12 replies to this topic

[tank50us]

We've all heard of the Hrimfaxi and Scinfaxi from Ace Combat 5. And I'll admit the concept of an underwater aircraft carrier is not a bad idea, seeing as you can bring the full power of a small airwing to bear on an enemy without them ever knowing that there about to be pounced on. Anyone who's played Ace 5 has seen just how effective that can be. Naturally, if one were built, how does a pilot find his base. Or, how do you avoid losing your base if it's found; along with many other questions. Now, here's the big question, what do you think one would look like if one were to be constructed and placed into service, and what aircraft would it use. In my opinion, the best design would be a conversion from an SSBN to SSCVN. And the best candidate for that would be (in my mind) the Typhoon class, since all that would need to be done is replace the missile silos with a hanger bay and small flight deck. And to anyone that thinks such weapons have NEVER existed, I introduce the I-400 Class Submarine....



Granted, they only carried two or three sea planes, they still showed that submersible Aircraft Carriers are indeed possible, although there combat effectiveness is still up in the air (this depends on who you talk too). And according to what I've read, there are designs (don't ask me where) for such carriers that some nations are currently considering, but whether or not any of them become reality, remains up in the air.

[CommanderJB]

Let me open by saying that the only way a modern submarine aircraft carrier could ever work is if it used VTOL aircraft, so I'm going to discard a hypothetical CATOBAR/STOBAR sub-carrier right of the bat. They'd just be too big to be feasible and too complicated to design. Scin/Hrimfaxi look awesome, I'll be the first to vouch for that, but Ace Combat =/= real life, particularly when it comes to their superweapons.

But let's look at the reasons for a sub first. To be honest I think that we're going to see an increasing movement away from surface ships in the near future, particularly for smaller navies. Though America in particular, with the good ol' larger-than-the-next-few-opponents-combined US Navy, has little to worry about given the introduction of new anti-missile weapons such as the RAM CIWS, SM-6 missiles and its extensive array of electronic warfare options, it's becoming extremely risky for smaller navies without massive amounts of counter-AShM hardware to operate surface vessels thanks to air threats in particular. Damage control on modern warships is genuinely terrible - the classic example is the HMS Sheffield, a destroyer that was sunk by an an subsonic Exocet cruise missile from an Argentinean fighter in the Falklands War even despite the fact that the missile's warhead didn't actually go off. Testing of more modern supersonic weapons such as the monstrous Kh-22 (AS-4 'Kitchen'), P-270 Moskit (SS-N-22 'Sunburn' - well, one of them anyway) and P-700 'Granit' (the aptly-named SS-N-19 'Shipwreck') is just plain frightening:


As such submarines are looking rather attractive. Sure obtaining targeting solutions might be a bit difficult when it comes to firing AShMs at their maximum ranges, but the air-launched threat is deadlier than ever, and realistically most small-nation surface fleets wouldn't last long in a war against an enemy with a well-developed fighter and bomber threat.

Specifically aircraft carriers, however, are more difficult to assess. As effectively the largest and most expensive toy a government can procure in the modern world, the aircraft carrier, particularly the nuclear one, represents an investment only the richest and most powerful governments can afford (and yes, there are exceptions such as the Thai Chakri Naruebet, and, I hate to say it Overdose, the Brazilian Sao Paulo, but they don't represent much if anything of a credible air warfare capacity in a serious conflict due to their aged designs and particularly aged low-end air wing). As such they are likely to be protected by the most significant array of counter-missile defensive systems their owner can provide; they will always travel with escorts and themselves will possess modern CIWS systems, creating a multi-layered anti-missile shell that is very difficult but all for an exceptionally large missile swarm (on the order of 100 or more) to penetrate, something that only a very few armed forces can generate. So realistically, if a nation is big enough to build an aircraft carrier capability, nine times out of ten they will also have the means to properly protect it; as such a submarine aircraft carrier loses some of its urgency as a solution to the threat facing modern warships.

There are also significant practical problems with building a submarine aircraft carrier. Not only will it by its very nature be an order of magnitude more expensive to construct and maintain than the already budget-breaking surface models, it's also difficult to devise a decent operational doctrine for one. Setting theoretical pre-set rendezvous points for missions is the only way your planes could ever know where to go when returning home, and if plans change mid-mission as they are somewhat wont to do, then your air group could get pretty screwed. They'd also be slow and noisy; even though modern SSBNs, though large, are extremely quiet, a true sub aircraft carrier would have to be much larger still and thus operate at a far lower silent speed, and would be noisier internally. Obviously still better than a surface model, but then.

Also, there's no way you could convert a Typhoon into a sub-carrier. Monstrous as even they are, their missile deck still wouldn't have room for more than a handful of planes (I'd say no more than 5, if that), and launching and recovering aircraft in high seas without something to prevent roll would be asking for trouble. Not only that, but several have already been broken up, and the remainder are apparently going to be converted into submerged cruise missile platforms (with a LOT of missiles). You'd need a design purpose-built from the start.

