I knew the economics of a cargo submarine would be pretty bad But the concept is so fun and interesting, and probably so useful in its niches that I want to see one. Even if its only like 1 giant sub, it would just be fascinating to see.
if i was a dictator, id have an economic "nudge" ready in my wallet at all sensible and feasible times. if your project is 95% of the way there id exchange some funding for general running data and records of techniques. youd be surprised how much knowledge a society forgets through the death of individuals. the engines that went to the moon for example. we dont know what the designers did because they forgot after 30 years or died. we cant make them again, we have to start from scratch (they were huge, you cant just scale up todays tech, it would melt without the ingenious fuel cooling).
The Germans transported a few items to Japan during WW2 by submarine. They also failed to transport some items because two of the subs were sunk. I gotta say that I do find it surprising that they didn't carry through on plans to obtain industrially important metals by submarine. They had plans to get them from South America, and IIRC they actually bought some of the metals. The metals were needed in relatively small amounts, and a submarine would have been practical. Of course, with the cracking of the enigma codes, the Allies would probably have gotten the details and stopped it. I think that was how the subs bound for Japan were sunk. Ultimately, cargo submarines are only useful in desperation, and unlikely to effect the outcome of a war. But I would bet the nurses evacuated from "Corridor" Island (Corregidor) were grateful for the use of regular subs as passenger subs. Can't help but wonder how many cargo subs would have been needed to maintain the forces on the Bataan peninsula. Losses would have been very high from IJN anti-submarine action.
At the time, IJN anti-sub measures were mediocre - but the bigger problem would have been the unloading time (aside from the issues of lack of cargo subs and distance they needed to travel to secure bases with needed supplies). There were no naval bases on the Bataan peninsula, and few piers or sheltered coves, so it would have to be done off a beach or small cove, probably at night, with the threat of IJN destroyer or patrol boat interference. The Germans had a similar problem trying to supply Stalingrad by air after it was cut off, and their supply bases were much closer, and they had dozens of transport planes. Thousands of tons of supplies were needed, but they fell short.
I believe they did have a specific sub for cargo and used it many times. Imagine if someone could find the subs carrying special weapons and blue prints that the nazi's sent to Japan. God knows what we would find
That thumbnail brought back so many memories as a kid. There was this book I loved growing up that had all these 1950s to 1980s ideas of what the future would have and the picture of the cargo sub in the Thumbnail was one in the series of the Cargosub's entry.
Happen to have a name of those books? I remember brian cox talking about his once and god how i wish i had the name cus they seem to be a very interesting read of what the world would be like if they arms race of ever evolving tech had kept up longer than it did.
While there may theoretically be applications for bypassing ice, the increased submaritime traffic could increase global tension. Especially that idea of retrofitting Typhoon class subs. First objective is to make them a lot more observable so there aren't collisions or allegations of using civilian* vessels for surveillance or other geopolitical gambits.
Since modern military subs spends the majority of their time submerged, making them more visible wouldn't serve any useful purpose exit when transiting to and from port. In order to make a sub more noticeable in a practical manner, you don't make them more visible, you make them noisier since subs operating at their cruising depths are most often detected by the noise they make. So, as a result, military sub designers do what they can to make the sub as quiet as possible. Of course, that can be easily overcome by requiring all transport subs to have some of constantly transmitting noise maker built into them to act as a sort of audio warning beacon. But the problem with making subs noisier is that for it to work surface ships would all have to be fitted with some sort of passive sonar system to pick up the noise maker of these subs, something that civilian ships aren't generally equipped with.And water temperature and salinity would affect any the signal being produced by a noise maker and could maks it. It could be made electronic, but from I understand, electronic signals don't propagate very well through water, at least no radio signals. So depending on how deep these subs would travel, any sort of electronic transponder would largely useless.
A correction: The German WW1 cargo submarines were not U-Boats (i.e. combat submarines) with the torpedo tubes removed. They were purpose-built as cargo vessels. It was in fact the other way 'round. After the souring of relations with the US and its entry into the war, the cargo submarines, freshly out of a purpose, were converted to combat submarines. Specifically, their large size and impressive endurance were taken advantage of to convert them into the first long-range "cruiser" type submarines, intended to operate as far as the US East coast.
if you refer to them in german they actually are because submarine translates to u-boat (Untersee-Boot). So it is (as often) not entierely right but not entierely wrong.
@@laurencehoffelder1579 You missed the point of what I wrote and/or did not pay attention to the context of the false statement about "... torpedoes removed" in the video.
I think there are some niches - namely cargo that's low volume and heavy, or going places with a lot of storm activity - where the concept still makes some sense.
Barracuda class submarines were not cargo carriers. They were smaller and slower than the traditional fleet boats used by the US Navy during WWII, and were intended specifically to hunt other submarines using newly developed sonar and guided torpedoes (the conspicuous bulge on top of the bow that looks like a shorter second conning tower is a housing for sonar). They didn't work very well for that either, and were taken out of service relatively quickly.
Easier still to just have trains and road vehicles take people through Poland to the border with Ukraine. There are hundreds of km of border they can go through with road and rail vehicles.
@@gregorywright4918 Indeed it is the bigger problem. They would have to either run on the surface there or risk so many collisions that it would be scary. Besides I expect the USSR installed detection gear there to watch for this very thing. Maybe it still works. No sense taking the risk. I see cargo submarines as an expensive solution looking for a problem.
Correction 2:07 it is corregidor island not corridor island. Corregidor came from the spanish word corregir meaning to correct. Corregidor island means the corrector's island as it was used by the spanish in their customs sytem where ships entering manila would need to stop at corregidor to have documents check and "corrected".
i can only imagine how much of a pain a cargo sub would be to get though straits channels or canals or how few harbors would be deep enough for a large cargo sub to dock at.
back in the diesel electric days they would mostly travel above water like any ship until a plane was spotted or another ship so then they would dive for up to a day at a time. the co2 would build up and they would have to surface or the crew would die.. but what im saying is that they would make it work and or its just like any other cargo ship.
Actually, the real reason why there is no cargo subs and there will never be (at industrial scale I mean) is because of physics. A submarine needs to have the same average density as the seawater it is sailing in (1.026). Cargo in a container has a much lower density (remember: containers float). So a cargo submarine would need a huge amount of fixed ballast (typically lead) to keep it underwater and prevent the submarine to float. To get an idea, look at a filled container ship and imagine how much lead ballast you would need to add to drown the ship. That's the amount you will physically need to put in a submarine of the same size. No wonder it doesn't exist and never will.
The submarine becomes the "container" at that point. If a stripped out decomissioned war sub with all its weapons/ammunition/weapons systems removed and the weight of cargo replaced it what the difference? Yeah the balance may be an issue but i digress
@@drivewaystar6485 The point is, you need to be able to surface and dive, which means you need enough capacity in the ballasts to do both. But the main reason is it takes more energy to move a craft underwater than it does to move it on water. That's the main issue. It's simply more energy efficient.
Counterargument: The things inside the containers could be very expensive to cover by insurance, very, VERY heavy to bring it via plane and too delicate to risk via normal ships, like, example: Precision Heavy Lathes, Heavy duty CNCs, Robotic Arms or robots in general, PLCs, Chip lithography machines, telescopes, satellites, rocket parts and so on.
I may not be the best English speaker (I'm Argentine), but even so, this is one of the best channels of information and unfinished projects I've come across. Thanks to you I have learned a lot and I have been equally depressed by what humanity could have achieved. Thank you very much. If it's misspelled, I'm sorry, I don't write much in English.
