Are submersible aircraft carriers practical in this day and age?

File: 7.jpg (54KB, 725x483px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 725x483px

Unfortunately not

but they'll always sail in the sea of my dreams

>>31487576
We already own the seas so not really

The closest we'll get is the SSGN. It fulfills more or less the same role.

>>31487590
>we already own the seas

Didn't even need a flag to know what you are.

>>31488137
Which is exactly why we don't need them :^)

>>31487588
A thing of beauty

>>31488137

You just completely verified his claims, m8

>>31487576

To a very, very lesser extent, yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTpUG9fCJpA

>>31487576
Not in a traditional sense but sub launched drones could be a thing.

>>31487590
>>31488137
>>31488223
>>31488347
Fucking kek.

What about sub-launched gliders ?

>>31487590
>britbongs

They're less practical now than they were in WWII. Submarines are bigger, yes, but jets are much much bigger.

>>31487593
>SSGN. It fulfills more or less the same role.

Why dont people get this? the advantages of a sub aircraft carrier would be surfacing and launching a strike unexpectedly. then recovering and going away....but that leave you much more vulnerable than just launching some tomahawks at the same targets.

>>31490954

Not necessarily. UCAVs can be similar or smaller in size to WW2 aircraft. The bigger reason is that there is no reason not to just use VLS launched cruise missiles instead for the job.

>>31487588
this is the first picture ive seen of any kind of serious looking design of a submersible carrier

>>31487576
>Are submersible aircraft carriers practical in this day and age?
Not really. Technically, some subs can carry UAVs.

>>31488364
>that much mast exposure in contested waters
disgusting.

>>31487576
Were... were they ever practical?

>>31487576
yes as UAV platforms. The Navy plans to completely get rid of manned aircraft. The F-35 was the last manned purchase. Rest will be unmanned.


Drones launching from a carrier make sense, a sub could sneak in and deliver precision strikes (unlike those of a Tomahawk Cruise missile).

>>31487588
Sparky?

>>31487576
A fleet carrier can have continuous landings and take offs for days at a time. Making one submersible would be something of a waste.

That being said, I can certainly see the advantage of being able to hide from cruise missiles and air power but unless you can launch planes while submerged no admiral is going to greenlight it.

>>31487593
I keep feeling that the SSGN is underrated. Like if you could sneak into cruise missile range without anybody noticing you could turn an entire naval shipyard into soggy rubble before anybody could retaliate.

>>31490070

Awwww shit, nigga.

>>31494521
They launch out of tubes. Not sure how they expect to recover and rearm that though. Maybe they meet up with a support ship and just get new drones put in there.

>>31495006
Not sure if you could fire an aircraft like a ballistic missile. Aircraft don't have the kind of density a cruise missile has and the sea water will play hell with the turbines. And no matter how much I think about it, I can't help but see the high powered steam ram they use to launch missiles to destroy a modern aircraft.

You'd basically need to design the aircraft around the launch system and said aircraft really wouldn't be useful doing anything else. Too many design compromises.

Rapid pressure change would also be dangerous for the pilots. Sure, you might be able to negate some of the nitrogen build up with oxygen masks but then you risk hyperoxia and the seizures it brings.

You could use drones but sea water absorbs radio waves so they'd basically be fighting alone. You'd have no practical way of guiding them. You could have them run autonomously but frankly, I don't trust AIs to run around unsupervised.

>>31494521
Drones launched via hydrogen balloons? a small compressed container of hydrogen inside the drone that fills a launch balloon. You can deploy them like mines and activate them when not in range.

>>31495707
Would actually be deployed by everything but carriers. All you need to do is drop one over board with an anchor and a radio buoy and really that calls for cheaper, less useful ships to do the scunt work.Hell, you could even deploy them with carrier borne aircraft but it's really not work making a submersible carrier over.

As a concept, smart mines rely heavily on how well they can escape detection. Those hydrogen balloons are going to make a lot of noise so any warship is going to be peppering the drones with missiles and canister shot as soon as they break the surface.It would be great in the shallower waters for coastal defense but not much else.

Now if you really want a good smart mine system, imagine thousands of quadrotors each with a pound of C4 on them in a suicidal charge towards an armored convoy.

File: sub-launched_drone1021.jpg (75KB, 1021x651px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1021x651px

>>31487576
Yes, absolutely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI9Sm1NO1wY

Honestly advancements in nuclear subs would be the correct direction for the future of warfare. Regardless of where the enemy is they'll ultimately rely on railroads and ships to continue any war effort.

>>31494663

An Ohio SSGN can carry up to 154 cruise missiles. You can carry out a Pearl Harbor type attack with one vessel from 1000 miles away.

Even if you have world class air defenses, a surprise attack like that would be incredibly difficult to defend yourself against effectively considering it could come from any part of a country's coastline.

>tfw there will will never be a sub-launched wild weasel attack to destroy AA defense accompanied by marine strike teams to weaken up the target, immediately followed up by a conventional invasion force from a CSG

>sneak undetected into missle launch range
>surface and fart out planes

no

>>31487576
Submersible carriers weren't practical in any day or age.

>>31487588
That is no where near enough runway to even launch a jet aircraft let alone land one.

>>31497927
See, that's what I'm thinking but the US navy only has 4 guided missile submarines.

It just bugs me that we don't make more.

File: 67507ce507d45799.png (32KB, 2300x450px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 2300x450px

>>31496661
Sup

>>31499133

Well, the ability to fire a colossal volley of cruise missiles from a submarine is a niche ability. There aren't many situations that will need it, and there simply isn't enough money and manufacturing capacity to fire off hundreds of missiles all the time.

For most situations, the far more plentiful Virginia class has enough missiles.

>>31499133
When we start building an Ohio replacement for SSBN duty I get the feeling the rest of the Ohio class will be converted to SSGN.

>>31500085
Its more likely they will get retired, between the new SSBN, the Ford class, LCS and F-35 the Navy does not have the budget for SSGN conversions.

>>31500163
Conversion from BN to GN isn't that expensive, it's probably cheaper than decommissioning the reactor.

>>31500184
They'd have to go to Kitsap to get either option done anyways, might as well get more useful life out of the hull.

>>31487576
could be good for helicopters if your goal is stealthy insertion ie the UBL raid

>>31491028

A modern fighter jet is as big as a WW2 bomber.

>>31497927

A cruise missile wouldn't do shit to a WW2 BB.

File: carrier sub.jpg (247KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1024x768px

It won't be a thing until we discover Belkan magic and learn how to harness it.

>>31500397
Not this shit again.

Go him bbfag, no one wants to explain for the 1000th time why you can't armor mission vital components that ww2 battleships had (like radar), or why firepower>armor in almost all situations.

>>31500397
154 will. Christ, an OHP as built could wreck the Iowa as built. The Iowa wouldn't even get a shot off.