Possible to build a modern submarine aircraft carrier?

anything can be built even submarine aircraft carriers but with the caviats.

if the dod thinks its worthy
if the congress approves it
if politics will allow it.

anything can be done but will poltics allow them thats the age we live in saving lives doesnt enter into it

paying people from cradle to grave is more important thesedays than a military superiority.

the sad truth.

reply to post by alf007


Hate to break it to you, but subs were the first of the stealth technology, hehe. But orangetom is exactly right in his assessment of submarines. When a sub launches missiles, they aren't on the surface, but as soon as they launch, it's boogie time, because the sea where they're located just got bubbly to say the least. Also the water-tight hatches are the other buzz-kill for the sub carrier. The other thing would be size and displacement. An LA-class displaces close to 7,000 tons, a Virginia-class: almost 8,000 tons, and an Ohio-class (missile boat): just a paltry 16.7k tons. LA-class: 362 feet long, Virginia: 377 feet, Ohio: 592 feet (TWO football fields in length).

And I'm in the arena that the Navy is already using sub carriers. Already have been since the first Guided-missile Subs came out back in the early 70's or maybe late 60's. Been quite some time. Of course, there will never be a need for manned flight from a submarine. I do remember being trained while I was on a 688-i back in the late 90's to fly a tomahawk missile after it was launched....and this was before the UAV's were a real fad.

I'd have thought that using helicopters instead of planes would be a better way to go when in conjunction with submarines. Think about it, a large submarine surfaces, and there are six to eight missile silo like doors that open, out flies stealth helicopters ready to strike, silent and deadly.

Could even go as far as to "stack" them to double (or more) the subs payload of choppers.

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
I'd have thought that using helicopters instead of planes would be a better way to go when in conjunction with submarines. Think about it, a large submarine surfaces, and there are six to eight missile silo like doors that open, out flies stealth helicopters ready to strike, silent and deadly.

Could even go as far as to "stack" them to double (or more) the subs payload of choppers.

Helicopters are not practical for most uses. They do have the ability to hover which most fixed wing aircraft do not. Helicopters do not have long ranges needed for most jobs/tasks. Hence they are pretty much unsuited for this type of delivery system.

The range limitations of Helicopters..while known in certain arenas...is something seldom taught to people not associated with or familiar with the avaition field.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by saabster5
reply to post by alf007

 

Hate to break it to you, but subs were the first of the stealth technology, hehe. But orangetom is exactly right in his assessment of submarines. When a sub launches missiles, they aren't on the surface, but as soon as they launch, it's boogie time, because the sea where they're located just got bubbly to say the least. Also the water-tight hatches are the other buzz-kill for the sub carrier. The other thing would be size and displacement. An LA-class displaces close to 7,000 tons, a Virginia-class: almost 8,000 tons, and an Ohio-class (missile boat): just a paltry 16.7k tons. LA-class: 362 feet long, Virginia: 377 feet, Ohio: 592 feet (TWO football fields in length).

And I'm in the arena that the Navy is already using sub carriers. Already have been since the first Guided-missile Subs came out back in the early 70's or maybe late 60's. Been quite some time. Of course, there will never be a need for manned flight from a submarine. I do remember being trained while I was on a 688-i back in the late 90's to fly a tomahawk missile after it was launched....and this was before the UAV's were a real fad.

saabster5,

My thanks and salute to you for your service to this nation.

I have worked on every 688 boat built at Newport News during various phases of their construction...and even some of the Virginias. It has been a real learning/experience curve.

But construction is very different from operations. Occasionally one learns a bit from the crews..what they are allowed to tell you. Some of the stories they tell will pucker up the backsides of the average person out here. And the look in their eyes when they tell some of the stories is quite telling. Not the stuff one gets from 60 minutes...or on the nightly news.

Thanks again for your service to our nation.
Fair winds Sailor,
Orangetom

reply to post by orangetom1999


Oh it was an experience. Not sure if I should have mentioned the tomahawk thing tho....oops... One of my favorite sub stories is when we pulled out of the shipyard for an overhaul. Lived in Pearl Harbor at the time, and the shipworkers had lei's (flowery necklaces) hanging on all the places where they had cut into the hull. The lei's were supposed to bring good luck or something. Talk about a feeling of security! Especially when performing the shakedown of the boat.

But I agree, there's so much that goes into the construction of these things. Was up in CT when the boat after the Seawolf was still being worked on. Would drive by that shipyard all the time, just gawking at the enormity of the thing.

My salutes to you maintaining our fleet. Couldn't have been successful in our missions without the support from dedicated individuals like yourself, who put their own sweat into helping maintaining these beasts.

Originally posted by saabster5
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

Oh it was an experience. Not sure if I should have mentioned the tomahawk thing tho....oops... One of my favorite sub stories is when we pulled out of the shipyard for an overhaul. Lived in Pearl Harbor at the time, and the shipworkers had lei's (flowery necklaces) hanging on all the places where they had cut into the hull. The lei's were supposed to bring good luck or something. Talk about a feeling of security! Especially when performing the shakedown of the boat.

But I agree, there's so much that goes into the construction of these things. Was up in CT when the boat after the Seawolf was still being worked on. Would drive by that shipyard all the time, just gawking at the enormity of the thing.

My salutes to you maintaining our fleet. Couldn't have been successful in our missions without the support from dedicated individuals like yourself, who put their own sweat into helping maintaining these beasts.