So, in the end, a sub-carrier is possible. But at the moment it's not feasible. It would be far too expensive for all but the most powerful navies to afford, and if they could afford that, they could afford the systems that would make it unnecessary anyway.

Edited by CommanderJB, 17 April 2009 - 15:22.

[Rich19]

CommanderJB, on 17 Apr 2009, 13:49, said:

Damage control on modern warships is genuinely terrible - the classic example is the HMS Sheffield, a destroyer was sunk by an an subsonic Exocet cruise missile from an Argentinean fighter even despite the fact that the missile's warhead didn't actually go off.

IIRC that was due to poor construction, although damage control (or lack thereof) would probably also have been a factor. The ship was made of mainly aluminium, which caught fire (aluminium does this) when the missile hit.

[CommanderJB]

Thing is though that the Sheffield remains representative of almost all modern warships; the first example of the USS Belknap (she suffered a fire in her after a collision which burnt the aluminium superstructure all the way down to the deck level) was never really learned from, or at least, the benefits in terms of weight and strength of using aluminium over steel are simply too great to ignore, and it is still the metal of choice for modern warship construction. They simply aren't armoured. With the power of modern weapons there's honestly little point, and as such, when you hit a modern warship, chances are you'll put it out of combat action with just one or two missiles. They're 'flammable', both literally, in the sense that the hull itself will catch fire, and metaphorically, in the military sense that most modern warships keep large stocks of missile ammunition very close to the hull. It's particularly evident on Russian designs with tubes atop the deck like the Slava or Sovremenny, but all ships with VLS missile silos are guilty of it. The Sheffield sank because the crew couldn't properly fight a fire which was using the ship itself as fuel; any modern warship would not only have that problem to deal with but also the slight issue of something like half a tonne of shaped high explosive actually detonating inside the hull.

Edited by CommanderJB, 17 April 2009 - 15:48.

[DerKrieger]

One of the reasons US Navy warships have comparatively large crews for their type is for damage control reasons...the USS Stark, a smaller vessel than the HMS Sheffield (BTW, the Sheffield's superstructure was made out of steel), was hit by two Exocet missiles back in 1987 but did not sink.

[CommanderJB]

Well, there you go; looks like I've been perpetuating a popular myth. Ah well, we all do it some time. Thank you for disabusing me of it.

[tank50us]

back at the submarine carriers, One method of recovery would basically be a specialized homing beacon designed to only be read by computers which are programmed to understand it (and thus display this information on the pilots HUD), and another aircraft entered the area, that wasn't supposed to be there, all it would get is static, and while that might tip them off, it makes little difference since by them time any ASW craft arrive on station, the sub could have either gone deep, or moved to another location. Another issue for recovery is the planes themselves, one would have to ask how do they let the sub know there there, and awaiting a place to land. The answer is again a beacon is turned on by the pilot (or automatically) when the plane is within a certain distance of the sub (letting the sub know that the planes have returned from their strike, and requesting recovery). This beacon could be picked up by the same antenna that most SSBNs had reserved to receive launch orders from the their respective head of state. And for those who think that this could backfire because of the technology falling into the wrong hands (the plane getting shot down over enemy territory), the solution is fairly simple. Use a dual system to destroy the computer upon destruction of the aircraft. One destroys the computer if the pilot punches out of the aircraft, and the other destroys the aircraft if the aircraft collides with another object (plane, missile, ground). And ofcourse, the best thing to do is immediately send out a SAR team to rescue the pilot and/or destroy any sensitive information.

As for defense, as anyone knows, submarines are extremely difficult to counter. Since it takes precise coordination from surface vessels, ASW Aircraft, ASW equipped helicopters , and friendly Attack Subs all probing the same area trying to find one sub that may or may not be there. And they've tested this concept hundreds of times in the US Navy with one of our subs playing the bad guy and it trying to get a shot off at a carrier, and most of the time, the sub succeeds in "sinking" the carrier, but doesn't always slink away (since the torpedo firing typically tips the ASW guys off about the subs location). Either way, the main target (the Carrier) is "sunk" and therefor the submarine has completed it's mission, one Submarine that's easy to quickly replace sinking a not-so-easy to replace super carrier is not a bad trade off tactically. Anyway, the only time a Sub Carrier would have to worry about surface threats is when it's launching or recovering aircraft, and if properly armed with AShM and short-range cannons (to deal with small and fast vessels like hydrofoils) and both long and short range SAMs, there isn't much you'd have to worry about from both the surface and the air. As for dealing with other submarines, you would need smaller Fast Attack Subs to be on constant alert for other submarines, as well as decoy noise-makers to ward off incoming torpedoes, and ofcorse, a compliment of torpedoes for the sub herself.

But I will agree with CJB, such a sub would be an expensive undertaking, but nontheless, one that is far easier to defend then a surface vessel.

[CoLT]

@TPAM: Couldn't the pilot just use his radio?

