Surfing the web and came across one of Mike Sparks old articles...
Hate the guy, luv the guy...whatever. But he did his research on military history and found some fascinating concepts that were tried and discarded.
The idea of using subs and helicopters is one of them. Of course he carried it a step too far but his foundation was solid.
The Japanese had submarine aircraft carriers and with our current state of technology the experiments carried out in the 50's might be workable today. Imagine instead of carrying a SEAL Insertion Vehicle (or whatever they're calling their mini-subs these days) you instead carried a Night Stalker Little Bird? Or two?
Sound crazy? The Navy and Marine Corps didn't think so...at least during the 50's. Perhaps they were bolder and more capable of thinking outside the box than we are today.
The problem is big open spaces like aircraft hangars and water pressure don't get along well.
ReplyDeletethats why i included the link. it wouldn't be a big open space. it would be carried in the same chamber as the mini-sub or an enlarged one. i also said little birds so i'm talking about a small helicopter.
Deletegeez ....
Actually it's an incredibly bad idea. Leaving aside all the technical issues you don't want submarines on the surface. During WWII almost every sub was in fact a submersible that mostly operated on the surface but was capable of operating underwater. Real submarines stay underwater and having one operate on the surface for air operations is a bad idea on myriad levels.
ReplyDeletegeez.
Deletetotal lack of imagination. think about the recent SEAL Team rescue. one of the many factors that's being over looked is the fact that there is a big US base in Djibouti.
that's why they were able to have helos fly in and extract the team. now what is more stealthy against 3rd world thugs that have captured Americans that we're trying to rescue. an LHA, a DDG or a sub that can surface, launch its helos with a rescue team aboard and then submerge or the latter that has a spotlight on it for the world to see?
Lane, love ya but everyone knows the deal about WW2 subs...what was your point with that?????
Welll, then what you really want is Lockheed's Cormorant (which was cancelled).
Deleteactually no. i'm proposing a small enough helo to fit into a modified 'hangar' that's designed for the SEAL Delivery Vehicle...i think a little bird might do...and if its too big then you could probably modify the hangar without too much trouble. i'm talking about a method of insertion that is inherently stealthy. quick. and operates from the sea. oh and perhaps most importantly i'm talking about being able to insert SEALs by helicopter from a sub.
Deletehow did you come up with the cormorant fulfilling this need?
Here you go Sol, I remember reading about these some time ago. Not a bad idea imo, with the technology we've got in place today it's certainly doable. Just think about applying some of the new hyperphobic material to a helo strapped aboard a sub, and what that can do for a stealth op. :-)
ReplyDeletealmost forgot the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_S-1_(SS-105)
I'm with Sol on this one, with great elements of stealth and surprise this would be an amazing platform to launch raids. Yes, open space is necessary, but with todays materials and technologies, who is to say it isn't possible. Personally, I'd like to see a submersible LPD-21, then again I'm a big proponent of the Aeroscraft ML86X airships use for the US Army. With the trimming of the budgets coming up, we have to think out of the box!
ReplyDeleteThe point was that during WWII when subs normally operated on the surface it wasn't unreasonable for them to carry a few aircraft. Indeed the Germans used one man helicopters for spotting.
ReplyDeleteToday the concept of operations for submarines is entirely different. The moment you start doing air ops on the surface you are in fact a surface ship. You've got to have radar up and emitting for air threats and you'll need some kind of point defense. You're not going to surface without radar for air threats and just hope nobody is out doing maritime patrol.
So the whole keeping a low profile thing is out the window and defeats the purpose. We've been inserting long distances with helicopters for decades and we really don't need to complicate it further by trying to stuff one in a small tube where maintenance will be difficult to impossible.
Every way we insert by submarine whether it's by delivery vehicle, inflatable boat, etc., involves the boat staying underwater. It's certainly possible to imagine a scenario where it might be useful to launch a helicopter from a sub but at that point it might be better to launch out of or from an aircraft. Parasite aircraft were operated from airships and aircraft for years. Frankly it's all overly complicated and failure prone. We're better off relying on aerial refueling a MV/CV-22 whether from land or a ship then adding another failure point by surfacing a submarine near the objective.
All this said you really want to do it then encapsulate it and float it to the surface. In either case nobody is going to be thrilled going through pre flight and hoping the bird is fine either on deck or floating on the ocean given the lack of maintenance sitting sealed in a tube. Will there in fact be any maintenance facilities on the sub? How big is the pad and how does that fit in with the boats signature management? Does the pad slide out from the tube as well along with a RAST?
While we're at why don't we just make it submersible carrier so we can maintain and pre flight the aircraft in a hanger and just surface and launch when required. While we're at lets have it carry a few more aircraft for escort and add AEGIS so it can survive on the surface. Not everything one can think up is actually practical. The I-400's were actually built, were a waste of resources, and achieved nothing.
Lane,
Deletei'm talking about a one off special ops application. it makes as much sense to have a stealthy, submersible that can surface and launch aircraft if you're talking about secret missions than it does to have an LSD or LHA sitting off a coast that everyone can see and monitor.
the I400 was a wonderful experiment and all i'm saying is that with todays tech, using a limited amount of imagination and the right tools...little birds instead of blackhawks...that this is all feasible.
you can find a million ways to explain why something can't work. all i'm saying is try to imagine how this could. and for every advancement in tech there has been a legion of critics explaining why it can't.
you're in plentiful company.
Sol the issue isn't whether it can be done but how the concept of operations fits in. Submarines surfacing to do flight operations is a significant operational challenge especially given any air threat. You're also going to need a rather large tube to carry, service, and deploy with a RAST pad far enough for from the tube for the rotors to safely clear.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that it can't be done. The point is to compare this concept to others and decide what's the most operationally useful. Consider why launching a short range small single engine helicopter very close to the water line off a surfaced submarine is better than using a medium twin engine off a 45 knot LCS or an MV/CV-22 off an amphib?
Again the issue isn't whether or not it can be done but whether there's a case to be made that it's either operationally viable and superior to other insertion methods.
As an aside take a good look at an SSN and now place a landing pad large enough to operate an MH/AH-6 on deck. Is it going to slide out from the tube with the helo on top? How far out does it have to go? Does it have a RAST? How big does the tube really have to be? How long does the boat have to operate on the surface to launch?