No problem saabster5,

I've worked on the VLS systems both on 688s and on Virginia's. You need to be very aware of what it is on which you are working when hanging around the bath tub/free flood area. That system works so quietly you would never know it if it closed on you. I am in the habit of checking immediately for the safety pin installation even before I step into the bathtub area/free flood area.

Worked with alot of A gang peoples throughout the boat..fore to aft..top to bottom. Most peoples know of the existence of this tomahawk system ..and many on aircraft as well as on the boats. Different systems but most know they exist. We are not giving away any state secrets here.

You know saabster5..in sort of an anachronistic type of speaking..I had the opportunity to go to Charleston, South Carolina and look at the Confederate submarine ..the CSA...Hunley. I was shocked after working on the boats up here. I looked at that thing in the circulating tank in which it was being prepared. My reaction was....

"Holy S--T!!!!!! They went out in that thing!!!!!!????"

But ..one can say that was the state of the art back then.
The other thing I noted about the CSA Hunley..was that people must have averaged of a significantly smaller stature than are we today. We think we..many of us are pretty average size today. But they must have been on the average much noticeably smaller back then. This was obvious and startling when it dawns on you.
We take so much for granted today...even our technology as well as ourselves.

I've also had the experience of seeing the USS Monitor ...the engine when it was brought here to Newport News Shipyard and placed in the bottom of a dry dock with hoses spraying salt water on it while the desalination tank for it was being finished up at the Mariners Museum in upper Newport News, Virginia. What an experience to see history right before you ...before most others get to see. It was a very crude piston engine affair.

Same reaction....

"Holy S--t!!!! They went out in that thing!!!???"

Talk about sailing by the seat of your pants...

They have since raised many portions of the USS Monitor and sent them to this museum. The rotating turrent and even the Dahlgren guns from it. But it is a humbling experience when you know intimately what is the current state of the art.

I've learned alot in the years of working on these ships. Alot of mechanical skills as well as simple safety skills and thinking and when that does not work...I've learned to improve my "language skills!!"
But it all works out. It has helped me to tackle alot of tasks/jobs at home to which I would not have otherwise solved, succeeded, or even attempted.

Thanks again,
Orangetom

Weighing in I have long been fascinated by the concept. Imagine a carrier that could strike without warning then disappear without a trace!? While It may seem like something more of a steam punk novel I think the debate is something far more appropriate for academic theory rather than practical application.

I think first we must hit on what you said about UAV technology. In any evolution of a weapon a few things must be defined. 1) mission 2) feasibility 3) and cost. Lets face it carriers are psychological weapons designed to instill fear and project power while appearing menacing. Our carriers do that this accomplishing their mission. Cost is killer with carriers. Maintenance and danger are omnipresent. Which affects their feasibility.

With the dangers involved to crew and equipment we must be practical. We have the perfect submerged carrier in the form of the Ohio. It launches a weapon of ultimate destructive power is hard to track and less expensive to maintain. Couple that with an evolution in aircraft design that makes pilots irrelevant and we are left with a giant expensive symbolic saber to rattle at other countries. Disposable UAV's, stealthier middle boats next gen fuel cells and propulsion seem to make carriers obsolete and yet billions are poured in because of tradition.

More disturbing is that china is willing to participate in a program of carrier building. I view china as progressive and willing to play outside the arena and they seem to be playing the same game we are. Japan as well.

The idea of launching a manned planned from a floating deck and recovering it is impressive in its execution in the same way drill and ceremony is to watch. It serves no practical purpose though. The exception seems to be maritime rescue which could be accomplished with guided destroyer helos.

Do not get me wrong. I love the sight of a large carrier in the same way I love to see old pictures of pre dreadnoughts and battleships. They are amazing but no longer needed. The idea of a submersible carrier is amazing and tantalizing but I fear a genuine black hole for funding because the ultimate mission is unclear as is the feasibility and cost.

But man would it be cool to see

I am going to take the liberty to let some of you know this about an aircraft carrier..a surface aircraft carrier..in case some of you do not know.

The single biggest danger to an aircraft carrier out at sea...is a submarine. A well trained submarine crew with a capable boat is a huge danger ..even to a Nimitz class carrier. I do not believe many of the crews on these Nuclear Carriers of ours have any idea how vulnerable they are to a well trained submarine crew. Nor the crews on a destroyer/cruiser.
I do know from some of the small boy crews/destroyer crews that they are aware they are disposable and expendable to keep the carriers going unto launch.

I just don't think many on the carriers themselves know how truly vulnerable they are to a submarine.

As some of the posters here in previous posts stated..the submarine was the ultimate stealth platform even before the word "Stealth " became popular. It still is the ultimate stealth platform.

I have heard navy chiefs tell me that in maneuvers our own boats have submerged under the hulls of our carriers and taken photos of the bottom hull of the carrier as it passes overhead and then taken these photos to the briefings to show how easy it is four our boats to get in on the fleets if they so desire.

I will grant you that detection technology has greatly improved in recent years but so too has the submarine technology.

Remember what happened in the Falklands Island War in the 1980s. One nuclear submarine kept the entire Argentine Navy in port after sinking the General Belgrano. They ..the Argentine Navy ..knew the truth about the capabilities of a nuclear submarine.

en.wikipedia.org...


I do have concerns about England's new carrier/carriers as to whether their budget is sufficient to keep a submarine escort/escorts nearby...every time they go to sea. For I know that with their massive social programs are straining their entire military budget far worse than at times past. It was the same just before WW2...they had let their military budgets go in favor of social programs.

At the pace we are going here stateside..it will be the same with our military.

Thanks,
Orangetom