Submarine and Aircraft Carrier combined
-
Is it possible to combine an aircraft carrier with a submarine?
There will be many advantages , costs , stealth , and the ability to cut back on an aircraft carrier's weakness , which requires escorts. -
oh.... r u expecting the submarine to be flat or round?Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:Is it possible to combine an aircraft carrier with a submarine?
There will be many advantages , costs , stealth , and the ability to cut back on an aircraft carrier's weakness , which requires escorts. -
F-35. don't have to be flat.
just need to have a outlet for them to launch their jets.
Just like the way the hatches open for the submarine to launch cruise missiles.
Just that this time a bigger hatch opens and a VTOL F-35 gets deployed.
Can bypass through enemy lines as well. -
was watching the history channel ..... apparently the japanese did something like it back in World War II ..... it was one of the biggest submarines in the world then ..... seaplanes could be launched from it ...
-
tat was a costly mistakeOriginally posted by Fatum:was watching the history channel ..... apparently the japanese did something like it back in World War II ..... it was one of the biggest submarines in the world then ..... seaplanes could be launched from it ...
-
maybe onli for VTOL jets....which is quite useless...Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:F-35. don't have to be flat.
just need to have a outlet for them to launch their jets.
Just like the way the hatches open for the submarine to launch cruise missiles.
Just that this time a bigger hatch opens and a VTOL F-35 gets deployed.
Can bypass through enemy lines as well.
imagine housing 5000 crew?
200 aircraft?
under the sea??? quite impossible lar -
Wow. If an aircraft carrier is combined with a submarine, there are serious problems:
1) How to open its landing board when it just rise from underwater? The protective port opening must be real damn big and lost of mechanises to deal with it!
2) I think an aircraft carrier cost average up to US$500 million or more. A sub-aircraft carrier? US$1 billion? Wow.
3) With such a big surface area as a sub-aircraft carrier, imagine it being hit by underwaters.... That's it for the giant sub and the planes and people inside it...
4) Training 1000 of seamen for a sub-carrier is definitely no easy feat as well as is not cost effective... -
previous generation ones like foggers and harriers, yes ....Originally posted by c0ol_blu3z:maybe onli for VTOL jets....which is quite useless...
imagine housing 5000 crew?
200 aircraft?
under the sea??? quite impossible lar
but the new F-35 would be something else entirely -
aircraft carriers fear submarines.
submarines fear p3c orions.
p3c orions can be dealt with by F-35 jets.
submarines can deal with the submarine. -
don't need 5000 crew and 200 aircraftOriginally posted by c0ol_blu3z:maybe onli for VTOL jets....which is quite useless...
imagine housing 5000 crew?
200 aircraft?
under the sea??? quite impossible lar -
of course you don't open the hatch in the water.Originally posted by Eiizumi:Wow. If an aircraft carrier is combined with a submarine, there are serious problems:
1) How to open its landing board when it just rise from underwater? The protective port opening must be real damn big and lost of mechanises to deal with it!
2) I think an aircraft carrier cost average up to US$500 million or more. A sub-aircraft carrier? US$1 billion? Wow.
3) With such a big surface area as a sub-aircraft carrier, imagine it being hit by underwaters.... That's it for the giant sub and the planes and people inside it...
4) Training 1000 of seamen for a sub-carrier is definitely no easy feat as well as is not cost effective...
your planes will be flying in the sea.
it can deal with a submarine more effectively then an aircraft carrier would.
risk of losing it would be lesser.
it would only be vulnerable to submarines , and probably torpedo patrol aircraft.
But , an aircraft carrier is vulnerable to fighter jets, helicopters, cruise missiles , harpoons , submarines , artilery , and everything you can throw at it. -
for ur information.... carrier operates in GROPUS comprises of the best of everythingOriginally posted by SMAPLionHeart:aircraft carriers fear submarines.
submarines fear p3c orions.
p3c orions can be dealt with by F-35 jets.
submarines can deal with the submarine. -
Aircraft carriers of the future need not operate in groups.
destroyers and frigates protecting it is a waste of money -
A submarine aircraft carrier can survive alone by itself.Originally posted by c0ol_blu3z:for ur information.... carrier operates in GROPUS comprises of the best of everything
Aircraft carriers need escorts.
thats the major downside. -
haha.... do u think US will let carriers travel alone???Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:A submarine aircraft carrier can survive alone by itself.
Aircraft carriers need escorts.
thats the major downside.
or
ur " submarine carrier" 1 vs a whole fleet???? -
leave him be, some jokers jus tink they noe everything around here...Originally posted by c0ol_blu3z:haha.... do u think US will let carriers travel alone???
or
ur " submarine carrier" 1 vs a whole fleet???? 
-
There is no problem with the submarine aircraft carrier combined concept.
50 tons for an airplane is peanuts.
the problem is only to get submarine sailors to work with the aircrew.
if USN wants to do it , no problem , just need to transfer the USN carrier flight crew to the submarine.
new operation procedures and flight control room etc. -
U go be architect lar!Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:There is no problem with the submarine aircraft carrier combined concept.
50 tons for an airplane is peanuts.
the problem is only to get submarine sailors to work with the aircrew.
if USN wants to do it , no problem , just need to transfer the USN carrier flight crew to the submarine.
new operation procedures and flight control room etc. -
i'll take the submarine carrier.Originally posted by c0ol_blu3z:haha.... do u think US will let carriers travel alone???
or
ur " submarine carrier" 1 vs a whole fleet????
just need to go low behind your fleet.
surface somewhere within strike range.
immediate launch of aircrafts , heading towards your fleet at full speed.
radar can't detect if the planes are flying below certain height.
launch of multiple harpoons.
by the time you countered with surface to sea missiles towards my submarine , i would have dived. -
That is unless if your ship fires torpedos , but then again , torpedos have a lower range in comparison to sea skimming missiles.
Just need to be out of range of your torpedos , even if within range , also not much of a threat.
you need to detect , lock on and fire.
I just need to suddenly surface and your missiles hit the sea! , cause from the moment i surface, i will launch out the aircrafts , at most take 30 seconds.
then start to dive already. -
if you are using P3-C orions to attack , then i will launch surface sonar radars.
it's a new technology which allows submarine to float surface buoys containing radar to the sea surface and scan for aircraft.
they usually open the hatch and allow the surface buoys to float from underwater to the surface.
The buoys will then relate data and communication up link back into the submarine. -
wow...did USN hired u as the commander for the PACIFIC FLEET????
pls lar u think no maritime partol, anti sub heli or any patrol boats patrolling meh....u think u playing red alert 2 ar? -
http://www.portorfordlifeboatstation.org/article1.html
-
Already have liao lar. Never watch Macross Zero right?
The Anti-UN submarine can launch 20+ SV-51's from their vertical launch tubes. Recovering them is no problem cos those valkryies can friggin swim underwater. -
i think its easier to invent a submarine plane