@@SpheroJr3289 although I love the i-400, the alicorn would be way better, two years without surface, railguns, missile system, as guns, drones, electronic warfare, shield drones, up to twenty fighters with pilots that no valuate their life kinda much, nukes, and a plan to end this war in an elegant manner. Is like saying that a horses car is the counterpart of a F1 racing car
@@the_stinky_broccoli8998 neither do the alicorn crew... They were taking off when the submarine were still emerging and they were human shields, not to talk that carrying 20 planes which can take off in squadrons + drones that can take off while underwater makes it more powerful
@@SpheroJr3289 Honestly, I'd consider the I-400 to be more like the Scinfaxi-class submarines than the Alicorn, as it rather lacked a flight deck, and would have launched floatplanes (or planes with no way of landing safely, as the pontoons were actually removed during storage, and could be omitted for faster launches), while the Alicorn clearly had the ability to have its aircraft land back on it like a regular carrier, despite us never seeing any do so. They also share the similarity of also fulfilling more traditional submarine roles, as the I-400 had torpedo tubes, and the scinfaxi class being a ballistic missile submarine, while the Alicorn's mode of operation was more in line with a surface warship that happens to be able to submerge. Sure, the Scinfaxi-class presumably also could have its aircraft land back on it, but that's only because it used VTOL aircraft and UAVs (the latter of which may have forgone recovery), but it's still a matter of an alternative method of landing, as the I-400 did have the ability to recover its aircraft after they landed on the water.
Hrimfaxi Submarine. A Scinfaxi-class nuclear submarine developed by the Union of Yuktobanian Republics during the Cold War. It along with its sister ship, the Scinfaxi, was later destroyed during the Circum-Pacific War.
Anything larger than current high stealth/silence submarines will be flawed...and submarine hunters can even detect anomaly in earth's magnetic field hence detecting huge submarine... so such and similar vlogs goes out of the window... rescuing/salvaging sitting aircraft methods makes LEM/DARPA way flawed too... I have a classified design which addresses all and actively looking to pitch to precise channel in US. They could be reading this too :) ...
The concept is quite unique. The ability to sneak aircraft around & deploy them from unexpected locations via a submarine. Imagine a stealth fighter hitting its target. Vanishing from sight, then vanishing beneath the waves.
@@brentsido8822 well you can attac and anish attack and vanish. you caqn hit more targets than you can with course missiles. it allso will confuse the enemy, and like you have more options
Anything larger than current high stealth/silence submarines will be flawed...and submarine hunters can even detect anomaly in earth's magnetic field hence detecting huge submarine... so such and similar vlogs goes out of the window... rescuing/salvaging sitting aircraft methods makes LEM/DARPA way flawed too... I have a classified design which addresses all and actively looking to pitch to precise channel in US. They could be reading this too :) ...
_"This boat has the means to end this hideous war, in a definitive and elegant manner. The world shall be horrified by the number of lives we will take. Only then will they lay down their weapons... weapons that would have taken the lives of 10 million."_
Anything larger than current high stealth/silence submarines will be flawed...and submarine hunters can even detect anomaly in earth's magnetic field hence detecting huge submarine... so such and similar vlogs goes out of the window... rescuing/salvaging sitting aircraft methods makes LEM/DARPA way flawed too... I have a classified design which addresses all and actively looking to pitch to precise channel in US. They could be reading this too :) ...
The British did it with the M1. They're called big gun or cruiser submarines. And there's actually a lot of countries in the 1920s that made a lot of these battleship submarines.
Anything larger than current high stealth/silence submarines will be flawed...and submarine hunters can even detect anomaly in earth's magnetic field hence detecting huge submarine... so such and similar vlogs goes out of the window... rescuing/salvaging sitting aircraft methods makes LEM/DARPA way flawed too... I have a classified design which addresses all and actively looking to pitch to precise channel in US. They could be reading this too :) ...
I would absolutely love to see the sub/battleship hybrid video. The crazy outlandish ideas that almost came to be are fascinating and I can't get enough of them
The Japanese I-400 class did NOT fail, they were just too late in the war to have much effect. The DID bomb both Oregon and Washington, but they didn't cause all that much damage.
As technology they worked. As weapons ...... they seemed to lack a mission. Properly employed , in the right place and time the I-400 could have been a great force multiplier. Their 4 plane air group couldn't throw much weight but has enough punch to do some really useful things. The ships worked. In my opinion, at that time, there were more important things to use those resources on. A neat thing for Japan to develop.
I always wonder what make Project Aces, the developer for Ace Combat game franchise, get ideas for their Scinfaxi, Alicorn, etc, aircraft carrier submarine from. Remembering that the I-400 that their ancestor built is anything like them. But now I know
I Have to admit as a former Army Light infantrymen, the concept of strapping US Marines to a rocket and firing them off the deck of a submarine like a Wile-E Coyote cartoon, Is greatly entertaining to me! I would definitely pay a dollar to see that happen!
Just remember...interservice rivalry being what it is if the Navy/Marines built something like that the army would come up with an equally silly notion to compete for funding. Something on the order of a hypersonic vehicle with a platoon of light infantry getting spit out in fire team sized capsules to decelerate and land???
I've just finished watching the flying aircraft carrier episode before watching this, and the interesting thing about both is that they "could work" with the small drones we have now.
The sea-plane combat jet would have doomed itself, all those parts being directly exposed to sea water is the kiss of death for any mechanical thing - especially a jet.
@@WALTERBROADDUS There is a profound difference between a pleasure craft that travels at 100 mph and something pushing mach numbers in terms of mechanical tolerances, experiencing regular high G loads and maintenance requirements. That is a lot to try and design around..
the japanese and americans were using armed military seaplanes as far back as ww1 and ww2 and as far as jets go look up soviet WIGs and ekranoplan and for the american side of things look up the martin p6m Seamaster
There is a G.E. plant about 45 mins away from my house near Cincinnati Ohio, they make aircraft engines there, it is quite the impressive looking facility (i have never been on premises but i sometimes see it from afar when driving
@@samwheat1302 Try captured/surrendered as war prizes. The USN scuttled them after doing a detailed study to prevent the Russians from trying to take them as their own prizes even though it was the US that accepted the surrender and had jurisdiction over the Japanese home islands and any remaining Japanese military assets, hence why Nagato was present at Operation Crossroads as a target. France also had Surcouf which carried a folding wing biplane for spotting and a large number Japanese submarines actually had small seaplane hangars for recon and spotting, as did a number of Royal Navy submarines such as the M-class. Most other nations had experimented with the concept and the Germans had several designs drawn up by late WWII.
@@secondstartotheright 2 survived the war. 1 was operational and surrendered to the US at the end of the war. The second was conducting Sea Trials when the war ended. The 3rd was still under construction. 1 of them was sunk off Hawaii after the US had gotten everything they wanted from it as far as intelligence and any engineering information they wanted before being sunk to prevent it from falling into Soviet hands. None saw action.
Go for it! Submersible battleships, that’s something I’d like to see! I don’t know what’s cooler, a submersible aircraft carrier (like the last one with the twin sails) or a flying one….. The possibilities are endless!
