DC Tom Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 12 minutes ago, Koko78 said: How big is this submarine carrier going to have to be to launch a significant number of bombers carrying a significant enough payload to make a difference? How is some massive behemoth submarine going to realistically remain undetected? How long are they going to have to surface and be vulnerable to launch and/or recover these bombers? How stealthy is it going to be while underwater? How many tens of billions of dollars is it going to cost to design both the sub and specialized bombers that will be compatible? Why not just launch some ***** cruise missiles from existing subs for a fraction of the cost? Impractical, unworkable, and a complete waste of resources for little to no benefit over existing technology. It would have to be around 180,000-200,000 tons to operate a meaningful air group. And spend enough time operating on the surface that it makes the "submarine" features pointless. What chucklehead refuses to understand is that carriers don't just "launch bombers." They are designed to execute flight operations over a period of time (several days, or longer with support) at a sustained operational tempo. Chucklehead is arguing for a platform (aircraft-carrier-sub) to perform a specific mission of limited scope (sneak attack) that's already better performed by existing platforms (TLAM-armed attack subs). Sherpa's observation notwithstanding - but his technical observation doesn't change the fact that cruise missiles are nonetheless better suited to certain missions than manned aircraft (such as: being secretly launched from a submarine at high-value, high-risk targets). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: It would have to be around 180,000-200,000 tons to operate a meaningful air group. And spend enough time operating on the surface that it makes the "submarine" features pointless. What chucklehead refuses to understand is that carriers don't just "launch bombers." They are designed to execute flight operations over a period of time (several days, or longer with support) at a sustained operational tempo. Chucklehead is arguing for a platform (aircraft-carrier-sub) to perform a specific mission of limited scope (sneak attack) that's already better performed by existing platforms (TLAM-armed attack subs). Sherpa's observation notwithstanding - but his technical observation doesn't change the fact that cruise missiles are nonetheless better suited to certain missions than manned aircraft (such as: being secretly launched from a submarine at high-value, high-risk targets). I'm not advocating it for tactical purposes, but awesome purposes. So, there. I mean who doesn't want a submersible carrier? That is freaking awesome. But we should focus on a death star first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 11 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Sure, ok, but ask yourself this — would it be cool? Because while everything you said is solid, I just want one. Or twelve. No, it would not be cool. It would be stupid. A fleet defense fighter that wasn't a bastardization of another platform, that didn't fly like a bathtub and didn't break pilots' necks on ejection or suffocate them, and that wasn't made out of material that's degraded by water, that would be cool. Not a 200,000 ton submarine. You're basically a GI Joe caricature, aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: No, it would not be cool. It would be stupid. A fleet defense fighter that wasn't a bastardization of another platform, that didn't fly like a bathtub and didn't break pilots' necks on ejection or suffocate them, and that wasn't made out of material that's degraded by water, that would be cool. Not a 200,000 ton submarine. You're basically a GI Joe caricature, aren't you? K, so there's no benefit to being able to launch bombers from just a few miles out of an enemy's AO? Got it. I think there's value there. Now, is the juice (dollars) worth the squeeze? I don't know. But I'd like Beijing to worry about one popping up off their coast. I'd like Russia to know we can plant one in the Black Sea. It'd be so freaking cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts