Japanese submarines and aircraft

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Japanese submarines and aircraft

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The author of that article suffers from the same infatuation with huge weapons that the Axis had during the war.

The planned attack on the Panama Canal was a PIPE DREAM; the Sen Toku's would have to spend three quarters of an hour on the surface of the water to launch their aircraft, in hostile waters, presumably in daylight (or at most, at dawn), in hostile waters, hoping and praying not to be spotted by enemy air patrols. You think their 10*25mm guns would have been ANY sort of meaningful defence against a concerted air attack? I can assure you, they wouldn't; the Germans tried making flak submarines without success, and they had flak guns that actually WORKED.

The Sen Tokus were white elephants, a dead-end technology. They were an illogical continuation of the midget submarine carriers of the earlier war, with the added "advantage" that their "midgets" (the Seirans) could be more easily intercepted and destroyed.

They were huge wastes of resources and militarily irrelevant. Too bad about the Seirans, though. They were pretty much the only worthwile thing to come out of the Sen Toku program; good aircraft.

They were not designed for Panama - and torpedoes into the lock gates might have been a problem. They were not intended for daylilght launch - they had phosphorous so night assembly was possible. In general you aren't familiar with this system and are making invalid assumptions. They were designed for neusance raids by night on NYC and Washington - in the hope of diverting resources - which almost certainly would have worked. And the Sairen was not actually a different aircraft - it was just a float equipped standard dive bomber with mountings for a torpedo.
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Japanese submarines and aircraft

Post by DuckofTindalos »

The only US post-war submarines to feature large tubular hangers on their decks (that I could find) were the wartime fleet boats converted to carry the Regulus missile.

I doubt this is what cid was talking about earlier (it's quite obviously not based on the Sen Tokus in any way), so I'd like to invite him to post pictures of the boats he was referring to...



Image
Attachments
0831704.jpg
0831704.jpg (20.83 KiB) Viewed 391 times
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Japanese submarines and aircraft

Post by el cid again »

You can find line drawings of the plans for aircraft carrier subs for USN - and text descriptions that they were intended to carry jets (which jets were developed but also not put into production). The subs were not built, but were superceded by the Regulus program. See US Submarines Since 1945.
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Japanese submarines and aircraft

Post by DuckofTindalos »

Didn't think so...[8|]

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Japanese submarines and aircraft

Post by DuckofTindalos »

Just one question: why would the navy in possession of the world's largest aircraft carrier fleet even consider a "jet-equipped aircraft-carrying submarine"? Put up or shut up, cid!
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Japanese submarines and aircraft

Post by m10bob »


Thank you Dili...From your site:

Meanwhile, in the US, the development of nuclear propulsion sparked some interest in aircraft-carrying submarines, prompting the Office of Naval Research to issue a solicitation for proposals. In response, Edward H. Heinemann, an aircraft designer who preferred to be called an innovator, developed a series of design sketches for a fighter aircraft that could be carried aboard the nuclear-powered submarine Halibut that had been specifically designed to carry and launch guided ballistic missiles. Halibut was commissioned in January 1960 and could carry four Regulus II missiles in a massive bow hangar.

Heinemann’s sketches indicated how a new-design aircraft or his versatile Douglas A4D Skyhawk could fit into the submarine’s hangar with minimum modification. The basic Halibut hangar was 80 feet long. The new-design aircraft was the Douglas model 640, a turbojet attack aircraft with a flying boat hull. It would be catapulted from the surfaced submarine, would come down at sea, and would be recovered aboard the submarine by a telescoping crane. Depending upon modifications to the hangar, the aircraft’s wings, tail fin, or nose section would fold for shipboard stowage.

Flying Carpet

The Navy did not pursue Heinemann’s proposals, but there were several other proposals for nuclear-propelled, aircraft-carrying submarines. The Navy’s aircraft development office—the Bureau of Aeronautics—sponsored the most ambitious one, called Project Flying Carpet.

Boeing Aircraft Co. undertook the extensive feasibility study of aircraft-carrying submarines for the project. The secret study employed, initially, hangar configuration and hull lines based on the Halibut design and the S5W propulsion plant used for the Thresher-type submarine.

The Boeing study proposed a near-term submarine carrier configuration—designated AN-1—that would carry eight high-performance aircraft in two large hangars, built into the forward hull. The nuclear-propelled submarine would be some 500 feet long and displace 9,260 tons on the surface—larger than any US submarine then planned, including the 380-foot-plus Polaris ballistic missile submarines.

