NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking of an idea for an underwater carrrier, fully capable of operating by itself and being able to launch 48-96 aircraft from a flight deck. I am no expert at designing ships but have some good ideas on how to make this ship and add other things it may need. Essentially i want an airstrike wing that comes from no where and lands no where and can defend itself against air attacks and a possible sea-borne attack. If you would like to help or have any input please let me know. Any help is gladly accepted.

I also was thinking about this but gave up on it because of some problems. For example, the flight deck will get wet once underneath the water, bringing the risk of the aircrafts slipping and being destroyed when taking off. Also such things would be monster and mostly likely will be extremely expensive. Also it brings the question of how are you going to house all those aircrafts?

But I'm no expert so people like Sarzonia and Praetonia will be better able to tell you.

OOC:

I honestly don't know much either about it, but I'm pretty sure that if a sub were capable of surfacing and launching aircraft, that it's shape would not be condusive to being stealthy underwater.

If you used VTOL aircraft, you could most likely convert a modern ballistic submarine, thought you would be probably limited to eight-twelve craft.

I have a design for an Underwater Aircraft Carrier named the Hrimfaxi-class. It's flight deck rises from the deck pleting from underneath the hull. And has more aircraft under the flight deck. As well it has flight decks on the side of the ship where STOVL airfcraft can take off. I based it off of the Underwater Aircraft Carrier in Ace Combat 5. I have about 12 that aren't used anymore because my starfleet has pretty much replaced the need for those craft. I still use 10 of them for mobile launch points for planetary defense like my other aircraft carriers. I can sell you carriers for $8,000,000,000 a piece. We could even construct you newer ones in the old naval shipyards. They could then be delivered to you via transport.

OOC: My nation is devloping one as we speak.
I'll tell you where to look if you want alot of help.
Look up the Japanese I-400 class subs from the second world war.
And reduce your aircraft numbers, a sub capable of that would be too big, and too massive to be very practical.

I also was thinking about this but gave up on it because of some problems. For example, the flight deck will get wet once underneath the water, bringing the risk of the aircrafts slipping and being destroyed when taking off. Also such things would be monster and mostly likely will be extremely expensive. Also it brings the question of how are you going to house all those aircrafts?

But I'm no expert so people like Sarzonia and Praetonia will be better able to tell you.

You could fix that flight deck problem if you use the flight deck below a main deck ((I.E. make the flight deck below the top most deck)) and then seal it with two watertight doors.

OOC:

I honestly don't know much either about it, but I'm pretty sure that if a sub were capable of surfacing and launching aircraft, that it's shape would not be condusive to being stealthy underwater.

I figure if you minimize all right angles in it then you can make detection harder. Kinda make it a square essentially and then put round caps. Or atleast thats my best idea.

I have a design for an Underwater Aircraft Carrier named the Hrimfaxi-class. It's flight deck rises from the deck pleting from underneath the hull. And has more aircraft under the flight deck. As well it has flight decks on the side of the ship where STOVL airfcraft can take off. I based it off of the Underwater Aircraft Carrier in Ace Combat 5. I have about 12 that aren't used anymore because my starfleet has pretty much replaced the need for those craft. I still use 10 of them for mobile launch points for planetary defense like my other aircraft carriers. I can sell you carriers for $8,000,000,000 a piece. We could even construct you newer ones in the old naval shipyards. They could then be delivered to you via transport.

So you went FT from MT and dont need them anymore? Whats the reason you are selling them?

OOC: My nation is devloping one as we speak.
I'll tell you where to look if you want alot of help.
Look up the Japanese I-400 class subs from the second world war.
And reduce your aircraft numbers, a sub capable of that would be too big, and too massive to be very practical.
Today 12:56 PM

Would you want to do a joint project? I believe you could have that many planes the size would be a bit bigger and like i said earlier you could cap the squae ends to minimize detection.

