Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Breakfast of runners-up.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                     

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Submersible AirCraft Carrier

 An aircraft carring submarine
 
(+2, -2) 		  [vote for,
against]

My idea is to eliminate the lack of surprise from aircraft carriers by makeing aircraft carriers submersable and therefore stealthy. My idea would also make aircraft carriers less vulnerable to sinking and would in turn eliminate escort ships and other expensive entities. This system would be great for making surprise first strikes in onsets of war and would also make the knoweledge of the location of aircraft carriers secretive. I beleive that this idea would be great for new military strategies. The deck of the carrier could be on top of the sub and the key parts could have special cover doors over it for when it is submerged, such as the control tower could retract and the catapault and teather cables could be covered up as well as the flight deck, aircraft would be put underdeck in hangers while underwater. It would not be fesable for larger aircraft but may be great for england's smaller carriers for harriers and JSFs or for the US marine corps.
—JoeLounsbury2004, Oct 22 2003

(?) Submarine aircraft carrier http://formen.ign.c...9277.html?fromint=1
Submarine aircraft carrier. [sufc, Oct 04 2004]

Royal Navy M2 http://www.deeperblue.net/article.php/183
The British Royal Navy had one in World War I. [krelnik, Oct 04 2004]

(?) SkyDiver http://members.fort...diver/skydiver4.jpg
From the Gerry Anderson TV series 'U.F.O.' [DrBob, Oct 04 2004]

Japanese, british and french versions discussed http://en.wikipedia...ne_aircraft_carrier
[ConsulFlaminicus, Oct 05 2005]

More detail on the Japanese units http://smmlonline.c.../i400700/i-400.html
[ConsulFlaminicus, Oct 05 2005]

Nice piccies of the I-401 off Hawaii http://starbulletin...20/news/story1.html
[ConsulFlaminicus, Oct 05 2005]

Japanese giant submarine https://www.youtube...watch?v=OPC51Mh-jtU
[pashute, May 28 2017]

[link]






       Is there a special category for James Bond Science?
—Don Quixote, Oct 22 2003
   

       This has been done. I think by the Japanese in the 1930's or early 1940's. I'll see if I can find a link.
—Laughs Last, Oct 22 2003
   

       Oh yes, you're right Laughs. They had one or two planes strapped to the outside of the sub, I think.
—krelnik, Oct 22 2003
   

       See link.
—sufc, Oct 22 2003
   

       I had this idea many years ago. I felt that the only way to achieve it and have a significant number of planes would be to use remotely controlled planes.
This allows for more compact storage and also higher G-forces for take off and landing.
—Zimmy, Oct 22 2003
   

       A very big part of the value of aircraft carriers is the deterence their presence provides. What would be the thought process of an enemy nation when attacking a powerful nation when that powerful nation has an aircraft carrier off their coast?   

       Also, an important factor is that Aircraft carriers already strike from afar. Aircraft fly in from over the horizon, do their work, then fly back.   

       The vessel would certainly be an impressive engineering feat, and may be a deterent for that fact; but I think the ship would be less of an asset than the plane old surface carriers.
—swamilad, Oct 22 2003
   

       "My idea would also make aircraft carriers less vulnerable to sinking"   

       Wouldn't they in fact sink more often?   

       How does your idea promote world peace?
—benjamin, Oct 22 2003
   

       Deterants promote world peace by preventing war from the fear of it.
—JoeLounsbury, Oct 22 2003
   

       //What would be the thought process of an enemy nation when attacking a powerful nation when that powerful nation has an aircraft carrier off their coast?//   

       If an enemy nation knew that we had these carriers, but not where they were, wouldn't the said nation be all the more deterred?
—spiraliii, Oct 22 2003
   

       spiraliii, --yes, probably, but we (the US, I speak of) have other strategic deterents. A fleet of Ballistic missile submarines, and currently under development/retrofit, guided missile submarines. We need to show some, and hide some. I think airplanes, and the ships they are on are a great asset to show off. Have you ever seen a non US aircraft carrier? I recently saw one (a picture)- it seemed almost primative, with its all helicopter aircraft compliment.
—swamilad, Oct 23 2003
   

       JoeLounsbury, JoeLounsbury2004: are you the same person? Didn't an admin tell you to delete one of those?
—swamilad, Oct 23 2003
   

       If this is baked, then does it have to be [mfd]?   