Your comment is well written your centiment is however wrong, this channel constantly makes mistakes and acts like the stuff they talk about was possible. When most were not, he also gets historical facts wrong, i.e. in this video he claimed Lend lease said Russia and Britain but it occurred after the battle of Britain and after Russia defeated German at Moscow. There two events meant neither country would be able to be taken and lend lease happened afterwards.
Well, sure, having them as a regular thing would not make much sense. But, just like we don't see much nuclear icebreakers, I think there are a few special cases where a nuclear cargo sub could make sense even if it is not as profitable as large cargo ships. In a few special shipping lanes, where you have to supply a coastal town or a base. It can double as a portable reactor in case there are problems with power supply. Countries like Russia, Canada, USA having one or two of those special purpose vessels - makes sense. They would have their regular shipping lanes above the arctic circle and have more than one simple task. When ever it is more beneficial to go under ice than over it, use it as a supply vessel. Otherwise, as a mobile power plant, science vessel, underwater construction crew... and why not, a tourist version? The cost of developing and building a very limited number of those subs would put the price per unit extremely high - but on the other hand, in the rare cases that you'd actually need a vessel like that, it could prove highly valuable indeed. Countries are not strangers to investing a lot to develop a highly specialized piece of gear that might not be commercial success, but still fulfills the critical role. There are some areas where cost is not really an issue, where you simply need to get something done. For example, some city in northern Alaska, or Siberia, gets hit by a storm, low on supplies, planes can't get to it, icebreakers ships not available or fast enough... you just load up your sub and send it as fast as possible under the ice to its destination to provide fresh supplies and attack its reactor output to the local power supply. Or, load up the entire science mission on it that can be housed inside its massive hull and be more mobile than the ship. Again, sub like that would not be something you'd find a need for in massive numbers, but a few for the biggest countries that can foot the bill - why not. Maybe even a joint development and have it serve as a quick response unit in time of need while paying itself off slowly over time with some basic commercial work.
Well if you wanna see an ice breaker or many of them go to russia they have rhe biggest and most capable fleet on the planet and they look rather nice. They recently launched a new nuclear powered one. And ehen it comes to special vessels yet again the russians are involved with the floating nuclear power plant which can easily provide electricity to basiclay any nationwith a coastline on the planet
@@fistofglory9304 Yes, they could do that as well, but in a pinch, any submarine US has would be able to do that. Problems with evacuation is that they usually don't happen in ports with deep enough a dock. In other words, there are not that many out there deep enough that would allow for a submarine to dock. That severely limits their use as an evac vessels. They could stop off shore and send in the boats, but if the weather does not allow the regular ship to come to the rescue, boats from the sub would have an ever worse time doing that. So yeah, in principle, they CAN add evacuation for certain places as their job (which is already highly situational), but honestly, that particular thing might never be needed in the lifetime of a sub, given how rare an occasion like that is.
How about a passenger submarine? We could live beneath the waves in a yellow submarine while visiting shipwrecks and seeing fish. We could have our friends aboard too, and a band that can play.
Many of the shipwrecks people would want to see are most likely a mass grave and should be left alone anyway. While there is/was a small market for people to see the Titanic, Robert Ballard apparently resents never actually laying a claim to the wreck as he could have under maritime law. He sees the scavenging for artifacts and damage done by the tours as disrespectful to the fact that nearly 2000 people died in the disaster. There would then be people who would want to go see other famous warship wrecks but those again are War Graves and should be left alone. It's a shame that so many in the pacific have been plundered for scrap metal. Other than the ethical concerns, there's the fact that diving to such extremes means you have to have one hell of a submarine, and then this simply becomes an exclusive thing for the super rich, and well I don't think those people should be allowed anywhere near something as hallowed as a fallen warship. Save of course for the one who had been funding the searches for missing warships. His funding would eventually lead to the recovery of HMS Hood's bell.
@@airplanenut89 Look no further than the Titan fiasco for reasons why visiting the Titanic - or any other shipwreck for that matter - for fun is a bad idea.
Also he said "malina" not "manila", and he said "normal type" instead of "norilsk type", and he didn't say "dollars" when talking about how much they cost
Great video. I was a submarine SONAR technician for 20 years and can see other problems with this idea as well. Radar does not work underwater. So essentially you are driving in an invisible car down the highway. You can see others with SONAR but they can not see you. Even if you are deep hydrodynamic forces from a large vessel passing overhead can create a suction force and cause the sub to collide with the passing vessel. We had to train extensively on safe navigation through shipping and fishing areas and it requires a proficient well trained crew. Not to mention when things go wrong on a submarine it can be far more dangerous than a surface ship.
Um... What is that building in centre at 05:29??? I've been searching for it and I can't find it. Was this a still from a film, so the building is fictional???
An interesting point that isn't really touched on is durability & safety. I'm not a huge fan of militaries, but in peacetime, I'd probably feel rather safe on a navy sub. They have large crews trained to handle any sort of breakdown (not just mechanical breakdowns, but things like partial hull failures as well), and navy ships are generally overbuilt so that they can get through actual combat and still make it back to base. By contrast, cargo ships...don't really have that level of safety. They're not maintained as well, as evidenced by a few of them actually just breaking up from hull fatigue. Their crews are much smaller, and much less extensively trained (except for navy vets in the merchant marine), and they have a particular constraint that tends to kill people: profit. I don't just mean that commercial ships have to be profitable to continue to operate, but that so many companies cut corners and sacrifice safety in the interest of profit.
No submarine is designed to survive combat. A single hit on a submarine is basically game over. They aren't even largely meant for direct combat, but rather, for things like recon, a mobile weapons platform for sending missiles at far away targets, and defense of a fleet from other subs.
There's also the problem of identification. Cargo subs would have to be broadcasting their position at all times with sonar. Military subs would then be able to easily track them and might mistake them for a military sub. You could also broadcast identification with systems on board like transponders (similar to airplanes) but then you have to worry about mounting them on military subs and have rules, and it becomes super complex and that discourages people from doing it.
Well I'm theory all you would have to do is publish the acoustic profile of your subs and anyone will be able to track your subs. And unless a military makes a precise clone of you vessels it would be distinguishable from military subs. That's not to mention that you are designing for cargo capacity and not stealth.
I can think of a somewhat useful legal use for a cargo submarine: Pirate attacks on cargo ships have been rather high lately, and while a convoy or something similar would probably be more economical, transport submarines could do a job solo if needed.
the explanation about why subs are less efficient due to displacement is wrong. it's because the surface ship displaces an amount of water equal to the weight of the cargo, whereas the sub must displace water equal to its entire volume - the cargo is generally less dense than water. the only thing this might make sense for us transporting liquids (like oil)
doubtful, extrenely unlikely...and I actually have some reasoning behind my comment. A) What would be the place/need for specifically go underneath ice or an enemy fleet? Drugs? Well, that is the only actual use of submarine transports. B) Only drugs are the commodity valuable enough to make economic sense to use something as expensive as a submarine transporter. Anything legal, that does not need to be hidden, is way cheaper to transport conventionally, even through ice. C) It is still risky! Navigating a submarine through the water is not something to be done lightly. It still is very dangerous. Too dangerous for commercial use.
US submariner here! although a very interesting concept, large submarines such as the Ohio Class are an insane logistical nightmare to man. Training personnel to crew these ships takes a significant amount of time. There are many jobs such Navigation Electricians, Sonar Techs, Machinist mates (mechanics), and all the Nukes(nuclear personnel) back aft that are essential to running a UNDERWATER NUCLEAR REACTOR. you have to trust these people with your life 100% while underway and I don't believe there are a lot of civilians that specialize in firefighting, damage control, escape training, the job they signed up for, and know everybody elses job so in the event of a casualty you can take over for that person. Great video tho !
In the 80s, pop mech had a cover story related to giant oil tanker subs that were very cool looking. I immediately built a large model of one out of legos.
