NationStates Jolt Archive

Council of Clan is now opening bidding for contracts on modifying a Ohio class submarine to carry 3-4 VTOL style fighters (Harriers preferbly)

we will donate one Ohio Hull ( has the missile bays gutted out) to each particpant to experiment with.

we would like to keep the cost under 3 billion

I will enter.

Got an idea :D

*one Ohio Class hull sets sail for Freedom Country*

It's fully operational except for the missile bays.

Okay dokay.

We shall enter as well. This will prove an interesting challenge

*one ohio sets sail for CSJ*

I was trying to do this myself just on a piece of paper in a class today. Basicly make an underwater aircraft carrier.

I highly recomend that you do not do this.
Why

1. An Ohio class is only 40 feet wide.
2. Loading a jet with provisions and fuel makes a lot of noise
3. Starting a jet makes a lot of noise (a sub can detect an aircraft 10,000 feet overhead with sonar)
4.As you can see in the picture below the Ohio class subs are built with massive beams across the top of the Body.
5. Radar could detect the Harrier taking off and then landing, giving the enemy a relitivley good idea of where the sub is.
6. With VTOL a harrier can carry only 3,100 Kilgorams.


While I liked the idea, in my opinion it is not feasible because of the reasons listed above.




Here are some pictures
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/ssbn742_module.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/ohio_plan.gif

Ok. Just for starters.
Preliminary analysis shows that, with missile tubes and associated fire control removed, and a redesigned hull, Ohio class submarine can carry a maximum of 4 Harrier-sized aircraft internally, 2 on each of 2 decks. However, at least one would have to be removed to allow for an elevator. The only acceptable way of increasing capacity beyond that would be to increase dimensions of the vessel, which we are considering now. We are probably looking into lengthening the boat by at least 20m, with small increases in height and width. This would allow for up to 5 Harriers to be deployed from the vessel, more of the size increase were greater.

OOC: Kahta, I'm well aware of how this is and the limits involved. However, silly and utterly stupid ideas get approved all the time for various reasons (consider the Maus in WWII). I felt it just woulnd't be right if we didn't try something that really isn't worth the effort. Really I see one of two things happening. The first is him getting said carriers and then being unable to effectively use them because of the drawbacks. The other is we finally give up and say it can't be done effectively. Of course, there's always a chance that it could be pulled off . . .

The whole point to this Contract is for a quick strike with Harriers from out at sea where there are no obvious naval assets. Yes it will appear on radar, but that is if the sub surfaces within radar coverage. They will be difficult to use, but if used smartly and not widely they can carry of some bastardly sneak attacks.

The whole point to this Contract is for a quick strike with Harriers from out at sea where there are no obvious naval assets. Yes it will appear on radar, but that is if the sub surfaces within radar coverage. They will be difficult to use, but if used smartly and not widely they can carry of some bastardly sneak attacks.

Hey look here. Wolf Inc. Navy Ship Store: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66442

The Ticonderoga Submersible Carrier is want you need.

I don't remember the exact title of the book off-hand, but I did see in a Borders bookstore once a nonfiction book about attempts at developing submarine aircraft carriers and it did discuss a concept design following almost the exact same parameters as this contract. You may want to try looking for it.

This is just the sort of 'off the wall' idea that would get a viewing around here so send one of those ex- boomers our way :-)

OOC: A harrier needs only 10 square feet of space to launch or land when operating in VTOL mode so it would be possible to do this, of course reality would get in the works and throws a monkey wrench in the works, but then, this isn't reality so we don't have to really be bothered with 'annoying little problems' if we don't want to deal with them :-)

Do you want 1 elevator or 2.

If you want 1, you could have an elevator at the end and a hatch over it, but you would have to launch the planes 1 by 1.

With 2, there are 2 hatches, 2 elevators and 2 birds could go at a time.

And 4 could fit on, if 1/2 sat on the elevator/s at a time.

Tahar Joblis denies having submersible carrier experiments underway!

(Tahar Joblissan espionage has begun to attempt sliding its tentacles in to acquire... ahem... details of the progress being made here.)

An official statement has been released "severely deriding" the intelligence of Clan military analysts and wishing them "a long, expensive, and ultimately frustrating and fruitless bid process."

OOC: Very interesting, I like the idea being explored in detail here... they can see it, sure, but only after the attack has begun. Heck, 3100 kg is enough to carry a good payload of boomsticks or mean people with bangsticks... :D

Where would the fuel storage and ammo storage be? Also, is it safe to store that much flammible and explosive material in such a confined space. A fuel fire or munitions going off could devistate a submarine. You remember what happened to USS Forrestal.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv59-forrestal/cv59-fire01.jpg

Imagine that inside an enclosed environment like a sub. A floating coffin.

