Submarine Aircraft Carriers: the Future of Naval War 2/2

[upsilone19]

just a question... how do they land? :)

[dynmicpara]

@upsilone19 ON THE WATER.

[seapeddler]

At ground zero, the heat produced by the Hiroshima/Nagasaki blasts was 9 000 000 degrees. That's hot enough to roast a weenie. Anyway, WW2 was not as epic as the nuclear damage inflicted in the Sinai peninsula. The mountains are still a vitrified green color, and the water from its' wells still radioactive. Same goes for Death Valleys' vitrified green mountains. Who was involved in this nuclear exchange? Perhaps giants? Nephilim ? Rephaim ?

[lolmehaha1]

USA Bitches

[Renshen1957]

Had the Japanese attempted an airborne torpedo attack against the locks, this would have been more successful. This could only have been practical during the occupation of Dutch Harbor. The IJN and the Japanese Government War Culture mindset was to destroy the Pacific Fleet and then negotiate a peace from a position of strength. Midway settled that once and for all. Yamamoto knew Midway was the beginning of the end.

[Mr2pint]

thats a pretty aircraft, might have created havoc had they reached service in numbers

[pspfootball]

how will u land the plane on that it said it was a aircraft carear and u land planes on them.

[pinwizz69]

One of the missions envisioned by the Imperial Navy for these subs was to bomb the Panama canal & put it out of commission. Had they done that it would have had a major effect on the war. A few years back I had a magazine that had a really good article about this sub. I made the mistake of loaning it to my brother who lost it !

[13lackLight]

I was thinking: how the hell could anyone possibly make a submarine that could launch a plane. then i saw the computer animation and was like...oh.

[Joesolo13]

actuall they had planned from the start to f-up the choke points. the i-400s were made to strike at it, and possible attack new york, washington, ect. possibly with german help. they also used one of the type-b subs to try and start a forest fire with incindiary bombs.

[unambitious]

That's badass! I think having smaller subs that carry only 3-4 planes would give a nation a huge advantage. Superior tech, yes. Superior distribution of forces, yes. Superior coverage, yes. Secrecy, yes. Sun Tzu would appreciate these.

[fluentread]

DF 21D china can sink carriers on the move .....and they are after the spratleys ,,,taiwan ...etc 

[sierra1575]

I noticed that this animation shows the body of the (propeller-driven) plane coming out of the submarine hangar, followed by pontoons magically popping out of nowhere, and then pylons unfold out of the pontoons and attach themselves to the plane. How does that work?

[flahr1]

@sierra1575 The wings just folded/unfolded . The pontoons had to be manually attached, The Japanese had some astonishing technology back then. This was the worlds largest Sub and they had the largest Battleships too.

[13lackLight]

@flahr1 just too little too late

[LegendOfJomtein]

Whats the name/brand of this sub? I need the full name

[dynmicpara]

@LegendOfJomtein I-400

[69sexdemon69]

Putting man aircraft on a submarine today/near future would be mega waste of time and dangerous, Unmanned aircraft much better option, Safer, Lighter, And smaller radar signature, And while several nations have plans for there current vessels to be fitted to launch small/medium UAV's, The RAN plans there future submarine to be able to launch large UAV's capable off attacking targets hundreds of km's inland..

[dynmicpara]

@69sexdemon69 UAVs suck. Look at the mess we are in with Iran capturing our allegedly "stealthy" UAV. If we are not willing to put men into danger, we have no business doing WAR. However, submarines launching UAVs ARE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. And guess what? Cruise missiles with wings are actually AIRCRAFT, so we already have SUBMARINE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, the point is they are one-way and lack the versatility of recoverable seaplanes and the reliability of manned aircraft.

[hatemf23]

and how could a few carrier submarines stop the whole us navy from crossing the canal?

[hatemf23]

1:10 why is it coming from spain instead of japan?

[beowulf342000]

If you want to project power send a B one squadron from the comfort of Texas. If you want to smash cities use an SSBN. When you need an instant local airbase send a Carrier but don't risk it as it is too rare to use in a fight. The last class worth risking was the Midway. Nothing says economic power more than building a hundred carriers in 5 years and deploying them like they were cheap. If you can't do that you are in decline.

[dynmicpara]

@beowulf342000 We are in decline because we are stupid, greedy and inefficient. UAVs are not going to save us from ourselves and our racketeering.

[mobiuscassius]

why not go up?? not the surface or underwater but the sky's?

[treznor123]

How bout we just not create wars with other countries and focus on fixing the problems we have here...

[BigMPChris]

Our super carrier battle groups have pretty much permaneantly established theaters. Their focus is on power projection, and theater support of contingency and non-traditional operations. You have to remember, they aren't made to fight wars, they are made to fight wars/represent us/support insurgencies/special operations.

[dynmicpara]

No, the USN thinks CBGs can survive in Nation-State War. You use a lot of verbage to make a weak excuse that CBGs are for just Sub-National Conflicts. We can do SNC bombardment from the sea cheaper and more effectively by MOBs, seaplanes and land based planes than CBGs.

[BigMPChris]

You assume all 'Sub-National Conflict' involves long range bombardment? What about extraction? What about recon?

The truth of the matter is that CBGs are apart of national policy to support our regime. What you would consider a 'nation-state' war would probably very quickly overcome and disregard CBGs, Escort Carriers, Seaplanes, and Naval Power in general.

When a projectile can be fired from any one point and reach half-way around the globe...

[dynmicpara]

@BigMPChris Our naval "policy" is crap racketeering that in war will murder thousands of our own men when the bloated surface ships and their beloved carriers go down in flames. Typical American hubris asking for another Pearl Harbor...

[dynmicpara]

@BigMPChris Recon units can be extracted far better by seaplanes than the current conglomeration of small boats and ships we use--even submarines can ill afford to venture into coastal waters to pick up SEALs/Commandos...we need seaplanes!

[Capt777harris]

@dynmicpara Which is why we bring the groups together in a fleet when a serious conflict arises. Iraq being a case example.

[deagla2]

Illuminati=ET kin aka gods, Ea, Sirians, Satan, Pepsi, angels/demons, dragons, hulu, vampires, bluebloods, Al Gore, Windsors, Rothschilds, Rockefellars etc who rule cults like Freemasonry. Their agenda: continually cull/victimize people via vaccines/other toxins, Codex Alimentarius, carbon taxes, internet 2, WW3 then stage an alien invasion to get a fascist world government/religion with us chipped. Support Dr Deagle, Stewart Swerdlow, Oracle Broadcasting, gardeners and free-energy technology!

[deagla2]

Illuminati=ET kin aka gods, Ea, Sirians, Satan, Pepsi, angels/demons, dragons, hulu, vampires, bluebloods, Al Gore, Windsors, Rothschilds, Rockefellars etc who rule cults like Freemasonry. Their agenda: continually cull/victimize people via vaccines/other toxins, Codex Alimentarius, carbon taxes, internet 2, WW3 then stage an alien invasion to get a fascist world government/religion with us chipped. Support Dr Deagle, Stewart Swerdlow, Oracle Broadcasting, gardeners and free-energy technology!

[dbviewer5]

We've wasted about 2.4 trillion on the "stimulus" lie, so far.

At 5 billion a piece, we could afford 200 carriers for only a trillion dollars.

Just think of the jobs, that would create.

It would certainly do more for the economy than Oba-Mao's marxist schemes.

Just about anything would, since his objective is obviously not to stimulate the economy, but to destroy it.

[dynmicpara]

The USN thinks CBGs can survive in Nation-State War which they cannot. We need at least 100 CBGs to control the skies for them to survive but not at the cost of $5B each. We can do SNC bombardment from the sea cheaper and more effectively by MOBs, seaplanes and land based planes than CBGs. Inefficient U.S. war rackets have been killing our economy and our morality long before Obama and the bail-out arrived.