What if it were smaller scale? Like a single cargo container. Perhaps for short distances, or to small islands. Would it be possible to have them in a train like set up?
Yeah it very much would be posible but if anything submarine transports would be better in a war time setting then peace unless it's to basically a underwater base cause then like only way they'd get supplys would also be a little safer then normal cargo ships cause seas get bad underwater the thing goes it will still get affected but depending on depth it goes it will be much better then on surface but considering how company's already have like a single engine running at all times on cargo ships i wouldn't be surpised if alot of lost cargo stuff happens if we do do submarine cargo runs
That map at 1:04 looks...very intersting? First you mentioned this was a concept first from WW 1, yet the map shows a kind of alternate universe map from WW 2? Canada in the sphere of the axis? The Ottomans are stil around? Parts of Kenia and the Central-African Republic, as well as Ghana and the Gambia are also under Axis control? And all that while the USSR seemed to have annexed Mongolia and Northern China? That is quite an interesting alternate timeline. Just a tiny teeny bit nitpicking here from a map-enthusiast. The rest of the documentary is just awesome as always! Also, Yellow Submarine.
“And we lived beneath the waves, in our yellow submarine.” Always been a fan of the 10+ minute/long form content. Ive been really enjoying the escape velocity channel as well, top notch content as always.
Not only is the shallowness an issue, the cost-effectiveness is still a problem. It's way cheaper to just hire half a dozen rednecks and give them rifles, just their presence will probably deter any pirates. Pirates are people too, they don't want to get shot so they'll wait for a softer target to come along.
Requesting videos on the following: -switchblade aircraft designs such as the FA-37 Talon from the ‘05 movie “Stealth” or the X-02 Wyvern from the Ace Combat franchise -Super Tomcat-21 and ASF-14 -the NATF program as a whole -early ATF proposals -Sea Apache -F-20 Tigershark -Bae SABA -Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Technology Bomber proposal
I think all are great suggestions. Though I don't think the FA-37 or the X-02/X-02S would have its videos on this channel. All the planes ever posted on this channel were either put into production, were test beds, or were put down as concepts. (With a few theorized secret projects.) The only fictional plane I think has a chance in getting in would probably be the Darkstar and only because an actual aviation company got involved with its creation and China got caught lacking trying to spy on it.
@@grisom5863 the F/A-37 and X-02 were inspired by a real proposed design. I don't think it made it far past the concept stage as modeling showed that it would be difficult to get the balance right to make the airplane work, which combined with the already known issues involved with swing-wing designs and reverse swept wings that already existed convinced them that it wouldn't be worth developing given the limits of modern technology.
The only cargo submarines in use nowadays are the ones in the various Carrier Command computer games. The Supply Barque that brings cargo to your carrier is a fully-automated submarine with mechanical offloading. You know what would be neat? An iceberg cruise ship. 90% underwater, with superstrong windows for viewing the marine life.
Theres also tge issue of weight. Cargo ships are very bouyant and why should they be? Any extra bouyancy is just more cargo they can load. But submarines need to be buoyancy neutral to not rise or sink. This is difficult to achieve as is, not even factoring in wildly varying weights due to cargo
Nick just mispelled/mispronounced Corregidor Island as "Corridor Island", just as he mispelled Nimitz as "Nizmit" in the submarine aircraft carrier video years ago!!! The cargo tanker submarine was envisioned in the classic Frank Herbert's first novel "The Dragon In The Sea" (alternatively titled "Under Pressure") before he moved on writing the now-popular Dune novels.
I must say, cargo submarines actually sound like an interesting concept to me to put it short. 😀 And I'm also just waiting patiently for the remake of Boeing's New Large Airplane concept video, and the new video on British Airways mega triple decker concept from 1992. 😉
Imagining a world with cruise ship sized cargo subs gives me some ideas for a sci-fi, alternate history movie. This channel does not cease to surprise me with new additions to my list. And yes, I have a list of these historical oddities. For a far future project. Would appreciate suggestions.
Submarine tankers were seriously considered as an alternative to the Alaska Pipeline. Also, Frank Herbert wrote a story about undersea "tug subs" that pulled oil around in gigantic blimp-like bags.
They would certainly make sense for things that meet all the criteria of: 1. Needs to be shipped strait across the arctic. 2. Urgent enough that shipping by boat arround the arctic would be too slow. 3. Too heavy or fragile to be shipped by plane. 4. Valuble enough to justify high costs of shipping. And once you've narrowed down the shipping market based on these filters you're left with... nothing. ... And the rare case when there is something like this, the shipment is nowhere near frequently enough that anyone suggests investing a new mode of transport. Bummer.
The stated downsides of a yellow submarine are mitigated somewhat. The design only needs to be strong enough for about 30meters to get under the wave effected zone, maybe a bit deeper for Ice caps but that is optional. Then the displace volume is higher, but the hull is not subjected to the complications and inefficiencies of the surface air interface, while submergered there is no bow wave for example. And if bobing around on the surface the tube is much stronger in torsion than an open top ship which is a major weakness in most large cargo ships when caught in large wave conditions.
Um... Love your videos! Can you do next about the intercontinental railway that should connect US, Russia, Canada and China? It looks interesting to me.
@@seasonofthewatchers1010 it is, China has begun construction, there is a video about it already, but that might be bright side, real engineering pr one of the other UA-camrs if its not found and explained
Bro I've seen you develop as a channel. I want to remind you that a great video is worth five normal videos. So don't think you need to post every week.
Subs are still heavily affected by weather though, and are greatly affected by rough seas. They are really only useful for military application, smuggling, and smaller ones are used for marine research. They are not really viable for much else.
5:59 the path shown is incorrect. A direct route between western Europe and northern Canada would not travel along the coast of the Soviet Union. First, a direct route across the Atlantic is much shorter. Second, even if the Atlantic was compromised it would be much shorter to travel towards the pole and westward than east along the Soviet coast. Check your globe instead of a 2-D map projection.
In the town where I was born Lived a man who sailed to sea And he told us of his life In the land of submarines So we sailed on to the sun 'Til we found a sea of green And we lived beneath the waves In our yellow submarine We all live in a yellow submarine Yellow submarine, yellow submarine We all live in a yellow submarine Yellow submarine, yellow submarine And our friends are all aboard Many more of them live next door And the band begins to play We all live in a yellow submarine Yellow submarine, yellow submarine We all live in a yellow submarine Yellow submarine, yellow submarine Full steam ahead, Mister Boatswain, full steam ahead Full steam ahead it is, Sergeant (Cut the cable, drop the cable) Aye-aye, sir, aye-aye Captain, captain As we live a life of ease (a life of ease) Every one of us (every one of us) Has all we need (has all we need) Sky of blue (sky of blue) And sea of green (sea of green) In our yellow (in our yellow) Submarine (submarine, aha) We all live in a yellow submarine A yellow submarine, yellow submarine We all live in a yellow submarine A yellow submarine, yellow submarine We all live in a yellow submarine Yellow submarine, yellow submarine We all live in a yellow submarine Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
They do have one potential outside of military application. They'd be extremelly useful for nations that face sanctions. Following movements of submarines from port to port underwater would be extremelly hard even today.
the presented problem of ballast tanks, does not make sense to me. If the sub gets loaded up with lots of cargo. It is much heavier and would not need very large ballast tanks to get it under water. It would likely be designed with 2-3 storage areas that could work for storage or ballast tanks as needed.
2:30 Wrong Barracuda sub. The submarine you are talking about is SS-163. While the one in the photo graph is SS-550 which was launched in 1951. Six years after WWII.