Why not have both? Aircraft carriers in the sky, aircraft carriers on the water, and aircraft carriers underneath the sea. A triple whammy of aircraft carriers.
We already have flying ones, the tic tac ufo is just a small cigar shaped anti gravity carrier craft for smaller triangle and other shaped anti gravity craft. I served with the Navy and was right up beside and inside those ships, that’s why the recent ufo/UAP report pisses me off so much. I KNOW they’re lying again to just keep the coverup going and it pisses me off, but yeah they’re pretty cool once you start understanding what the black military world has actually been doing with aerospace projects that are ACTUALLY cutting edge, it’s miles past what most people think is even possible, if people only knew what we have RIGHT NOW, it would absolutely blow their mind.
Submersible is cheaper because you don't need to constantly use fuel to keep an aircraft carrier flying in the sky. Unless your taking about Space Battle carriers. That is 10x better than either one.
@@dustynmyatt2679 you my friend believe too much, the UFO phenomenon is pure theatre just another tool in the tool box, psychological warfare. Not designed for its citizens. It’s designed for the country’s enemies. Is it real is it not. Can we really attack them successfully etc.
6:40 Perfect example of why engineers need supervision that grounds them into reality. At which moment would anyone consider that carrying a nuclear bomb and not being able to land, all at the same time, could be something remotely acceptable? It hasn't changed, I can tell you.
I think you'll find its the crazy requests that managers and customers have that lead engineers, to have crazy concepts. Also most things sound crazy when you first propose them. Launching icbms from submarines underwater for example.
The French also had a submarine that could launch an aircraft and had a battery that would nominally be fitted on a cruiser. The sub was called Surcouf
it's stuff like this that makes me wish the Goodyear inflatable planes were formally adopted, so that a submarine could surface and deploy a special ops team with inflatable planes. it'd be like an SAS wet dream.
I still remember the old PC Crimson Skies submarine-carrier boss, the Ace Combat 7 Alicorn, and the original, now forgotten DeepAngel/Empire supercavitating submarine-aircraft-carrier Los Angeles
6:40 The could have used a braking chute deployed by the tail cone to slow the bomb to skim across the water on the recovery vessel's port side. Then inflate a float to keep the bomb buoyant until recovery. The deployed chute floating on the water's surface would visually indicate its position, and a radio emitter could beep every 2 minutes until receiving a signal to increase it's transmission rate to every 3-5 seconds or so. It could even release a colored shark repellant to deter "aquatic interference" with the crew while they pulled it back onto the sub.
Dude -- Mobile Suit Gundam much? (In one anime from the franchise, the bad guys did have wheeled dreadnoughts that crunched their way through Earth's cities.)
The Atlantis Class Experimental comes to mind, very interesting... In this era of stol/vtol options like osprey for shore landing and f35/ existing marine Harriers, vertical take off and recovery no longer seems as extreme as nose up rocket launches and space-x style rocket recovery - I also noticed a lot of your modeling includes using sea harriers as the operational aircraft.
@@lordrefrigeratorintercoole288 Haha exactly. Dumping an entire storage capacity of bombers on an unprepared strong point or vulnerable force was always fun.
There is a need for this concept. Sure the traditional aircraft carrier should be a visible powerhouse. But if real war erupts those will be primary targets. Using a force multitude they will fall in the early days. You'll be left with these that were kept secret and are not visible. So yea there is a need for these. They are secret and last ditch and for that reason we will most likely never see them.
Except they have zero purpose when SSGNs exist. A submarine's entire purpose is to never be detected. SSGNs are already announcing their position when firing, but at least they can do so underwater and quickly reposition; all this idea does is get them killed. What if the sub is found? Does it dive to save itself, leaving the aircraft to die? Or does it get both killed by waiting? The only benefit they could have over cruise missiles is precision, but is "precision" worth it when you can only carry 1/10 the firepower of the standard ~dozen VLS tubes? Cruise missiles don't need maintenance rooms, fuel/ammo storage, crews and their quarters, or large launching platforms/runways. All they need is a VLS, and however many reloads you want stored in all that unused space.
@@Nighthawk2401 if we're going to go the VLS missile system then why don't you mention the Arsenal ships at all because those things were essentially aircraft carrier sized platforms with a small section for the minimal crew to live and maintain the engines and possibly run air defenses if it had them, and the rest hundreds to thousands of VLS tubes with actual guidance and firing solutions controlled by a second ship.
@@Shinzon23 A pretty cool idea, but also a little pointless. If you need 500 cruise missiles for land attack, use existing fleet supply vessels to rearm other VLS-armed ships at sea. Though at that point, it might be better to just let the air force handle it.
@@davidbocquelet-dbodesign It's still just an issue of role. A submarine's strength in land attack is it's ability to go behind enemy lines and hit large industrial and strategic targets then escape before the missiles even start landing. Strike craft are meant for precision CAS, and stealth aircraft will always have to pick between stealth and weapon storage. You don't go far behind enemy lines to kill a few tanks, why not bring tomahawks to hit major targets? And once again, retrieval of aircraft is a pain the ass.
Unfortunately they still required runways for landing, though if you had used the likes of the Anglo French Jaguar the runway wouldn't need much preparation.
The mispronouncing of such a legendary name and ship line makes me cringe so hard. Shame this channel could be so much better if he actually bothered to edit/fact check his own work.
@@nong333 I know they had a human missile, but what I am implying is that the Japanese would want more of them, and the fighter said would be a good addition.
"How big would you like to build your submarine?" Japan Empire: Yes "Okay perhaps you don't get it, how big would you want your battleship be?" Japan Empire: Yes
Funny, vertical landing easier than horizontal landing on a pitching and rolling deck. Does that mean a ship stops rolling and pitching when aircraft land vertically?
Minor nitpick : As far as I can tell, General Dynamics/Electric Boat is a completely separate company from General Electric. GE was founded by Thomas Edison in 1892. Electric Boat was founded in 1899 and acquired later by General Dynamics (which itself was not founded till 1952).
The GE design is probably the most realistic option. Although making a huge submarine is difficult it's a lot simpler than making a submarine and specialized Jets that land vertical.
That whole program needs to die. We're spending all our military budget on that one f'ing program (not to mention fuel and maintenance costs), while China diversifies their military, we try and put everything of ours into one plane...
Huge thank you to Scott from Aerospace Projects Review who collected the many schematics in this video. He has a great new book on the SR-71 Black Bird: amzn.to/2Sbum7s Also check out Mustards video on the Japanese carrier here: ruclips.net/video/gxyk84t4Q8w/видео.html
@@FoundAndExplained no bro you can't say that ..yes he have some quality videos but yet the level of detail and quality in your videos are still comparable ..also he uploads once in a 1-2 months.. so for me your channel is best
@17:47, GE has never been known as General Dynamics or Electric Ships. General Dynamics still exists and is one of the top defense contractors in the US. There is a division of General Dynamics called Electric Boat that designs and manufactures submarines for the US Navy. General Electric could well have been involved in this project but it would have been for the supply of reactors and propulsion equipment for the sub.