[ODDNOMAD]

@dynmicpara i think the age of the aircraft carrier is over. if my non westpoint military mind can come up with this rationale i believe the "experts" have already done so. carriers "hold territory" and project power. i believe they are used now more as "symbols" of course its still quite deadly , but not against the likes of CHINA and/or Russia. i wouldnt be surprised if we lose one in a conflict soon in a skirmish involving proxy nations supplied by the other world powers.

[dynmicpara]

We had 124 aircraft carriers in WW2; planet Earth is still the same size today, and no, our fucking technology doesn't mean we can get by with just a dozen bloated carriers. Either we have 100+ carriers to putenough planes in the skiesto smother enemy attacks or we need to go under the water to avoid enemy PGM destruction.

[yurikomuro]

why build this ? get yourself a nuke and your safe.

[dynmicpara]

Sadly, having nuclear weapons does not necessarily prevent someone from attacking with KE/HE weapons. Ask the South Koreans of 1950 about American nuclear (non) deterrence.

[dug3400]

by the way we only have 11 carriers, not 12. we have 10 nimitz class carriers and the u.s.s. ENTERPRISE.

[dynmicpara]

We are building one now to waste another $5+B. Don't quibble. This is too few aircraft on too few baskets to survive on surface of the water.

[Andrei613]

This all is a great example of "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

And, as far as naval technology goes, trust the Bad Idea guys of WW2 Japan to "invent" a clunky sub that needs MORE TIME on the surface, at precisely the time that Allied ASW technology made the surfaced sub quite obsolete.

[dynmicpara]

@Andrei613 Don't be narrow-minded. The bloated super carrier is afloat ALL THE TIME and subject to enemy destruction 24/7/365...we had 124 carriers in WW2 to have adequate air cover; today we have 12...either we get 100 carriers or we go heavily armored or UNDER THE SEA. Something has to give or we lose the next naval war to PGMs.

[TheMe163]

あほか

[dug3400]

i dont know japanese, what did you say?

[dug3400]

these were the 3 largest subs of ww2, with jets now having vertical lift ability, a submarine aircraft carrier is possible again, but the cost would make it impracticle

[dynmicpara]

@dug3400 What about the COST of losing a $5B carrier?

[dug3400]

japan built 3 largest ww2 subs,germany built only diesel electric quiet sub, with jets now having vertical lift capability a submarine aircraft carrier is possible again, though the cost makes it impractical.

[wyrdmagyk4]

There is a current USN design for a SSCVN...

it would carry 30 AC either VTOL or Heli...

and with 20 Vert Launch missile tubes and torps it would pack a nice punch also...

it would be perfect for SpecOps...!

I wish USN would build a few...

[wyrdmagyk4]

There is a Current US design for SSCVN...

carries up to 30 VSTOL AC either Jet's or Helis...

20 Vert Launch Missile tubes and Torp's...

I wish USN would build a few...it would be perfect for SpecOps...

[dynmicpara]

@wyrdmagyk4 We better do something and quick before we have our own PGM Midway--on the losing side .

[ali4330]

The WW2 US war planners were more creative.They used the aircraft carrier,fighter p[lanes and submarine to great effect.Yet Imperial Japanese Militiry still stick to obsolete strategies of using the battleships for decisive battle.They forgot to upgrade their planes and aircraft carriers .They realised it too late.After the B29 had start reaching their shores.

[gaktkr]

I was thinking about the story of イ-400 and イ-401 when they were on their mission on a kamikaze attack on panamar canal and when they found out Japan was bombed I felt really upset. But the イ-400 and イ-401 are amazing submarines just shows what Japan is capable of with the worlds biggest battleships they made 大和 (Yamato) and her sister ship 武蔵 (Musashi) no one has ever built a bigger battleship yet, Japanese engineering is amazing. I love Japan so much. 日本大好き。

[ABABA1942]

ありがとう。俺もお前が大好きだ＾＾

[coolL9457]

1st a aircraft carrier can take alot of damage but as a suberine its risks out weigh the advangtages so the traditional fleet consisting of battleships and cruisers with the ocasional carrier as a flagship continues

[dynmicpara]

NOT FOR LONG. The first modern nation-state war will spell the end for the bloated aircraft carrier. We don't have heavily armored battleships now, we need them back.