They could build semi-subs that can be even BIGGER than normal cargo ships, as they can hold more cargo under the water as well as on top. If I understand it, a cargo ship sinks from bad weather almost every month, that sounds really expensive failure, not what you want for a yellow submarine either.
Never heard of a Corridor island in the Philippines. There is a Corregidor island though. Name roughly translates to what "customs" is today. The Spanish used the island as a customs checkpoint for the bay that led to the capitol of the then colony. The US then used the island as a military base. General Douglas McArthur was quartered there before he was evacuated by submarine. His "I shall return" speech was done in that fortress island.
Well my first thought is that it's ineffecient, due to being completely submerged under water makes the resistance way higher, than being partially submerged under water, like a ship is... Let's see if this video tells me any different
To improve Japanese Armour capacity in WWII to counter American Shermans, the Japanese brought a Tiger Tank from Germany, which was disassembled into parts and transport via Sub.
we all live in a "yellow Submarine", at least we might if the sea levels rise by worst case scenario. and the Narco sub's are actually inspiring the DoD in regards to scout/sensor or limpet/midget designs
8:12 probably the aerial weaponry - right 🧐4:01… I’d argue no shore leave instead. For 800 tons 🤔…. maybe no longer than 8 mins at port… & a heavy security force. & no use outside shipping lanes. ⚓️ There are no reason to not have them; “aerial weaponry” if things sour. It’s the undeveloped ports & canals I’m sure it’s showing a lot of faith & the argument. It leaves who’s now eligible to operate weapons which shouldn’t be thee innovative concept ☢️ Also engineering aspect a lesser lifespan ☢️ for routes that may be stuck in canals. My two cents 😇 7:02 what a beautiful machine ⚓️🤩 … There should be a submarine one ☝️ 🇺🇸
Pretty sure the conversation would be like this; "Hey guys, lets make a CARGO Submarine! Wouldn't that be cool!" "Yea, it would be, but you're taking the water resistance/drag of the water that a ship deals with and putting it over the ENTIRE vessel. And also requiring a sealed, pressurised vessel that can't even be anywhere near the size of a surface vessel... So because this is literally worse in every way, then NO. A cool dream, but just NO."
Honestly though, I'm surprised I haven seen something like this in some comics or sci-fi work, because the idea is really cool, specially considering how often bases in space or stuff like Marvel's Helicarriers appear. Then again I guess Marvel and DC have Underwater people with Namor and Aquaman, which restrict this idea a fair bit. Yellow submarine.
I don’t know if you came across this or not, but the axis also used submarines to exchange classified scientific stuff and information between Germany and Japan.
How about the stealth USS independence into luxurious super yacht, or every yacht conversion projects, like some cargo ships, and 70s frigate into yacht?
The cost to time savings just doesn't work out, and when you're shipping by sea volume and cost are much higher priorities than transit time. The only real legitimate use for a cargo sub is the delivery of supplies to units operating behind enemy lines in a military conflict.
Small islands cannot compete in world trade as they do not have the container infrastructure but a trainsub could swap trains quickly and what I have in mind is a 1 km long submarine that would float like a log avoiding most of the surface whether. I think it could carry more freight due to the fact it would have no heavy superstructure.
Cool topic and visuals, seems well researched and was edited amazingly. However, one slight naggle that threw me off was the rather egregious mixup on the pronunciation of Manila Bay @2:03 ... never been remotely near there myself but I know when pronounced properly Manila normally rhymes with vanilla, so its MAN-ila not MAL-ina Bay. You were off by two letters, not sure how you managed to do that. One letter mixups could easily be forgiven but homie butchered it in this one. You might actually be dysexlic m8. (see what I did there?) Sorry if I am coming off as a grammar Nazi I just wanted to point that bit out for others watching this : )
They’re very popular for drug smuggling.
We need an episode on all the kinds of ‘narco subs’. HI Sutton has done an amazing episode about it.
Shiiiii you're right
But smugglers dont use submarines, rather semi submersibles. They are never completely under the water.
@@jeffreyinvestment6932 Give it time. Those drug smugglers could use semi-submersible vehicles with snorkels. Nothing is off the table with them.
Yup
I knew the economics of a cargo submarine would be pretty bad
But the concept is so fun and interesting, and probably so useful in its niches that I want to see one. Even if its only like 1 giant sub, it would just be fascinating to see.
Might be good in war who knows
Like the Antonov 225
At least, at first glance and only at the surface. Once subsurface colonies start poping up, then the calculus changes completely.
if i was a dictator, id have an economic "nudge" ready in my wallet at all sensible and feasible times. if your project is 95% of the way there id exchange some funding for general running data and records of techniques. youd be surprised how much knowledge a society forgets through the death of individuals. the engines that went to the moon for example. we dont know what the designers did because they forgot after 30 years or died. we cant make them again, we have to start from scratch (they were huge, you cant just scale up todays tech, it would melt without the ingenious fuel cooling).
not the same thing but you might want to research what we know about narco subs
The Germans transported a few items to Japan during WW2 by submarine. They also failed to transport some items because two of the subs were sunk. I gotta say that I do find it surprising that they didn't carry through on plans to obtain industrially important metals by submarine. They had plans to get them from South America, and IIRC they actually bought some of the metals. The metals were needed in relatively small amounts, and a submarine would have been practical. Of course, with the cracking of the enigma codes, the Allies would probably have gotten the details and stopped it. I think that was how the subs bound for Japan were sunk.
Ultimately, cargo submarines are only useful in desperation, and unlikely to effect the outcome of a war. But I would bet the nurses evacuated from "Corridor" Island (Corregidor) were grateful for the use of regular subs as passenger subs. Can't help but wonder how many cargo subs would have been needed to maintain the forces on the Bataan peninsula. Losses would have been very high from IJN anti-submarine action.
They did try transporting mercury... Frankly its absurdly expensive to ship by submarine.
At the time, IJN anti-sub measures were mediocre - but the bigger problem would have been the unloading time (aside from the issues of lack of cargo subs and distance they needed to travel to secure bases with needed supplies). There were no naval bases on the Bataan peninsula, and few piers or sheltered coves, so it would have to be done off a beach or small cove, probably at night, with the threat of IJN destroyer or patrol boat interference. The Germans had a similar problem trying to supply Stalingrad by air after it was cut off, and their supply bases were much closer, and they had dozens of transport planes. Thousands of tons of supplies were needed, but they fell short.
I believe they did have a specific sub for cargo and used it many times. Imagine if someone could find the subs carrying special weapons and blue prints that the nazi's sent to Japan. God knows what we would find
Antarctica
@@brianredban9393 This site lists 5 Japanese and 5 German trade subs, all done by different subs:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanagi_missions
That thumbnail brought back so many memories as a kid. There was this book I loved growing up that had all these 1950s to 1980s ideas of what the future would have and the picture of the cargo sub in the Thumbnail was one in the series of the Cargosub's entry.
Popular Science is what came to my mind. They just filed Chapter 11 recently 🥺.
Happen to have a name of those books?
I remember brian cox talking about his once and god how i wish i had the name cus they seem to be a very interesting read of what the world would be like if they arms race of ever evolving tech had kept up longer than it did.
John Berkey books I know that much @@brentonherbert7775
While there may theoretically be applications for bypassing ice, the increased submaritime traffic could increase global tension. Especially that idea of retrofitting Typhoon class subs. First objective is to make them a lot more observable so there aren't collisions or allegations of using civilian* vessels for surveillance or other geopolitical gambits.
