Ushakov's flying submarine. "submarine aircraft carriers". Further developments in lifting force - "drowning force", but only when the boat is in motion. Thus, the disadvantage of such a technical solution is that the boat slowly

In the USSR, on the eve of the Second World War, a flying submarine project was proposed - a project that was never implemented.

From 1934 to 1938 the flying submarine project was led by Boris Ushakov. The flying submarine was a three-engine two-float seaplane equipped with a periscope. Even while studying at the Higher Marine Engineering Institute named after F. E. Dzerzhinsky in Leningrad (now the Naval Engineering Institute), from 1934 until his graduation in 1937, student Boris Ushakov worked on a project in which the capabilities of a seaplane were supplemented submarine capabilities. The invention was based on a seaplane capable of submerging under water.
In 1934, a cadet of VMIU them. Dzerzhinsky B.P. Ushakov presented a schematic design of a flying submarine, which was subsequently revised and presented in several versions to determine the stability and loads on the structural elements of the apparatus.
In April 1936, in the recall of Captain 1st Rank Surin, it was indicated that Ushakov's idea was interesting and deserved unconditional implementation. A few months later, in July, the semi-preliminary design of the LPL was considered by the Scientific Research Military Committee (NIVK) and received a generally positive review, containing three additional points, one of which read: “... It is desirable to continue developing the project in order to identify the reality of its implementation by making the appropriate calculations and the necessary laboratory tests…” Among the signatories of the document were the head of the NIVK, military engineer 1st rank Grigaitis and the head of the department of combat tactics, flagship 2nd rank Professor Goncharov.
In 1937, the topic was included in the plan of department "B" of the NIVK, but after its revision, which was very typical for that time, it was abandoned. All further development was carried out by the engineer of department "B" military technician of the 1st rank B.P. Ushakov during off-duty hours.
Soviet project of a flying submarine. Soviet project flying 2
On January 10, 1938, in the 2nd department of the NIVK, a review of sketches and basic tactical and technical elements of a flying submarine prepared by the author took place. What was the project? The flying submarine was designed to destroy enemy ships on the high seas and in the waters of naval bases protected by minefields and booms. Low underwater speed and a limited range under water were not an obstacle, since in the absence of targets in a given square (area), the boat could find the enemy itself. Having determined its course from the air, she sat down over the horizon, which excluded the possibility of her premature detection, and sank on the ship's path. Until the target appeared at the salvo point, the flying submarine remained at depth in a stabilized position, without wasting energy with unnecessary moves.

In the event of an acceptable deviation of the enemy from the course line, the flying submarine approached him, and with a very large deviation of the target, the boat missed it beyond the horizon, then surfaced, took off and again prepared to attack.
The possible repetition of approaching the target was considered as one of the significant advantages of the underwater-air torpedo bomber over traditional submarines. Particularly effective was the action of flying submarines in a group, since theoretically three such devices created an impenetrable barrier up to nine miles wide in the path of the enemy. A flying submarine could penetrate the harbors and ports of the enemy at night, dive, and during the day observe, find direction of secret fairways and, if possible, attack. The design of the flying submarine provided for six autonomous compartments, three of which housed AM-34 aircraft engines with a capacity of 1000 hp each. with. everyone. They were equipped with superchargers that allowed boosting in takeoff mode up to 1200 hp. with. The fourth compartment was residential, designed for a team of three people. It also controlled the ship under water. In the fifth compartment there was a battery, in the sixth compartment there was a propeller motor with a capacity of 10 liters. with. The strong hull of the flying submarine was a cylindrical riveted structure with a diameter of 1.4 m made of duralumin 6 mm thick. In addition to durable compartments, the boat had a lightweight wet-type cockpit, which was filled with water when immersed. At the same time, flight instruments were battened down in a special shaft.
Sheathing of the wings and tail was supposed to be made of steel, and the floats of duralumin. These structural elements were not designed for increased external pressure, since during immersion they were flooded with sea water, which flowed by gravity through the scuppers (holes for water drainage). Fuel (gasoline) and oil were stored in special rubber tanks located in the center section. When diving, the inlet and outlet lines of the water cooling system of aircraft engines were blocked, which excluded their damage under the pressure of outboard water. To protect the hull from corrosion, painting and varnishing of its skin was provided. Torpedoes were placed under the wing consoles on special holders. The design payload of the boat was 44.5% of the total flight weight of the device, which was common for heavy vehicles.

