Submarine aircraft carriers will be the new thing for WWIII.

Imagine floating around in a big surface vessel that goes slower than a moped and can't even hide under the waves.

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    yeah but with drones

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Precisely.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        yeah but with drones

        The superior drone carrier.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      We already have this.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        No we don't. Our subs currently fire big expensive missiles. They don't carry a shit ton of them either.

        If they could reuse the drones and just drop munitions and keep using the aircraft over and over it'd be much better.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          damn, I guess its too complicated and expensive to fire a drone instead, unlike a million dollar remote controlled missile....
          critical thinker bros with even the slightest bit of common sense and creativity... we lost.....

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            If you can carry a smaller number of drones and simply return them to the sub and rearm them, it's better than firing big expensive missiles. You can devote less of the cargo payload to carrying around things which you can't reuse, to things you can reuse, and to munitions.

            Missiles are fine but a sub fires a dozen or two max and that's it, they have to go somewhere safe for a reload. Drone subs would have a better endurance. It's akin to giving a soldier a gun that has to be thrown away after 30 rounds, to giving them a gun they can reload with smaller things than a whole new gun. It's pretty simple to understand.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              The converted Ohio class cruise missile subs have over 150 VLS Tomahawks....

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine#SSBN/SSGN_conversions

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine#SSBN/SSGN_conversions
                150 isn't bad but we could do better. Plus it's not stealthy. You could easily make a drone with a propellor and drop it off only for it to deploy later.

                With a Tomahawk, your location will probably be given away quite precisely as a salvo is launched.

                Could deploy its prop and come right back home.

                This.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I love the Japanese sub carriers such a sexy idea too bad they only held three planes each

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Same here. The I 400s were beasts and a unique feet of naval technology.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >feet

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, I love them. They're smeel.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    What's the advantage of aircrafts over just shooting missiles anyway?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      missiles can do one thing
      aircraft can do many things

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >aircraft can do many things

        like what? just shoot smaller missiles and bullets right?

        why shoot missiles form a plane launched from a boat/sub when you can just shoot missiles from the boat/sub. I don't get it.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Surveillance and live pilots provide better threat assessment and more impactful force projection

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          So you can shoot carriers from a supercarrier that each shoot smaller carriers that shoot missiles.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            How about a sub with an aircraft carrier launcher?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >What's the advantage of aircrafts over just shooting missiles anyway?

      In terms of surprise attacks of mass destruction? None.

      carriers exist to provide air cover for fleets and must be exposed above water to launch planes Vs a missile sub that can launch from underwater.

      Being a submarine doesn’t really make a carrier a better carrier, at most it would be suited for specific missions. And by being a sub it would be smaller than a regular carrier so it couldn’t carry as many, better planes and crew to service them. Being big is more valuable trait than being hidden, for a carrier.

      Now drone carrier subs? Ok. But pretty sure those already exist unless we wanna start nitpicking over the differences between drones and missiles.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      they're fun to fly. you can train teens to do it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Cost.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They have whole carrier fleets escorting them

    And the level of power projection they bring is more then most nations air forces

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      How will it stop a hypersonic nuke?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SEQ-3_Laser_Weapon_System

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Combined arms missile defense
        Details of which are classified im afraid. The vaunted "hypersonic" threat is nothing new

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The interesting thing about the AEGIS shield is that it's never been tested in actual combat.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Along with probably dozens of other programs.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It wont.
        Aircraft carriers are for bullying morons and muslims.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    i predict underwater drones will become a much bigger part of warfare after the upcoming conflagration in which at least one USN carrier fleet gets turbofucked by barrages of missiles

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      A drone that can then deploy pontoons and wings, come to the surface, and fly. Could be manned too. A whole airforce pops out of the ocean.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        make it neutrally buoyant so when it comes home, it can just sit a couple feet under the waves

        a little tender could come grab it and put it into a trunk in the sub, where it can be recovered, refueled and rearmed, and sent back out again

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Could deploy its prop and come right back home.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Lol does it fly into space too?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Well that's unnecessary but it wouldn't be impossible to have something that doesn't go very deep be able to fly.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    personally i am very curious about the extent to which cargo ships have been weaponized. i wouldn't be surprised at all if there were at least 1 or 2 cargo ships in the shipping lanes at all times that were carrying at least a few shipping containers full of drones and/or missiles

    in general, the maritime industry isn't looked at in the context of defense/force projection nearly enough. the sea people have always owned the waves...

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Russia and China already both have cargo container missiles.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      A cargo ship was one of the most successful pirate ships of all time.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      > Q-ships, also known as Q-boats, decoy vessels, special service ships, or mystery ships, were heavily armed merchant ships with concealed weaponry, designed to lure submarines into making surface attacks. This gave Q-ships the chance to open fire and sink them. The use of Q-ships contributed to the abandonment of cruiser rules restricting attacks on unarmed merchant ships and to the shift to unrestricted submarine warfare in the 20th century.[1]

      > They were used by the British Royal Navy and the German Kaiserliche Marine during the First World War and by the Royal Navy, the Kriegsmarine, and the United States Navy during the Second World War (1939–45).

      > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        If they were going to fire on the merchant ship anyway what difference did this make? They were just trying to save torpedoes...

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Putting out lots of decoys is a time honored way of defeating a technically advanced enemy. Makes him devote resources, hunt, and shoot at fake targets causing him to needlessly expend ammunition, create a false battlefield assessments of how many enemy targets have been destroyed, and reveal vital details about his capabilities and attack strategies.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think that counts with a fully loaded merchant ship. The warfare was already unrestricted this actually limited the use of subs as they had to rely on their torpedoes.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      look into the WWII commerce raiders, they were effectively hollowed out cargo ships with masked guns. I am sure many of the same concepts apply

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    My uncle was in a sub for the cold War. He tells me a lot of eerie stories about sitting on the bottom of the ocean and listening.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    designed to BLAST locks at Panama,,gets used to fire bomb Oregon,in winter.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Clever nips, even though they probably got the tech from the Germans. Meanwhile, the chinks will probably come up with a submarine that they'll drop out of an aircraft.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why are they hitting aircraft parts with those sledge hammers?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Dents for good luck.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Desert subs!

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Can the plane land on the sub as well? How about flying subs, has somebody built that already?

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    How about a hoversub?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *