Submarine aircraft carrier in 2010?

[Henry J Cobb]

Has anybody considered equipping one of the SSGNs with a full squadron
of Cormorant MPUAVs?

The biggest problem I see with it is how do you refuel and rearm them
while submerged?

-HJC
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5372/

[Charlie Wolf]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:45:36 -0700, Henry J Cobb > wrote:

>Has anybody considered equipping one of the SSGNs with a full squadron
>of Cormorant MPUAVs?
>
>The biggest problem I see with it is how do you refuel and rearm them
>while submerged?
In the hangar bay with the wings folded, of course.

:)

Regards,

>
>-HJC
>http://www.gizmag.com/go/5372/

[Keith Willshaw[_2_]]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Has anybody considered equipping one of the SSGNs with a full squadron of
> Cormorant MPUAVs?
>

Apart from DARPA you mean

> The biggest problem I see with it is how do you refuel and rearm them
> while submerged?

Actually thats the easy bit

The challenges are aircraft structural integrity and water tightness ,
aircraft dynamics
at the air/sea interface, engine technology to survive periodic immersion in
salt water,
and advanced composite materials development to withstand sea-surface
operations.

Pumping gas isnt exactly a new problem

Keith

[Bill Kambic]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 23:03:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>> Has anybody considered equipping one of the SSGNs with a full squadron of
>> Cormorant MPUAVs?
>>
>
>Apart from DARPA you mean
>
>> The biggest problem I see with it is how do you refuel and rearm them
>> while submerged?
>
>Actually thats the easy bit
>
>The challenges are aircraft structural integrity and water tightness ,
>aircraft dynamics
>at the air/sea interface, engine technology to survive periodic immersion in
>salt water,
>and advanced composite materials development to withstand sea-surface
>operations.
>
>Pumping gas isnt exactly a new problem

The problem is not the aircraft or their handling; the Japanese proved
that.

The problem is when the pig boat is on the surface it wears a big sign
that says "TARGET." Subs are tough as nails, but ANY breach of the
hull means they're "toast." How long is the cycle from surface to
prep to launch to dive? Then they get to do it again for recovery. I
don't think your Mark I Mod 0 submariner is going to be all that
interested in the program. ;-)

Remember, too, that while conventional boats traditionally could dive
quickly a nuke takes several minutes (both up and down).

For occational special ops this might be a viable plan (a launch of a
disposeable vehicle). But recover, refuel, and relaunch? Probably
not.

[Henry J Cobb]

Bill Kambic wrote:
> The problem is not the aircraft or their handling; the Japanese proved
> that.
>
> The problem is when the pig boat is on the surface it wears a big sign
> that says "TARGET." Subs are tough as nails, but ANY breach of the
> hull means they're "toast." How long is the cycle from surface to
> prep to launch to dive? Then they get to do it again for recovery. I
> don't think your Mark I Mod 0 submariner is going to be all that
> interested in the program. ;-)
>
> Remember, too, that while conventional boats traditionally could dive
> quickly a nuke takes several minutes (both up and down).
>
> For occational special ops this might be a viable plan (a launch of a
> disposeable vehicle). But recover, refuel, and relaunch? Probably
> not.

Here's where the neat stuff comes in.

The Cormorant MPUAV launches and recovers while the mothership is submerged.

-HJC

[Jeroen Wenting]

>
> Here's where the neat stuff comes in.
>
> The Cormorant MPUAV launches and recovers while the mothership is
> submerged.
>
>
I wonder what the water filling the hangardeck during flightops would do to
the stability of the ship...

[niceguy]

"Jeroen Wenting" <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote in message
ll.nl...
>
>>
>> Here's where the neat stuff comes in.
>>
>> The Cormorant MPUAV launches and recovers while the mothership is
>> submerged.
>>
>>
> I wonder what the water filling the hangardeck during flightops would do
> to the stability of the ship...
>
I've heard that there's no such thing as a stupid question.
Well, you just disproved that.