I think there is some plausibility for a sensitive cargo transport. basically the idea is that you build a large not so stealthy-stealthy submarine that has a large deck like this, but it is designed to deploy a lot of cargo in an amphibious assault.
Wait so Space Battleship Yamato Cosmo Zero's folding storage system was inspired by the modified seadart fighter in 9:40? 15:11 in the ova Macross Zero there was a modified sub which uses similar launch methods for its fighter launches.
Loved the video and information. While i have spent considerable time researching early 1900’s non-war ocean travel, i enjoy gaining knowledge into other realms of seafaring. Your presentation is excellent.
It was her clever to continue to show images of navy crafts while talking about the VPN for your sponsors. That way when people are skipping through the video with a preview they think they have skipped past the commercial but it's still on it. Bravo. Lol
Awesome video! I do really wanna learn about submarine battleships now! I remember that both the British and French experimented with putting gun turrets on submarines in WW1 and WW2 respectively :).
Yes, though they where considered to be cruisers. Drachinfel has good videos on both (the French one is called "Surcouf" and I think the British ones where the M15?).
Hay F&E, I love your videos, they're suuuper informative! I just wanna let you know that "Hangers" means like coat hangers. The airplane storage place is called a "hangar". Grumman is pronounced "Gruh-man" and Gyro is pronounced "Jai-Ro" not "Guy-ro". just lettin' you know! 💜
Yes they 100-percent did because I remember a couple of the designers of said games saying that they were looking at some of the more wacky and weird stuff to come out of the Cold War and thought it would be cool to be in a video game.
A loiter munition like a switchblade or slightly bigger coming off the sail of a sub would be better for a small land attack variant right now and probably cheaper but having limited range to strike, switchblade ER has something like a 40 min glide time at 140ish MPH, so might need an ER-ER version for land attack in this scenario.
The GE concept A would be an awesome tool of deception because let's face it you could have two visible Aircraft Carriers and several hidden ones. Submarine Battleships are an interesting idea
Congratulations 👏👏👏 You've truly exceeded yourself. This video is excellent beyond even National Geographic/Discovery standards 👉 The research and documentation were on point, and the 3D models the most detailed you've have ever shown. 👌👌👌 I believe it can be said that, this is your masterpiece. ✍️ All that is left now, is make an AMA/interview with Scott Lauther and whom ever have a big impact in the creation of these videos (small documentaries at this point). Why not a video partially narrated by Scott himself? Best Regards, and keep up the great work 🤝
submarine combat drones carrier would probably be more plausible and effecient. With the advancement of drone technology, we can probably have some smaller and lighter drones that can be carried by subs and able to carry bombing raids. they may not be as good as an F35 but can do a devastating attack on the enemy if they can launch a suprise attack.
The reason the submarine aircraft carrier didn't take off( pun intended) was because of Submarine Doctrine. Doctrine for Subs are to be about as silent as possible and for your only warning that it was there was when you heard the torpedo's propeller kick in. They value stealth over thing else. The idea of spending so much time above the water as a sitting duck just doesn't jibe with submarine's strengths and weaknesses. THAT is why Submarine Aircraft Carriers, even though a cool idea never took off.
While that is one small reason, it is not the deciding factor like you claim. You’re horribly misinformed. The U.S. military absolutely were looking for a way to quietly get aircraft into an area, the fact they could land, and slip back beneath the waves to safety is what they wanted. Which is exactly what a sub like this could do. Would you rather launch planes from a carrier where your enemy can literally watch you fly back and have your location and track you? Or would you rather be able to go back, land, and disappear? Your opinion isn’t fact, stop presenting it as such.
@@rhodesboyson1700 I think today. With the technology with vertical take off. The harrier tec now moved into things like the F-35. Maybe you don't get to a full dedicated carrier. But could you make room for a few jets. But I do think with cruise missiles for example. I mean you can launch them and not have to surface to recover. So that is a fair point. I think with the sub/carrier. Maybe the issue is this. Without the biggest and toughest kids on the block slugging fists. Like the world wars. Maybe not untill a war like that comes around again. Would the idea be explored and truly found out if it works. Our carrier groups have not had to slug it out with a equal with all the same abilities since the second world war. I don't know how it would turn out. But I think its something that should be re examined with the seriousness that it was in the past.
@@thomasvontom I've forgot what I said :P but, I do wonder what is the point. It's really only a load of crap. The vast expenditure isn't worth it, in reality we don't need this war machine. My dad just died of cancer he got working on UK subs. Sent to die for absolutely nothing.
@@rhodesboyson1700 Well. Sorry for you loss dude. I don't know what the nature of it would be if it worked. But I think it's a idea worth exploring further. Sorry for you loss.
i drew up a concept back when i was in high school for a submarine with a compliment of 24 large drone/jets with a single maned gunship. all with VTOL capability and an ability to hermetically seal to the hull of the submarines top deck... that was more than 20 years ago
Using 1960 (pre-moon) technology, I drew up plans for a sub that easily fit these requirements. Greatest change ? Removing dependence on constant horizontal surface !
The Japanese and the British tried doing this but it failed. The British with their HMS M2 sub and the Japanese I-400 sub. This is a documentary! I also have a crazy idea of a submarine aircraft carrier. It could carry 5 fighter jets and 2 helicopters (1 cargo and 1 attack/reconnaissance) and it could carry 12 nuclear warheads. It also features a rail gun. I name it as the Megalodon.
The I-400's didn't fail, they were built and fully worked. They just didn't see enough service, because the war was over. This and the US scuttled them couple years after WW2.
@@sinisterisrandom8537 Even the aircraft didn't serve strategically enough for attacking since it was too small and too few (even they considering Kamikaze because of much larger payload). On top of how horribly slow and loud was it. It's like Maus, showcase technology, nice too see at museum. But that's it
@@satvikkrishna145 They weren't even used, dude. So how could they be notorious if they never saw any form of service besides getting evaluated after they were captured?
The deadliest threat to a sub are those flying things outside its reach with little torpedoes hanging under them, that DARPA project could level the playing field a little but then, Russians just stuck some shoulder launch AA missiles on a rising turret on top of the island so... I guess a good missile is really a cheaper better solution 🤷
I just got the whole, "...depth, and I suggest you sail over to check out their brilliant documentary. Preferably while enjoying a sub sandwich with plenty of mustard." That's actually a really good play on words. It has a lot of DEPTH.
General Electric to the other companies with concepts: You make submarines into aircraft carriers I make aircraft carriers into submarines, we are not the same!
The twin sail GE design could easily have launched and recovered not only Harrier jump jets, but the original Northrop F-5 design which was intended to be carried on Escort Carriers with similar sized flight decks
Now the submarines can add attack flying drones to their deadly arsenal. As late general Patton said about German buzz bombs of WWII, the 21st century weapons are a "Very impersonal way to send (anybody) to hell" Thanks for this eye opening weapons history video.
With an air-filled hangar deck, it would be nearly impossible to make such vessel submerge. The "two-inch-thick" flight deck plate would help, but you'd need so much ballast that it would be a beached whale to move.
@@mglenadel Why would you pump seawater into the hanger? What's wrong with using the ballast tanks? Or do you not understand how air can be removed from a room without using water?