That is a danger that all submarines that carry weapons face. Don't forget that SSBNs carry multiple ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons on board... that's about as explosive as you can get.

This is just the sort of 'off the wall' idea that would get a viewing around here so send one of those ex- boomers our way :-)

OOC: A harrier needs only 10 square feet of space to launch or land when operating in VTOL mode so it would be possible to do this, of course reality would get in the works and throws a monkey wrench in the works, but then, this isn't reality so we don't have to really be bothered with 'annoying little problems' if we don't want to deal with them :-)

one gutted ohio on the way.

Oh and FC here's another Ohio.

I'd like you to test both designs, and i'd like to know their strengths and weaknesses.

Do you want 1 elevator or 2.

If you want 1, you could have an elevator at the end and a hatch over it, but you would have to launch the planes 1 by 1.

With 2, there are 2 hatches, 2 elevators and 2 birds could go at a time.

And 4 could fit on, if 1/2 sat on the elevator/s at a time.
The submarine just barely has enough room to store two harriers on each of two decks, one above the other. Without lengthening the boat, there is no addtional room, so the elevator would have to take up the spots of two aircraft. With one aircraft on it, that leaves three. You could possibly hold and launch four aircraft, but that would require at least 3 elevators in 2 shafts, and launch and recovery would become quite complicated.

HH
HH - remember, this is how they will be carried. there's no additional space to maneuver

Where would the fuel storage and ammo storage be? Also, is it safe to store that much flammible and explosive material in such a confined space. A fuel fire or munitions going off could devistate a submarine. You remember what happened to USS Forrestal.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv59-forrestal/cv59-fire01.jpg

Imagine that inside an enclosed environment like a sub. A floating coffin.

That whole mess was started by a zuni rocket that went off and slammed into a deck full of combat ready aircraft and, literaly, all hell broke loose.
The offending rocket was withdrawn from service sometime after that incident.

*bump for contracts*

*bump again*

some results might be nice. or at least some preliminary tests.

Enlarged vessel concept:
Length: 216m (+45m)
Beam: 16m (+6m)
Displacement: 25,000 tons submerged
Speed: 20 knots submerged
Operating depth: 200m
Armament: 4x21" TT w/ 12 torpedo
Aircraft: 2 hangar decks w/ 3 aircraft and 1 elevator each, for a total of 6 aircraft and 2 elevators.
This concept adds an extra 45 meters to the submarine's length to provide, in addition to four aicraft parking spaces, two elevators, each of which can carry an additional aircraft. Possible aircraft include the AV-8B Harrier II, SH-60B/F Seahawk, AH-1 Cobra, and SH-2F/G Seasrpite. The forward elevator only goes down to the upper hanger, while the aft elevator goes to the lower one, providing simultaneous launch capability of up to two aircraft, and more if the aircraft taxi onto the deck (which has been flattened and widened to allow for a larger landing zone) to wait for others to be brought up before launching. Below the hangar decks is a third area for storage of fuel and munitions, with elevators up to the hangar facilities. Crew accomadations, which are normally around the missile tubes, include some space around the aircraft hangars, the former missile control center, and an additional area created by the lenthening of the vessel.

A rendition of the aircraft hangar section. "H" indicates elevator shaft. "_" indicates a parking space.
H_ _ H
H_ _

a very interesting design, any estimates on how much it would cost?

We're probably looking in the range of $2.5-2.8 billion per vessel

We're probably looking in the range of $2.5-2.8 billion per vessel

we'd like to order 3 prototypes for sea trials

Very well. We are working on one already, and shall begin construction of the other two immediately.
It will take 2 NS months for delivery of the first and 6 NS months for the delivery of the final prototype.
Total cost will be $7.7 billion

Our concept is this:

H_ _ H

4 Aircraft could be held onboard. 2 would be parked on the lifts permanently, the other 2 on the parking spaces:

_ = Parking Space

H = Lift

There would be 2 slide over hatches, that would be attached to hydraulic arms, and close the holes on the elevator roof. These would swing back into position over the parking spaces when the flight deck was open.

The deck has been widened and flattened. This means there is more chance of sonar detecting, but it is more practical and safe. STOVL aircraft are capable on this even (though the landing runs must be 60 metres or less).

Initial tests, on land, prove that this system works. Take off and landing is difficult but possible. We have managed to get:

A sea harrier.
A TA-13 (total VTOL)
A F-32 'python'.

The wider winged of these (most notably the F-32) had defficulty with positioning in the sub, but it worked.