Ah yes, humans BS
We should probably make proper civilian submarines
Since modern military subs spends the majority of their time submerged, making them more visible wouldn't serve any useful purpose exit when transiting to and from port. In order to make a sub more noticeable in a practical manner, you don't make them more visible, you make them noisier since subs operating at their cruising depths are most often detected by the noise they make. So, as a result, military sub designers do what they can to make the sub as quiet as possible. Of course, that can be easily overcome by requiring all transport subs to have some of constantly transmitting noise maker built into them to act as a sort of audio warning beacon. But the problem with making subs noisier is that for it to work surface ships would all have to be fitted with some sort of passive sonar system to pick up the noise maker of these subs, something that civilian ships aren't generally equipped with.And water temperature and salinity would affect any the signal being produced by a noise maker and could maks it. It could be made electronic, but from I understand, electronic signals don't propagate very well through water, at least no radio signals. So depending on how deep these subs would travel, any sort of electronic transponder would largely useless.
That WWI German sub actually made at least one run and delivered a load of mail from Germany to US. The postmarks are very collectible
Deutschland made two complete cargo trips (and was later converted into U 155), Bremen vanished on the westward part of its first voyage.
As a commercial diver, the deep ocean is scary enough sometimes. Only been in one sub. Props to the sub guys, they’re very brave.
A correction: The German WW1 cargo submarines were not U-Boats (i.e. combat submarines) with the torpedo tubes removed. They were purpose-built as cargo vessels.
It was in fact the other way 'round. After the souring of relations with the US and its entry into the war, the cargo submarines, freshly out of a purpose, were converted to combat submarines. Specifically, their large size and impressive endurance were taken advantage of to convert them into the first long-range "cruiser" type submarines, intended to operate as far as the US East coast.
So the Germans built a cargo submarine that could easily be retrofitted into a ship of war, how interesting.
if you refer to them in german they actually are because submarine translates to u-boat (Untersee-Boot). So it is (as often) not entierely right but not entierely wrong.
U-boat is an anglicized version of u-boot or untersee boot (Under the sea boat). Anything that submersed was a u-boat
Imagine correcting and still being wrong lmao
@@laurencehoffelder1579
You missed the point of what I wrote and/or did not pay attention to the context of the false statement about "... torpedoes removed" in the video.
We all live in a yellow submarine,yellow submarine,yellow submarine.
I think there are some niches - namely cargo that's low volume and heavy, or going places with a lot of storm activity - where the concept still makes some sense.
yellow submarine
submarines may not work economicly but what about semi submersibles?
Toys!
they work economically for smuggling drugs! narcosubs are semi-submersibles.
That just sounds like a boat, but with extra steps
@@Not_Sure-i6o Wait til you hear about hydroplanes and ground effect vehicles
narco subs
Barracuda class submarines were not cargo carriers. They were smaller and slower than the traditional fleet boats used by the US Navy during WWII, and were intended specifically to hunt other submarines using newly developed sonar and guided torpedoes (the conspicuous bulge on top of the bow that looks like a shorter second conning tower is a housing for sonar). They didn't work very well for that either, and were taken out of service relatively quickly.
Yellow Submarine
I think during the current situation in Ukraine, the ability to do cargo or even personnel under the sea would be very useful.
To send billions more dollars that will never be accounted for? And risk a nuclear war with Russia? No thanks.
Easier still to just have trains and road vehicles take people through Poland to the border with Ukraine. There are hundreds of km of border they can go through with road and rail vehicles.
The bigger problem is the Bosphorus Straits, which Turkey controls, getting into the Black Sea.
@@gregorywright4918 Indeed it is the bigger problem. They would have to either run on the surface there or risk so many collisions that it would be scary. Besides I expect the USSR installed detection gear there to watch for this very thing. Maybe it still works. No sense taking the risk. I see cargo submarines as an expensive solution looking for a problem.
Why bother when you can use a conventional ship to send your goods to a European port and then send them by rail. Also, mines are a thing.
Correction 2:07 it is corregidor island not corridor island. Corregidor came from the spanish word corregir meaning to correct. Corregidor island means the corrector's island as it was used by the spanish in their customs sytem where ships entering manila would need to stop at corregidor to have documents check and "corrected".
i can only imagine how much of a pain a cargo sub would be to get though straits channels or canals or how few harbors would be deep enough for a large cargo sub to dock at.
back in the diesel electric days they would mostly travel above water like any ship until a plane was spotted or another ship so then they would dive for up to a day at a time. the co2 would build up and they would have to surface or the crew would die.. but what im saying is that they would make it work and or its just like any other cargo ship.
@@thothheartmaat2833 did you reply under the wrong comment friend?
i mean it can get through any channel just like any other ship.. @@leojohn1615
Actually, the real reason why there is no cargo subs and there will never be (at industrial scale I mean) is because of physics. A submarine needs to have the same average density as the seawater it is sailing in (1.026). Cargo in a container has a much lower density (remember: containers float). So a cargo submarine would need a huge amount of fixed ballast (typically lead) to keep it underwater and prevent the submarine to float. To get an idea, look at a filled container ship and imagine how much lead ballast you would need to add to drown the ship. That's the amount you will physically need to put in a submarine of the same size. No wonder it doesn't exist and never will.
The submarine becomes the "container" at that point. If a stripped out decomissioned war sub with all its weapons/ammunition/weapons systems removed and the weight of cargo replaced it what the difference? Yeah the balance may be an issue but i digress
@@drivewaystar6485 The point is, you need to be able to surface and dive, which means you need enough capacity in the ballasts to do both. But the main reason is it takes more energy to move a craft underwater than it does to move it on water. That's the main issue. It's simply more energy efficient.
@@peoplez129 Yeah? I agree it's not energy efficient. I thought we were talking about buoyancy.
Tell the drug smugglers that fact . they use them all the time.
Counterargument: The things inside the containers could be very expensive to cover by insurance, very, VERY heavy to bring it via plane and too delicate to risk via normal ships, like, example: Precision Heavy Lathes, Heavy duty CNCs, Robotic Arms or robots in general, PLCs, Chip lithography machines, telescopes, satellites, rocket parts and so on.
I may not be the best English speaker (I'm Argentine), but even so, this is one of the best channels of information and unfinished projects I've come across.
Thanks to you I have learned a lot and I have been equally depressed by what humanity could have achieved. Thank you very much.
If it's misspelled, I'm sorry, I don't write much in English.
That was better written than most of my local American friends can do. Don't sell yourself short.
don't hesitate to write, each attempt is a practice for you
LONG LIVE THE UK AND THE FALKLAND ISLANDS! They are not yours!!!
@@Eidolon1andOnly Except, ironically, his nationality. He is Argentinian, not Argentine.
Your comment is well written your centiment is however wrong, this channel constantly makes mistakes and acts like the stuff they talk about was possible. When most were not, he also gets historical facts wrong, i.e. in this video he claimed Lend lease said Russia and Britain but it occurred after the battle of Britain and after Russia defeated German at Moscow. There two events meant neither country would be able to be taken and lend lease happened afterwards.
Well, sure, having them as a regular thing would not make much sense. But, just like we don't see much nuclear icebreakers, I think there are a few special cases where a nuclear cargo sub could make sense even if it is not as profitable as large cargo ships. In a few special shipping lanes, where you have to supply a coastal town or a base. It can double as a portable reactor in case there are problems with power supply.
Countries like Russia, Canada, USA having one or two of those special purpose vessels - makes sense. They would have their regular shipping lanes above the arctic circle and have more than one simple task. When ever it is more beneficial to go under ice than over it, use it as a supply vessel. Otherwise, as a mobile power plant, science vessel, underwater construction crew... and why not, a tourist version?
The cost of developing and building a very limited number of those subs would put the price per unit extremely high - but on the other hand, in the rare cases that you'd actually need a vessel like that, it could prove highly valuable indeed. Countries are not strangers to investing a lot to develop a highly specialized piece of gear that might not be commercial success, but still fulfills the critical role. There are some areas where cost is not really an issue, where you simply need to get something done.
