Swiss Liparus

[Nobody]

Well I don't know what the "Liparus" is you are talking about, but personally if I wanted to build a submarine carrier, I would build a ship doors/bay on the bottom.
So what's the size (length, width) of a 300 ts sub? Plus several meters on each side times the draft of the ship, would be the weight to be simmed as below waterline (= fuel) to accommodate the each sub. Because of the gap(s) in the ship I would also sim it with higher hull strength.

[Desertfox]

My own 300 tons subs are currently 150"x15".

Tender + long range subs is better and easier but not as cool.

[maddox]

Sounds like a new build merchant.  Needs to be at least 320' long then. 6Kton class at least.  And that one can take 2 in the moonpool.
Physicaly it can be build in 1920. 

It wasn't done as it would be a mil spec vessel, in our rules. (unless it's a towed thing, then it counts as a type 0 + floating dry dock)

[P3D]

300t is ~30m long and ~4m dia. So you'd need a ~50m long and 10m wide hole right in the keel, amidships. Would need spending a lot on strengthening the hull (the keel/bottom plating being the main structural loadbearing element). I still say a welldeck would be more practical if you want to use it in any sea state over 2.

[maddox]

The keel issue can be avoided by using the Graf Zeppelin trick.  A keel higher up in the ship.

But even then, I suggest a structural "overdimensioning" of .1 at least, as well calculating in the full weight of the sloshing seawater in the hull. ( maybe in fuel?)

But that's not Maddox- the Mod talking, but Maddox, the third rank mechanic.

[P3D]

The keel issue can be avoided by using the Graf Zeppelin trick.  A keel higher up in the ship.

But even then, I suggest a structural "overdimensioning" of .1 at least, as well calculating in the full weight of the sloshing seawater in the hull. ( maybe in fuel?)

But that's not Maddox- the Mod talking, but Maddox, the third rank mechanic.

Keel higher up the ship won't work, what'd work is to have two keels, on the sides of the "moon dock".
It also have one great disadvantage. It cannot take subs that are damaged and cannot go underwater.

[maddox]

The secundary keel in the LZ127 Graf Zeppelin was  nothing more than that, a secundary keel, the other longitudal girders took the rest of the strain.

[Ithekro]

What about something like the Glomar Explorer?  Just without the crain feature.

[Carthaginian]

I'd say if it's what DF is thinking of, you'd need something on the order of the Ingals class construction ship.

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=2402.msg25353#msg25353

[ctwaterman]

If you want to build a a ship with sub holding bay similar to the modern US LST you need to in effect build a small Type 0 or Type 1 Mobile Dry Dock and then build a ship around it....

Charles

[Carthaginian]

If you want to build a a ship with sub holding bay similar to the modern US LST you need to in effect build a small Type 0 or Type 1 Mobile Dry Dock and then build a ship around it....

Charles

Not quite, but almost, the premise of the Ingals.
She was designed as a semi-seaworthy Crane Ship #1- previously known as 'The Ship That Shall Not Be Named.'

[TexanCowboy]

Eh, are you talking about the ship that sank the glourious Alabama?  :'(

[The Rock Doctor]

Probably cheaper just to build larger submarines.

[Desertfox]

I'll just build one for the SSS, with capacity for a couple 300t subs. Question is, if not ordered from military yards could it be build at least to tender rules? It's not even going to go in the Swiss Military.

[The Rock Doctor]

It's the purpose that matters, not the owner.  Work up a design and let's discuss.