The dive process included four stages: battening down the engine compartments, shutting off the water in the radiators, transferring control to underwater, and transferring the crew from the cockpit to the living compartment (central control post).
Submerged motors were covered with metal shields. The flying submarine was supposed to have 6 sealed compartments in the fuselage and wings. In three compartments sealed during immersion, Mikulin AM-34 motors of 1000 hp were installed. with. each (with a turbocharger in takeoff mode up to 1200 hp); in the pressurized cabin should have been located instruments, battery and electric motor. The remaining compartments are to be used as tanks filled with ballast water to submerge the flying submarine. Preparation for the dive should have taken only a couple of minutes.
The fuselage was supposed to be an all-metal duralumin cylinder with a diameter of 1.4 m and a wall thickness of 6 mm. The cockpit was filled with water during the dive. Therefore, all devices were supposed to be installed in a waterproof compartment. The crew had to move to the diving control module located further in the fuselage. Bearing planes and flaps should be made of steel, and floats of duralumin. These elements were supposed to be filled with water through the valves provided for this, in order to equalize the pressure on the wings when diving. Flexible fuel and lubricant tanks should be located in the fuselage. For corrosion protection, the entire aircraft had to be covered with special varnishes and paints. Two 18-inch torpedoes were suspended under the fuselage. The planned combat load was to be 44.5% of the total mass of the aircraft. This is the typical value of heavy aircraft of that time. To fill the tanks with water, the same electric motor was used, which provided movement under water.
In 1938, the Research Military Committee of the Red Army decided to curtail work on the Flying Submarine project due to its insufficient submerged mobility. The decree stated that after the detection of the Flying Submarine by the ship, the latter would undoubtedly change course. Which will reduce the combat value of the LPL and, with a high degree of probability, will lead to the failure of the mission. Specifications of the Flying Submarine:
Crew, people: 3;
Takeoff weight, kg: 15000;
Flight speed, knots: 100 (~185 km/h);
Flight range, km: 800;
Ceiling, m: 2500;
Aircraft engines: 3xAM-34;
Takeoff power, hp p.: 3x1200;
Maximum extra. excitement during takeoff / landing and immersion, points: 4-5;
Underwater speed, knots: 2–3;
Immersion depth, m: 45;
Power reserve under water, miles: 5-6;
Underwater autonomy, hour: 48;
Rowing motor power, l. p.: 10;
Immersion duration, min: 1.5;

A flying submarine is an aircraft that combines the ability of a hydroplane to take off and land on water and the ability of a submarine to move underwater.

Since the requirements for a submarine are almost the opposite of the requirements for a perfect aircraft, the detailed study of the project of such a vehicle was truly

revolutionary.

Airship (English Aeroship)

Based on the results of the construction of Commander Reid, a decision was made to build an Aeroship. It was a twin-fuselage aircraft with ramjet engines. Landing on the water was carried out on retractable floats, outwardly resembling water skis. The jet engines were sealed immediately before landing. Fuel tanks were located in the bearing planes.

The flight range of the Aeroship was up to 300 km, at a flight speed of up to 130 km/h; speed under water - 8 knots. Aeroship was presented to the public in August 1968 at the New York Industrial Exhibition: in front of the visitors of the exhibition, the flying submarine made a spectacular landing, plunged under water and again surfaced.

Technical problems

A flying submarine must be equally effective both in the water and in the air. And this despite the fact that water is 775 times denser than air.

The biggest technical problem is the mass of the flying submarine. In accordance with the law of Archimedes, in order to be under water at a constant depth, the mass of water displaced by a submarine must be equal to the mass of the submarine itself. This is contrary to the approach to aircraft design, which says that the aircraft should be as light as possible. Thus, in order for the aircraft to be able to be under water, it must increase its weight by about four times.
Large water tanks (up to 30% of the aircraft volume) must be built into the fuselage or wings so that the aircraft can dive by filling the tanks with ballast water.
At the same time, it is difficult to create a powerful (and at the same time light) battery and electric motor to effectively move such a mass under water.

The next serious problem is the significant water resistance on the wings when moving. Wings do not allow a flying submarine to reach high speed under water. In other words, either the wings must be retracted or discarded, or a more powerful electric motor should be installed.

Further, an intractable problem is water pressure at great depths. For every 10 meters of depth, the pressure increases by 1 atmosphere, plus one more atmosphere of air pressure on the surface of the water.
So, for example, at a depth of 25 meters the pressure is 3.5 atmospheres, and at a depth of 50 meters it is already 6 atmospheres. These are such significant values that no ordinary aircraft can withstand the pressure at such depths. Thus, in order to counteract the pressure, it is necessary to significantly increase the strength, and hence the mass of the aircraft.

If, for example, a flying submarine must take off not from the surface of the water, like conventional seaplanes, but directly from under the water, then even more powerful engines are needed for such a take-off to overcome the force of the surface tension of the liquid. In addition, the development must also take into account the often conflicting requirements of aerodynamics and hydrodynamics.

USA

Flying Submarine: Drawing for U.S. Patent #2,720,367, 1956

During the Cold War, American strategists assumed serious problems in the wiring and use of ships and submarines in the waters of the Baltic, Black and Azov seas.
However, the problem can be easily solved with the help of flying submarines. In a similar way, it is possible to impede the movement of ships even in the inland Caspian Sea.