It holds the amount you want and I still use 20 (A set of 10 for each planet that has use for them) of them but I have decommissioned 12 of the older ones since I don't need many patrolling the waters of Dratheria or Aquaria. I should have been clearer however. I have 24 for sale and I'll actually sell them for $30,000,000 with production rights and blueprints so you can reproduce them. And this model can hold 130 fighters and runs off a near infinite power source known as M.I.D.A.S. (i.e. clean nuclear power that is about 3x more powerful.) Also these suckers are nearly undetectable and have an PMT cloak (Electrochromatic Stealth Technology. The US government is working on it right now and is nearing completion.)

I appreciate the offer and i will think about it. I am interested in designing a ship i can truly call my own.

This Idea was tried out in world war 2 both by the french and japanses.
They were converted submarines that could hold 2 Seaplanes.
At first they proved successful, but after a while, the submarines proved to be too slow and the sub often had to stay in the open while the plane was flying (lack of radar and guidance equipment) and so was vulnerbale to enemy attack.

Oh sorry I didnt see that had already been posted. please excuse my humble apologies.

Well these would be good to helpyou design your own and a set of blue pirnts wouldn't hurt either. This vessel can also fire Ballistic Missiles and can store 20 of them. And can also fire Tomahawk cruise missiles storing up to 30 of these.

By blueprints do you mean specs? If you do ill pay for them.

Sure we'll sell them for $20,000,000 and as a gift of good will we'll send 4 Hrimfaxi-class over loaded with F-22s and F-35s and full munitions. The ballistic missles are Trident III ICBMs with M.I.D.A.S. warheads. Each carrier is over a mile long. With a depth of 3/8 of a mile.

One thing you might want to consider is an extended VTOL flight deck (two to three spots at most) behind the conning tower wash inorder to streamline its hydrodynamics. Mount the elevator in the rear of the conning tower with a pair of clamshell doors sealing it when submerged.

Now all these suggestions could work with regular VTOL craft such as the Harrier II but Id suggest using a VTOL UCAV (unmanned combat air vehicle) this would increase the capacity for carry, make them partially expendable should it be unsafe for the sub to surface (ie force the UCAVs to ditch) and would provide about the same combat effectiveness overall without sacrficeing the subs ability to perform adaquetely.

My oppinion is that the future of military lies in small mobile crafts that does not require refueling for a long time (e.g. powered by small nuclear reactor-batteries) not in monster all-in-one warmachines.
Have you ever read a fable about war against forest beasts and birds & insects. ?

OOC:I already have a Undewater Carrier. It also acts as a Ballistic Missile Launcher. The thing is it is only capable of carrying 6 Ballistic Missiles and only a Red Tidean Sqaudron(6 Aircraft). Even then the aircraft must be VTOL which is why I purchased some state of the art VTOL craft from... someone... I dont remember the name. Anywho, even with all these limits it is still huge and noisier then a Chinese Han-Class Attack Sub(And those are noisy as hell). This is off set by this subs ability to overload a SONAR so the SONAR will only hear the general direction the sub is in. Anyway, getting past my ranting, I will just tell you that I have already done it.

Dratheria you have yourself a deal. So how am i going to get the specs? (Email?)

One thing you might want to consider is an extended VTOL flight deck (two to three spots at most) behind the conning tower wash inorder to streamline its hydrodynamics. Mount the elevator in the rear of the conning tower with a pair of clamshell doors sealing it when submerged.

Now all these suggestions could work with regular VTOL craft such as the Harrier II but Id suggest using a VTOL UCAV (unmanned combat air vehicle) this would increase the capacity for carry, make them partially expendable should it be unsafe for the sub to surface (ie force the UCAVs to ditch) and would provide about the same combat effectiveness overall without sacrficeing the subs ability to perform adaquetely.
I dont have much experience with UACV's and am not sure how the operate and function. I do know that the U.S military has commisioner the U.S.S. Carter, a seawolf class, except is its 100ft longer. If do modify this sub with your ideas how many UAVs would fit?