@@Edax_Royeaux So, pumping out the air and not putting anything in its place? Like turning the hangar into a vacuum chamber? That would accomplish the following: making it harder to keep the sub from imploding with the outside water pressure; making the sub harder to submerge (a vacuum would be the ideal buoyancy medium - it displaces a volume of water while adding no weight).
The idea of submarine battleships is fascinating. I can't get enough of the French sub Surcouf in WWII. I had no idea that the idea of a submarine aircraft carrier was so developed. I am surprised that none were built. The idea of launching a plane like a missile from the same tubes as a missile is an intriguing one. The big catch being, of course, how to recover the aircraft and pilot. Fascinating as usual.
Plot twist - the Japanese built dozens before and during WW2… And the Americans did after WW2 (but they were found to be sitting ducks for radar equiped search aircraft). The ones mentioned in this video were just the biggest ones. The slow part was recovering the manned aircraft.
@@traphimawari7760 With all the disadvantages of having to surface to recover aircraft… that’s why the US Polaris, Trident and Cruise missile systems went to submerged launch. Anything underwater is harder to see and hit.
Most of your videos are “Things you’ve seen in Ace Combat, that could have actually been real”, and I love it.
There is a real life counterpart to the Alicorn… the I-400 Class carrier submarine. 3 dive bomber aircraft.
@@SpheroJr3289 although I love the i-400, the alicorn would be way better, two years without surface, railguns, missile system, as guns, drones, electronic warfare, shield drones, up to twenty fighters with pilots that no valuate their life kinda much, nukes, and a plan to end this war in an elegant manner. Is like saying that a horses car is the counterpart of a F1 racing car
@@simplementepersona i-400 pilots probably didn't value there life that much over the empire, as a lot of Japanese soldiers did.
@@the_stinky_broccoli8998 neither do the alicorn crew... They were taking off when the submarine were still emerging and they were human shields, not to talk that carrying 20 planes which can take off in squadrons + drones that can take off while underwater makes it more powerful
@@SpheroJr3289 Honestly, I'd consider the I-400 to be more like the Scinfaxi-class submarines than the Alicorn, as it rather lacked a flight deck, and would have launched floatplanes (or planes with no way of landing safely, as the pontoons were actually removed during storage, and could be omitted for faster launches), while the Alicorn clearly had the ability to have its aircraft land back on it like a regular carrier, despite us never seeing any do so. They also share the similarity of also fulfilling more traditional submarine roles, as the I-400 had torpedo tubes, and the scinfaxi class being a ballistic missile submarine, while the Alicorn's mode of operation was more in line with a surface warship that happens to be able to submerge.
Sure, the Scinfaxi-class presumably also could have its aircraft land back on it, but that's only because it used VTOL aircraft and UAVs (the latter of which may have forgone recovery), but it's still a matter of an alternative method of landing, as the I-400 did have the ability to recover its aircraft after they landed on the water.
"This ship have the power to end this hideous war in an efficient and elegant manner" ONE MILLION! ONE MILLION LIVES!
captain Torres
-puts missile down rail cannon-
SALVATION!
CRISP WHITE S H E E T S
😂😂😂😂
Ace Combat developers: Write that down, write that down!
Honestly, nowadays it's the opposite.
DARPA plays Ace Combat and salivate.
Those damn Belkans are at it again!
It's called the Alicorn
Hrimfaxi Submarine. A Scinfaxi-class nuclear submarine developed by the Union of Yuktobanian Republics during the Cold War. It along with its sister ship, the Scinfaxi, was later destroyed during the Circum-Pacific War.
@@JensenKangalee and then it got nae naed by the ark bird
In my opinion, Acecombat's Sinfaxi and Alicorn class subs are probably the most sensible aircraft carrier submarine design.
Anything larger than current high stealth/silence submarines will be flawed...and submarine hunters can even detect anomaly in earth's magnetic field hence detecting huge submarine... so such and similar vlogs goes out of the window... rescuing/salvaging sitting aircraft methods makes LEM/DARPA way flawed too... I have a classified design which addresses all and actively looking to pitch to precise channel in US. They could be reading this too :) ...
The concept is quite unique. The ability to sneak aircraft around & deploy them from unexpected locations via a submarine. Imagine a stealth fighter hitting its target. Vanishing from sight, then vanishing beneath the waves.
What would be the advantage to that over submarine launched cruise missile or ballistic missile?
Except it’s been done by four different countries before…
@@brentsido8822 well you can attac and anish attack and vanish. you caqn hit more targets than you can with course missiles. it allso will confuse the enemy, and like you have more options
Anything larger than current high stealth/silence submarines will be flawed...and submarine hunters can even detect anomaly in earth's magnetic field hence detecting huge submarine... so such and similar vlogs goes out of the window... rescuing/salvaging sitting aircraft methods makes LEM/DARPA way flawed too... I have a classified design which addresses all and actively looking to pitch to precise channel in US. They could be reading this too :) ...
@@mi1400 Interesting
"Sub sandwich full of MUSTARD" love it lolol
lololpoopoopolo
Never had such genuine laugh with that kind of pun.
It was so on point lol
Unless you find a fingernail or finger in that sandwich
"Hold the mayo," Patrick said. SpongeBob suspects him. 😄
_"This boat has the means to end this hideous war, in a definitive and elegant manner. The world shall be horrified by the number of lives we will take. Only then will they lay down their weapons... weapons that would have taken the lives of 10 million."_
_"That is, until Trigger Ruined it."_
Sink the aft, it will give the elevation it needs
Anything larger than current high stealth/silence submarines will be flawed...and submarine hunters can even detect anomaly in earth's magnetic field hence detecting huge submarine... so such and similar vlogs goes out of the window... rescuing/salvaging sitting aircraft methods makes LEM/DARPA way flawed too... I have a classified design which addresses all and actively looking to pitch to precise channel in US. They could be reading this too :) ...
Submarine battle ships? ...... Oh hell yeah!!
The French actually did this, the Surcouf class. (Technically a cruiser, but the concept is there)
Supreme Commander vibes
The British did it with the M1. They're called big gun or cruiser submarines. And there's actually a lot of countries in the 1920s that made a lot of these battleship submarines.
Its not dangerous enough, can we add more nuclear reactors?
Agreed
Get ready tax payers
Anything larger than current high stealth/silence submarines will be flawed...and submarine hunters can even detect anomaly in earth's magnetic field hence detecting huge submarine... so such and similar vlogs goes out of the window... rescuing/salvaging sitting aircraft methods makes LEM/DARPA way flawed too... I have a classified design which addresses all and actively looking to pitch to precise channel in US. They could be reading this too :) ...
The Navy can take my taxes, this is cool as hell
Bruh…
Two years later 😏😏😏😏 😂😂
I would absolutely love to see the sub/battleship hybrid video. The crazy outlandish ideas that almost came to be are fascinating and I can't get enough of them
The Japanese I-400 class did NOT fail, they were just too late in the war to have much effect. The DID bomb both Oregon and Washington, but they didn't cause all that much damage.