The price for the working prototype is $1.8 Billion, though we have not tested underwater, or even on water.

We have wired the plans to you (but not the prod rights).

You CANNOT make these yet. We have just sent you the plans, for your own good. We hope to have sea trials soon.

estimated price?

$2.6/2.6 with all gizmos, extra padding, soundproofing, flight controls etc.

Freedom Country, could you test the STVOL F-35 on that boat for me?

i've got quite a few of those running around

Sure

The F-32 is a modified version of the F-35 with FSW.

We only have one, so it will have to do.

We will test for you now.

Sure

The F-32 is a modified version of the F-35 with FSW.

We only have one, so it will have to do.

We will test for you now.

danke

if you need a couple i could supply them.

*BIG NEWS*

The prototype of the Mars Class Submarine was launched into the waters off Rosport today. Thankfully, it floated, and sailed around the main island off Rosport (a large, 100km long island belonging to Ryelleh) on the surface.

Before returning to base, it dived, and managed a huge depth of 1,500 metres under the water, before stress levels reached a little bit of danger. It then returned to harbor.

In other news, a second prototype has been made, and it is also being launched soon.....this time with a complement of torpedoes and 1 F-35 Fighter. It will then try to launch the plane, shwoing off its carrier capability.

The estimated price of the sub is $2.6 Billion.

Freedom Country, could you test the STVOL F-35 on that boat for me?

i've got quite a few of those running around
Forgot to mention that: our enlarged sub can (just barely) acommadate the F-35B JSF, which has a wingspan 1.55m greater than that of the Harrier.

sweet, harriers and JSF's thats what i want flying out of there.

*NEWS*

Today, the first Fixed Winged Aircraft launched from an underwater vessel today.

The aircraft in question was a F-32 VTOL aircraft. The Sub did not submerge, but is planning to in later days.

Also, a STVOL aircraft, the F-35 JSF, was launched. The landing zone had to be extended, however, making the rear of the ship slightly square.

They both took and off landed flawlessly, and were stowed without problems under deck.

The Sub is planning to submerge tommorow.

Also, the first prototype, without Aircraft, submerged again, to a depth of 2,000 metres. This shows there are few limitations with a hangar in the sub.

*NEWS*

Today, the first Fixed Winged Aircraft launched from an underwater vessel today.

The aircraft in question was a F-32 VTOL aircraft. The Sub did not submerge, but is planning to in later days.

Also, a STVOL aircraft, the F-35 JSF, was launched. The landing zone had to be extended, however, making the rear of the ship slightly square.

They both took and off landed flawlessly, and were stowed without problems under deck.

The Sub is planning to submerge tommorow.

Also, the first prototype, without Aircraft, submerged again, to a depth of 2,000 metres. This shows there are few limitations with a hangar in the sub.
OOC: No large sub can go down to 2000 meters. In fact, few combat subs can reach 500, and the Ohio only goes to 300. The larger the sub is, the lower the operating depth, so an increased size Ohio wouldn't even be able to go to 300m.

Sorry, didnt know that.

Knock off a zero :)

Enlarged vessel concept:
Length: 216m (+45m)
Beam: 16m (+6m)
Displacement: 25,000 tons submerged
Speed: 20 knots submerged
Operating depth: 200m
Armament: 4x21" TT w/ 12 torpedo
Aircraft: 2 hangar decks w/ 3 aircraft and 1 elevator each, for a total of 6 aircraft and 2 elevators.
This concept adds an extra 45 meters to the submarine's length to provide, in addition to four aicraft parking spaces, two elevators, each of which can carry an additional aircraft. Possible aircraft include the AV-8B Harrier II, SH-60B/F Seahawk, AH-1 Cobra, and SH-2F/G Seasrpite. The forward elevator only goes down to the upper hanger, while the aft elevator goes to the lower one, providing simultaneous launch capability of up to two aircraft, and more if the aircraft taxi onto the deck (which has been flattened and widened to allow for a larger landing zone) to wait for others to be brought up before launching. Below the hangar decks is a third area for storage of fuel and munitions, with elevators up to the hangar facilities. Crew accomadations, which are normally around the missile tubes, include some space around the aircraft hangars, the former missile control center, and an additional area created by the lenthening of the vessel.

A rendition of the aircraft hangar section. "H" indicates elevator shaft. "_" indicates a parking space.
H_ _ H
H_ _


HEY CSJ, Is this still feasible and would you care if I sold it?

OOC: I'll still have to see about pricing for it (I stopped looking into it when the thread died). While we can produce them and could work something out, CSJMI will not simply allow a product to be built and, especially, exported without ample compensation.