OOC:I already have a Undewater Carrier. It also acts as a Ballistic Missile Launcher. The thing is it is only capable of carrying 6 Ballistic Missiles and only a Red Tidean Sqaudron(6 Aircraft). Even then the aircraft must be VTOL which is why I purchased some state of the art VTOL craft from... someone... I dont remember the name. Anywho, even with all these limits it is still huge and noisier then a Chinese Han-Class Attack Sub(And those are noisy as hell). This is off set by this subs ability to overload a SONAR so the SONAR will only hear the general direction the sub is in. Anyway, getting past my ranting, I will just tell you that I have already done it.
Ok youve done it, i salute you, but im looking for a larger capacity underwater sub.

Give me a few minutes an I'll post them here.

Honestly Im not entirely sure... Conversion though I would reccomend against, as it will merely force the relocation or compression of existing and required systems making the entire vehicle less efficent.

Custom form is the way to go as it will allow for all the system to be properly located and optimized for the subs purpose. but dont expect to put all that many craft on it and still be practical. Afterall the best aircraft carrier is just that, a true aircraft carrier.

But that dosent mean the design dosent have a niche, quite the opposite; I can see it being excellant for force projection and covert support of special operations and SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) missions.

As for capacity I'd be suprised if you could fit more than 15 full size UCAVs in it. Id shoot closer to six or nine at most. Though this may seem miniscule compared the massive flights of aircraft that some people throw around but Im not sure such a design if kept realisitic would need that much more as youd only be able to launch or recover three at time. Therefore those six or nine properly used would be able to pop a squadron of aircraft anywhere in the world relatively covertly.

Likewise it dosent HAVE to be loud... a larger vehicle WILL have a larger return on Active Sonar, thats nearly unavoidable even with anechoeic Tiles (but they do help) but on Passive Sonar which is what most subs that would be chasing such a beast would be useing there are many a way to reduce its noise.

for example using a:

Properly shaped hull

Shock/Acoustically seperated duble hull

Anechoeic Tiles (yes they help cut noise signature as well)

Liquid metal Reactor (NaK or PbBi; prefferably the latter as its safer)

MHD Propulsion

You'd be suprised the amount of decibels you can shave from a submersible vehicle.

Hrimfaxi-class Submersible Aircraft Carrier

Length: 1.3 Km
Beam: 200 m
Draft: 100 m
Displacement Surfaced: 23,200-24,500 tons
Submerged: 33,800-48,000 tons
Propulsion: 10 pressurized-water M.I.D.A.S. Reactors

Complement: 4,500 men
Air wing: 2,500 men

Armament:
6 x 630 mm torpedo tubes
2 x 533 mm torpedo tubes
20 x Trident III ballistic missiles
4 x Phalanx CIWS
4 x 21 cell Sea RAM
2 x Mk 29 Sea Sparrow
30 x Tomahawk cruise missiles

Aircraft: 150

Speed
Surfaced: 20 knots
Submerged: 30 knots

Maximum Depth: 700 m

Sensors and
processing systems:
SPS-48E 3-D air search radar
SPS-49(V)5 2-D air search radar
Mk 23 target acquisition radar
2 × SPN-46 air traffic control radars
SPN-43B air traffic control radar
SPN-44 landing aid radars
3 × Mk 91 NSSM guidance systems
3 × Mk 95 radars

Electronic warfare
and decoys:
SLQ-32(V)4 jamming/deception suite
Mk36 SRBOC decoy RL
SLQ-25A Nixie torpedo countermeasures
Electrochromatic Stealth (Nearly undetectable)

*points above*

unless you mean 130m instead of 1.3 Km (or 1300m) your displacement (surfaced, and submerged) are off by atleast a zero if not three...

Your beam is Horribly thin for a craft that has to remain surfaced atleast some of the time, and when it is it would be horribly unseaworthy in any but the calmest seas.

besides that, that is a Hulluva lot of surface area to put under the strain of 350 atmospheres of water pressure...

You'd think so but OmniDuratrinium is the hull metal. A hybrid of Omnidium (Basically the metal from the movie The Core the more pressure put on this metal the stronger before) and Duratrinium (5x stronger than titanium). Also the metal weighs next to nill. Oh and thanks for catching my beam mistake.

