Sub Carrier?

www.cnn.com...

Read this story and picture if you will, and underwater version of an aircraft carrier, carrying a squadron or two of weaponized versions of these bad boys. I think Russian or Chinese boomers would have a bit to worry about, eh?

I don't see the advantage of a 'carrier submarine', frankly. These 'underwater airplanes' don't enjoy any speed advantage over a conventional hull. I'd also doubt that these winged submarines have the range of a conventional hull, and I can almost promise you that they have an acoustic signature that's gargantuan compared to a conventional 'body of revolution' hull.

What's the point of building a 'carrier' and 'seaplanes' (I know that's not the best term, but it beats typing out 'winged submersible vehicles'!) when the seaplanes are no faster than the carrier, shorter ranged than the carrier, and easier to detect (due to noise)? You'd be better off using a conventional wire-guided / homing torpedo...which has the additional advantages of being a proven technology (technical innovation is a great thing, but reliability is a better thing), a cheaper technology (due to the lack of R&D cost), a broader-based technology (you don't need special submarines to carry torpedoes...almost any sub already has them), and (perhaps most importantly in our current casualty-averse environment) a technology that doesn't put a human 'flight crew' in danger.

Those things are just expensive toys. They don't do anything an unmanned submersible can't do better. An attack sub is pretty much an "underwater aircraft carrier"- if you consider the torpedoes as aircraft. Attack subs usually have detachable subs attached to them now, for Special Forces insertion anyway.

Already being discussed in the thread below.

Possible to build a modern submarine aircraft carrier