Since the Soviet government did not expect to see American naval forces in the above-mentioned seas, it was to be assumed that there were no means of detecting submarines there. The experience of using Italian and Japanese mini-submarines during World War II showed that after completing the mission, the crew is almost impossible to evacuate.
Thus, the goal was formulated, which the mini-submarines had to solve: an unexpected appearance, an attack on Soviet ships and the safe evacuation of the crew.

In 1945, the American inventor Houston Harrington applied for a patent "Combining an aircraft and a submarine". In 1956, US patent No. 2720367 was published, which outlined the idea of a flying mini-submarine. Scuba diving was to be carried out by an electric motor.
Takeoff and landing were to be carried out on the water surface. The plane was supposed to fly by means of two jet engines, pressurized when immersed.
The aircraft was supposed to be armed with one torpedo. Currently, a similar project is being developed in the United States under the leadership of the Navy, called Cormorant, which is an armed unmanned aerial vehicle launched from a submarine.

the USSR

In the mid-1930s, the Soviet Union began building a powerful fleet. Construction plans implied the commissioning of battleships, aircraft carriers and auxiliary ships of other classes. There were numerous ideas of technical and tactical solutions to the tasks.
In the USSR, on the eve of the Second World War, a flying submarine project was proposed - a project that was never implemented.

From 1934 to 1938 the flying submarine project (abbreviated: LPL) was led by Boris Ushakov. The LPL was a three-engine, two-float seaplane equipped with a periscope.

Even while studying at the Higher Marine Engineering Institute named after F. E. Dzerzhinsky in Leningrad (now the Naval Engineering Institute), from 1934 until his graduation in 1937, student Boris Ushakov worked on a project in which the capabilities of a seaplane were supplemented submarine capabilities.
The invention was based on a seaplane capable of submerging under water. Over the years of work on the project, it has been reworked many times, as a result of which there are many options for the implementation of nodes and structural elements. In April 1936, Ushakov's project was considered by the competent commission, which found it worthy of consideration and implementation in a prototype.

In July 1936, a draft design of a flying submarine was submitted for consideration to the research military committee of the Red Army. The Committee accepted the draft for consideration and proceeded to check the submitted theoretical calculations.

In 1937, the project was transferred to the execution of the department "B" of the research committee. However, during the re-calculations, inaccuracies were found that led to its suspension. Ushakov, now in the position of military technician of the first rank, served in the "B" department and, in his spare time, continued to work on the project.

In January 1938, the newly revised draft was again reviewed by the second department of the committee. The final version of the LPL was an all-metal aircraft with a flight speed of 100 knots and an underwater speed of about 3 knots.

Submerged motors were covered with metal shields. LPL was supposed to have 6 sealed compartments in the fuselage and wings. In three compartments sealed during immersion, Mikulin AM-34 motors of 1000 hp were installed. with. each (with a turbocharger in takeoff mode up to 1200 hp); in the pressurized cabin should have been located instruments, battery and electric motor.

The remaining compartments should be used as tanks filled with ballast water for diving LPL. Preparation for the dive should have taken only a couple of minutes. The fuselage was supposed to be an all-metal duralumin cylinder with a diameter of 1.4 m and a wall thickness of 6 mm.
The cockpit was filled with water during the dive. Therefore, all devices were supposed to be installed in a waterproof compartment. The crew had to move to the diving control module located further in the fuselage. Bearing planes and flaps should be made of steel, and floats of duralumin.
These elements were supposed to be filled with water through the valves provided for this, in order to equalize the pressure on the wings when diving. Flexible fuel and lubricant tanks should be located in the fuselage. For corrosion protection, the entire aircraft had to be covered with special varnishes and paints.
Two 18-inch torpedoes were suspended under the fuselage. The planned combat load was to be 44.5% of the total mass of the aircraft. This is the typical value of heavy aircraft of that time. To fill the tanks with water, the same electric motor was used, which provided movement under water.

LPL was supposed to be used for torpedo attacks on ships on the high seas. She was supposed to detect the ship from the air, calculate its course, leave the ship's visibility zone and, moving into a submerged position, attack it.

Another possible way to use the LPL was to overcome the minefields around the bases and navigation areas of enemy ships. The LPL was supposed to fly over the minefields under the cover of darkness and take up a position for reconnaissance or waiting and attacking in a submerged position. The next tactical maneuver was to be a group of LPLs, capable of successfully attacking all ships in a zone up to 15 km long.

In 1938, the Research Military Committee of the Red Army decided to curtail work on the Flying Submarine project due to the lack of submerged mobility of the submarine. The decree stated that after the discovery of the LPL by the ship, the latter would undoubtedly change course. Which will reduce the combat value of the LPL and, with a high degree of probability, will lead to the failure of the mission.

Reid's Flying Submarine (RFS-1)

Donald Reid (eng. Donald V. Reid) in the early 60s of the last century built a radio-controlled demonstration model of a flying submarine with dimensions of 1x1 meter.

