Submarine Carrier (A cursed possible future)

[kriegerfaust]

*Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super... Syndrome : ... *no one* will be.

Carrier Battleship Hybrids, Cruiser Carrier hybrids maybe the answer is not getting rid of carriers but giving everyone fighters, of course submarines can just be chucked in the trash

Edited April 5 by kriegerfaust

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

PLEEEeeeaaaase STOP giving WeeGee bad ideas ....... they WILL implement them                              (for a hefty price/gambling boxes)

 

Cool pictures tho.

Edited April 5 by OldSchoolGaming_Youtube

[Tpaktop2_1 NA]

Your a little late in your warning Old School

There were plans done on doing such a design by USN in the 20's. I bet that WG has these plans already.

[Lord_Slayer]

so long as the watertight door isn't contracted out to Boeing.....

[Wolfswetpaws]

On 4/5/2024 at 2:51 AM, kriegerfaust said:

*Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super... Syndrome : ... *no one* will be.

Carrier Battleship Hybrids, Cruiser Carrier hybrids maybe the answer is not getting rid of carriers but giving everyone fighters, of course submarines can just be chucked in the trash

Well, it seems fun in works of fiction.
And it has been done in history (the I-401, for example).

But there are some practical considerations when "putting all your eggs into one basket", eh?

The sea-to-ground strike capability has been largely fulfilled with missiles, as I reckon the situation in real-life.

[Jakob Knight]

About the only practical designs would require VTOL planes like Harriers and 35's, which would limit their capabilities against other Carriers.  Waterproofing the hanger doors would be a nightmare, and I can just imagine trying to keep noise down while submerged would give the XO nervous breakdowns.  Making it stealthy would probably drive any engineering program mad.  Hate to think what would happen to such a ship caught in a Midway while doing launch operations.

 

There are good reasons such ships never got beyond the 'ah...what a quaint idea' stage.

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

52 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

About the only practical designs would require VTOL planes like Harriers and 35's, which would limit their capabilities against other Carriers.  Waterproofing the hanger doors would be a nightmare, and I can just imagine trying to keep noise down while submerged would give the XO nervous breakdowns.  Making it stealthy would probably drive any engineering program mad.  Hate to think what would happen to such a ship caught in a Midway while doing launch operations.

 

There are good reasons such ships never got beyond the 'ah...what a quaint idea' stage.

 

 

Nah. Missiles exist. No reason for a sub to launch planes ever now.

Drones maybe, but not full size planes.

[Lord_Slayer]

58 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

There are good reasons such ships never got beyond the 'ah...what a quaint idea' stage.

Japan was the only one that really went all out with an aircraft carrying sub, and those were quite limited in the amount of aircraft they could carry, and their armament.
Really only good for one surprise strike and then they would have to slip away. They really couldn't support sustained operations like a full CV.

Even after the war, the closest we get to an aircraft carrying sub in the US are the Regulus Cruise missile subs, and those were only really effective until SSBNs came online and replaced them.

[Jakob Knight]

18 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Nah. Missiles exist. No reason for a sub to launch planes ever now.

Drones maybe, but not full size planes.

 

There are things fighters can do that missiles and drones cannot.  A missile can't be recalled once it's fired, can't loiter over a target, can't decide that the information it was targeting off of was bad at the last minute and adjust, or be sent out to provide air defense patrol or search and rescue for other ships.  Drones have too restricted viewing angles and lack of depth perception to be able to engage in dogfighting against manned fighters, and their signals are subject to both transmission range and enemy jamming/hacking.

 

Much as when the US Military thought missiles would make guns on airplanes unneeded, there are very good reasons why fighters will remain absolutely necessary to any military.  However, you're right that there's no need for a submarine to launch them.  A Sub's job and a Carriers are completely different, with different requirements, and as the Russian Navy found out with their hybrid 'Aircraft Equipped Rocket Cruisers', trying to mix two missions too far apart in the same ship results in a design that can't do either as well as a ship made for them.

 

[Yedwy]

On 4/5/2024 at 1:18 PM, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

Your a little late in your warning Old School

There were plans done on doing such a design by USN in the 20's. I bet that WG has these plans already.

Yeah prob still debating how to make them T10 or even T11 premium meterial without all of it looking to obvious...

Edited April 7 by Yedwy

[Lord_Slayer]

3 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

Drones have too restricted viewing angles and lack of depth perception to be able to engage in dogfighting against manned fighters....

I'd say this is less of an issue.
Stereoscopy is becoming more of a thing. In combination with VR headsets, if the military industrial base really went all out, a Drone giving the controller the same view as if the person was in the cockpit is possible.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

I'd say this is less of an issue.
Stereoscopy is becoming more of a thing. In combination with VR headsets, if the military industrial base really went all out, a Drone giving the controller the same view as if the person was in the cockpit is possible.

And drones are being utilized in <somewhere a current conflict is going on in Europe> which are sophisticated enough to identify targets and adjust their course to perform attacks even if the communication between the drone and the drone-controller is jammed.

Drones are "getting better" and the available features seem to be only limited by how much a buyer is willing to spend, from what I've gleaned from articles and videos.

[Jakob Knight]

6 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

I'd say this is less of an issue.
Stereoscopy is becoming more of a thing. In combination with VR headsets, if the military industrial base really went all out, a Drone giving the controller the same view as if the person was in the cockpit is possible.

 

You'd be surprised how little that actually does to mitigate the disadvantages of drone warfare.  VR headsets means multiplying the number of sensors and channels assigned to video feeds, which in turn clogs the datastream that much more than is already the case.  That can induce lag which would be fatal in a dogfight, especially as the pilot has no 'feel' for what his or her plane is doing while they are looking elsewhere, as well as boosting the price of the drones even more.  And, a software glitch or enemy jamming can mean total loss of the aircraft or subversion by the enemy.  