For example, some city in northern Alaska, or Siberia, gets hit by a storm, low on supplies, planes can't get to it, icebreakers ships not available or fast enough... you just load up your sub and send it as fast as possible under the ice to its destination to provide fresh supplies and attack its reactor output to the local power supply. Or, load up the entire science mission on it that can be housed inside its massive hull and be more mobile than the ship.
Again, sub like that would not be something you'd find a need for in massive numbers, but a few for the biggest countries that can foot the bill - why not. Maybe even a joint development and have it serve as a quick response unit in time of need while paying itself off slowly over time with some basic commercial work.
Your facts are correct 🌠
If you create a design and tell the us government that they might just make you rich.
Well if you wanna see an ice breaker or many of them go to russia they have rhe biggest and most capable fleet on the planet and they look rather nice. They recently launched a new nuclear powered one.
And ehen it comes to special vessels yet again the russians are involved with the floating nuclear power plant which can easily provide electricity to basiclay any nationwith a coastline on the planet
The USS Jimmy Carter could possibly just be repurposed in such an emergency… The 100 foot multimission section would be perfect!
@@fistofglory9304 Yes, they could do that as well, but in a pinch, any submarine US has would be able to do that. Problems with evacuation is that they usually don't happen in ports with deep enough a dock. In other words, there are not that many out there deep enough that would allow for a submarine to dock. That severely limits their use as an evac vessels.
They could stop off shore and send in the boats, but if the weather does not allow the regular ship to come to the rescue, boats from the sub would have an ever worse time doing that.
So yeah, in principle, they CAN add evacuation for certain places as their job (which is already highly situational), but honestly, that particular thing might never be needed in the lifetime of a sub, given how rare an occasion like that is.
I'm glad you found and explained these concepts to us
Why would you burn the fuel to push 2,000,000 lbs of water displacement underwater when you could do it on the surface for 1/3 the cost?
About the design: I don't think you'd want the bridge windshield to act as a bumper when surfacing.
How about a passenger submarine? We could live beneath the waves in a yellow submarine while visiting shipwrecks and seeing fish. We could have our friends aboard too, and a band that can play.
Apparently there are submarine yachts. I saw a picture of one once, unless it's bogus.
There are some operators you can book submarine tours with, but they are few and far between and quite expensive I understand.
Many of the shipwrecks people would want to see are most likely a mass grave and should be left alone anyway. While there is/was a small market for people to see the Titanic, Robert Ballard apparently resents never actually laying a claim to the wreck as he could have under maritime law. He sees the scavenging for artifacts and damage done by the tours as disrespectful to the fact that nearly 2000 people died in the disaster. There would then be people who would want to go see other famous warship wrecks but those again are War Graves and should be left alone. It's a shame that so many in the pacific have been plundered for scrap metal. Other than the ethical concerns, there's the fact that diving to such extremes means you have to have one hell of a submarine, and then this simply becomes an exclusive thing for the super rich, and well I don't think those people should be allowed anywhere near something as hallowed as a fallen warship. Save of course for the one who had been funding the searches for missing warships. His funding would eventually lead to the recovery of HMS Hood's bell.
@@airplanenut89 Look no further than the Titan fiasco for reasons why visiting the Titanic - or any other shipwreck for that matter - for fun is a bad idea.
@@MrJakeros Lol, comment appears to have aged like a fine wine.
I think you mean 'Corregidor' island, not corridor island.
Ig he doesn't read comments
Also he said "malina" not "manila", and he said "normal type" instead of "norilsk type", and he didn't say "dollars" when talking about how much they cost
Oh Malina, come to the corridor, I'm just a normal type
Great video. I was a submarine SONAR technician for 20 years and can see other problems with this idea as well. Radar does not work underwater. So essentially you are driving in an invisible car down the highway. You can see others with SONAR but they can not see you. Even if you are deep hydrodynamic forces from a large vessel passing overhead can create a suction force and cause the sub to collide with the passing vessel. We had to train extensively on safe navigation through shipping and fishing areas and it requires a proficient well trained crew. Not to mention when things go wrong on a submarine it can be far more dangerous than a surface ship.
Um... What is that building in centre at 05:29??? I've been searching for it and I can't find it. Was this a still from a film, so the building is fictional???
An interesting point that isn't really touched on is durability & safety. I'm not a huge fan of militaries, but in peacetime, I'd probably feel rather safe on a navy sub. They have large crews trained to handle any sort of breakdown (not just mechanical breakdowns, but things like partial hull failures as well), and navy ships are generally overbuilt so that they can get through actual combat and still make it back to base.
By contrast, cargo ships...don't really have that level of safety. They're not maintained as well, as evidenced by a few of them actually just breaking up from hull fatigue. Their crews are much smaller, and much less extensively trained (except for navy vets in the merchant marine), and they have a particular constraint that tends to kill people: profit. I don't just mean that commercial ships have to be profitable to continue to operate, but that so many companies cut corners and sacrifice safety in the interest of profit.
No submarine is designed to survive combat. A single hit on a submarine is basically game over. They aren't even largely meant for direct combat, but rather, for things like recon, a mobile weapons platform for sending missiles at far away targets, and defense of a fleet from other subs.
Yellow submarine - was going to say it’s not cost effective :-)
There's also the problem of identification.
Cargo subs would have to be broadcasting their position at all times with sonar.
Military subs would then be able to easily track them and might mistake them for a military sub.
You could also broadcast identification with systems on board like transponders (similar to airplanes) but then you have to worry about mounting them on military subs and have rules, and it becomes super complex and that discourages people from doing it.
I feel like all those problems can be easily fixed
@@ericekmoreau assuming Russia sticks to it.
Well I'm theory all you would have to do is publish the acoustic profile of your subs and anyone will be able to track your subs. And unless a military makes a precise clone of you vessels it would be distinguishable from military subs.
That's not to mention that you are designing for cargo capacity and not stealth.
@@JIKwood Lol, russia bad
@@JIKwood Not bring Russia to a remotely unrelated topic challenge (impossible)
I can think of a somewhat useful legal use for a cargo submarine: Pirate attacks on cargo ships have been rather high lately, and while a convoy or something similar would probably be more economical, transport submarines could do a job solo if needed.
Its not hard to make explosives sink and sonar is cheap.
Pirates would have a feast with submarines ...
the explanation about why subs are less efficient due to displacement is wrong. it's because the surface ship displaces an amount of water equal to the weight of the cargo, whereas the sub must displace water equal to its entire volume - the cargo is generally less dense than water. the only thing this might make sense for us transporting liquids (like oil)
Just a correction. It's "Corregidor Island"
I suspect this concept will see a resurgence/revival in the near future
A _resurfacing_ if you will
How and why?
doubtful, extrenely unlikely...and I actually have some reasoning behind my comment. A) What would be the place/need for specifically go underneath ice or an enemy fleet? Drugs? Well, that is the only actual use of submarine transports.
B) Only drugs are the commodity valuable enough to make economic sense to use something as expensive as a submarine transporter. Anything legal, that does not need to be hidden, is way cheaper to transport conventionally, even through ice.
C) It is still risky! Navigating a submarine through the water is not something to be done lightly. It still is very dangerous. Too dangerous for commercial use.
@@ANDREALEONE95 Mainly for military use. For supplying island defenses. If you know, you know.
@@Raussl Supplying isolated military outposts is a legitimate use.