As technology they worked. As weapons ...... they seemed to lack a mission. Properly employed , in the right place and time the I-400 could have been a great force multiplier. Their 4 plane air group couldn't throw much weight but has enough punch to do some really useful things. The ships worked. In my opinion, at that time, there were more important things to use those resources on. A neat thing for Japan to develop.
psychological warfare weapon, at best.
@@daleeasternbrat816 Its mission was to be a delivery platform for biological warfare.
I-400 did not launch planes against the West Coast. Do your research and resubmit your response.
I agree, it was not I-400 class, it was a 2-digit "I" class (smaller submarine that could carry 1 aircraft).
I always wonder what make Project Aces, the developer for Ace Combat game franchise, get ideas for their Scinfaxi, Alicorn, etc, aircraft carrier submarine from. Remembering that the I-400 that their ancestor built is anything like them. But now I know
You know now?
I Have to admit as a former Army Light infantrymen, the concept of strapping US Marines to a rocket and firing them off the deck of a submarine like a Wile-E Coyote cartoon, Is greatly entertaining to me! I would definitely pay a dollar to see that happen!
How much would you pay to be the one who gets to push the launch button?
@@txgunguy2766 i wanna be a space marine
*YEET*
@@kieranmilner1295 space guardian or nothing i fear.
Just remember...interservice rivalry being what it is if the Navy/Marines built something like that the army would come up with an equally silly notion to compete for funding. Something on the order of a hypersonic vehicle with a platoon of light infantry getting spit out in fire team sized capsules to decelerate and land???
I've just finished watching the flying aircraft carrier episode before watching this, and the interesting thing about both is that they "could work" with the small drones we have now.
The sea-plane combat jet would have doomed itself, all those parts being directly exposed to sea water is the kiss of death for any mechanical thing - especially a jet.
You do realize people have been using seaplanes for decades?
@@WALTERBROADDUS There is a profound difference between a pleasure craft that travels at 100 mph and something pushing mach numbers in terms of mechanical tolerances, experiencing regular high G loads and maintenance requirements. That is a lot to try and design around..
@@Enonymouse_ ruclips.net/video/b0-VdFcV9uc/видео.html
the japanese and americans were using armed military seaplanes as far back as ww1 and ww2 and as far as jets go look up soviet WIGs and ekranoplan and for the american side of things look up the martin p6m Seamaster
@@Enonymouse_ you think planes dont get wet on normal carriers?
Boeing: damn, making a submarine aircraft carrier is hard!
General Electric: *observe*
There is a G.E. plant about 45 mins away from my house near Cincinnati Ohio, they make aircraft engines there, it is quite the impressive looking facility (i have never been on premises but i sometimes see it from afar when driving
@@secondstartotheright No. They had 3, not 10, completed, all three were lost. They planned on building 18 of them but 15 were cancelled.
@@samwheat1302 Try captured/surrendered as war prizes. The USN scuttled them after doing a detailed study to prevent the Russians from trying to take them as their own prizes even though it was the US that accepted the surrender and had jurisdiction over the Japanese home islands and any remaining Japanese military assets, hence why Nagato was present at Operation Crossroads as a target.
France also had Surcouf which carried a folding wing biplane for spotting and a large number Japanese submarines actually had small seaplane hangars for recon and spotting, as did a number of Royal Navy submarines such as the M-class. Most other nations had experimented with the concept and the Germans had several designs drawn up by late WWII.
@@secondstartotheright 2 survived the war. 1 was operational and surrendered to the US at the end of the war. The second was conducting Sea Trials when the war ended. The 3rd was still under construction. 1 of them was sunk off Hawaii after the US had gotten everything they wanted from it as far as intelligence and any engineering information they wanted before being sunk to prevent it from falling into Soviet hands. None saw action.
Japan in ww2 : first time?
Go for it! Submersible battleships, that’s something I’d like to see!
I don’t know what’s cooler, a submersible aircraft carrier (like the last one with the twin sails) or a flying one…..
The possibilities are endless!
lots of aircraft carrier concepts on my channel lately haha
Why not have both? Aircraft carriers in the sky, aircraft carriers on the water, and aircraft carriers underneath the sea. A triple whammy of aircraft carriers.
We already have flying ones, the tic tac ufo is just a small cigar shaped anti gravity carrier craft for smaller triangle and other shaped anti gravity craft. I served with the Navy and was right up beside and inside those ships, that’s why the recent ufo/UAP report pisses me off so much. I KNOW they’re lying again to just keep the coverup going and it pisses me off, but yeah they’re pretty cool once you start understanding what the black military world has actually been doing with aerospace projects that are ACTUALLY cutting edge, it’s miles past what most people think is even possible, if people only knew what we have RIGHT NOW, it would absolutely blow their mind.
Submersible is cheaper because you don't need to constantly use fuel to keep an aircraft carrier flying in the sky. Unless your taking about Space Battle carriers. That is 10x better than either one.
@@dustynmyatt2679 you my friend believe too much, the UFO phenomenon is pure theatre just another tool in the tool box, psychological warfare.
Not designed for its citizens. It’s designed for the country’s enemies. Is it real is it not. Can we really attack them successfully etc.
Needs more railguns.
And a bed with CRISP WHITE SHEET.
Need nuclear Missile
railguns are terminated most likely replaced by hypersonic missiles
ONE MILLION LIVES!!!
I’m still baffled as why they didn’t just go with a vtol aircraft
6:40 Perfect example of why engineers need supervision that grounds them into reality.
At which moment would anyone consider that carrying a nuclear bomb and not being able to land, all at the same time, could be something remotely acceptable? It hasn't changed, I can tell you.
I think you'll find its the crazy requests that managers and customers have that lead engineers, to have crazy concepts.
Also most things sound crazy when you first propose them. Launching icbms from submarines underwater for example.
Phycological warfare
U.S. Navy: can we have a flight deck?
GE: best I can do is hangers
Wiseman
SC2 UEF Atlantis II
>
''Submarine Aircraft Carrier''
''IMPOSSIBLE''
Captain Torres would like to disagree
_Scinfaxi_ is itching with the Burst MIRV
Lol japan made three sub carriers. They had plans on making 18 altogether to attack usa mainland
The planes will run out of fuel and need to land , has that been thought of ? 🤔 They better have a better idea or else back to the drawing board
The major problem is to start and land while the carrier is submerged.
I400 would like to laugh
"This boat has the means to end any war in a definitive and elegant matter."
*"SALVATION!"*
and suddenly the ocean starts singing in Latin
CRISP. WHITE. SHEETS.
"Hand over the nukes, and the anime"
_"That is, until Trigger Ruined it."_
The French also had a submarine that could launch an aircraft and had a battery that would nominally be fitted on a cruiser. The sub was called Surcouf
it's stuff like this that makes me wish the Goodyear inflatable planes were formally adopted, so that a submarine could surface and deploy a special ops team with inflatable planes.
it'd be like an SAS wet dream.
GE got it right, its even more accurate today considering we could reduce the human footprint on board with the sub design to include more UAV
Nah, it needs more nukes on it
“This is the anti-sub patrol plane Blue Hound. Submarine detected by sonobuoy. Sound pattern analysis produces a match with the Scinfaxi”
Hoo boy... you just gave me chills...