 

There are realities of physics and technology that are simply part of the equation of air combat that can't be overcome but only weighed into the equation of which type of weapon to use.  Drones have their place like any weapon system, but their limitations are binding as well.  Same for cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, shipboard gunnery, piloted aircraft, or torpedoes.  You use the best tool for the job.

 

[Kynami]

From what I've seen in articles there are large drones being more considered as a support platform for some fighters. Where a co-pilot in the back seat is flying the drone accompanying the fighter. Thereby minimizing latency and having the best possible signal strength between operator and drone. For instances where an unmanned platform at significant distance from its operator is probably a liability.

[SunkCostFallacy]

You know that you're not awake when you see this threat title and the image that comes to your mind is a CV with a BIG tube spitting out mini-subs.

[UnderTheRadarAgain]

The Japanese I-400 series subs will be introduced to the game in the next 2 years.

They will have the same mechanic as Halford - that hybrid DD. Launch ONE plane, and 5 more spawn in next to it.

 

At least the I-400 class submarines were real boats made in steel. The real subs carried spotter planes that could carry 2 tiny bombs - usually incendiaries as tried against the US mainland a couple of times - to start wildfires. They failed due to the moisture levels at the locations tried.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

You'd be surprised how little that actually does to mitigate the disadvantages of drone warfare.  VR headsets means multiplying the number of sensors and channels assigned to video feeds, which in turn clogs the datastream that much more than is already the case.  That can induce lag which would be fatal in a dogfight, especially as the pilot has no 'feel' for what his or her plane is doing while they are looking elsewhere, as well as boosting the price of the drones even more.  And, a software glitch or enemy jamming can mean total loss of the aircraft or subversion by the enemy.  

 

There are realities of physics and technology that are simply part of the equation of air combat that can't be overcome but only weighed into the equation of which type of weapon to use.  Drones have their place like any weapon system, but their limitations are binding as well.  Same for cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, shipboard gunnery, piloted aircraft, or torpedoes.  You use the best tool for the job.

 

Nicely said.  
I'd like to add that drones may be able to pull more G's than human pilots.  If not now, then in the future.

While playing flight-sims, especially combat flight sims, the realism settings often included an option to use/not-use G-forces.
Maneuvers easily done with the G's turned off were suddenly more of a challenge with the G's turned on and the pilot was either blacking-out or redding-out.

[Jakob Knight]

38 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Nicely said.  
I'd like to add that drones may be able to pull more G's than human pilots.  If not now, then in the future.

While playing flight-sims, especially combat flight sims, the realism settings often included an option to use/not-use G-forces.
Maneuvers easily done with the G's turned off were suddenly more of a challenge with the G's turned on and the pilot was either blacking-out or redding-out.

 

True, they can pull more G's, but the airframe still flies apart if pushed too hard.  And, without a pilot to feel the G's, it's easy for a pilot to throw the craft into a high-G maneuver and not realize they are doing so until it disintegrates.  Also, without audible feedback, the pilot of a drone won't hear warning signs like vibration in the hull or the sound of metal fatigue until the craft is gone.  And, of course, because they can, combat pilots will always want to ride the red line.

 

Again, it comes down to the right weapon system for the job you're doing.  And the training to make sure the personnel using those tools make less mistakes than their opponent.  A drone can probably do some amazing evasive maneuvers against intercepting missiles enroute to a ground strike target, but it's always going to be a last resort option to get into a dogfight with a manned fighter.  If you're making a drone for that, might as well make it a missile.

[Wolfswetpaws]

30 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

True, they can pull more G's, but the airframe still flies apart if pushed too hard.  And, without a pilot to feel the G's, it's easy for a pilot to throw the craft into a high-G maneuver and not realize they are doing so until it disintegrates.  Also, without audible feedback, the pilot of a drone won't hear warning signs like vibration in the hull or the sound of metal fatigue until the craft is gone.  And, of course, because they can, combat pilots will always want to ride the red line.

 

Again, it comes down to the right weapon system for the job you're doing.  And the training to make sure the personnel using those tools make less mistakes than their opponent.  A drone can probably do some amazing evasive maneuvers against intercepting missiles enroute to a ground strike target, but it's always going to be a last resort option to get into a dogfight with a manned fighter.  If you're making a drone for that, might as well make it a missile.

👍

[Lord_Slayer]

23 hours ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said:

At least the I-400 class submarines were real boats made in steel. The real subs carried spotter planes that could carry 2 tiny bombs - usually incendiaries as tried against the US mainland a couple of times - to start wildfires. They failed due to the moisture levels at the locations tried.

actually the I-400 aircraft were to Torpedo the locks of the Panama Canal.

By the time they were ready, Okinawa fell. The new mission was Kamikaze strikes on Ulithi, but the war ended before the strikes could go ahead.


I-17, I-26 and I-25 used their deck guns on US mainland targets.

The I-25 launched a seaplane to attempt a forest fire. It did no significant damage.

The most damage done was by the fire balloons the IJN  launched from Japan. Of the 9,000 launched, 300 reach the US. 6 civilians died to one bomb. Another may have been the cause of a forest fire.

 

[UnderTheRadarAgain]

On paper, sure those planes could have possibly done a tiny bit of scratch damage to the Panama Canal locks. 

 

However, actual small incendiary bombs were dropped on at least 2 occasions, one confirmed by I-25. But all that historical fact and conjecture is irrelevant to world of warships the game. The submarines in world of warships the game will have a hybrid strike squadron similar to the US destroyer Halford. The armament wargaming will choose could be rockets, they could be bombs or they could be small torpedo's. We won't know until the relevant dev blog gets published, whenever that will be.

 

Until that happens, all our words are just meaningless conjecture and imagination.