[tank50us]

radio code words can be copied, and most subs run at depths to deep for normal radios to work anyway. This system allows only authorized aircraft to locate, and land on one of these subs. And also, even if an aircraft tails the strike package back to the ship, it won't matter. By the time he gets the message out, and an ASW Aircraft is even dispatched (assuming the nation in question has any), it will take to long for one to launch, climb to altitude, and arrive at the subs location. By then, the sub would had recovered the strike group, and submerged. At this point, the ASW aircraft would likely be wasting it's time since there is no way to know for sure just how fast the ship is moving, and what direction. And if this nation doesn't use underwater microphones, or have patrolling vessels in area already, the sub will likely slip away as quickly as it arrived, like a ghost.

[CommanderJB]

tank50us, on 18 Apr 2009, 6:56, said:

As for defense, as anyone knows, submarines are extremely difficult to counter. Since it takes precise coordination from surface vessels, ASW Aircraft, ASW equipped helicopters , and friendly Attack Subs all probing the same area trying to find one sub that may or may not be there. And they've tested this concept hundreds of times in the US Navy with one of our subs playing the bad guy and it trying to get a shot off at a carrier, and most of the time, the sub succeeds in "sinking" the carrier, but doesn't always slink away (since the torpedo firing typically tips the ASW guys off about the subs location). Either way, the main target (the Carrier) is "sunk" and therefor the submarine has completed it's mission, one Submarine that's easy to quickly replace sinking a not-so-easy to replace super carrier is not a bad trade off tactically. Anyway, the only time a Sub Carrier would have to worry about surface threats is when it's launching or recovering aircraft, and if properly armed with AShM and short-range cannons (to deal with small and fast vessels like hydrofoils) and both long and short range SAMs, there isn't much you'd have to worry about from both the surface and the air. As for dealing with other submarines, you would need smaller Fast Attack Subs to be on constant alert for other submarines, as well as decoy noise-makers to ward off incoming torpedoes, and ofcorse, a compliment of torpedoes for the sub herself.

It should be noted that many of these exercises rarely represent wartime conditions accurately. The rules of engagement in most exercises make it very difficult for the carrier group to prosecute suspected contacts and in many cases they won't operate with their wartime ASW helo compliment or similar other long-ranged weaponry. Repeated iterations of Exercise TEAMWORK, NATO's biannual practice session against the simulated Soviet Northern Fleet in the North Sea, have shown that large-scale ASW warfare is both possible and effective. While there were incidents similar to those that you outline, the simple fact of the matter is that the submarine remains as dangerous a career proposition in time of war today as it ever has. Moreover, while far more difficult to detect than a CVBG, a sub-carrier would be considerably more vulnerable to attack from subsurface threats as well; it would no doubt need to operate with SSN escorts, as I doubt it would be able to put up much of a fight in and of its big, fat, noisy self.

CoLT, on 18 Apr 2009, 15:12, said:

@TPAM: Couldn't the pilot just use his radio?

Not really, no. In order to communicate with a submerged vessel you need a radio operating on a VLF or ULF band, with a correspondingly large aerial. Unsurprisingly very few aircraft operate these sorts of radios. Besides, if it operated anything like a normal submarine it would still only be able to receive and transmit messages at a certain depth, which they would nominally only go to once every few days in accordance with a pre-arranged schedule.
As for a homing beacon, that wouldn't really work either; either you have it on the submarine (in which case it could be triangulated, coded or not) or on a buoy released at the point of launch (in which case it could be recovered and the code broken, not to mention the fact that your air group would waste fuel on the return journey, limiting your range, and if anything happened en route you'd still be borked). The only practical way to organise recovery arrangements for a 'SSCVN' strike package would either be to direct them to a land base (only possible in very limited scenarios and making the carrier unable to operate until it got a new air wing) or to use a set recovery rendezvous programmed into the aircraft mission computers ahead of time, which would certainly be possible, though a tad inflexible.

[Razven]

The only way I see this idea to be practical is if there was an array of small drone/UAV type fighters carried around by a massive submarine, but with modern technology like radar and the like, there really is no need to build something like that, to be honest. With a floating aircraft carrier, chances are that even if hit by a missile, it's not going to sink but a submarine runs the chances of never surfacing after the enemy drops enough depth charges and torpedoes on it.

[tank50us]

no one uses depth charges anymore, they don't cause sufficient damage to sink a modern submarine. You may rattle one, but you won't sink it. Torpedoes, and ASROCs are the best tools for ASW, simply for the fact that they detonate on contact with their target, and they typically have enough explosive power, coupled with the fact that they are designed to penetrate the pressure hull first, then detonate, makes it so that one well placed torpedo is all that's needed to sink a sub. Keep in mind however that like the Exocet that hit the Sheffield, the torpedo doesn't need to detonate to render the sub out of the fight. having half your compartments flood with water is either going to force the submarine to surface (and risk being captured), or stay submerged and attempt to run (in which case your speed is cut dramatically). Either way, the sub becomes a sitting duck to enemy fire.

[ultimentra]

Atlantis class from Supreme Commander anyone? Then again its far in the future when we have advanced VTOL aircraft, so in the game it seems feasible.