In 1964, his invention was awarded an article in one of the popular science magazines in America. The article was the first to use the word Triphibia, by analogy with an amphibian. Of course, this article aroused the interest of the military, who wanted to translate the project into metal. The development of the project was transferred to the corporations Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation and Electric Boat (a division of General Dynamics). As a result of the study, the feasibility of the project was confirmed.

In 1964, Reid, commissioned by the US Navy, built a scale copy of the Commander-1 flying submarine in Asbury Park, New Jersey. Commander became the first American flying submarine. The prototype is on display at the Mid-Atlantic Museum in Reading, Pennsylvania.

The current Commander-2 prototype was tested in all modes. He could dive to a depth of 2 meters, move under water at a speed of 4 knots. The design flight speed of the prototype was supposed to be 300 km / h, but a speed of about 100 km / h was achieved.
The first flight took place on July 9, 1964. After diving to a depth of 2 meters, a take-off was made and a short flight at a height of 10 meters.
For immersion, the engine was sealed with rubber seals and the propeller was removed from it. The pilot was connected to a breathing apparatus and was in an open cockpit during underwater movement. An electric motor with a power of 736 watts was located in the tail.
The aircraft was numbered 1740 and was powered by a single 65 hp four-cylinder internal combustion engine. with. Commander received a delta wing, the length of the fuselage is 7 meters.
Fuel tanks were also diving tanks. After landing on the water, the fuel was pumped out into the water and ballast water was pumped into the tanks. That is, takeoff after a dive was basically impossible.

Many, at first glance, absurd technical solutions go a very long way to the final incarnation. Planes are known to fly through the air. Submarines cannot live without water. Is there such a big difference between them?

“Born to crawl, he cannot fly,” is the verdict of the classic. With the help of this word constructor, you can stamp a few more catchphrases.

"Born to ride, he cannot fly." "Born to swim cannot ride." Well, that's just a blatant lie. There are many projects for flying cars and even more amphibians.

What about "one who is born to fly cannot swim under water" and vice versa? Having trouble answering? And Fantomas with agent 007, on their advanced ubiquitous cars? And, as we will now tell, this happens not only in the movies.

In fact, the history of the issue goes back to the beginning of the twentieth century, but we will start from the end. And we will describe the long way of searching for constructors in the next article. So, an underwater plane, also known as U-Plane (Undersea-Plane).

This vehicle can be called an airplane with great reservations, since it flies only under water. Well, then he's a submarine, isn't he? Here and no.

Deep Flight I - the firstborn of underwater aviation (photo from deepflight.com).

How does a submarine move? He twists his propeller, moves the steering wheel back and forth - and floats. What about up and down? Basically, due to a change in buoyancy, or its weight in the water.

She needs to go down - she takes sea water into the ballast tanks and "sinks". Wants to go up - blows the tanks with air or dumps excess cargo (which is done mostly by bathyscaphes and divers).

An underwater plane is designed fundamentally differently. It does not have any systems for changing buoyancy, and regulates all movements in the vertical plane with the help of wings, just like an aircraft.

Therefore, an underwater plane differs from a submarine in the same way as an ordinary one - from a balloon or an airship. If the “density” of a submarine roughly corresponds to the environment, then a diving plane is always lighter.

The DF1 doesn't look much like a diving suit (photo from deepflight.com).

Only his wings are very small, like those of a chicken. This is understandable, the density of water is much higher than that of the air flow, and another lifting force is created.

Well, one more thing, the transverse profile of the wing itself is mirror-symmetrical to the aviation one, because it is required to “take off” not up, but down, to a depth. Therefore, it is necessary to create a negative lifting force. As you can see, everything is very simple.

Building such devices firm Hawkes Ocean Technologies (HOT), consisting of the head - Graham Hawks (Graham Hawks), his wife, an electronics engineer and three mechanical engineers. Not so many employees. And what did they manage to design in the field of submarine aviation?

In any case, no less than the only competitor - JAMSTEC (Japan Marine Science and Technology Center - Japanese Center for Marine Science and Technology) - a state consortium with a multi-million dollar budget.

Why not a fighter?

True, HOT is also not deprived of attention from sponsors: it is helped, to the extent of modest possibilities, by Hewlett Packard, Autodesk (AutoCAD software manufacturer), Rolex, IMAX and other kind people.

Double version of the defunct DF II (photo from deepflight.com).

Thanks to this participation, in September 1996, the Deep Flight I aircraft (DF I - “Deep Flight”) was launched under water, which cost the creators one million dollars.

Let's take a closer look at this floating machine.

The DF I is quite small (length 4 meters, wingspan 2.4 meters, height 0.9 meters) and is essentially a rigid streamlined suit.

Interestingly, the pilot is located inside the aircraft in an unusual horizontal position: on his stomach, head first.