Ace Combat ? Sorry, it's been a while 😬
Nostalgia hit me like a full speed truck
@@adamfrazer5150 Ace Combat 5
*PTSD Flashbacks*
I still remember the old PC Crimson Skies submarine-carrier boss, the Ace Combat 7 Alicorn, and the original, now forgotten DeepAngel/Empire supercavitating submarine-aircraft-carrier Los Angeles
I only played the Xbox version
Is it the same game?
Salvation
@@christopherbays7719 No. It’s slightly less arcade-y with more in depth plane customization and more story, narrative and character depth.
@@christopherbays7719 Same universe though. Its basically the MechWarrior to xbox's MechAssault, if you get it.
I thought the dialogue was Amazing honestly. The opening with Nathan and Thibodaux was great
6:40 The could have used a braking chute deployed by the tail cone to slow the bomb to skim across the water on the recovery vessel's port side. Then inflate a float to keep the bomb buoyant until recovery.
The deployed chute floating on the water's surface would visually indicate its position, and a radio emitter could beep every 2 minutes until receiving a signal to increase it's transmission rate to every 3-5 seconds or so.
It could even release a colored shark repellant to deter "aquatic interference" with the crew while they pulled it back onto the sub.
And Marvel Comics has its " Helicarrier" flying aircraft carrier.
“With plenty of Mustard” 😆
Random bicycle exists ..
Next episode : US/ USSR planned about developing a two wheeled aircraft carrier
Dude -- Mobile Suit Gundam much? (In one anime from the franchise, the bad guys did have wheeled dreadnoughts that crunched their way through Earth's cities.)
@@seanbigay1042
Real world???
Video games.
Don't get it twisted.
That's easy if they still have a Tsar Tank prototype.
@@seanbigay1042 Victory
I remember thst there was a popular mechanics cover from long ago which depicted such a thing, a ship like two wheeled war machine.
The Atlantis Class Experimental comes to mind, very interesting...
In this era of stol/vtol options like osprey for shore landing and f35/ existing marine Harriers, vertical take off and recovery no longer seems as extreme as nose up rocket launches and space-x style rocket recovery - I also noticed a lot of your modeling includes using sea harriers as the operational aircraft.
ah you mean from Supreme Commander?
@@lordrefrigeratorintercoole288 Haha exactly.
Dumping an entire storage capacity of bombers on an unprepared strong point or vulnerable force was always fun.
There is a need for this concept. Sure the traditional aircraft carrier should be a visible powerhouse. But if real war erupts those will be primary targets. Using a force multitude they will fall in the early days. You'll be left with these that were kept secret and are not visible. So yea there is a need for these. They are secret and last ditch and for that reason we will most likely never see them.
Except they have zero purpose when SSGNs exist. A submarine's entire purpose is to never be detected. SSGNs are already announcing their position when firing, but at least they can do so underwater and quickly reposition; all this idea does is get them killed. What if the sub is found? Does it dive to save itself, leaving the aircraft to die? Or does it get both killed by waiting? The only benefit they could have over cruise missiles is precision, but is "precision" worth it when you can only carry 1/10 the firepower of the standard ~dozen VLS tubes? Cruise missiles don't need maintenance rooms, fuel/ammo storage, crews and their quarters, or large launching platforms/runways. All they need is a VLS, and however many reloads you want stored in all that unused space.
@@Nighthawk2401 if we're going to go the VLS missile system then why don't you mention the Arsenal ships at all because those things were essentially aircraft carrier sized platforms with a small section for the minimal crew to live and maintain the engines and possibly run air defenses if it had them, and the rest hundreds to thousands of VLS tubes with actual guidance and firing solutions controlled by a second ship.
@@Shinzon23
A pretty cool idea, but also a little pointless. If you need 500 cruise missiles for land attack, use existing fleet supply vessels to rearm other VLS-armed ships at sea.
Though at that point, it might be better to just let the air force handle it.
If large fully autonomous stealthy drones can be launched while submerged, why not.
@@davidbocquelet-dbodesign
It's still just an issue of role. A submarine's strength in land attack is it's ability to go behind enemy lines and hit large industrial and strategic targets then escape before the missiles even start landing. Strike craft are meant for precision CAS, and stealth aircraft will always have to pick between stealth and weapon storage. You don't go far behind enemy lines to kill a few tanks, why not bring tomahawks to hit major targets? And once again, retrieval of aircraft is a pain the ass.
Let's be honest, we probably have 10 of these secretly swimming around the south China sea
Silo launched aircraft is actually a really good idea if applied to permanent fortifications.
Look up “zero length launch” fighters. They were designed as a counter strike response in Germany during the Cold War.
Unfortunately they still required runways for landing, though if you had used the likes of the Anglo French Jaguar the runway wouldn't need much preparation.
i hope they had some crisp white sheets in their cabins
salvation
*ONE MILLION LIVES!!!*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shortly to become crisp brown sheets...
20:38 "Nizmit aircraft carriers" ?
If he was still alive Admiral Nimitz would be scratching his head....
Jules Verne would stroke his beard.
The mispronouncing of such a legendary name and ship line makes me cringe so hard. Shame this channel could be so much better if he actually bothered to edit/fact check his own work.
@@zetamafia911 Not to mention aircraft "hangers". All this supposed aviation research and a primary schooler's error.
Don’t mess with the Nizmit!
Came looking for this comment.
“It would be essentially a manned missile”
WW2 Japan: *I WILL TAKE YOU ENTIRE STOCK*
Edit: Yes, I am aware the Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka existed
They actually already had that. Look up the Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka
@@nong333 I know they had a human missile, but what I am implying is that the Japanese would want more of them, and the fighter said would be a good addition.
😂
🤣🤣🤣
"How big would you like to build your submarine?"
Japan Empire: Yes
"Okay perhaps you don't get it, how big would you want your battleship be?"
Japan Empire: Yes
Funny, vertical landing easier than horizontal landing on a pitching and rolling deck.
Does that mean a ship stops rolling and pitching when aircraft land vertically?
The general electric flat deck design does seem the most feasible, and it does seem like it would serve a unique and beneficial purpose
Admiral Nizmit definitely approves.
1-400: *Nervous sweating*
US: *"Oh I got your ass now..."*
R.I.P. I-400 class
Shit, it’s the Scinfaxi all over again.
Minor nitpick : As far as I can tell, General Dynamics/Electric Boat is a completely separate company from General Electric.
GE was founded by Thomas Edison in 1892.
Electric Boat was founded in 1899 and acquired later by General Dynamics (which itself was not founded till 1952).
The GE design is probably the most realistic option.
Although making a huge submarine is difficult it's a lot simpler than making a submarine and specialized Jets that land vertical.
Can't wait for you do Japan's I400 submarine.
Mustard already made a vid on it
aka "that time when the Japanese were so fed up with the Americans sinking their carriers, they made one that would sink itself"
This would be infinity more possible today with the F-35B VTOL.
F35 are so bad that carrying brick would be more usefull....
That whole program needs to die. We're spending all our military budget on that one f'ing program (not to mention fuel and maintenance costs), while China diversifies their military, we try and put everything of ours into one plane...
That type of submarine wouldn't be effective because with square body they can't descent to a serious depth.
@@valian8985 how do you know? Any firsthand experience sir?
Huge thank you to Scott from Aerospace Projects Review who collected the many schematics in this video.
He has a great new book on the SR-71 Black Bird: amzn.to/2Sbum7s
Also check out Mustards video on the Japanese carrier here: ruclips.net/video/gxyk84t4Q8w/видео.html
1 question dr fae where do you get the animations do you make it or open source or do you buy it or is it a secret its ok
@Dark Shade015 she ? Nice tho those animations are dope
@@Art_bor I make all the animations myself :)
Correction : Nimitz Class not Nizmit class aircraft carrier
General Electric and General Dynamics are two completely separate companies.
You forgot they contain 10 gigabytes of V tuber content
He never misses the chance of teasing MUSTARD 🤣🤣
I think Mustard is the best channel
@@FoundAndExplained no bro you can't say that ..yes he have some quality videos but yet the level of detail and quality in your videos are still comparable ..also he uploads once in a 1-2 months.. so for me your channel is best
Typing Nimitz wrong is easy. But actually saying "Nitmiz" ? Oh dear.
I believe he said "Nizmit". Not sure if that's worse...
@@virginiahansen320 worse!
"Grum Man"
"North Rope"
"Nizmit"
I'm pretty sure he's doing this on purpose.
@@AubriGryphon north rope LAMO
Don't forget the *guy row* stabilized recovery system.
I have a feeling the narrator and the script writer are not the same.
@17:47, GE has never been known as General Dynamics or Electric Ships. General Dynamics still exists and is one of the top defense contractors in the US. There is a division of General Dynamics called Electric Boat that designs and manufactures submarines for the US Navy. General Electric could well have been involved in this project but it would have been for the supply of reactors and propulsion equipment for the sub.
Just made the same comment before coming across yours. I used to work for GD, and it has never been a part of GE.
I think there is some plausibility for a sensitive cargo transport. basically the idea is that you build a large not so stealthy-stealthy submarine that has a large deck like this, but it is designed to deploy a lot of cargo in an amphibious assault.
It would be a great sci-fi novel or movie given that the plot could be changed.
Ace Combat veterans: *Hey, I've seen this before!*
It's a classic!
Don't worry. When China or Russia makes theirs, we'll play catch-up...just like we always do.
The drones from a missile silo was exactly what I had in mind when I envisioned the submerged aircraft carrier concept.
@@Attaxalotl
Note: "surfshark does not officially support the mig-25".... Well dang that sucks 😫
Not "officially"... :P
So basically the Hrimfaxi from Ace Combat? That'd be cool to see tbh
Lol when he said that the navy tried training sharks to surf in the waves I actually genuinely believed it
Wait so Space Battleship Yamato Cosmo Zero's folding storage system was inspired by the modified seadart fighter in 9:40? 15:11 in the ova Macross Zero there was a modified sub which uses similar launch methods for its fighter launches.
Love Mustard. One of the best RUclips channels along with Windover Productions.
@20:41 That's the *Nimitz* Class. Not Nizmit lol.
Loved the video and information. While i have spent considerable time researching early 1900’s non-war ocean travel, i enjoy gaining knowledge into other realms of seafaring. Your presentation is excellent.
We've gotten closer to having the Alicorn in real life.
All we need to do is create a functional and reliable railgun.
@@marrqi7wini54 Or 9.
You should do the French submarine cruiser the Surcouf!
*cruiser
*French* 🤭
"be warned, this one's kind of silly" that's why we're at this channel lol
Exactly. I can easily forgive a few errors for these beautifully rendered videos of insane ideas people have had.
I feel like it cpuld work now
GE's design seems to be the most practical to me, turinging a Air Craft carrier into a submarine and use STOVAL aircraft as its airwing.
It was her clever to continue to show images of navy crafts while talking about the VPN for your sponsors. That way when people are skipping through the video with a preview they think they have skipped past the commercial but it's still on it. Bravo. Lol
"Oh it's a video on the ww2 Japanese sub that could carry 3 bombers..."
"Carrying 28 fighter jets..."
"...excuse me?"
Oh gosh, just 46 seconds in and the animations are already so many and all so smooth. Well done!
Awesome video! I do really wanna learn about submarine battleships now! I remember that both the British and French experimented with putting gun turrets on submarines in WW1 and WW2 respectively :).
Yes, though they where considered to be cruisers. Drachinfel has good videos on both (the French one is called "Surcouf" and I think the British ones where the M15?).
“Is this a Submarine?”
“Really? Think they want ME in a submerged pressurized metal container?”
the way how he just casually drops TR-3B at 4:14 in the background ad is frigging epic
*"When the ocean start singing in latin"*
*Alicorn surfaces*
Hay F&E, I love your videos, they're suuuper informative! I just wanna let you know that "Hangers" means like coat hangers. The airplane storage place is called a "hangar".
Grumman is pronounced "Gruh-man"
and Gyro is pronounced "Jai-Ro" not "Guy-ro".
just lettin' you know! 💜
also Nimitz is pronounced NYM-ITZ... not NYZ-MIT lol
I wonder if Metal Gear Solid took some inspiration from these concepts for Arsenal Gear and Outer Haven.
Yes they 100-percent did because I remember a couple of the designers of said games saying that they were looking at some of the more wacky and weird stuff to come out of the Cold War and thought it would be cool to be in a video game.
Actually exists concepts to a thing called ARSENAL SHIP a successor to the old battleships
Worth a search
@@malone005 you mean the aircraft carrier size floating platform that's essentially nothing but at least 500 to 1500 missile tubes?
A loiter munition like a switchblade or slightly bigger coming off the sail of a sub would be better for a small land attack variant right now and probably cheaper but having limited range to strike, switchblade ER has something like a 40 min glide time at 140ish MPH, so might need an ER-ER version for land attack in this scenario.
The GE concept A would be an awesome tool of deception because let's face it you could have two visible Aircraft Carriers and several hidden ones. Submarine Battleships are an interesting idea
The tail sitting circular wing design would be perfect for a submarine launch tub.
Martin's V-Bat and electric version have been unnoticed for so long with best drone desgin by leaps and bounds.
Congratulations 👏👏👏
You've truly exceeded yourself.
This video is excellent beyond even National Geographic/Discovery standards 👉
The research and documentation were on point, and the 3D models the most detailed you've have ever shown. 👌👌👌
I believe it can be said that, this is your masterpiece. ✍️
All that is left now, is make an AMA/interview with Scott Lauther and whom ever have a big impact in the creation of these videos (small documentaries at this point).
Why not a video partially narrated by Scott himself?
Best Regards, and keep up the great work 🤝
I have begged Scott many times to be more involved or be featured on my videos! but alas, all I know from him is his username in an email!
23:59 correction: the F-35 that can do vertical landing is type B, not type C.
Don't worry; all their engines suck.