The starting point for AN-1 aircraft would be a modified Grumman F11F Tiger turbojet fighter. The aircraft’s standard folding wings (for carrier use) would be supplemented by a folding tail fin, and it would employ a large rocket booster for launch from a “zero length” catapult. The catapult would be elevated to the vertical (90 degrees) to launch aircraft. The pilot would climb into the aircraft while it was still in the hangar, then an automated system would move the aircraft onto the catapult.

The aeronautics bureau conducted a feasibility study to investigate the submarine weight, stability, and equilibrium using an F11F conventional aircraft stowed in the Regulus missile hangar of USS Grayback. Grayback could carry two Regulus II missiles, one in each of two hangars faired into her forward superstructure.

The plan was, eventually, to replace the Mach 1+ F11F fighter with a Mach 3 aircraft. The aircraft would land aboard the submarine through the use of an innovative hook-and-cable arresting system. An aircraft that had to set down at sea could be brought back aboard the submarine by crane.

Initially, designers expected each aircraft-carrying sub to be able to haul aircraft fuel, weapons, and other stores for 10 missions per aircraft—a total of 80 missions per submarine. That estimate grew during the preliminary design process to at least 160 missions, with only minor changes in the submarine design.


Designers developed a subsequent AN-2 variant aircraft-carrying submarine with similar hull lines to the AN-1, but the AN-2 would operate vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. The sub would carry these VTOL aircraft in eight vertical hangars built into the hull forward of the sail structure. The below-deck configuration of the AN-2’s forward hull would differ considerably from the AN-1, while the after section of the submarine—containing crew quarters, control spaces, propulsion, and reactor plant—would be similar

Image

User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Japanese submarines and aircraft

Post by DuckofTindalos »

You forgot this bit of quote from the article:

" However, the Navy did not pursue the aircraft-carrying submarine. Defense analysts have offered a number of reasons: a questionable operational requirement for submarine-based aircraft; bureaucratic opposition to a ship concept developed by the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics, not the Navy’s Bureau of Ships; and a shortage of submarine construction capability since the Navy was accelerating the construction of both torpedo-attack submarines and Polaris missile submarines."
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Japanese submarines and aircraft

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Just one question: why would the navy in possession of the world's largest aircraft carrier fleet even consider a "jet-equipped aircraft-carrying submarine"? Put up or shut up, cid!


I still detect a negative and hostile attitude on your part - but I am mystified about what? I am not responsible for US Navy decisions made when I was a very young child - I only report them to you - and where you can find them described in my USNI materials.

Taking the most innocent attitude possible, a literal answer might be found in Strike From the Sea - which I have not read except in review. Possibly 'why' might be explained there - as it covers all such projects from long before to long afterward. I hinted at a possible 'why' above in a post when I described how our interest occurred after the Soviet Union got atom bombs. There were a wide variety of concepts explored at this time - including some very expensive projects (costing multiples of billions in an era dollars were much bigger EACH) to build nuclear powered cruise missiles, nuclear powered ballistic missiles, nuclear powered bombers, and very exotic submarines (including a type built like aircraft instead of like submarines) were also studied (although not at such high expense). Perhaps it was a form of corruption or incompetence - as today such ideas seem outlandish. Ultimately 'why' is left to you to decide - and whatever it may be it isn't my fault. There was a similar program in the 1930 re aircraft carrier airships - the first major weapons system USN ultimately abandoned I am aware of. It may be the failure to field these kinds of things affirms your opinion they were not feasible. But it may also be we just don't know what could have been done given the opportunity. Again - the reader is free to draw their own conclusions. When I report something, I am describing what happened - not why - in general. Were radar picket submarines a bad idea? What about transport submarines? This isn't really any different - it is a concept that was studied seriously by professionals - wether or not you like it.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Japanese submarines and aircraft

Post by el cid again »



Thanks. Note that until this open material was cited I did NOT mention there was more than one US aircraft carrier submarine proposal. I only cited the one in the USNI book I cited.

Note that the existence of a number of different studies - not just the pre SSN one I cited - continuing on into the age of the SSN and after Regulus type subs were being built - means that this was indeed a serious concept - and that Terminus attitude it was never a possibility has less merit than it might at first have seemed to have. It was not a single isolated case. But the case I cited was meant to show the connection to the I-400 - and that first case involved a very similar concept - updated for 3 jets - just as I originally said. I have never been quite comfortable with the idea - but I think it is wrong to imagine such ships - in any era - might not achieve surprise strikes of significance. Submarines are inherantly stealthy, aircraft have range and, flying low in the 1940s or 1950s, were very hard to detect and engage.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”