On the one hand, the usual concepts of top and bottom are not felt in the water, on the other hand, such a position is characteristic of all floating creatures.

DFA: it remains only to take off (photo from deepflight.com).

The small size and weight (1300 kg) of the DF I greatly simplify the procedures for descent and ascent of the aircraft.

Recall that other small underwater vehicles need expensive escort ships with powerful winches for this.

The maximum calculated depth of the DF I is 1 km, but the pilots did not dare to go so deep. It is believed that this aircraft is nothing more than a prototype.

During the first dives, filmed for television, the device did not go below the 50-meter mark, so as not to strain the operator too much in light diving equipment.

And after that, the “flights” stopped altogether. It is possible that the designers still underestimated and underestimated something.

We also venture to suggest that the DF I cannot hang motionless at depth, like an “underwater helicopter”: in the absence of a “lift” force pulling down, it will inevitably, due to its low weight, fall into a tailspin and end up on the surface of the water.

To hover in place, DF I is vital to drink salt water.

We add, for the sake of order, that the takeoff speed of the aircraft was 2 knots (1 sea knot - 1.852 km / h), cruising - 4-8 knots, and maximum - as much as 12.

In the meantime, life does not stand still, and in 1997 the next device, the Wet Flight (WF - “Wet Flight”), was already ready.

This time the project was quite commercial - WF was intended for filming a film about the life of underwater inhabitants for the IMAX panoramic cinema chain.

Which task was successfully solved: the film Dolphins: The Ride (“Walks of dolphins”) was released, in which marine life was presented from the point of view of a rapidly swimming cetacean.

We must think that the designers did not remain in the loser, they still offer to use the WF to everyone who wants to shoot underwater.

And you could have so much fun in the Bahamas.

WF differs from its predecessor: it is smaller and one and a half times lighter, it is essentially a mobile underwater filming platform.

This time, the required diving depth did not exceed 40 meters, so there was no need to build an airtight capsule for the pilot - he simply reclined behind a transparent protective fairing, like some kind of aviation pioneer, inhaling air from the built-in scuba gear.

Meanwhile, HOT is making grandiose plans to descend into the Mariana Trench, to a depth of more than 11 kilometers. For these purposes, a more massive and solid Deep Flight II was designed.

In general, underwater aircraft can provide high vertical diving speeds: up to 7 km / h, and ascents - all 12. The point is only the capabilities of the human body.

But, at great depths, acrylic-Kevlar aircraft hulls are no longer enough. To dive to 6 km, a titanium hull is required, and to reach the bottom of the Mariana Trench (Operation Everest), a fuselage made of special high-strength ceramics developed for the US Navy is required.

Graham Hawks at the controls of his Aviator (photo from incredible-adventures.com/).

The cost of the project is estimated at $15 million. Interestingly, the DF II is designed in a modular way, it can be assembled as a single or double seat, as well as equipped with attachments.

One trouble - there is no coveted amount for construction. Apparently, to solve this problem, NOT is building the last aircraft for today: a two-seat Deep Flight Aviator and organizing an Underwater Flight School (

flying submarine

A flying submarine or otherwise a flying submarine (LPL) is a submarine that is capable of both taking off and landing on water, and can also move in airspace. An unrealized Soviet project, the purpose of which was to combine the stealth of a submarine and the mobility of an aircraft. In 1938, this project was curtailed, and did not have time to be realized.

Prerequisites for the emergence of the project.

Even five years before the project, in the early 30s, there were attempts to combine a submarine with an aircraft, but the result was almost always just compact, lightweight, folding aircraft that had to fit inside the submarine. But there were no such LPL projects, because the design of the aircraft excludes the possibility of scuba diving, and a submarine is also unlikely to fly. But the engineering thought of one outstanding person was able to combine these two characteristic properties in one apparatus.

A brief history of the flying submarine project.

In the mid-30s of the last century, thanks to the new reforms of Stalin, it was decided to start creating a powerful navy with battleships, aircraft carriers and ships of various classes. There were many ideas for creating unusual, from a technical point of view, devices, including the idea of creating a flying submarine.

Ushakov's flying submarine

From 1934 to 1938 the project to create a flying submarine was led by Boris Ushakov. He, while still studying at the Higher Marine Engineering Institute named after F.E. Dzerzhinsky in Leningrad from 1934 to 1937, the year of graduation, worked on a project in which he wanted to combine the best characteristics of an aircraft and a submarine.

Ushakov's submarine plan

Ushakov presented a schematic design of a flying submarine back in 1934. His LPL was a three-engine, two-float seaplane equipped with a periscope.

In 1936, in July, they became interested in his project and Ushakov received a response from the Scientific Research Military Committee (NIVK), which stated that his project was interesting and deserved unconditional implementation: “.... It is desirable to continue developing the project in order to reveal the reality of its implementation through production calculations and laboratory tests….”

In 1937, the project was included in the plan of the NIVK department, but unfortunately, after the revision, this project was abandoned. All further work on the flying submarine was carried out by Boris Ushakov, at that time already a military technician of the 1st rank, in his spare time.

Application.

What was the purpose of such an outlandish project? The flying submarine was designed to destroy enemy naval equipment, both on the high seas and in the waters of naval bases, which can be protected by minefields. Low speed under water was not an obstacle, since the boat itself could find the enemy and determine the course of the ship while still in the air. After that, the boat splashed down over the horizon, in order to avoid its premature detection, and sank along the ship's line.

American submarine aircraft

And before the target appeared in the radius of destruction of its missiles, the submarine remained at a depth in a stationary position, without expending energy. There were a lot of advantages in this type of equipment, I start with reconnaissance and finish with direct combat, and of course, re-enter the target. And if you use LPLs in groups during combat, then 3 such devices could create a barrier for warships for more than 10 kilometers.

Design.

The design of the flying submarine was very interesting. The boat consisted of six compartments: AM-34 aircraft engines, a living compartment, a battery compartment and a propeller motor compartment were installed in three of them. The pilot's cabin was filled with water during immersion, and the flight instruments were closed in a sealed shaft. The hull and floats of the submarine were to be made of duralumin, the wings were made of steel, the oil and fuel tanks were made of rubber to prevent damage when submerged.

But unfortunately in 1938 the project was curtailed due to “insufficient speed under water”.

foreign projects.

Of course, there were similar projects in the USA, but much later in 1945 and in the 60s. It was the project of the 60s that was developed and even a sample was built that successfully passed the tests, it was just an armed drone that was launched from a submarine.

And in 1964, engineer Donald Reid built a boat called

On July 9, 1964, this specimen reached a speed of 100 km / h and completed its first dive. But unfortunately this design was too low-power for military tasks.

American Cormorant

And in 2008, the United States returned to the development of a flying submarine. Now they are developing a project for an underwater aircraft called the Cormorant that will fly as well as swim both underwater and on the surface. It is planned that the aircraft will be used for covert delivery of special forces groups to coastal areas.

Diving Commander-2

Cormorant 3D

Written by

barbarian

Creativity, work on the modern idea of world knowledge and constant search for answers

More than a third of all the losses of the Third Reich submarine fleet in World War II were due to air attacks. PWhen enemy aircraft appeared, the boat had to urgently dive and wait out the danger at depth. If there was no time to dive, the submarine was forced to take the fight, the outcome of which, however, was not always a foregone conclusion. An example is the case in the Atlantic on January 6, 1944, when, northeast of the Azores, the submarine U 270 was attacked by a very unusual submarine hunter.

The struggle of two elements

During World War II, anti-submarine aircraft became the most dangerous enemy for German submarines. According to the well-known German historian Axel Niestlé, during the Battle of the Atlantic, out of 717 combat German submarines lost at sea, 245 submarines were sunk by the Allied PLO aviation. It is believed that 205 of them were destroyed by land-based aircraft, and the remaining 40 were attributed to carrier-based aircraft. Death from air strikes ranks first on the list of reasons for the loss of the German submarine fleet, while PLO ships sank only 236 submarines. Another 42 submarines were launched to the bottom by the joint efforts of ships and aircraft.

A common picture in the Atlantic during the war is a submarine attacked by an aircraft. In the photo, U 118 under fire from the Avengers from the Bogue aircraft carrier on June 12, 1943 - on this day the boat will be sunk by them

However, hunting German U-boats from the air was not easy or safe, and the Allies lost more than 100 aircraft during the war in such attacks. The Germans, quickly realizing the threat of Allied air attacks, constantly improved the protection of their submarines, reinforcing anti-aircraft artillery and installing means of detection and direction finding of aircraft using radar.

Of course, the surest way for a submarine to survive an encounter with an aircraft was to avoid combat. At the slightest threat of attack from the air, the boat had to urgently dive and wait out the danger at depth. If there was no time to dive, the submarine was forced to take the fight, the outcome of which, however, was not always a foregone conclusion. An example is the case in the Atlantic on January 6, 1944, when, northeast of the Azores, the submarine U 270 was attacked by a very unusual submarine hunter.

Preparing a Fortress Mk.IIA bomber of the Royal Air Force Coastal Command for a flight. Noteworthy is the memorable late variant of camouflage, characteristic of the aircraft of the Coastal Command - with camouflaged upper surfaces, the side and lower surfaces were painted white.

In the summer of 1942, the British received 64 four-engine Boeing B-17s under Lend-Lease. Having had the negative experience of using the Flying Fortresses over Europe as a day bomber (20 early B-17Cs hit the UK as early as 1941), they immediately assigned new machines to the Royal Air Force Coastal Command. It should be noted that in the UK, all American aircraft had their own designations, and by analogy with the B-17C, called Fortress Mk.I, the newly received 19 B-17F and 45 B-17E received the names Fortress Mk.II and Fortress Mk.IIA, respectively. . In January 1944, both British squadrons armed with "Fortresses", the 206th and 220th, being consolidated into the 247th air group of the Coastal Command, were based at the Lagens airfield on the island of Terceira of the Azores archipelago.

"Seven" against "Fortress"

After the disbandment of the German Borkum group (17 units) operating against the Allied convoys in the North Atlantic, three boats from its composition were to form one of the small groups called Borkum-1. It also included the above-mentioned U 270 of Oberleutnant zur see Paul-Friedrich Otto (Paul-Friedrich Otto). The boats of the new group were supposed to take a position northwest of the Azores, but it was this area that was included in the zone of operation of the 247th air group.

Bombers of the 247th Air Group of the Coastal Command are dispersed around the airfield in the Azores

On the afternoon of January 6 at 14:47, Flight Lieutenant Anthony James Pinhorn of the 206th Squadron took to the air to search for and destroy enemy submarines. The plane did not return to base. The last message from him was received at 18:16, after which the crew no longer contacted. What happened to him? Records from the surviving war diary U 270 can tell about this.

On the evening of January 6, at 19:05, an aircraft was seen from a boat that was on the surface at a distance of 7000 meters - the Vanze and Naxos radio intelligence stations did not warn of its approach. An alarm was declared and anti-aircraft guns were prepared for battle. A few minutes later, the plane passed over the boat from the stern, but did not drop bombs, only firing at it from the tail turret. The shots of the Fortress did not harm U 270, which fired barrage from anti-aircraft guns. The plane repeated the approach, firing from machine guns, but again the bombs were not dropped. This time the sight was more accurate - the boat received several holes in the wheelhouse, its anti-aircraft gunners hesitated, and the plane avoided hits.

Crew officers U 270 on the bridge. In a white cap - the commander of the boat, Lieutenant zur see Paul-Friedrich Otto. On the horizon is an 85-meter monument to the memory of German sailors who died in the First World War, installed on the coast in Laboe (near Kiel)

Five minutes later, the "Fortress" attacked the "seven" from the stern for the third time. This time, the "flaks" opened barrage fire in time, but the plane stubbornly went straight for the anti-aircraft guns. For him, this was not in vain - the Germans managed to hit the right plane, and the engine closest to the fuselage caught fire on it. While passing over the boat, the aircraft dropped four shallow depth charges. The Seven made a sharp turn to port, and the bombs exploded about 30 meters from the bow of the boat. After a short period of time, the British plane, engulfed in flames, crashed about 300 meters from U 270. The Germans did not find anyone at the crash site - the entire crew of the Fortress died. For this reason, the description of the battle exists only from the German side.

Recklessness versus recklessness?

The crew of the submarine acted in a difficult situation in a coordinated and courageous manner, competent actions in managing the boat and conducting anti-aircraft fire helped the Germans not only survive, but also destroy the dangerous enemy. However, despite the fact that the winners are not judged, it can be said that the decision of the commander not to dive was erroneous, since at least 6 minutes passed from the moment the aircraft was discovered to its first attack. The boat emerged victorious from the battle, but received serious damage from bomb explosions and machine-gun fire, and was forced to interrupt the campaign and return to base. One way or another, the crew of the British aircraft completed their main combat mission - albeit at such a high price.

The famous German submariner Heinz Schaffer in his memoirs mentioned the tactics chosen by the commander of the boat U 445, on which he served, when meeting with the aircraft:

“To increase readiness to repel an air raid, a siren was installed on the boat. It was turned on using a button located on the bridge next to the call button. The decision on which of the signals to give - a call to announce an urgent dive on alarm or a siren to announce an air raid - was taken by the watch officer. Right or wrong decision meant a choice between life and death.

When the enemy aircraft could be detected in a timely manner, that is, at a distance of more than four thousand meters, it was necessary to give a signal for an urgent dive. The boat managed to dive to a depth of fifty meters before the plane approached the dive point and dropped bombs. If the upper watch detected the aircraft at shorter distances, an attempt to dive almost inevitably led to the death of the boat.

The pilot of the aircraft, without being fired upon, could descend to a minimum height and perform accurate bombing at the stern of the boat, which was still on the surface or at a shallow depth. Therefore, with a belated detection of the aircraft, it was necessary to take the fight, remaining on the surface. In the area dominated by enemy aircraft, after the first aircraft that discovered the boat, reinforcements arrived, and attacks followed one after another. For this reason, the temptation has always been great to avoid combat with aircraft by emergency diving, even in risky cases.

If we rely on such tactics, then the commander of U 270 Paul-Friedrich Otto had more time than the commander of U 445 left himself for a safe dive, but decided to accept the battle. Probably the commander of U 270 was confident in himself and his crew, since he took such a risk - perhaps completely unreasonable. For the victory over the British Fortress, the boat paid with serious damage to all bow torpedo tubes and the bow tank of the main ballast. On the way back to the base, she did not give more than 10 knots under diesels and, upon arrival at Saint-Nazaire, she was docked for a two-month repair.

