Submarine and Aircraft Carrier combined
-
the battle group is nearly invincible to any attack... of cos nuclear sure die lar
-
watch too many macross or gundam.....
we dont have that kind of technology yet....
-
How many compressed air cyclinders do you need to carry in order to vent the hugh numbers of tanks in order to surface? Wat about diving for such a big boat? By the time you take into consideration all of the above, not to mention the number of control planes you need to control in order to maneurver in the deep. Your aircraft carrier submisible could be twice or even thrice the size of the Nitmiz. Cheaper to built aircraft carriers.
-
even if there is a nuclear-powered mini city crawling deep beneath the pacific ocean, as long as it is not self-sufficient, supply tracing is bound to expose its co-ordinates. Nothing hides from the eye in the sky.
-
Hmmmm, a rather good idea......for a few laughs at least.
Firstly, imagine the size of that thing.
Second, imagine what a torpedo is thinking (Oh yeah! Easy target!)
Third, tell me how many submarines have survived direct impacts? You can quote the Typhoon class but if you put the amount of materials used, which shipyard can even house the construction or have the materials to fabricate even one section of what you're proposing.
Time to get brain check, or at least a reality check.
But I had a few good minutes of solid laughter. -
With invention of UUV and UAV, think it's possible without the need to put human lives in harm's way.....so this concept is really viable...
-
Well, given the advances in technology... we may not be seeing manned fighters for long anyways.
Manned Aircraft technology has already reach its peak. The aircraft can generally pull more G's than the pilots can. Large amounts of the aircraft flight controls have already been automated by computers. Perhaps a submarine that launches high performance UCAVs could be possible.
If u can launch a ballistic missile out of a VLS, i think its possible to do the same for a UCAV. -
Carrier pilots have to fly constantly to maintain currency.
They can't just be "grounded" sitting in a sub and then suddenly launch an alfa strike....
The sub-carrier have to maintain almost constant air ops, which means it will lose its greatest benefit... "stealth"....
SSBNs and CVNs are already one of the most expensive warships afloat... i think by combining them i don't think even the uS could aford them. -
Well true. The loss stealth when launching would be a crucial loss.
However, when we think about this kinda mothership technology, we would really require a lot of automation and unmanned weapons technology.
In this example, as aircraft today are generally too big to fit in a sub, we would have to go along the line of UCAVs. And for surface and sub surface threats, we would have to think along the lines of USVs.
One benefit of having a submerged platform that can launch strikes, would be avoiding satellite reconnasiance. However, honestly speaking... the need for a submarine to carry UCAVs would be very... redundant. Since UCAVs are generally cheaper than planes, and can cheaply be deployed to forward bases without fear of loss.
I still say its better to launch VF-1 out of submarines. Got gundams better still.
In anycase, the aircraft carrier... in the end, is a symbol of naval supremacy and might. Something u actually WANT people to see, and not hide. -
Agree on the last paragraph.... the visible presence of a CVBG goes beyond to the firepower it can achieve....Originally posted by Shotgun:Well true. The loss stealth when launching would be a crucial loss.
However, when we think about this kinda mothership technology, we would really require a lot of automation and unmanned weapons technology.
In this example, as aircraft today are generally too big to fit in a sub, we would have to go along the line of UCAVs. And for surface and sub surface threats, we would have to think along the lines of USVs.
One benefit of having a submerged platform that can launch strikes, would be avoiding satellite reconnasiance. However, honestly speaking... the need for a submarine to carry UCAVs would be very... redundant. Since UCAVs are generally cheaper than planes, and can cheaply be deployed to forward bases without fear of loss.
I still say its better to launch VF-1 out of submarines. Got gundams better still.
In anycase, the aircraft carrier... in the end, is a symbol of naval supremacy and might. Something u actually WANT people to see, and not hide. -
Combination is not practical.
Submarines main advantage is stealth. It moves silent.
The bigger your submarine, the more moving parts it has, the more drag it makes in the water... all this leads to more noise and less stealth.
Also submarines are most vulnerable on the surface.
To submerge you have to get your pumps working and dive. You can't just turn the ship 90 degrees and shoot down, you have to do it at an angle.
Water resistance will also slow it's entry so bigger will be slower.
Can you imagine how long your carrier sub will take to dive?
Even if it's half the length of a normal carrier, it'll still take much longer to dive than a normal sub and probably make twice as much noise in the process. -
First of all, the cost of your all-in-one submarine carrier will be very very expensive, at least 5x to 10x the cost for a conventional carrier. After that, you will need delicated machinery and infrastructure to maintain your super carrier. You must understand that this is not easy like what u watch in cartoon series e.g. Macross.
After that, do bear in mind that your super carrier will be a damn big targets for enemy to shoot at. Even simple depth charge will not miss the target. W/o any shielding tech, your big carrier is just a exhibit in the harbour.
In addition, you sub carrier would have problem to access some of the region in the world. Deep open water ok, but not small, shallow, narrow straits. In addition, the maintenance work required is tremendous. Your Nuclear engine to power this big sub will be like a underwater rock band, and you lost your stealth advantages. -
This has been a great fantasy. Can't believe that there actually are people who think this is practical with manned aircraft.
-
Not with today's technology perhaps. Maybe when we colonize a planet thats largely water... we'd need more underwater stuff. Heh.
Besides, u need imagination. In the past, people thot the technology in Star Wars is impossible. But we are slowly getting there.
Look at the F-16... if not for state of the art computer systems, that plane CANNOT fly. -
I rather that we spend the $$$ to colonize moon or put some extra eyes in the orbit to do some useful neighbourhood watch at our backyard. If one day Sg can hike a ride to moon, we can at least have some claim on the real estate on Moon for some real future development.
With Singapore focus on bio-techonlogy and moving up the semicon value chain, it is inevitable that some day in the future Sg would need some sort of low G facility for manufacturing some high grade medicine or precious semiconductors materials. It is towards our nation interest to kick start some real cutting edge material research, which can really propel our Sg into the top indusrtial leauge. Currently, we know that China and India is still very backward in material research. Jap and Korea are working on advanced engineering materials for bio and semicon.
Sg should really bank in on the weakness of China and India now. Both giants are still busy get the IT and Electonic assembly outsourcing contracts. It is a good move that Sg is starting to build wind tunnels and electronic magnetic labs, but we need more projects to spreadhead into advance material engineering. In this way, Sg can play a more important role in the emerging Bio-Semiconductor implant market. -
hmm...what about other idea from world war two...mini-subs...maybe unmanned, carried to designation by a special mini-sub carrier, and launch them from afar...
-
Actually, these remote minisubs are already being used extensively for much deep-ocean research.
The US Navy uses USVs that they can launch from their 688i n seawolf class subs' torpedo tubes to use as offboard sensors. In otherwords, they can active ping away from the submarine, allowing them to detect enemy submarines without compromising their own submarine.
I would say that this kinda technology would be particularly useful when navigating minefields where high frequency sonar is required. -
Originally posted by Eiizumi:
bro, while I don't know how much an aircraft carrier costs, but I know the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber already costs USD$2 Billion...each
2) I think an aircraft carrier cost average up to US$500 million or more. A sub-aircraft carrier? US$1 billion? Wow.
[/b]