[bestamerica]

germany and japan were the best secret friendship about war anti america in WW2

[Keizerdraak]

I meant "to make them subs". The closing hangar doors make for lots of noise, even if they are closed, because of the seems. Look at modern US SSBN and SS(N); the SSBN are only launching cruisemissiles if their nuclear missiles are removed. The risk of Ohio-subs being detected is simply too great. So, launching Tomahawks and the like is only being done by SSNs and dedicated former SSBNs. The reason is that if the sealings of the launching bays are broken, a sub makes far more noise. TBC

[Keizerdraak]

I meant "to make them subs". The closing hangar doors make for lots of noise, even if they are closed, because of the seems. Look at modern US SSBN and SS(N); the SSBN are only launching cruisemissiles if their nuclear missiles are removed. The risk of Ohio-subs being detected is simply too great. So, launching Tomahawks and the like is only being done by SSNs and dedicated former SSBNs. The reason is that if the sealings of the launching bays are broken, a sub makes far more noise. TBC

[dynmicpara]

So? You are citing technical problems that can be solved. You miss the point. On the surface you are DEAD. Nothing follows, game over. You could make a case for heavily armored Iowa battleships as small carriers but that's about it. We have to go under the water or we're toast.

[Keizerdraak]

Ok, again: Modern carriers can be made into submarines. It is technologically possible, but financially it is not. Furthermore, a sub is only useful and succesful if it is quiet, and (having a hangar down below where maintenance needs to be carried out) such a monster is not. There is another problem: the seems of the closing doors of the hangar make for lots of noise. Another problem: communication with flying aircraft, and the sensor-array (radar)that needs to be above the surface. TBC

[dynmicpara]

Says who? and $5 BILLION per bloated surface carrier IS financially feasible? And how much is it going to COST when these carriers get toasted in war?

[Keizerdraak]

Modern CV(N)s are too big to make them carriers. It is technologically possible, but financially it is not. Furthermore, a sub is only useful and succesful if it is quiet, and (having a hangar down below where maintenance needs to be carried out) such a monster is not. There is another problem: the seems of the closing doors of the hangar make for lots of noise. Another problem: communication with flying aircraft, and the sensor-array (radar)that needs to be above the surface. TBC

[Keizerdraak]

Again a response that hasn't come through (G...t!!!). Ok, the Germans found this out during WW2, when the Atlantic Gap was closed by anti-sub aircraft. They countered this by upgrading their subs with massive amounts of AAA, trying to meet these planes on their own turf. The Allied aircraft then simply waited outside the AAA-perimeter until the sub decided to dive, and then they had a window of just a minute to attack it before it had gone under

[Keizerdraak]

Again a response that hasn't come through (G...t!!!). Ok, the Germans found this out during WW2, when the Atlantic Gap was closed by anti-sub aircraft. They countered this by upgrading their subs with massive amounts of AAA, trying to meet these planes on their own turf. The Allied aircraft then simply waited outside the AAA-perimeter until the sub decided to dive, and then they had a window of just a minute to attack it before it had gone under

[Keizerdraak]

First response did not come through (F*ck!). Again; a great innovative feat, but useless as a weapon of war; the UK, US, France, Germany and Italy also experimented with launching aircraft from subs during the Interbellum. They all scrapped the idea, after realising the aircraft (their performances being undermined by their limited size) were not so useful, and launching aircraft meant the subs had to expose themselves, thus becoming vulnerable and unable to defend themselves.

