War! Kills Seamen, Please, think of the seamen! Options

[hobgoblin]

When I think of a submarine carrier, I think of Tuatha de Danaan from the anime Full Metal Panic. Great anime by the way, specially the fumofu series (the comedy part).

How about "blue noah"? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...rrier_Blue_Noah

[Mikado]

When I think of a submarine carrier, I think of Tuatha de Danaan from the anime Full Metal Panic. Great anime by the way, specially the fumofu series (the comedy part).

How about "blue noah"? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...rrier_Blue_Noah

And here I was thinking of the CVN-87 Ticonderoga Submersible Carrier from Rifts: Underseas.

[nezumi]

Well. The launch of airplanes from Subs faces a couple limitations:

a) ...

Hey, no one invited physics here. This is a discussion about rules mechanics. The rules say aircraft carriers can go under water. Now the question is, do the rules specify that aircraft *cannot* fly underwater? Because if it's not in canon, I'm forced to assume it's okay. If they do forbid it, do the rules provide an underwater condom big enough to fit an aircraft? No need to get all technical about killing the pilot and drek. If we were worried about pilots, we would have put environmental sealing on our underwater carriers.

[hermit]

Actually, I replied to a side track that said "sub-carriers would be cool though", and I wasn't bringing in physics but common sense.

By RAW, you are correct.

[Shaidar]

Ignoring the multiple grammatical errors and misspelled words I've found (but unfortunately not documented... I'll get to that some time) in WAR!, the book so far is a great read with lots of fun information in it. Let's also ignore the strange availability/cost problem (a 26F drone that's only 1.9k (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) ? Really?) for the moment. What we're left with is a very interesting problem in the new naval vessels section: ballast tanks. Now, these are not neccessarily indicative of a problem, but they are when they're added to nearly every ship (and by nearly I mean all but one) and only the submarine has life support. What does that mean? That means that when the Aircraft Carrier or the 120,000 metric ton cargo ship submerge all the seamen on board (and passangers, if any) drown if they don't have SCUBA gear.

Really? I mean, come on, they couldn't catch at least that one?

Although the ability to have a missile boat or aircraft carrier rise up out of the ocean as a sneak attack is greatly amusing, it would be better if the ships in question at least kept "skeleton crew" as a more figurative term.

Most ships use ballast tanks to balance the ship in/above the water, it alters how the ship performs. Aircraft carriers for example need to be incredibly stable in order for aircraft to land on them. While a Cruiser needs to be nimble, and agile reacting to the waves to keep it pointed in the direction it is traveling at high speeds.

I'm a former US Navy Sailor, I speak from experience.

[Tzeentch]

-- I'm not sure sub-launched aircraft work well in the rules, even ignoring logic. At a minimum you would need some way to get them to the surface (probably Ballast Tanks 1 as Amphibious won't cut it) and a way to take off (probably requiring Improved Takeoff and Landing 2). Forget capsules as there are no current rules for transporting vehicles inside other vehicles that I'm aware of.

Shaidar: Shadowrun Ballast Tanks (p. 133, Arsenal) are a very specific modification related to having a pressurized hull in addition to the ballast tanks themselves. They do not increase stability or anything.

[Shaidar]

I know I read it out of Arsenal.

They need a new technical advisory staff over at Catalyst.

[IcyCool]

Just to put a little info out there, for those discussing submersible aircraft carriers:

Submarine Aircraft Carriers were used in WW2

[Tzeentch]

-- In Shadowrun terms that's an aircraft with flotation carried as cargo on a submarine. Some of the submarines may count as having a launch catapult.

[Mardrax]

We know this, Shaldar. The exact same point has been made before in this same thread.
The point is though, rating 2 Ballast Tanks (the watercraft-specific vehicle mod from Arsenal) allow a watercraft to submerge to the depths of the ocean, no other questions asked. Only catch is it needs Life Support as well, or the crew needs to have personal scuba gear, for the crew to survive.

To keep the sidetrack for a bit:
There's little difference between a drone and a missile, anatomically speaking. Both are vehicles with a Pilot. One's just not expected to come back, or do more beyond making something -and the ground it's on- disappear.

So let's look at it from a common sense perspective. The main thing I have a hard time seeing is a jet surviving the pressure of existing, let alone moving, at 100 meter depth (Ballast Tank 1 depth)
er
Air intakes can be sealed. The rest should be pretty much watertight already. Also, any craft made to operate at high altitude will have some form of life support system. If it can't be made watertight, at least the pilot can live underwater for some time.

Then there's the means of getting to the surface.
The launch-planes-into-torpedo-tubes concept is nice and pink mohawk but pretty unrealistic, for the high acceleration chunky salsa you mentioned. Then again, aircraft carriers are long by default. A longer speed up trajectory would make it feasible. I'd think a gauss rifle type magnet array 'catapult' would be feasible. Of course the launching tube would have to be holding water, to prevent the 'bellyflop from the high board' effect. It still leaves the question of much water a plane could be shot through like that, and of course, an option to land.
There's plenty alternatives though.
I mentioned a simple courier, plane-case sized minisub, to function as a VTOL takeoff and landing platform that could take planes to and from the surface. Why this over just having the carrier surface? Reduced signature. This seems the most 'possible' qay to me.
.
Alternatively a plane could take a deflatable variant of the Lighter Than Air mod. That would again leave return impossible though.

Another idea I've been playing with though: all a jet engine needs to run is a fuel and oxygen. Hydrogen engines will be a lot further advanced 2072 than they are now,. Hydrogen run jet engines are nothing new, but we've seen them be used in concept and real aircraft. Being underwater gives it acces to large ammount of both h2 and o2. Question is; can it electrolyse fast enough to keep it running? Otherwise, interal tanks would.
Of course, a jet engine can jet water without difficulty.

Use is the big unknown still though.

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

Reading the wikipedia article, I think the best solution for an actual submarine carrier that actually carries human-piloted aircraft would be turning the aircraft into seaplanes, this way, they can takeoff and land on the water, without the need of a runway.

[Mardrax]

Forget capsules as there are no current rules for transporting vehicles inside other vehicles that I'm aware of.

...You're saying you can't carry a drone in a van by RAW? O_o

[Tzeentch]

...You're saying you can't carry a drone in a van by RAW? O_o

-- If its not in a drone rack, yup (minidrones carried as personal gear exempted). I'd love to know where they hid the rules or even guidelines if it exists.

-- If you can find a page reference about vehicle cargo in SR4 do let me know. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

[Dahrken]

While it is not forbidden to load a drone (say a Steel Lynx) into the back of a van, there is no rule about cargo capacity, neither for volume nor for mass... Sometimes abstraction in rules can go a bit too far.

[nezumi]

Another idea I've been playing with though: all a jet engine needs to run is a fuel and oxygen. Hydrogen engines will be a lot further advanced 2072 than they are now,. Hydrogen run jet engines are nothing new, but we've seen them be used in concept and real aircraft. Being underwater gives it acces to large ammount of both h2 and o2. Question is; can it electrolyse fast enough to keep it running? Otherwise, interal tanks would.
Of course, a jet engine can jet water without difficulty.

Given current technology, I would tend to say 'no' given the size requirements. In the future? Maybe - but then it would still be easier to take that electricity and convert it directly to propulsion via a propeller.

You could also theoretically add additional fuel tanks on the wings, but instead of fuel, it carries liquid oxygen, or you could somehow dilute the O2 directly in the fuel, like we do with rocket fuel (anyone know what fuel is in those removable rockets they put on jets to reduce the runway length they need?0

[Tzeentch]

The solid-fuel JATO packs?

A jet engine can't function underwater. Even a simple pulsejet wouldn't work. At all.

[Stahlseele]

Well, a normal turbine engine might, but then you'd have the problem of the waters resistance.
You can't move something under water with the same speed you would move it in the air, because the resistance would basically be like working in molasses in comparsion.
And then you need to make sure it can hit ZOMGWTFBBQ Speeds needed to lift off from out of the water against the bigger drag of the water in basically NOWISH when coming up.
Maybe if we were working with some super cavitational stuff we could figure something out. There are Torpedos using this today i think. Or at least, developed.
Also, the under water rail gun makes use of this too.

[Tzeentch]

-- The Russian Shkval is the only supercavitation torpedo in known use. Current supercav torpedoes have rather bizarre operational use because of the lack of guidance (research continues on ways to have sensors extend out of the cavitation bubble and not be blinded by the noise and water movement) and the fact they can only form the bubble at low pressures (meaning it can only kick into supercav speeds at very low depths). The Shkval is basically a fast unguided rocket that happens to move underwater. It uses a vortex combustor ramjet for propulsion.

-- See the old SciAm article which describes it pretty well: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/p...eUnderwater.pdf

[Stahlseele]

Yah, that's the one i was thinking about.

[StealthSigma]

Reading the wikipedia article, I think the best solution for an actual submarine carrier that actually carries human-piloted aircraft would be turning the aircraft into seaplanes, this way, they can takeoff and land on the water, without the need of a runway.

Well, the I-400s were good in concept. Using a catapult launch then recovering the planes via crane from the sea (the planes were seaplanes). Regardless, a submersible aircraft carrier of any sort will surface to launch planes. Plus in the world of Shadowrun, where VTOL is more common, you don't have as much of the problem regarding launch distances....

Heck, you could have a retractable sealed door that opens as soon as the ship surfaces and the VTOLs come swarming out. I'm thinking the Atlantis submersible aircraft carrier from Supreme Commander.

[Stahlseele]

Also: Magic.
High Force Levitate Spell or movement Power or shape element(water) to make for a quick and easy take off/landing.

[Draco18s]

Just to put a little info out there, for those discussing submersible aircraft carriers:

Submarine Aircraft Carriers were used in WW2

At the bottom of the article:

Flying Submarine. Awesome.

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

Also: Magic.
High Force Levitate Spell or movement Power or shape element(water) to make for a quick and easy take off/landing.

Yeah, there are those too. Pick a spirit of Water so he can move the water away from the launch tube just like Moses did to the Red Sea? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Stahlseele]

Ferrexample laddie

[simplexio]

... I'd think a gauss rifle type magnet array 'catapult' would be feasible.

Which reminds me from this US Navy Readying Electro-Magnetic Launch for New Carriers Which Will Also be Ready for New Lasers and Railguns Later.