I was thinking about this what if the navy adapted submarines larger than the typhoon class for aproaching enemy bases stealthily
2007-06-28 14:26:27 · 5 answers · asked by Aaronsmith 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
EAT THIS CHARLIE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier#Modern_and_future_submarine_carriers
2007-06-28 14:36:37 · update #1
he harriers sound good but they are capable of making VTOL takeoffs only when theyre unarmed so the F-35 is a better option
2007-06-28 14:45:57 · update #2
& a Blackhawk would know better if u were charlie or not than a cruise missle would its also good for search & rescue missions
2007-06-28 14:48:17 · update #3
The US has 12 Carrier Battles Groups. The Brits have 3 Invincible Class Carriers. The French have 2 (guessing)
As far as i know that is the entire worlds fleet of operative carriers. The Russians have one that is not serviceable and I think the Chinese will have 2 by 2010.
We already have superior numbers of attack subs, plus the boomers.
To expensive, way to big. Plus what about the support ships to protect the Carrier during launch and recovery while on the surface. Submersible Destroyer, Cruiser, Frigate too.
You tried so I give you one Atta Boy.
2007-06-28 14:59:52 · answer #1 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Japanese had large submarines that had hangers mounted on the starborad side. They contained upto three aircraft (i think that many). These were seaplanes and so were not that manouverable. Not too well armed either.
Today you could use the Harriers and build the hanger behind or ahead of the conning tower and have vertical take off (eats fuel). Hard to land though as the sea is pitching the sub up and down. So this makes it not a great idea as far as the Navy is concerned. The deck would be a very hard target to land on being small and moving more than a normal carrier deck.
Don't need aircraft on a sub when you have cruise missles. Cost less, no pilot to feed etc and less fuel to carry and warhead contained inside so extra munitions to carry.
2007-06-28 14:40:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are no enemy bases anymore. The submarines designed for todays age are more for surveillance and intelligence collecting. There isn't any good reason to build them that big. If anything, they should be building them smaller for coastal defense utilizing diesel technology.
2007-06-28 14:38:34 · answer #3 · answered by Jack B 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Call the International Rescue, a.k.a. The Thunderbirds. I'm sure Jeff Tracy will love your idea.
2007-06-28 14:35:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would we need that when a fast attack can rain death on any target by itself? (OOH RAH!!!)
2007-06-28 15:33:35 · answer #5 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