Talk:Submarine aircraft carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

	This article is part of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

The I-400 info needs to be cut down and more general information about why they arent used today andsome other things needs to be added, but I dont have time now. say1988 00:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Aircraft-carrying submarine" vs "Submarine aircraft carrier"

I have the impression "Aircraft-carrying submarine" (which means essentially a "Submarine, equipped with a few aircraft") would be a more accurate tittle than "Submarine aircraft carrier" (which means essentially an "Aircraft carrier, with submarine capability"). These boats are really submarines, first and foremost. Possibly only the Japanese I-400s would start to match the definition of a "Submarine aircraft carriers" (primarily designed to bring attack plane somewhere), as their name suggests in Japanese (潜水空母（せんすいくうぼ）Submarine aircraft carrier). Should only the I-400s be designated as Submarine aircraft carriers? PHG 22:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Viable?

Any reason why such a vessel type has not continued to exist in modern navies? 205.174.22.28 06:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

most of the submarines that could carry aircraft just had them for reconaseance purposes (one notable exception ebing the I-400), which is much less important now with modern technology and modern subs stay under water more, in WWII they would often surface for air.

Also look at a surface carrier and it would likely require at leas half the length, plus it would need immense hangers to hold a number of aircraft that would be effective in a major war, so it is likely that all they would be good for would be small scale tactical assaults (like the planned bombing of the Panama Canal, which in navies that could possibly afford submersible carriers could be done easier and likely cheaper with cruise missiles.

One could reduce the length needed by using helicopters and VSTOL aircraft. Just a thought. 66.133.180.35 02:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How 'silent' would they be? They need to be big and thus less easy to hide than a normal submarine.. Also modern airplanes are much heavier than before, so capacity would be limited, right?--164.77.84.43 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)