Military buildup

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by magicstix

A submarine on the surface is a dead submarine.

There was a time when submarines were designed to fight on the surface. They were quite successful. If a submarine could be equipped to defend its self from air attacks either with LR SAMs or Fighters then the submarine becomes very capable of defending its self on the surface.

There will never be a submarine that carries aircraft.

Originally Posted by magicstix

A submarine on the surface is a dead submarine. There will never be a submarine that carries aircraft.

SSG's and SSGN's carry cruise missiles which meet every definition of aircraft even if they lack pilots.

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

There was a time when submarines were designed to fight on the surface. They were quite successful. If a submarine could be equipped to defend its self from air attacks either with LR SAMs or Fighters then the submarine becomes very capable of defending its self on the surface.

There will never be a *modern* submarine that carries aircraft.

Submarines today aren't designed to fight on the surface, and for very good reason. Lack of hydrodynamics kills stealth for one. For two, WW2 era submarines didn't have to deal with the kinds of threats that subs have to deal with today. In WW2, sub on ship fights were generally close range engagements where the surface ship was more or less blind. Today subs can be detected long range and attacked at stand off.

There are no aircraft that could be fielded from a submarine. Neither harriers nor F-35Bs have folding wings, and even taking an Ohio class SSGN and dumping as much as you can to put aircraft on it would give you 2 or 3 aircraft at best, with NO air defenses added, and these are the second largest subs ever built. Add in all the machinery required and crew to support the aircraft, and you very quickly have an impractical design.

If the design was practical, it would've survived beyond WW2 and we'd have sub carriers today.

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

SSG's and SSGN's carry cruise missiles which meet every definition of aircraft even if they lack pilots.

Except one definition: they can't kill other aircraft.

Originally Posted by magicstix

Except one definition: they can't kill other aircraft.

Airliners cannot kill other aircraft, neither could the Wright Flyer and they meet every definition of aircraft. As does the U-2, SR-71, B-2 and so on and so on.

For much of the 50's and 60's about half the USN carrier force lacked any offensive aircraft or organic air defence aircraft at all. These were the anti-submarine CVS and were aircraft carriers in every respect.

The ability to kill other aircraft has nothing whatsoever to do with what defines an aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Airliners cannot kill other aircraft, neither could the Wright Flyer and they meet every definition of aircraft. As does the U-2, SR-71, B-2 and so on and so on.

For much of the 50's and 60's about half the USN carrier force lacked any offensive aircraft or organic air defence aircraft at all. These were the anti-submarine CVS and were aircraft carriers in every respect.

The ability to kill other aircraft has nothing whatsoever to do with what defines an aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft

Being able to kill other aircraft has absolutely everything to do with the definition of aircraft if you're talking about replacing a CVBG.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by magicstix

There will never be a *modern* submarine that carries aircraft.

Submarines today aren't designed to fight on the surface, and for very good reason. Lack of hydrodynamics kills stealth for one. For two, WW2 era submarines didn't have to deal with the kinds of threats that subs have to deal with today. In WW2, sub on ship fights were generally close range engagements where the surface ship was more or less blind. Today subs can be detected long range and attacked at stand off.

There are no aircraft that could be fielded from a submarine. Neither harriers nor F-35Bs have folding wings, and even taking an Ohio class SSGN and dumping as much as you can to put aircraft on it would give you 2 or 3 aircraft at best, with NO air defenses added, and these are the second largest subs ever built. Add in all the machinery required and crew to support the aircraft, and you very quickly have an impractical design.

If the design was practical, it would've survived beyond WW2 and we'd have sub carriers today.

The Oberon class isn't modern? They were only decommissioned 11 years ago!

Survived beyond WWII? Damn the SSM-N-8 Regulus missile could be launched from a Submarine and Land ashore if it aborted its mission:


Bet'cha you never seen a nuclear missile with landing gear before!

Yes the F-35B and the Harrier don't have folding wings. Is there some fundamental law of aerodynamics that says a VTOL aircraft can't have folding wings?

Didn't think so...

Interestingly a Harrier is shorter than a trident missile, and weighs six times less, so basically an Ohio class hull could carry 24 Harriers with about five reloads of stores and fuel. OMG an Ohio SSVN is looking better than an Invincible class carrier!

As I mentioned before the USS Jimmy Carter deployed a surveillance UAV over Yeonpyeong island following the North Korean attack on the island last year. (So for those keeping score at home that is a submarine, launching an aircraft, under combat conditions). The German Type 212 U Boats are going to be outfitted with three short range Aladin UAVs and a 30MM Rheinmetall cannon on a mast.

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Interestingly a Harrier is shorter than a trident missile, and weighs six times less, so basically an Ohio class hull could carry 24 Harriers with about five reloads of stores and fuel. OMG an Ohio SSVN is looking better than an Invincible class carrier!

As I mentioned before the USS Jimmy Carter deployed a surveillance UAV over Yeonpyeong island following the North Korean attack on the island last year. (So for those keeping score at home that is a submarine, launching an aircraft, under combat conditions). The German Type 212 U Boats are going to be outfitted with three short range Aladin UAVs and a 30MM Rheinmetall cannon on a mast.

The point is not that there's a law that says VSTOL can't have folding wings, the point is to spin up a sub carrier program would also require spinning up a fighter program.

Length and weight are more or less irrelevant. You also have to take into account wingspan and crewing requirements in your idea. You can't just store 24 harriers vertically and expect things to work. It's ridiculous to think that because you have 24 missile tubes you can fit 24 harriers on an Ohio class. Missiles don't need extra fuel or maintenance; they're a complete package.

There's so much support infrastructure you'd need for an embarked airwing.

Look at the USS Wasp. It carries 1/4th the number of harriers in your design, but it's 3 times wider, almost twice as long as, and has a crew nearly 10x larger than an Ohio class SSBN. Even getting rid of everything else an LHD does, you're not going to fit an airwing in the same footprint.

Tactically it doesn't make sense either, you're going to need AWACS to make your airwing useful (try fitting one of those on a sub), you need search and rescue capabilities for downed pilots, and the fact that you'd have to spend most of your time on the surface to do air operations will negate the stealth capabilities you're trying to achieve in the first place.

[mapuc]

maybe not the right thread...

In 15 to 20 years from now China have occupied Taiwan and USA/Europe haven't done nothing.

China just say to the american: if you and your allied close your eyes we will reduce your debt by xxxx billions.

Got this, idea when I saw an interview with the former ambassador to USA.

He said so (we will get Taiwan somehow)

Markus

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by mapuc

maybe not the right thread...

In 15 to 20 years from now China have occupied Taiwan and USA/Europe haven't done nothing.

China just say to the american: if you and your allied close your eyes we will reduce your debt by xxxx billions.

Got this, idea when I saw an interview with the former ambassador to USA.

He said so (we will get Taiwan somehow)

Markus

China may be the largest foreign holder of US debt depending on the day of the week (the position actually trades back and forth between China and Japan), but they still don't hold a majority of the debt. China forgiving the entirety of our debt wouldn't even drop it by 10%. The problems between China and the US go deeper than just Taiwan, unfortunately. They're becoming a destabilizing force in Asia, and their foot dragging on and out right blocking in the UN of other efforts that are central to US interests such as Iran tends to not go over well with us.

They're becoming a destabilizing force in Asia, and their foot dragging on and out right blocking in the UN of other efforts that are central to US interests such as Iran tends to not go over well with us.

So they are doing the same as any of the five and are doing the same as they have all done for decades.

[CCIP]

Here's a billion ways in which aircraft-carrying subs have existed and continue to do so.

http://www.combatreform.org/submarin...ftcarriers.htm

IMO the future's looking brighter than ever for them. Much less so for surface carriers - and manned aircraft and surface combat groups as such. I think within 20-30 years we'll see some very dramatic extinctions in types of weapons that dominated the battlefields of the last century. Large surface combatants, manned aircraft, and battle tanks are heading the way of the dreadnoughts sooner than we might expect.

Here's a billion ways in which aircraft-carrying subs have existed and continue to do so.

Interesting site this. A thought that pops to mind "where there's a will, there's away"

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I personally don't see replacing surface aircraft carrier with submarines feasible option in current situation and I don't see them coming reality within next 20-30 years. I agree that fitting submarine with UAVs works in special roles.

Here are some questions which in my opinion should be answered very well before making submarine aircraft carrier viable:

1. Do it need to surface? If yes how it...
a) stays undetected
b) defends itself against enemy combatants like aircraft and missiles
c) submarine hull is not designed for surface operations - it have low freeboard among other problems - how it would be adapted to fit to both submerged and surface operation without excessively compromising each other including such parametres as stealth?

2. If surfacing isn't necessary then...
a) how it launches its aircraft
b) how it recovers its aircraft
c) if submarine have to move to avoid enemy combatants how aircraft find back home
d) how to prevent enemy following where those aircraft are going and launching bunch of missiles carrying ASW torpedoes to that location?

3. If submarine launches and retrieves its aircraft underwater...
a) in what depth it should be - how independently it can move during flight operations to avoid detection
b) submarine relyies into its stealth - how would it maintain it during flight operations - remember noise is big no-no

4. Unless fail-proof* AI is developed...
a) where and by who command & control would be arranged
b) how and by what means would AI determine who is enemy, who is friend and who is neutral?

Your opinions ladies and gentlemen?

*includes not becoming hostile to its creators

[Castout]

Originally Posted by magicstix

Ignoring your obvious bias given the nature of this forum (), a submarine is definitely powerful, but it can't project power the same way a CVN battlegroup can.

A submarine can't neutralize enemy forces the way a battlegroup can, it can really only deny waterspace or take out certain facilities with missile strikes.

True, the best attack SSN is only a tactical weapon. However SSBNs are strategic weapon but one which is used solely as a deterrent.

Carrier battle group however can deny enemy control of their own airspace and hit both tactical and strategic targets on the ground. Carrier battle group presence is much more obvious and it makes a huge deterrent too to smaller navy and air force and army thus it is often used as tools to apply political pressure by the politicians and to avoid war. In comparison while submarine too has a deterrent role at sea and limited ground, it can never be used to apply political pressure unless it has sunk something, due to the basis of its stealth operation, thus escalating the situation towards an arms conflict. But still you cannot win war by air supremacy alone. Ultimately boots on the ground will have to grab the victory from the enemy's hands.

Good post.

Furthermore as US dominion is waning, the world is guaranteed to see more conflicts.