Anti-aircraft artillery of the boat is ready to fire. Two twins of anti-aircraft 20-mm machine guns and a 37-mm gun are visible

A few words about the crew of the dead bomber. There is no doubt that the long-range American B-17 and B-24 bombers supplied to the British had good survivability, but they also had shortcomings that were fundamental for battles with anti-aircraft guns bristling with submarines. During the attack, the heavy bomber did not have sufficient maneuverability and was a good target for anti-aircraft gunners. If the boat could, with its maneuvers, bring the plane under its guns, then it was met by a flurry of lead - the pilots should have had the courage to head straight for the anti-aircraft guns. There is a known case when a boat, having been attacked by two Liberators at once, held out against them for two hours. The planes were fired even from a 105-mm deck gun, not allowing them to accurately enter the target and drop bombs. It seems that in this case, the pilots simply did not dare to climb directly onto the anti-aircraft guns, but the crew of the Fortress, which died in battle with the U 270, turned out to be not a timid one. Three calls directly to the stern of the boat, where one or two pairs of 20-mm anti-aircraft guns and one 37-mm anti-aircraft gun were installed in the "winter garden", can be called a feat.

The question remains why the British crew did not drop their bombs on their first run on Otto's submarine. Perhaps the reason was the malfunction of the bomb bays, but one cannot rule out the fact that Flight Lieutenant Pinhorn wanted to suppress enemy anti-aircraft points with machine-gun fire, after which they could drop bombs without hindrance. However, the fire of the B-17 machine guns turned out to be ineffective - the boat did not suffer any losses in the crew. Probably, dropping bombs in the first visits could be more effective, but, alas, history does not know the subjunctive mood.

Ground personnel from the 53rd Squadron, Coastal Command, unload 250-kg depth charges before hanging them on the Liberator. It was this aircraft that became the victim of U 270 anti-aircraft gunners on the night of June 13-14, 1944

In conclusion, I would like to mention that the entire “Fortress” of the Royal Air Force Coastal Command was marked by 10 victories over German submarines, they sank another submarine together with other types of aircraft. Already in April of the same 1944, the 206th squadron was re-equipped with the more common Liberators in the Coastal Command, which had an advantage over the Fortresses in flight duration and bomb load.

As for the fate of U 270, in her next campaign she scored another victory over the aircraft. It happened on the night of June 13-14, 1944 in the Bay of Biscay, when the anti-aircraft gunners of the boat shot down the Liberator of the 53rd Squadron of the Royal Air Force squadron leader John William Carmichael (John William Carmichael). U 270 found its death on August 13, 1944. The submarine was attacked by a Sunderland flying boat from the 461st Australian Squadron when it was evacuating people from Lorian and had 81 people on board, including the crew. Captain-Lieutenant Otto survived the death of his boat, as he had previously gone to Germany to receive a new "electric boat" U 2525. According to the authoritative website uboat.net, he may be alive to this day.

A painting by British artist John Hamilton depicts an attack by the anti-submarine Sunderland. 461st Australian Squadron sank 6 German submarines using these machines

pilot Flight Lieutenant Anthony James Pinhorn
co-pilot F/O Joseph Henry Duncan
navigator flight sergeant Thomas Eckersley
Flying Officer Francis Dennis Roberts
Warrant Officer Ronald Norman Stares
Warrant Officer 1st Class Donald Luther Heard
Warrant Officer 1st Class Oliver Ambrose Keddy
Sergeant Robert Fabian
Squadron Navigator Flight Lieutenant Ralph Brown (not part of the crew).

List of sources and literature:

NARA T1022 (captured documents of the German Navy)
Franks N. Search, Find and Kill - Grub Street the Basemen, 1995
Franks N. Zimmerman E. U-Boat Versus Aircraft: The Dramatic Story Behind U-Boat Claims in Gun Action with Aircraft in World War II – Grub Street, 1998
Ritschel H. Kurzfassung Kriegstagesbuecher Deutscher U-Boote 1939–1945, Band 6. Norderstedt
Busch R., Roll H.-J. German U-boat Commanders of World War II - Annopolis: Naval Institute Press, 1999
Wynn K. U-Boat Operations of the Second World War. Vol.1–2 - Annopolis: Naval Institute Press, 1998
Blair S. Hitler's U-boat War. The Hunted, 1942–1945 - Random House, 1998
Niestlé A. German U-Boat Losses During World War II: Details of Destruction – Frontline Books, 2014
Shaffer H. The last campaign of U-977 (translated from German by V.I. Polenin) - St. Petersburg: "Wind Rose", 2013
http://uboatarchive.net
http://uboat.net
http://www.ubootarchiv.de
http://ubootwaffe.net