Is this a ridiculous idea? Wouldn’t a sub the size of a modern ballistic missile submarine be able to carry and half a dozen stealth V/STOL aircraft internally? The aircraft could be designed for maximum stowage, folding wings and tails, etc. The Typhoon class subs are over 550 feet long, with a beam of 65 feet and displace 48,000 tons. The American Ohio class carries 24 Trident missiles as well as cruise missiles and have beams in excess of 45 feet and are 560 feet long.
I’m not so much concerned about the rationality of such a craft but the feasibility.
By: Distiller - 24th March 2006 at 11:08
The Sen Toku Class.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/sen_toku.htm
@ Ja:
The Regulus I was installed on two WW2 Gato/Balao class subs (2 missiles in a barrel behind the fin), redesignated as SSG, the first nuclear armed subs of the USN, plus in the late 1950s they built the two Grayback boats (4 missiles in a hangar over the bow), plus the one nuclear powered Hallibut (up to 5 missiles in an internal hangar in front of the fin). Hallibut was an interesting boat with a long life of special and covert missions.
USN fired over 100 Regulus I (incl from cruisers and carriers). From 1959 to 1964 (incl Cuban Crises) these five boats were the only nuclear armed boats of the USN. That was before Polaris.
Funny story: In 1959 the USN tried rapid-mail delivery with Regulus.
And then there was SSM-N-6 Rigel, but that was never launched from a boat.
By: SteveO - 23rd March 2006 at 17:10
Here are a couple of pics from the Lets see some mini/small carriers thread http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=40890 the book cover is mine and the I400 pic is Francois5’s and a good one from Matej.
By: Ja Worsley - 23rd March 2006 at 13:40
The Japanese did one
Vymp: mate I guess you are refering to the I-400 class? Well in fact they did five though some think there was a sixth but that’s just speculation (I-400-402 and 404-405 were completed, I-403 never was though there is some spectulation that she did make it in to to service but as a tanker/cargo ship that was later destroyed). Also the French did it too with their Surcouf.
The idea isn’t so silly really, I always thought that you could have say 6 Bede J-5J microjets armed with a couple of .50 cals to knock down any aircraft that came looking for the SSBN. Of course this would also serve to give away the SSBN’s and we all know that is a no no!
Does anyone here remember or know about the Romulas and Remus projram that the USN had? There are your aircraft carying subs 😉
By: fightingirish - 22nd March 2006 at 09:40
The 4 Ohio Class SSGN’s (ex-SSBN) will be able to carry UCAV’s. Just see the thread “Popsci :The Navy’s Swimming Spy Plane“.
There are also plans for smaller subs to carry UAV’s. Just see the thread “New german technology for submarines“.
Sciene-ficton at http://www.deepangel.com/
By: orko_8 - 22nd March 2006 at 08:32
There was a Soviet project in the late 40’s or early 50’s which was a submarine LST able to carry a large number of trucks, APC’s and T-34’s plus 4 or 6 light fighters (Ilyushin or Polikarpov, I cannot recall).(*) It was a daring and sound project for its time, but progress in missile and guidance technologies ruled out the necessity for such movements. It is possible to hit a target effectively from very long distances, without being detected. A submarine has very limited space, thus ability to carry a sufficient number of fighters is nearly impossible. Development in UAV / UCAV technology, however, can make submarines carry some A/C’s for special purposes possible.
(*): It was in Norman Polmar’s “Cold War Submarines” book.
By: Gauntlet - 22nd March 2006 at 08:13
What would be the point? SSBNs are supposed to stay hidden, right? 😉
By: Vympel - 22nd March 2006 at 07:50
The Japanese did one. America and Russia studied them in the Cold War.
They both decided it was a stupid idea 🙂
Sign In
March 21, 2006 at 11:21 pm