Futuristic concept aircraft carriers

[Penguin]

There are practical problems with a submersible aircraft carrier.

1. It can be easily detected.
2. The area of operations will be constrained, due to size and depth requirements.
3. The vessel becomes difficult to defend when it is submerged.

On the other hand a submersible carrier would be an interesting concept? It can launch 30-40 mini submersibles, just like an aircraft carrier launches aircrafts. What say?

1. How so? Are you suggesting that the 40k+ ton Typhoon class submarine is more easily detected compared to a 20k ton Delta IV
2. How is the Typhoon more constrained, relative to Delta IV?
3. In case you've not noticed, active countermeasures of various types have become more commonly available for subs over the past decade.

 

[surya kiran]

1. How so? Are you suggesting that the 40k+ ton Typhoon class submarine is more easily detected compared to a 20k ton Delta IV
2. How is the Typhoon more constrained, relative to Delta IV?
3. In case you've not noticed, active countermeasures of various types have become more commonly available for subs over the past decade.

For a start I am not comparing a Typhoon or a Delta.

1. For it to launch its aircraft, it will need to surface, unless someone comes up with a way to launch them similar to missiles or from torpedo tubes. This will reduce the effectiveness of the aircraft considerably, not to mention, these aircraft would need to be designed from scratch. The amount of time required to surface, prepare for launch, launch and then again submerge am sure will be quite substantial. This can expose it to risk.

2. If one were to have an aircraft to be launched after surfacing, the body of the submarine should be able to withstand the stress of take-off and landing. Am sure, you being better informed than me, will be able to throw more light on this.

3. Would a Typhoon class submarine be suitable for an aircraft carrier? The sub, I believe, would need to be broader. Not just long. It would also need more height. Conventional logic says all these would make it less manouverable than a smaller submarine, I think.

4. Yes there are active counter-measures available to defend. The main strength of an aircraft carrier are its aircraft. In a submerged situation, the aircraft are useless. So you are dependent on counter measures which do not include your main defensive/aggressive cordon. This is what I meant by difficult to defend.

As you can see, I am not trying to compare just plain size or dimensions. Merely, my available knowledge, which I admit may be limited. Hence, my conclusions.

Of course, would love to hear your point of view on the above points and feel free to point flaws in my arguments.

cheers!

 

[IND151]

An interesting concept of submersible aircraft carrier.

Instead it would be better to build an Submarine Aircraft Carrier

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...V1P6JLH11Sa0NTybT0tEJ8A&bvm=bv.43828540,d.bmk

 

[Penguin]

For a start I am not comparing a Typhoon or a Delta.

Neither am I. NOr am I saying either one is suitable as carrier. I'm just using them to juxtapose a larger an a smaller nuclear submarine.
Neither of which can be easily detected, nor is the larger more easily detected compared to the smaller.
Neither of which are (much) constrained in terms of area of operations, nor is the larger (substantially) more constrained than the smaller, due to size and depth requirements (both are intended to be ocean going rather than coastal).
In recent years we've seen a resurgence of sub-launched decoys and self-defence weapons. I would think the larger vessel could pack more of those. So, I don't see how the vessel becomes difficult to defend when it is submerged. The whole point of submerging is stealth, disappearing, rather than turning and fighting. A surface carrier can't do 'vanish' like that and hence by definition will have to turn an fight. It is inherent in the principal ideas of either type ? apples&oranges.

1. For it to launch its aircraft, it will need to surface, unless someone comes up with a way to launch them similar to missiles or from torpedo tubes. This will reduce the effectiveness of the aircraft considerably, not to mention, these aircraft would need to be designed from scratch. The amount of time required to surface, prepare for launch, launch and then again submerge am sure will be quite substantial. This can expose it to risk.

2. If one were to have an aircraft to be launched after surfacing, the body of the submarine should be able to withstand the stress of take-off and landing. Am sure, you being better informed than me, will be able to throw more light on this.

3. Would a Typhoon class submarine be suitable for an aircraft carrier? The sub, I believe, would need to be broader. Not just long. It would also need more height. Conventional logic says all these would make it less manouverable than a smaller submarine, I think.

4. Yes there are active counter-measures available to defend. The main strength of an aircraft carrier are its aircraft. In a submerged situation, the aircraft are useless. So you are dependent on counter measures which do not include your main defensive/aggressive cordon. This is what I meant by difficult to defend.

As you can see, I am not trying to compare just plain size or dimensions. Merely, my available knowledge, which I admit may be limited. Hence, my conclusions.

Of course, would love to hear your point of view on the above points and feel free to point flaws in my arguments.

cheers!

I think I've made my points.