Regardless of the materials of its construction; Displacement IS NOT total weight. It can be as light as a feather, but displacement is the weight of the water it displaces and is therefore reliant of surface area, not true weight. That is why sufaced weight is lower than submerged weight, and both are usually (Much) lower than true weight due to the increased density of solids over liquids.

a 1.3km craft of such a thin beam and high draft is going to be over 300 million tons displaced on the surface atleast, and is longer than most NS Super-dreds...

I saw an anime a long while back about a robotic supercarrier submarine. The thing would surface in the harbor of a coastal city, launch hundreds of fighters, and destroy everything in sight.

It was really cool, but IIRC, the plot was later ripped off by Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

I havent read this, so dont kill me if someone's already said this:

1) This is possible, and has been done before.

2) This is inadvisable with the number of planes you are proposing. A Nimitz Class carries around 70 planes, and displaces about 80,000 tonnes minimum. Anything that could do the job of the Nimitz and dive underwater would be much bigger. Not much of a problem for ASW defences, and it would be much more expensive and vulnerable too.

3) If you take off, you need to know where you're going to land. If you're in a sub, you dont want to give off radio signals because then the enemy doesnt even need to bother with sonar. Therefore you either expose your position, or you have to pre-plan every attack you make with this some time in advance, and if it goes wrong, it goes HORRIBLY wrong.

4) If you attack, all the enemy needs to do to find the carrier is to follow the planes on radar. Since most people have uber satellites of all-seeing awe, they will do this.

5) It'll take ages to launch a large number of planes (no storing on-deck while submarged, I'm afraid). Hours in fact. In that time, your carrier will be giving off all kinds of signals as it communicates with the planes and co-ordinates their take off. The planes will be wasting valuable fuel.

In short, this is much, MUCH more expensive than a conventional carrier and its advantage, suprise and stealth, is wasted as it's such a bloody great target that will create water disturbance likely to cause minor flooding in low lying regions. If you want to make an underwater carrier, you need to make a small raider about the same size as a normal sub, make it nuclear powered so you can stay underwater for very long periods, make it out of titanium and amorphorus steel so you can go very far down, and then have it carry only a few planes. A dozen at most. And prepare to spend some very anxious hours fleeing from god awful numbers of ASW platforms.

Regardless of the materials of its construction; Displacement IS NOT total weight. It can be as light as a feather, but displacement is the weight of the water it displaces and is therefore reliant of surface area, not true weight. That is why sufaced weight is lower than submerged weight, and both are usually (Much) lower than true weight due to the increased density of solids over liquids.

a 1.3km craft of such a thin beam and high draft is going to be over 300 million tons displaced on the surface atleast, and is longer than most NS Super-dreds...
Not actually true. For a surfaced ship, displacement is true weight. That's why when you add more stuff to a ship, it sits lower in the water because its weight is forcing it down more. The ship floats because a lot of it is full of air, which bouys it up the the surface and keeps enough above the water for it to be useable. A sub is different, because the air-filled section is actually being forced under water. This means that it actually is simply the weight of its volume of water, and not the weight of the sub itself, which is why it is higher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_%28fluid%29

*rolls eyes* of the mistakes to catch somehow im not suprised that was the one caught...

What I meant to say quite plainly is that a 26,000,000m^2 area vessel larger than almost every Super-dreadnaught in NS (or the major majority) will displace more than 48,000 tons submerged...

For example... the SSN Jimmy Carter a Seawolf class attack sub is 1340 (thats One thousand Three Hundred and Forty) times SMALLER than this sub, yet it is only 1/4th the displacement submerged....

I would think -since as you said displacement submerged is simply the weight of the water displaced instead of the true weight- that the apropriate amount of displacement would be represented by the appropriate size wouldnt you?

As at that point it has didly squat to do with the materials that constuct the vessel and all about the weight of the displaced water.

The carrier is one inch thick.

I made one that was R+D and stuff. Me and my friend got the specs and crap too. Heres the thread.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425214