       The same idea was used in the old Amiga game F18 Hornet (the one where you could fly around San Francisco). In the last mission you had to sink a Russian submersible aircraft carrier which had launched a surprise attack. Not suggesting you might have seen that before Joe, but it has been halfbaked by others in a modern sense too.   

       Oh and by the way, England is not the same as Britain. Britain has a couple of small aircraft carriers. England is one of the parts of Britain.
—suctionpad, Oct 23 2003
   

       Quoting the help file: "Mere existence alone is not grounds for deletion; it needs to also be widely known."
—krelnik, Oct 23 2003
   

       How about an Aircraft Carrier that could fly, and hold a few submarines in in. That would really fool the enemy.
—effaduck, Oct 23 2003
   

       "Showing off..." during the cold war the Soviets had massive parades to show off their arms to the world. The Americans, who saw these huge missiles and had to hurry up to be the first to the moon... Now it turns out the Soviet missiles were made of wood. Good idea, huh?
—stringstretcher, Oct 27 2003
   

       The french had one called the Surcouf, that sank when the hanger doors let in water.
—oneoffdave, Oct 27 2003
   

       I probably should note that catapults are a bit old-fashioned these days on aircraft carriers due to the adoption of the RAF's Harrier vertical take off and landing system by countries that can afford it.   

       However an aircraft-carrier submarine might make more sense if the aircraft were drones, as they would take up less space. Such dones could potentially even be fired through conventional torpedeo and missile systems, making it possible to retrofit a sub.
—Aristotle, Oct 27 2003
   

       Harriers are nice for their multi-role capability, but for all-out dogfighting prowess, they're sorely lacking. Any vertical-takeoff aircraft of today's technology will be significantly heavier than a similar aircraft without the vertical takeoff components. In order to launch the higher-performance aircraft, catapults are still, and will be for quite some time, a necessity.
—Freefall, Oct 27 2003
   

       Have you heard about the latest fighter procurement by British and American armed forces?   

       Harrier technology was selected as part of a programme to replace the Harrier, improve on it's weaker aspects and provide a base fighter that could be produced in about 4 different configurations.
—Aristotle, Oct 27 2003
   

       //In order to launch the higher-performance aircraft, catapults are still, and will be for quite some time, a necessity.//
Not so! Just today I saw some cool vertical take-off aircraft with unimaginable grace and maneuverability, on that sci-fi tv channel......uh no, wait!
—silverstormer, Oct 27 2003
   

       //Have you heard about the latest fighter procurement by British and American armed forces?//   

       I think that's the X-35.
—spiraliii, Oct 27 2003
   

       //Have you heard about the latest fighter procurement by British and American armed forces?.//
Anybody know the punchline?.
—sufc, Oct 27 2003
   

       The Submarine Idea was thought up my myself very long time ago: The Sub would have to very large and hold the equipment and passengers for 4 aircaft, these would be the new Joint Strike Fighter, as its the only plane with the engine which has a high fuel efficiency for vertical take off, the whole project would have to be made in complete secret, this weapon only has the advantage as a first strike weapon.
—Edsmith56, Nov 28 2003
   

       If anything it would be less stealthy. Are we all forgeting about sonar?. Plus it would move really really slow. Because of its size it would be confined to blue water. And if you look at the navy's trend after the cold war, most ships are performing operations close to shore or in confined waterways.
—Antegrity, Oct 04 2005
   

       //the logistical advantage would be titanic// Well. There's a clever choice of words.   

       I confess here to a lifelong obsession with all things naval (touring the USS Nimitz in a couple of weeks - Yay!).
—ConsulFlaminicus, Oct 05 2005
   

       //the most sealthy in history// - adj. of, or pertaining to, pinnipeds?
—AbsintheWithoutLeave, Oct 05 2005
   

       Baked by the giant Japanese submarines. See link.
—pashute, May 28 2017
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle