoneted while hiding in a bail of hay during the battle of the buldge while the Germans were retreating, but didn't give up his location. The Russians found him and took him as something of a POW during most of the Cold War before he was released.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Killa_Dilla said:

I don't need to look it up. [smug face] I already know it means the Pacific Theater of Operations. I had two uncles that fought during the war. One of them died on Guadalcanal, the other was bayoneted while hiding in a bail of hay during the battle of the buldge while the Germans were retreating, but didn't give up his location. The Russians found him and took him as something of a POW during most of the Cold War before he was released.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you come from good blood my friend. Were these your uncles, or great uncles? At 16, I would have thought maybe they would be your Mom's or Dad's uncles. But plenty of folks have kids later than our family did (mostly having kids in our twenties and early thirties).

I have five kids aged from 17 to 29, and I am 52. My Dad was born in '25 and entered service in the Navy in '43 after going through ROTC at Auburn and then Rice. My mother's only brother died over Germany in a B-17 that took an 88mm round as they prepared to drop. Hit in the open bomb bay according to other flyers at the time.

Anyhow...if your design program can output it, get a jpeg of your sub-carrier design and upload it to a photo server and post it here. Lots of folks with good experience will take a look at it and give you critique.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Yes, they were great uncles. It's amazing what stories can be found if you look back far enough. My great great grandfather on my mother's side was at the battle of the crater back during the Civil War. He just barely made it out alive.

In any case, I will be able to upload my picture into a server later today. I will probably work with it a little more on paint to make it clearer as to what I am trying to show, but I will post it up when I get the chance.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Japan built 3 large submarines during WW II that are capable of launching aircrafts. They were the I-400 class.

Sentoku Type (I-400, I-401, I-402)

Main article: I-400 class submarine

The I-400 class displaced 5223 tons surfaced and measured 400ft 3in (122m) overall. They had a figure-eight hull shape for additional strength to handle the on-deck hangar for housing the three Seiran aircraft. In addition, they had four anti-aircraft guns and a large deck cannon as well as eight torpedo tubes from which they could fire the 21" (53cm) Type 95.

Three of the Sen Toku were built (I-400, I-401, and I-402). Each had four 1825horsepower (1360kW)[1] engines and range 37500nm at 14 knots.[2]

The submarines were also able to carry three Aichi M6A) Sei ran aircraft, each carrying an 800 kilogram (1764 lb) bomb 650 miles (1000 km) at 360 miles per hour (580 km/h). To fit the aircraft in the hangar the wings of the aircraft were folded back, the horizontal stabilizers folded down, and the top of the vertical stabilizer folded over so the overall profile of the aircraft was within the diameter of its propellor. A crew of four could prepare and get all three airborne in 45 minutes launching them with a 120 foot (37 m) catapult on the fore deck of the giant submarine.

Source: Wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Hey Jeff, I know you're a perfectly fine guy but if your book really becomes very successful don't be suprised if someone calls you a xenophobic conservative crazy who wants to start a war with China. Obviously you're not any of those things, but with conservative politics embedded in the book, book critics and media-types will take an interest in needling you.

However that's as much of a bonus as a negative. A book with conservative politics built in comes with a ready-made audience. It's made for marketing .

But don't worry I'll stick up for ya.