US submariner here! although a very interesting concept, large submarines such as the Ohio Class are an insane logistical nightmare to man. Training personnel to crew these ships takes a significant amount of time. There are many jobs such Navigation Electricians, Sonar Techs, Machinist mates (mechanics), and all the Nukes(nuclear personnel) back aft that are essential to running a UNDERWATER NUCLEAR REACTOR. you have to trust these people with your life 100% while underway and I don't believe there are a lot of civilians that specialize in firefighting, damage control, escape training, the job they signed up for, and know everybody elses job so in the event of a casualty you can take over for that person. Great video tho !
You mean to tell me that modern merchant ships or burnt to a crisp because no one there is trained on how to fight fires?
In the 80s, pop mech had a cover story related to giant oil tanker subs that were very cool looking. I immediately built a large model of one out of legos.
What if it were smaller scale? Like a single cargo container. Perhaps for short distances, or to small islands.
Would it be possible to have them in a train like set up?
Yeah it very much would be posible but if anything submarine transports would be better in a war time setting then peace unless it's to basically a underwater base cause then like only way they'd get supplys would also be a little safer then normal cargo ships cause seas get bad underwater the thing goes it will still get affected but depending on depth it goes it will be much better then on surface but considering how company's already have like a single engine running at all times on cargo ships i wouldn't be surpised if alot of lost cargo stuff happens if we do do submarine cargo runs
Yeah, but why use a submarine for that at all instead of a truck, small boat, train or even aircraft?
That map at 1:04 looks...very intersting? First you mentioned this was a concept first from WW 1, yet the map shows a kind of alternate universe map from WW 2? Canada in the sphere of the axis? The Ottomans are stil around? Parts of Kenia and the Central-African Republic, as well as Ghana and the Gambia are also under Axis control? And all that while the USSR seemed to have annexed Mongolia and Northern China? That is quite an interesting alternate timeline.
Just a tiny teeny bit nitpicking here from a map-enthusiast. The rest of the documentary is just awesome as always!
Also, Yellow Submarine.
“And we lived beneath the waves, in our yellow submarine.” Always been a fan of the 10+ minute/long form content. Ive been really enjoying the escape velocity channel as well, top notch content as always.
Cargo submarines could still be useful to avoid pirates in places like the Strait of Malacca.
too shallow to do that, the shortest part of Malacca strait is only couple kilometers away, the average depth is only 25 meter
Well the drug cartels in America have found use with semi-submersible cargo Submarines.
ya
Not only is the shallowness an issue, the cost-effectiveness is still a problem. It's way cheaper to just hire half a dozen rednecks and give them rifles, just their presence will probably deter any pirates. Pirates are people too, they don't want to get shot so they'll wait for a softer target to come along.
you could just hire an armed escort ship or arm the cargo ship itself & hire security for a fraction of a fraction of the price of a cargo sub
Honestly with all the resent pirate attacks, highjackings, and hostage situations, with cargo ships, this doesn't look like such a bad idea anymore
The Barracuda class submarine shown in the video is the post-WWII SSK version, a class of three boats, not the WWII-era boat.
Requesting videos on the following:
-switchblade aircraft designs such as the FA-37 Talon from the ‘05 movie “Stealth” or the X-02 Wyvern from the Ace Combat franchise
-Super Tomcat-21 and ASF-14
-the NATF program as a whole
-early ATF proposals
-Sea Apache
-F-20 Tigershark
-Bae SABA
-Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Technology Bomber proposal
I think all are great suggestions. Though I don't think the FA-37 or the X-02/X-02S would have its videos on this channel. All the planes ever posted on this channel were either put into production, were test beds, or were put down as concepts. (With a few theorized secret projects.)
The only fictional plane I think has a chance in getting in would probably be the Darkstar and only because an actual aviation company got involved with its creation and China got caught lacking trying to spy on it.
@@grisom5863 I’m requesting the concept of the switchblade as REPRESENTED by those two fictional aircraft, NOT the aircraft themselves
@@grisom5863 the F/A-37 and X-02 were inspired by a real proposed design. I don't think it made it far past the concept stage as modeling showed that it would be difficult to get the balance right to make the airplane work, which combined with the already known issues involved with swing-wing designs and reverse swept wings that already existed convinced them that it wouldn't be worth developing given the limits of modern technology.
The only cargo submarines in use nowadays are the ones in the various Carrier Command computer games. The Supply Barque that brings cargo to your carrier is a fully-automated submarine with mechanical offloading.
You know what would be neat? An iceberg cruise ship. 90% underwater, with superstrong windows for viewing the marine life.
*Project Habakkuk intensifies*
Why tf hast the model of the Submarine a Toyota watermark?
Car transport from Japan
Theres also tge issue of weight. Cargo ships are very bouyant and why should they be? Any extra bouyancy is just more cargo they can load. But submarines need to be buoyancy neutral to not rise or sink. This is difficult to achieve as is, not even factoring in wildly varying weights due to cargo
Do you have a free version of the cargo sub model? I'd love to use it as a base for a custom spacecraft model.
Nick just mispelled/mispronounced Corregidor Island as "Corridor Island", just as he mispelled Nimitz as "Nizmit" in the submarine aircraft carrier video years ago!!! The cargo tanker submarine was envisioned in the classic Frank Herbert's first novel "The Dragon In The Sea" (alternatively titled "Under Pressure") before he moved on writing the now-popular Dune novels.
I must say, cargo submarines actually sound like an interesting concept to me to put it short. 😀 And I'm also just waiting patiently for the remake of Boeing's New Large Airplane concept video, and the new video on British Airways mega triple decker concept from 1992. 😉
You should watch the 90s show SeaQuest. It's awesome. Star Trek: Next Generation under the sea.
Imagining a world with cruise ship sized cargo subs gives me some ideas for a sci-fi, alternate history movie. This channel does not cease to surprise me with new additions to my list.
And yes, I have a list of these historical oddities. For a far future project. Would appreciate suggestions.
Seaquest DSV was a popular scify show in the early 90's
@@gryph01 Cool, but I'm looking for IRL oddities.
@@Chris-ok4zo then actual cruise lines would have real competition.
Submarine tankers were seriously considered as an alternative to the Alaska Pipeline. Also, Frank Herbert wrote a story about undersea "tug subs" that pulled oil around in gigantic blimp-like bags.
They would certainly make sense for things that meet all the criteria of:
1. Needs to be shipped strait across the arctic.
2. Urgent enough that shipping by boat arround the arctic would be too slow.
3. Too heavy or fragile to be shipped by plane.
4. Valuble enough to justify high costs of shipping.
And once you've narrowed down the shipping market based on these filters you're left with... nothing.
... And the rare case when there is something like this, the shipment is nowhere near frequently enough that anyone suggests investing a new mode of transport.
Bummer.
The stated downsides of a yellow submarine are mitigated somewhat.
The design only needs to be strong enough for about 30meters to get under the wave effected zone, maybe a bit deeper for Ice caps but that is optional. Then the displace volume is higher, but the hull is not subjected to the complications and inefficiencies of the surface air interface, while submergered there is no bow wave for example. And if bobing around on the surface the tube is much stronger in torsion than an open top ship which is a major weakness in most large cargo ships when caught in large wave conditions.
Um... Love your videos! Can you do next about the intercontinental railway that should connect US, Russia, Canada and China? It looks interesting to me.
Wow! I'd not heard about such a thing. Is that in the works? Thanks, this is a very interesting comment.
@@seasonofthewatchers1010 it is, China has begun construction, there is a video about it already, but that might be bright side, real engineering pr one of the other UA-camrs if its not found and explained
@@elementalgolem5498
Thank you!
Bro I've seen you develop as a channel.
I want to remind you that a great video is worth five normal videos. So don't think you need to post every week.
Subs are still heavily affected by weather though, and are greatly affected by rough seas. They are really only useful for military application, smuggling, and smaller ones are used for marine research. They are not really viable for much else.
