Submarine first, Carrier second

V

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member
Just because no one's succeeded yet doesn't make it a bad idea. Most successful projects pick up where others have failed.

I think it could work, though I have my doubts about how useful it will be in coming decades as war moves up into space, but that might still be a ways away. Subs would provide power projection that is stealthy and more well-hidden than an aircraft carrier battle group.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Vlad Plasmius said:
Just because no one's succeeded yet doesn't make it a bad idea. Most successful projects pick up where others have failed.

I think it could work, though I have my doubts about how useful it will be in coming decades as war moves up into space, but that might still be a ways away. Subs would provide power projection that is stealthy and more well-hidden than an aircraft carrier battle group.
Click to expand...
Well, here's an idea for a nuclear powered, submersible (submarine) aircraft carrier. Approximately 40,000 tons, almost 700 ft long, 24-30 JSFs, 3 AEW V-22s and 3-4 ASW V-22 Ospreys.

USN-SSCVN.jpg


And here's a broader view of an entire submersible task force (including a LHA and a SSGN), based around such a carrier.

US-SSCVN-TF.jpg
 
I

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Vlad Plasmius said:
Just because no one's succeeded yet doesn't make it a bad idea. Most successful projects pick up where others have failed.

I think it could work, though I have my doubts about how useful it will be in coming decades as war moves up into space, but that might still be a ways away. Subs would provide power projection that is stealthy and more well-hidden than an aircraft carrier battle group.
Click to expand...

There is also a reason no one has done it yet. The Japanese build some during the latter periods of WWII. These were meant to travel within range of the Panama Canal and attack it with aircraft.

This reminds me of proposal to build a battleship/carrier hybrid. You get a ship that is not good at either one. Having a submersible carrier compounds the problems of both aircraft carrier and submarines such as safety concerns of storing volatile jet fuel on a confined space, sheilding the catapult and arrester cable mechanisms from the effects of sea water emmersion and changes in water pressure, quieting, underway replenishment, etc.

One of the aspects of power projection is being.
 
Last edited:
V

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member
This reminds me of proposal to build a battleship/carrier hybrid. You get a ship that is not good at either one. Having a submersible carrier compounds the problems of both aircraft carrier and submarines such as safety concerns of storing volatile jet fuel on a confined space, sheilding the catapult and arrester cable mechanisms from the effects of sea water emmersion and changes in water pressure, quieting, underway replenishment, etc.
Click to expand...

It requires a feat of intense engineering, but it is certainly not outside possibility.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
IDonT said:
There is also a reason no one has done it yet. The Japanese build some during the latter periods of WWII. These were meant to travel within range of the Panama Canal and attack it with aircraft.
Click to expand...
Actually, to me, this is more of an arguement for it being able to be accomplished than for it not being able to be accomplished. The Japanese, in the 1940s did launch and operate aircraft carrier submarines, and they actually made some minor attacks against the US mainland with aircraft off of these type submarines,.

For example, on September 9, 1942, an aerial bombing of the US mainland occurred when an attempt to start a forest fire was made by a Japanese seaplane dropping incendiary bombs over Mount Emily, Oregon. The seaplane had been launched from the Japanese submarine aircraft carrier I-25. No real damage was reported following the attack, or after a second attempt was made on September 29.

Towards the end of the war, the Japanese had plans to try and do much more of this...but with their defeat, those plans ended.

Of course, what we are speaking of here, would involve significantly more complexity than what the Japanese accomplished...but the current advent of PARS, VLS, VTOL aircraft (F-25 and V-22), and other technologies (ie electro-mag catapaults) are making a lot of the more difficult engineering considerations much more feasable.
 
Tasman

Tasman

Junior Member
Jeff Head said:
For example, on September 9, 1942, an aerial bombing of the US mainland occurred when an attempt to start a forest fire was made by a Japanese seaplane dropping incendiary bombs over Mount Emily, Oregon. The seaplane had been launched from the Japanese submarine aircraft carrier I-25. No real damage was reported following the attack, or after a second attempt was made on September 29.

Towards the end of the war, the Japanese had plans to try and do much more of this...but with their defeat, those plans ended.
Click to expand...

A seaplane from the Japanese submarine I-25 flew over my home city of Hobart on 1st March, 1942. It made the people of Hobart feel very insecure, but fortunately the expected follow up air attack never came.

Cheers
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
Jeff Head said:
Actually, to me, this is more of an arguement for it being able to be accomplished than for it not being able to be accomplished. The Japanese, in the 1940s did launch and operate aircraft carrier submarines, and they actually made some minor attacks against the US mainland with aircraft off of these type submarines,.

For example, on September 9, 1942, an aerial bombing of the US mainland occurred when an attempt to start a forest fire was made by a Japanese seaplane dropping incendiary bombs over Mount Emily, Oregon. The seaplane had been launched from the Japanese submarine aircraft carrier I-25. No real damage was reported following the attack, or after a second attempt was made on September 29.

Towards the end of the war, the Japanese had plans to try and do much more of this...but with their defeat, those plans ended.

Of course, what we are speaking of here, would involve significantly more complexity than what the Japanese accomplished...but the current advent of PARS, VLS, VTOL aircraft (F-25 and V-22), and other technologies (ie electro-mag catapaults) are making a lot of the more difficult engineering considerations much more feasable.
Click to expand...

A thing about submarines is that the smaller the sub, the harder they are to detect. A larger submarine is more detectable via sonar and MAD, no only that, they are slower and less maneuverable. If you want to use a submarine to strike at surface targets, give your submarine sub-launched cruise missiles, and if you need to stay there, get a real carrier; they are more durable and seaworthy to launch aircraft on a 24 hour basis.
 
G

goldenpanda

Banned Idiot
Jeff Head said:
Well, here's an idea for a nuclear powered, submersible (submarine) aircraft carrier. Approximately 40,000 tons, almost 700 ft long, 24-30 JSFs, 3 AEW V-22s and 3-4 ASW V-22 Ospreys.
Click to expand...

Where is 30 JSF's going to land, when their "carrier" had to run underwater?

Has to be dumbest idea ever.
 
Tasman

Tasman

Junior Member
goldenpanda said:
Where is 30 JSF's going to land, when their "carrier" had to run underwater?

Has to be dumbest idea ever.
Click to expand...

This may have some merit, however, to provide air cover for a surprise strike mission or a surprise amphibious assault, where the assault troops are carried in transport submarines. Once the assault has commenced the submarines could stay on the surface until they had recovered their aircraft. Consequently they would need to be armed for anti aircraft and anti missile defence.

Having said that, however, my own preference would be for submarines operating in these roles to be equipped with land attack cruise missiles and/or UCAVs rather than manned aircraft. That way they could submerge whenever necessary for self preservation.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top