Talk:Submarine aircraft carrier

I-400
The I-400 info needs to be cut down and more general information about why they arent used today andsome other things needs to be added, but I dont have time now. say1988 00:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Aircraft-carrying submarine" vs "Submarine aircraft carrier"
I have the impression "Aircraft-carrying submarine" (which means essentially a "Submarine, equipped with a few aircraft") would be a more accurate tittle than "Submarine aircraft carrier" (which means essentially an "Aircraft carrier, with submarine capability"). These boats are really submarines, first and foremost. Possibly only the Japanese I-400s would start to match the definition of a "Submarine aircraft carriers" (primarily designed to bring attack plane somewhere), as their name suggests in Japanese (潜水空母（せんすいくうぼ）Submarine aircraft carrier). Should only the I-400s be designated as Submarine aircraft carriers? PHG 22:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

its easyer to keep them in one article, as examples of submarines carrying air craft at all are rather limited. all of these subs carry air craft so they fit the general meaning of submarine aircraft carrier. even the i-400s wouldnt really fit the kind of submarine air crat carrier you describe, as even many surface ships not technically aircraft carrier(ie, battlle ship/cruiser with float planes) carried more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Viable?
Any reason why such a vessel type has not continued to exist in modern navies? 205.174.22.28 06:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * most of the submarines that could carry aircraft just had them for reconaseance purposes (one notable exception ebing the I-400), which is much less important now with modern technology and modern subs stay under water more, in WWII they would often surface for air.
 * Also look at a surface carrier and it would likely require at leas half the length, plus it would need immense hangers to hold a number of aircraft that would be effective in a major war, so it is likely that all they would be good for would be small scale tactical assaults (like the planned bombing of the Panama Canal, which in navies that could possibly afford submersible carriers could be done easier and likely cheaper with cruise missiles.
 * One could reduce the length needed by using helicopters and VSTOL aircraft. Just a thought. 66.133.180.35 02:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How 'silent' would they be? They need to be big and thus less easy to hide than a normal submarine.. Also modern airplanes are much heavier than before, so capacity would be limited, right?--164.77.84.43 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Carrier subs were abandoned as a concept after some mis-trials conducted by the British. After the Americans learned of these events, they also abandoned their comparative projects. As it says in the article. Sybaronde (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

they arnt as viable because vitually all combat aircraft, and most recon air craft, are jets now the speed required for them to take off is too great to achive on most subs length, and its impossible for any jet, except perhaps vtols to land on a sub's deck. they would be have to be increased ridiculously in size to be effective with most jets, though it might be vialbe with vtols. the main reason they havnt continued is probally from lack of trying and info. most countrys gave up after initial attepts and converted the experimental subs into normal subs. the japanese were a notable exception, but at the end of ww2 there remaining aircraft-subs were taken by the u.s. and later scuttled to avoid the soviets using them. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is one key reason why an aircraft carrier submarine (of any significant size) will not work: Water-tight HATCHES. How do you store aircraft in a large-enough watertight compartment, and where does a large-enough flight deck go in relation to this? You cannot have aircraft emerge from the submarine vertically, because the needed hatch would be far too large to be practical (plus, you need to have a second safety hatch for the same opening). A submarine pressure hull must be a perfect cylinder - imagine how big this cylinder would have to be to accommodate a 30 foot diameter vertical hatch! A "horizontal", or end of cylinder hatch (like the IJN I-400-class) is your only real option, but where do you put the flight deck? On top of the hangar compartment, and lift and lower your jets via cranes? If you give it some thought, it all comes-out as massive, unwieldy, and impractical. Yes, VTOL aircraft that could take-off vertically with a full warload would make the concept more practical, but that technology has not been invented yet. Even if it were, would a modern government want to build the most expensive warship in history, and have it be something extremely vulnerable to accidental or enemy destruction, just to have the capability of launching a surprise attack by a small squadron of aircraft? Mark Rizo (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation/You might want to mention the Cormorant
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/how/stories/cormorant.html

Dunno how to edit wiki, don't care to learn, but this is relevant.


 * There ia an article on the Lockheed Martin Cormorant. Perhaps it could be mentioned here in passing, but it's really not relevant to the topic. - BillCJ (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to believe it is relevant as it is converting ohio class submarines into aircraft carriers in the strictest sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.206.72 (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Many ships carry aircraft (seaplanes, helicopters), but that does not make them aircraft carriers. Again, a brief metion is fine, assuming that is can be proven that the Cormorrant project is still active, as the sources in that artilce are out of date. - BillCJ (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

while it would, technically, be making them "aircraft carriers" virtually any ship could be an aircraft carrier in this sense. many ww2 battlle ships and even some cruiseres carrier small recon planes, but that didnt make them carriers. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Submarine aircraft carrier" vs "Aircraft carrier submarine"
I never understood why people use the term "Submarine aircraft carrier", because it makes no sense. A "Submarine aircraft carrier" would be a ship (surface or submersible) that carries "submarine aircraft" - an aircraft that is also a submarine, or an aircraft that only "flies" underwater. To my knowledge, there has never been (and probably never will be) any such thing.

"Aircraft carrier submarine" is the only term that makes sense for the intended subject - a submarine that carries aircraft, or an aircraft carrier that is a submarine.

Mark Rizo (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Balloon, airship, kite
tethered, to raise a periscope, camera, antenna from submarine to improve sight. (I have read somewhere about it.) Should be mentioned under "See also". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helium4 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly incorrect information re: "the only aerial bombings ever on the continental United States"
In the section Type B1, it states that "I-25 conducted the only aerial bombings ever on the continental United States". However, the page linked to "only aerial bombings" states that "It was also the second time the continental United States was attacked by enemy aircraft during World War II, the first being the bombing of Dutch Harbor three months earlier.". Therefore, I am going to change this to "I-25 conducted the second aerial bombings ever on the continental United States – the first occurring during the Battle of Dutch Harbor – ... ". If this is actually incorrect, and the Lookout Air Raids and Battle of Dutch Harbor articles are incorrect, please let me know. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be better to change the wording from continental to contiguous, as that is what is obviously meant. (Of course, Alaska not being a state until 1949 could be another wrinkle.) - The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1959. :) BilCat (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's one of those old numbers ending in 9! - The Bushranger One ping only 06:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi The Bushranger. I'm not sure what you mean here exactly. Where should the change you mentioned be implemented? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Where it says "only aerial bombings ever on the continental United States". "only aerial bombings ever on the contiguous United States" is what is obviously meant (i.e. excluding Alaska). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I see what you mean now :) Presumably the text enclosed in en dashes should also be removed? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With that change the dashed text is probably no longer needed, yeah. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help; I've made the changes now :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)