5:59 the path shown is incorrect. A direct route between western Europe and northern Canada would not travel along the coast of the Soviet Union. First, a direct route across the Atlantic is much shorter. Second, even if the Atlantic was compromised it would be much shorter to travel towards the pole and westward than east along the Soviet coast. Check your globe instead of a 2-D map projection.
A cargo submarine to carry
ten million, but at what cost?
Crisp white sheets!
Yellow Submarine
In the town where I was born
Lived a man who sailed to sea
And he told us of his life
In the land of submarines
So we sailed on to the sun
'Til we found a sea of green
And we lived beneath the waves
In our yellow submarine
We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
And our friends are all aboard
Many more of them live next door
And the band begins to play
We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
Full steam ahead, Mister Boatswain, full steam ahead
Full steam ahead it is, Sergeant
(Cut the cable, drop the cable)
Aye-aye, sir, aye-aye
Captain, captain
As we live a life of ease (a life of ease)
Every one of us (every one of us)
Has all we need (has all we need)
Sky of blue (sky of blue)
And sea of green (sea of green)
In our yellow (in our yellow)
Submarine (submarine, aha)
We all live in a yellow submarine
A yellow submarine, yellow submarine
We all live in a yellow submarine
A yellow submarine, yellow submarine
We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
We all live in a yellow submarine
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
I think there is an error at 2:03 the name of the island is actually Corregidor Island.
Years ago on Tomorrow's World an idea for a spherical submarine was put forward. The submarine was intended to spin which somehow reduced drag.
They did a bit about the"Roller Boats" on ConeofArc. Look it up. Abject Failure. Think they did one on circular ships too.
They do have one potential outside of military application. They'd be extremelly useful for nations that face sanctions. Following movements of submarines from port to port underwater would be extremelly hard even today.
Yellow submarine.
5:40 is my favorite part
9:20 wow, truly remarkable.... Amazing how far we've come as a society and the knowledge we possess as a species
2:03 I think that "Corridor Island" in Manila Bay was actually "Corregidor Island".
the presented problem of ballast tanks, does not make sense to me. If the sub gets loaded up with lots of cargo. It is much heavier and would not need very large ballast tanks to get it under water. It would likely be designed with 2-3 storage areas that could work for storage or ballast tanks as needed.
But why? I don't think anyone has ever thought of a cargo submarine as a ligament way to transport cargo. They are slower and serve no purpose.
There is a huge need to bring small islands into the would economy with a trainsub that floats like a log and swaps trains in one hour.
7:11 What kind of propulsion system is that?
Jet propulsion
2:30 Wrong Barracuda sub. The submarine you are talking about is SS-163. While the one in the photo graph is SS-550 which was launched in 1951. Six years after WWII.
10:14 Not to worry, ice melting in a body of water does not raise the level. Try it for yourself with a cup
They could build semi-subs that can be even BIGGER than normal cargo ships, as they can hold more cargo under the water as well as on top. If I understand it, a cargo ship sinks from bad weather almost every month, that sounds really expensive failure, not what you want for a yellow submarine either.
Luckely submarines aren't just used in wars, like the 'yellow submarines' that are used for research diving operations.
Never heard of a Corridor island in the Philippines. There is a Corregidor island though. Name roughly translates to what "customs" is today. The Spanish used the island as a customs checkpoint for the bay that led to the capitol of the then colony. The US then used the island as a military base. General Douglas McArthur was quartered there before he was evacuated by submarine. His "I shall return" speech was done in that fortress island.
I thought about, considered the idea, then you showed the clip of the massive full transport ship... There's no beating that.
Well my first thought is that it's ineffecient, due to being completely submerged under water makes the resistance way higher, than being partially submerged under water, like a ship is... Let's see if this video tells me any different
To improve Japanese Armour capacity in WWII to counter American Shermans, the Japanese brought a Tiger Tank from Germany, which was disassembled into parts and transport via Sub.
2:00 Is "Corridor Island" supposed to be "Corregidor Island"?
we all live in a "yellow Submarine", at least we might if the sea levels rise by worst case scenario. and the Narco sub's are actually inspiring the DoD in regards to scout/sensor or limpet/midget designs
Cargo submarines could only be built during peacetime, but they're only needed during wartime.
8:12 probably the aerial weaponry - right 🧐4:01… I’d argue no shore leave instead. For 800 tons 🤔…. maybe no longer than 8 mins at port… & a heavy security force. & no use outside shipping lanes. ⚓️
There are no reason to not have them; “aerial weaponry” if things sour. It’s the undeveloped ports & canals I’m sure it’s showing a lot of faith & the argument.
It leaves who’s now eligible to operate weapons which shouldn’t be thee innovative concept ☢️
Also engineering aspect a lesser lifespan ☢️ for routes that may be stuck in canals.
My two cents 😇
7:02 what a beautiful machine ⚓️🤩 … There should be a submarine one ☝️ 🇺🇸
Yellow submarine. Your Beatles reference has earned you a subscriber.
Pretty sure the conversation would be like this;
"Hey guys, lets make a CARGO Submarine! Wouldn't that be cool!"
"Yea, it would be, but you're taking the water resistance/drag of the water that a ship deals with and putting it over the ENTIRE vessel. And also requiring a sealed, pressurised vessel that can't even be anywhere near the size of a surface vessel... So because this is literally worse in every way, then NO. A cool dream, but just NO."
2:08 - the island isn't Corridor, its Corregidor.
Honestly though, I'm surprised I haven seen something like this in some comics or sci-fi work, because the idea is really cool, specially considering how often bases in space or stuff like Marvel's Helicarriers appear.
Then again I guess Marvel and DC have Underwater people with Namor and Aquaman, which restrict this idea a fair bit.
Yellow submarine.
I don’t know if you came across this or not, but the axis also used submarines to exchange classified scientific stuff and information between Germany and Japan.
How about the stealth USS independence into luxurious super yacht, or every yacht conversion projects, like some cargo ships, and 70s frigate into yacht?
Yellow Submarines can hold at least 10% more due to the lighter colour which improves the buoyancy and surface tension drag coefficients
It's actually Corregidor Island as I have never heard of this Corridor Island before.
1:41
Sank, not sunk.
8:50
Advent, not advert.
Yellow submarine.
I must say, I enjoy these videos. The graphics and writing are superb.
2:34 They are ships, not boats.
At 2:05 - Oh come on, it's Corregidor Island. Next you'll be talking about the Baton Death March.
The cost to time savings just doesn't work out, and when you're shipping by sea volume and cost are much higher priorities than transit time. The only real legitimate use for a cargo sub is the delivery of supplies to units operating behind enemy lines in a military conflict.
Everyone: this idea seems crazy and far fetched
Meanwhile the USSR:
Definitely an interesting concept!
“Multiple Leviathan Class Life Forms Detected, are you sure about your decision?”
Captain: :0
Small islands cannot compete in world trade as they do not have the container infrastructure but a trainsub could swap trains quickly and what I have in mind is a 1 km long submarine that would float like a log avoiding most of the surface whether.
I think it could carry more freight due to the fact it would have no heavy superstructure.
What the hell is the map at 1:04
Cool topic and visuals, seems well researched and was edited amazingly. However, one slight naggle that threw me off was the rather egregious mixup on the pronunciation of Manila Bay @2:03 ... never been remotely near there myself but I know when pronounced properly Manila normally rhymes with vanilla, so its MAN-ila not MAL-ina Bay. You were off by two letters, not sure how you managed to do that. One letter mixups could easily be forgiven but homie butchered it in this one. You might actually be dysexlic m8. (see what I did there?) Sorry if I am coming off as a grammar Nazi I just wanted to point that bit out for others watching this : )
@4:50 Map with present day borders makes no sense in a historical documentary.