@@williamyoung9401 better than Russian and Chinese products at least. Isn't it what's matter right?
submarine combat drones carrier would probably be more plausible and effecient. With the advancement of drone technology, we can probably have some smaller and lighter drones that can be carried by subs and able to carry bombing raids. they may not be as good as an F35 but can do a devastating attack on the enemy if they can launch a suprise attack.
The reason the submarine aircraft carrier didn't take off( pun intended) was because of Submarine Doctrine. Doctrine for Subs are to be about as silent as possible and for your only warning that it was there was when you heard the torpedo's propeller kick in. They value stealth over thing else. The idea of spending so much time above the water as a sitting duck just doesn't jibe with submarine's strengths and weaknesses. THAT is why Submarine Aircraft Carriers, even though a cool idea never took off.
While that is one small reason, it is not the deciding factor like you claim. You’re horribly misinformed. The U.S. military absolutely were looking for a way to quietly get aircraft into an area, the fact they could land, and slip back beneath the waves to safety is what they wanted. Which is exactly what a sub like this could do. Would you rather launch planes from a carrier where your enemy can literally watch you fly back and have your location and track you? Or would you rather be able to go back, land, and disappear? Your opinion isn’t fact, stop presenting it as such.
@@tylerdavis9826 do you know how long it would take this submarine to store the aircraft and dive? :) The while idea is poorly conceived.
@@rhodesboyson1700 I think today. With the technology with vertical take off. The harrier tec now moved into things like the F-35. Maybe you don't get to a full dedicated carrier. But could you make room for a few jets. But I do think with cruise missiles for example. I mean you can launch them and not have to surface to recover. So that is a fair point. I think with the sub/carrier. Maybe the issue is this. Without the biggest and toughest kids on the block slugging fists. Like the world wars. Maybe not untill a war like that comes around again. Would the idea be explored and truly found out if it works. Our carrier groups have not had to slug it out with a equal with all the same abilities since the second world war. I don't know how it would turn out. But I think its something that should be re examined with the seriousness that it was in the past.
@@thomasvontom I've forgot what I said :P but, I do wonder what is the point. It's really only a load of crap. The vast expenditure isn't worth it, in reality we don't need this war machine. My dad just died of cancer he got working on UK subs. Sent to die for absolutely nothing.
@@rhodesboyson1700 Well. Sorry for you loss dude. I don't know what the nature of it would be if it worked. But I think it's a idea worth exploring further. Sorry for you loss.
i drew up a concept back when i was in high school for a submarine with a compliment of 24 large drone/jets with a single maned gunship. all with VTOL capability and an ability to hermetically seal to the hull of the submarines top deck... that was more than 20 years ago
Using 1960 (pre-moon) technology,
I drew up plans for a sub that easily fit these requirements.
Greatest change ?
Removing dependence on
constant horizontal surface !
Whoever predicted in the previous post that it might be an aircraft carrier, bravo.
Bravo
Bravo
The Japanese and the British tried doing this but it failed. The British with their HMS M2 sub and the Japanese I-400 sub.
This is a documentary!
I also have a crazy idea of a submarine aircraft carrier. It could carry 5 fighter jets and 2 helicopters (1 cargo and 1 attack/reconnaissance) and it could carry 12 nuclear warheads. It also features a rail gun.
I name it as the Megalodon.
The I-400's didn't fail, they were built and fully worked. They just didn't see enough service, because the war was over. This and the US scuttled them couple years after WW2.
@@sinisterisrandom8537 they were notoriously unreliable. Even the dive bombers too.
@@sinisterisrandom8537 Even the aircraft didn't serve strategically enough for attacking since it was too small and too few (even they considering Kamikaze because of much larger payload). On top of how horribly slow and loud was it.
It's like Maus, showcase technology, nice too see at museum. But that's it
@@satvikkrishna145 They weren't even used, dude. So how could they be notorious if they never saw any form of service besides getting evaluated after they were captured?
@@bocahdongo7769 The submarine aircraft carrier never saw actual combat nor service.
The deadliest threat to a sub are those flying things outside its reach with little torpedoes hanging under them, that DARPA project could level the playing field a little but then, Russians just stuck some shoulder launch AA missiles on a rising turret on top of the island so... I guess a good missile is really a cheaper better solution 🤷
I just got the whole, "...depth, and I suggest you sail over to check out their brilliant documentary. Preferably while enjoying a sub sandwich with plenty of mustard." That's actually a really good play on words. It has a lot of DEPTH.
The alicorn from ace combat
Metal Gear: who needs planes when you got a railgun and mechs
"When the presenter does not know the difference between a hangar and a hanger, he is no aircraft aficionado... nor a closet connoisseur"
General Electric to the other companies with concepts: You make submarines into aircraft carriers I make aircraft carriers into submarines, we are not the same!
The twin sail GE design could easily have launched and recovered not only Harrier jump jets, but the original Northrop F-5 design which was intended to be carried on Escort Carriers with similar sized flight decks
Now the submarines can add attack flying drones to their deadly arsenal. As late general Patton said about German buzz bombs of WWII, the 21st century weapons are a "Very impersonal way to send (anybody) to hell" Thanks for this eye opening weapons history video.
The 'nismid' class carrier? You mean Nimitz?
With an air-filled hangar deck, it would be nearly impossible to make such vessel submerge. The "two-inch-thick" flight deck plate would help, but you'd need so much ballast that it would be a beached whale to move.
So unlikes the i400 it has too much space?
They can always remove the air in the hanger when submerged since the hanger isn't going to be busy.
@@Edax_Royeaux and get the airplanes inside the hangar submerged in corrosive seawater?
@@mglenadel Why would you pump seawater into the hanger? What's wrong with using the ballast tanks? Or do you not understand how air can be removed from a room without using water?
@@Edax_Royeaux So, pumping out the air and not putting anything in its place? Like turning the hangar into a vacuum chamber? That would accomplish the following: making it harder to keep the sub from imploding with the outside water pressure; making the sub harder to submerge (a vacuum would be the ideal buoyancy medium - it displaces a volume of water while adding no weight).
I just love it when a major logistics issue (such as reloading the plane on the launching rack) gets dismissed as "somehow"
The idea of submarine battleships is fascinating. I can't get enough of the French sub Surcouf in WWII.
I had no idea that the idea of a submarine aircraft carrier was so developed.
I am surprised that none were built.
The idea of launching a plane like a missile from the same tubes as a missile is an intriguing one. The big catch being, of course, how to recover the aircraft and pilot.
Fascinating as usual.
*furiously takes notes* expect something on reddit everyone
_Furious Julie_
plot twist: they actually exist and it's top secret.
Plot twist - the Japanese built dozens before and during WW2… And the Americans did after WW2 (but they were found to be sitting ducks for radar equiped search aircraft). The ones mentioned in this video were just the biggest ones. The slow part was recovering the manned aircraft.
@@traphimawari7760 With all the disadvantages of having to surface to recover aircraft… that’s why the US Polaris, Trident and Cruise missile systems went to submerged launch.
Anything underwater is harder to see and hit.
@@allangibson2408 the japanese built like one
@@allangibson2408 they actually made about 90 in total and every major naval country during the time dabbled in the concept