Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier

This is a forum for newbies and beginners to post their first designs. Please note that this forum is only for Shipbucket and FD scale projects.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
User avatar
Dilandu
Posts: 381
Joined: October 8th, 2011, 11:26 am
Location: Russian Federation

Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier

#11 Post by Dilandu »

On a bad day
I beg your pardon, but is "Snark" did not fly above the overcast?
Serve the Nation! Be striped!
TimothyC
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier

#12 Post by TimothyC »

Dilandu wrote:
On a bad day
I beg your pardon, but is "Snark" did not fly above the overcast?
One Snark missile flew off course and ended up in Brazil.
πŒπ€π“π‡ππ„π“- 𝑻𝒐 π‘ͺπ’π’ˆπ’Šπ’•π’‚π’•π’† 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
User avatar
Dilandu
Posts: 381
Joined: October 8th, 2011, 11:26 am
Location: Russian Federation

Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier

#13 Post by Dilandu »

One Snark missile flew off course and ended up in Brazil.
Well, it wasn't by a bad weather!
Serve the Nation! Be striped!
deankal55
Posts: 101
Joined: December 11th, 2011, 9:11 pm

Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier

#14 Post by deankal55 »

The errant Snark was aimed at Ascension Island, but landed in Brazil. I think the problem was something besides not being able to see the stars.

According to a source I found on the web (an always accurate and relivant source) above 45,000 feet cloud cover should not interfer with astronavigation systems. This would mean that the Snark would have to fly near its maximum altitude most of the flight.
orihara
Posts: 7
Joined: August 10th, 2010, 12:41 am

Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier

#15 Post by orihara »

deankal55 wrote:The errant Snark was aimed at Ascension Island, but landed in Brazil. I think the problem was something besides not being able to see the stars.

According to a source I found on the web (an always accurate and relivant source) above 45,000 feet cloud cover should not interfer with astronavigation systems. This would mean that the Snark would have to fly near its maximum altitude most of the flight.
The max height of cloud cover varies with the height of the tropopause. Generally speaking, outside of the tropics, the tropopause is below 45kft. This does depend on weather, and the tropopause could reach 30kft or lower during the winter in the arctic. With thunderstorms, you can have clouds above the tropopause, but this is a relatively rare occurance, and with proper weather forecasting, should pose relatively little problem.
User avatar
Dilandu
Posts: 381
Joined: October 8th, 2011, 11:26 am
Location: Russian Federation

Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier

#16 Post by Dilandu »

Well, "Snark"-carried submarine number II!

Hull is lengthened to accommodate longer missiles.
Serve the Nation! Be striped!
deankal55
Posts: 101
Joined: December 11th, 2011, 9:11 pm

Re: Sea-based SM-62 "Snark" carrier

#17 Post by deankal55 »

Dilandu, this looks a little more practical. I'm still not sure you would have room for a torpedo room in the bow. However, tubes outside of the pressure hull that could not be reloaded would be possible for forward torpedo tubes. I don't know that you need all of the photo registration lines on the missile, those would only be on test missiles. The U.S. flag seems too large, and I'm not sure, but I seem to remember that flagstaffs on U.S. subs are at the stern end of the sail.

If I knew what an astrotracker looked like I would suggest adding one so the submarine could feed launch location information into the missile prior to launch.
Post Reply