h a l f b a k e r y
OK, we're here. Now what?
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
In general, it takes too long to get a military submarine into position. I propose a submarine just small enough to fit into a large cargo aircraft. It would have some really big parachutes on top for a drop from the air. Perhaps an air bladder on the bottom for a cushion too.
edit: okay then, a little
one.
[link]
|
| |
1. Wouldn't an air bladder underneath cause it to flip over? Or are you talking about a monstrous air bladder which, until deflated, would keep the sub out of the water entirely? |
|
| |
2. The largest current cargo aircraft (Russian) can just about move tanks, but a 'full-size' submarine is rather bigger and heavier than a tank, isn't it? |
|
| |
You think the enemy might notice the gigantic splash just off their coast? Still, bun for the image. |
|
| |
I assumed this was an idea for a new
extreme pörn site. |
|
| |
[pertinax] You are underestimating airlift capacity a bit. The largest US airlifter, the C-5, can carry not one, but two main battle tanks. Or six helicopters. |
|
| |
The smallest nuclear submarine a quick google search can find is a Russian 'Paltus' class at a displacement of 750 tons. If 3/4 of that is water ballast, then you could stuff one of those into a C-5. |
|
| |
Germany has a Diesel/Electric sub at 520 tons. Again, if much of that is water ballast you could stuff it in. |
|
| |
// full-size submarine just small enough to fit into a large cargo aircraft // - Kind of like saying "a full-size automobile just small enough to fit into a large mailbox" |
|
| |
[Voice] suggests a //military submarine// - the Paltus class (project 1083 - the name is also associated with project 877 [Kilo class] boats, much bigger) at 750 tons carries no armament whatsoever, so would scarcely qualify. Ballasting generally runs to about 20 to 30 percent; modern submarines have a pretty low bouyancy margin when surfaced. Since they use cylindrical hulls, a surfaced hull with a 75% bouyancy margin would immediatly capsize. |
|
| |
Anyway, to summarize: that smallest sub is 1/3 the weight of the smallest "military" sub, and still masses over 4 times the capacity of a C-5. |
|
| |
Thank you, [Galbinus_Caeli], I sit corrected. |
|
| |
What about a submarine that flys? =ROCK= Caught your title just right in my ear-mitt |
|
| |
I half-baked that too, but no one liked that either :-( |
|
| |
The primary purpose of a submarine is to attack by stealth. This capability is pretty much destroyed if delivered by airplane. Thus the huge fleet of nuclear powered missile and attack boats maintained by U.S. taxpayers for the benefit of General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc. |
|
| |
Of course none of that means that this hasn't been baked, at least in prototype form, by the Pentagon or a multitude of defense contractors looking for their next big windfall. |
|
| |