[Keizerdraak]

During WW2 the Germans experienced this in 43, when they had upgraded their subs with more AAA, in an effort to meet anti-sub aircraft on their own turf. The allied aircraft countered this by waiting outside the AAA-perimeter until the sub started to dive, and then to attack quickly before it had gone under. TBC

[Keizerdraak]

Seems my PC has the same kinda shitty problems I had before trying to post responses. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[fuhmeregan]

Japanese have always been wannabe's and always will be; don't have to smarts to keep up to NorthAmerican/European brains, or ever will. History shows it, since recorded h. to now.

[dynmicpara]

Maybe so, but when they have a great idea like this one, they deserve praise and emulation.

[dug3400]

bull, japan went to the next level as they are still doing. their timing was bad.

[yurikomuro]

@dug3400 the only reason Japan was using planes instead of bombs and missiles was because they ran out of resources and so yeah basically human cruise missiles.

[cochranexyz]

Bombed Oregon in this fashion. Warrent Officer Fujita.

[longmirul]

how willl the plane land???

[dynmicpara]

on the water, its a seaplane.

[roberthehn]

How are the planes supposed to land once they are in the air?

[dynmicpara]

On the water.

[aval1998]

cool : \

[Keizerdraak]

Admirable effort, but costly, unnecessary and faulty: when these subs were ready in 44/45, the war was already lost, and although the locks were important, crippling them would only have delayed the US Navy, but not would have stopped them. If an attack on Panama Canal was combined with the attack on Pearl H in dec41, when the Battle of the Atl was still raging, that might have had serious strategic consequences for the Allied war effort...

[dynmicpara]

Not faulty. Its a vital idea if naval aviation is to have a future. The bloated surface aircraft carrier is doomed.

[Keizerdraak]

Admirable effort, but flawed from the start. When these subs were finally ready, the war was lost, and crippling the locks would have delayed and hurt the US Navy, but not stopped them at all. If destruction of the locks was combined with the attack on P.H. in dec41, that would have been a seriuos blow in a time the battle of the atlantic also was hammering the allies. In 44/45 the atlantic already was won, and the Japanese effort was lost already.

[dynmicpara]

No one is saying sub carriers would have won the WW2. We are pointing out this is a weapon system we need today.

[350V8Z28]

We have it already...cruise missiles launched from modern submarines!

[dynmicpara]

Good non-linear thinking. Its true, a cruise missile IS an unmanned, suicide plane. However, we need MANNED, re-usable planes from submarines, too.

[Keizerdraak]

Nice idea, but entire Japanese strategy for use of subs (not used until far too late to attack logistics) was faulty. German subs in Atl and Allied subs in Pac were used primarily for that, and very succesfully. This effort -although admirable- was flawed from the start; when these subs were finally ready, it was already too late, and crippling the locks mmight have hurt, but would only have delayed (a little bit) the efforts of the US Navy.

[dynmicpara]

Read replies to your other comments.

[curea229]

I'm so glad the narration is translated with subtitles.

Clear as mud.

[dynmicpara]

LOL. Just enjoy the animation and get the gist of the idea. Then go to web page listed in video description for details.

[4MTOA4]

Why are we use those today, a new model with more planes and ballistic missiles would be nice ?!

[dynmicpara]

The whole point! Bravo! You got the idea. Thanks for writing.

[EnigmaNZ1]

Nice looking seaplane. Well thought out with the rotating wings and float storage arrangement.

[1Avernus]

There were predecessors: british M class submarine (1917) and french Surcouf (1934) - although main armament of both types were heavy artillery (1x300 mm - M, 2x202 mm - Surcouf), they carried hydroplanes.

Still, I-400 is awesome.

[nypron]

oh god i sense another surprise on pearl harbor. lol

[srofficial06]

very interesting .... I was reading how at the end of the war the US Navy had three of these former Japanese boats in their charge abd as they had no use for them they towed them out to sea and sunk them ?Might have made a really useful tri-maran type sub out of em ? Coulda utilized three 16" from an iowa cls bttlsp and installed them on the catapult(s) whereby elevation of outrigger guns to be achieved by a cylinder underneath the barrels rolled back or forward to achieve desired angle? korea?

