I-400 submersible aircraft carrier 1944

[Let'sgoflying!]

Largest carrier of its time
37500 mi range
cap 3 aircraft below decks
7 min deployment
engine overhaul shop

 

[Henning]

Largest carrier of its time
37500 mi range
cap 3 aircraft below decks
7 min deployment
engine overhaul shop

Yep, those were pretty cool, too bad they got destroyed. I think we also built a few "hangar subs" in the 50s. I recall an early 2nd generation SS jet. Actually I recall seeing a couple seaplane jets, one took off from the water, the other got launched like a big bottle rocket.

 

[kontiki]

I saw one of these airplanes being restored at the Paul Garber facility maybe 7-8 years ago-> http://www.nasm.si.edu/garber/

The craftmanship of the airplane was terrible. If there was a clearance problem between a control cable and some structure, it looked like they wacked a relief hole in it with a hatchet. Parts of the airplane were built so as to preclude any access for maintenence.

 

[DavidWhite]

Yep, those were pretty cool, too bad they got destroyed. I think we also built a few "hangar subs" in the 50s. I recall an early 2nd generation SS jet. Actually I recall seeing a couple seaplane jets, one took off from the water, the other got launched like a big bottle rocket.

We captured them intact, the Soviets said they wanted one, and we blew them up. If recall correctly I think there were 3 of them we captured

 

[TangoWhiskey]

That's the first I've heard of these... thanks for sharing that fascinating article!

 

[TripleZ]

Nice find. I never heard of them before.

 

[steingar]

There was an entire episode of NOVA devoted to those. Yammamoto's brainchild, he realized the importance of strategic weapons in a global conflict. He envisioned an entire fleet of those things, taking the war to the shores of Japan's enemies. Not entirely different from the terrorist attacks of today.

We didn't want anyone getting any ideas, since the B29 was our strategic weapon. The Japanese themselves sunk one of them, they had painted the aircraft in US colors to try and strike at the fleet. Once the armistice was signed they didn't want to get caught, sp the crew scuttled the ship rather than surrender it to the allies.

 

[Henning]

There was an entire episode of NOVA devoted to those. Yammamoto's brainchild, he realized the importance of strategic weapons in a global conflict. He envisioned an entire fleet of those things, taking the war to the shores of Japan's enemies. Not entirely different from the terrorist attacks of today.

Or the US Navy....

 

[PilotAlan]

I saw one of these airplanes being restored at the Paul Garber facility maybe 7-8 years ago->

It's at the Udvar Hazy Center (AFAIK, it's the only one in the world. The ones on the boats were sunk prior to surrender, the one they have was recovered at the factory after the war).

There were some US hangar-deck subs, the fired early cruise missile type ordinance (the Regulus missile, if I remember right).
The USS Halibut has the hangar deck, which made it perfect for undersea special ops and intelligence later its career.

Read this book
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-Espionage/dp/1891620088
It's absolutely astounding what these guys did in total secrecy. They all deserve the Medal of Honor.
Captain Kirk has nothing on these intel sub commanders.

 

[gismo]

I wonder why the airplanes were catapult launched when they could land on the ocean surface? Seems like it would have been simpler to launch them from the water as well.

 

[Richard]

I wonder why the airplanes were catapult launched when they could land on the ocean surface? Seems like it would have been simpler to launch them from the water as well.

What immediately comes to mind is a cat launch would be 'easier' given a heightened sea state.

 

[Bob Noel]

I wonder why the airplanes were catapult launched when they could land on the ocean surface? Seems like it would have been simpler to launch them from the water as well.

It takes a lot less (aircraft) power to be launched via catapult than land on the water.

 

[rottydaddy]

I wonder why the airplanes were catapult launched when they could land on the ocean surface? Seems like it would have been simpler to launch them from the water as well.

Not really... they'd have to be hoisted off the deck and lowered into the water, then they'd probably have to taxi a bit before taking off. More complicated, and more time and fuel-consuming. It'd also require more hands, I'd imagine.
I'm sure they'd have liked to save time, fuel and manpower during recovery, too, but a submersible aircraft carrier with a flight deck would be "a little much".

 

[Henning]

I wonder why the airplanes were catapult launched when they could land on the ocean surface? Seems like it would have been simpler to launch them from the water as well.

Mission assurance. With a catapult they can get them off in a much higher sea state than having to launch them into the water then from the water, especially when loaded with full fuel, ammo and ordinance.

 

[gismo]

It takes a lot less (aircraft) power to be launched via catapult than land on the water.

Did you mean less power launching via catapult vs taking off from water? That might be true but it would depend on the airplane. For something with limited wingspan (i.e. that could fit in a sub) this could indeed be the reason for the catapult.