[DangerofDeath2]

the soviets were demanding that they get control of one of these subs. the US didnt want them to (obviously) so they had to destroy them

[037kondo]

The US inspected them and copied many of the tech into making nuclear subs of today. Soviets demanded on letting their inspectors inspects as well. There were more than three, some were harbored at japan but US sunk ALL of it.

[ycats1000]

yeah it has to actually work though...

better to fix the problem of armaments under wooden decks of their carriers, americans had a field day ploughing into the decks blowing out the hull...

[noonedude101]

Would have been a MENACE to captured air bases, think about it, just as they go to sleep this bohemoth surfacing and launching strafing attacks on damages planes undergoing repair, our B-29 force would have been in ruins seeing as how many landed for repairs at Iwo Jima, but the axis had too many dreams of "ultimate victory" and they never focused on logistics and past experiences

[derzieher]

"too many dreams of "ultimate victory" and they never focused on logistics and past experiences "

Yup, Axis focused on getting the edge at operational level neglecting the fact that slightly inferior weapons - well supported and plentiful - are the key to victory. Best example Tiger I vs. T-34.

[Bullettube]

What we need now is a video of the Sub built by France that was armed with 6" (155mm) guns! The idea of using guns was logical, shells took up less room then torpedoes. One should also note that some JIN subs also carried mini-subs, and manned topedoes.

[Bullettube]

The US had already "armored" the Panama canal by 1941. Massive,underwater armor walls that could be raised in front of the entrances, would stop torpedoes. Spare lock gates, pumps etc. were stockpiled and a large number of AA guns were sent to the canal zone. Yes, these subs posed a menace, but they were too few and too unreliable to be of any practical use.

[dynmicpara]

MAYBE.

The battleships at Pearl Harbor were supposed to be impregnable, too. Static targets have a real tough time warding off HE effects and the locks would be easily smashed by HE bombs not stopped by torpedo nets. Your post is yet another AmeroFascist chest beat. Why don't you just admit that we have a PROBLEM and let's proceed to SOLUTIONS?

[dynmicpara]

One more point. The Japanese did something BETTER than we did in WW2. Why don't we STFU and LEARN from it? Is the American ego sooooo damn weak it cannot learn from its enemies?

[bowman2064]

Unnecessary to destroy the gates. Id would have reached to sink one single ship in the cannal and the traffic is cut of for weeks and months. sink a dozend ships and you need a year to get him to work. what do you sink do they fear today most ? another attack like on 9/11 or some goatfucking terrorists blowing up a tanker full of Ammonium nitrate in Panama oder Suez? If japan would have hit a ammunitionship or a freighter full of fertilizer in a shiplock, it would have closed the canal for years

[coleraine20]

sounds to me the japs wanted blind glory with no real purpose.

[Knothole]

Tamiya now makes this in 1/350 scale

[arasaka2020tm]

whats even more interesting was the intent of using surplus german uranium and these uboats/seaplanes to do a stike on western usa with one or more dirty bombs. they were to do this in late september... to late the yanks beat them to it with the real thing. also the german sub carring the stuff to japan (named u-234) turned and surendered in the us.

[dynmicpara]

EnigmaNZ1 writes:

"Nice seaplane fighter...the Japanese did develop a hi speed submarine that could do 20+ knots underwater, and their torpedoes were superb."

[theredraven]

Well, they failed because they made mistakes not because they were wrong. They were but that's not why they lost.

[dynmicpara]

Most sane people believe the world being dominated by one or a few countries is a bad idea, PERIOD.

[bernito2]

They did fail because they where wrong;they couldn't maintain control over their own population whitout vicotries,and lots of them.If Hitler could have wait that his navy was ready he would have had 10 Tripits-class battleships and 5 carriers.But he couln't wait,his people where geting restless on privations 'for the war'and the German army already ploting agaist him.Japan couln't wait beacause the U.S. block their access to natural resources in retaliation to their policies in China Machouria

[Methadonor1]

germans yes, japanese no. the japs had wood airplanes and rifles used from the chinese wars 10 to 20 years prior. their handguns would go off in officers holsters sometimes killing or injuring them. if germany waited 5 years before taking over third world territories and then started war. we as a country would be finished. japan was a side show.

[dynmicpara]

For the most part Japan was backwards in military technology in WW2; not in seaplanes, submarine aircraft carriers and torpedoes.

Fighting Japan was a minor sideshow; Pearl Harbor just bait to get high-tech Germany, the REAL MORTAL THREAT to declare war on America and get Americans off their ass. Tell these truths to the typical dumbass marine egotist and see a current type who sits on ass and is inept

[steelsoldier17]

It occurs to me, that had the Germans and the Japanese worked together a little more and had combined something like the I-400 with the tech that came with the German Type XXI U-Boat, they just might've been able to dominate the Pacific and the Atlantic. And going on what gotcha109 said, can you imagine the fear that something like this would've caused the mainland U.S? The Japanese could've pulled their very own "Doolittle Raid."

[kupo3247]

Good concept of a sub/carrier but the one flaw is that there is no place to land. So if they are too far out from everyone else it would be a suicide mission or the pilot would have to bail out of the plane in possible hostile land.

[dynmicpara]

WHAT about SEAPLANE do you not understand? The SEAplanes land on the SEA and are recovered by the submarine in the SEA. SEE what I mean?

[cdddraftsman]

"the one flaw is that there is no place to land"

It's a seaplane , it lands in the water and a small crane hoists it back on board .

[attickstars101]

Hahahah

[gun844]

kupo!They can land!On the same way how they starting the plane.The technolgies is existed in japan at that time.

[BlacktailFA]

Another possibility (though gothca109's idea is much more clever) would be for Japan to import V1 "Buzz Bomb" technology, and launch them from these subs against large targets in the contiguous US. V1's weren't terribly accurate, but if fired against factory complexes or oil refineries (especially if launched in salvoes at the same target), they could have been devastating.

[dynmicpara]

You mean like a Regulus cruise missile (AKA unmanned jet airplane with wings-"UAV") we used to sub-launch in the 1950s/60s but with a HE warhead?

[BlacktailFA]

Basically yes. Unlike the Regulus, however, the V1 was accurate to within a city block or two --- the nuclear warhead of the Regulus did not dictate such accuracy, so it would have hit anywhere within a couple miles of the mark.

The Regulus subs also had just one shot each, while the Japanese I-400 could have carried at least 4 (maybe as many as 20, as the V1 is MUCH smaller than the Seran!).

A few such missile attacks w/ V1s could have inflicted catastrophic damage to the mainland US.

[bringabongalong1]

They prob's do have them tho.

Remember, there is about a 10 year lag between what the government have & what they tell us they have - look at the SR-71, they kept that hidden for nearly 20 years!!

Besides, we now have fighter/bombers that can fly round the world twice at mach5, so we don't really NEED the AC's anymore...

[dynmicpara]

There is also the possibility that the USN is COMPLETELY FUBAR because they still offer thousands of men to die to our many enemies to their many high explosive weapons...we know the surface USN/Mc racket is fatally flawed; we need to act on what we know and not sit on our Tory asses smugly counting on Area 51 stuff to save what we know is stupid

[gotcha109]

a few of these planes if flown, and made to be noticed over L.A., and the mainland would have drawn a majority of the pacific fleet back for home defense as well as kept a high number of planes tied to the homeland rather then being sent to the islanmds of the pacific on an offensive.

[dynmicpara]

EXCELLENT POINT. Hitler was duped by a British Commando's snide telegram to garrison 250, 000 troops in Norway all during WW2