Shipbucket

Even though I've been around for awhile I realized I never got around to making a thread to post my personal designs. Most of the time I've only posted stuff to discord or the accursed halls of the NS thread for pixel art. Beyond challenges I never get around to posting my personal designs, (I keep putting it off as most of my stuff is for my Endless Seas AU and while I plan to make a thread for that, it's going to wait until I've hammered out more lore.) In the meantime, never having bothered to make a thread for my one-offs, I never got around to posting them.


I'm going to start things off with my usual brand of mental illness and post what *might* have been a challenge entry had things gone different. Following the Self-propelled Air challenge, one of the options Kiwi put forward was for a Sea Plane tender. While the other challenges didn't interest me as much, it did set my mind to wandering to unusual concepts for tenders. Specifically what more modern tenders would look like,maybe something that would service a sea master or a US-1A. (Immediately rejected concepts included a Sea Dart toting submarine and something toting the SR.A/1). At some point someone in an unrelated chat as part of an unrelated conversation brought up MX basing schemes and a light bulb went off. A sea plane tender for the USAF's wacky ICBM toting sea plane proposals. I decided that I could tie it to some earlier drawings I did of improved MX submarines into an AU I've deemed "MXimum America" which is just going to be any random bullshit I draw based on the various awful ideas the USAF came up with to make their shell game Multiple Protective Shelter scheme look less terrible. I realize that it's not exactly a One-off thread when all 3 ships are from the same AU but it's not an AU I actively work on



In 1985 after years of debate, the USAF finalized what would be arguably be the most controversial decision it ever made, the choice to base it's next generation of ICBMs at sea. The high low mix that the USAF settled on fielding under the MX Program consisted of a fleet of small Ballistic Missile submarines carrying the full sized Peacekeeper missile, supplemented by a larger force of "Sea Sitter" flying boats. The two systems were designated as the B-3 LeMay and the B-4 Seafortress respectively. While the results of these programs as they relate to nuclear deterrence and the inter-service debate over the triad have been written about extensively, a lesser side effect of the decision was the fact that the USAF suddenly found itself in need of submarine and sea plane tenders. This new and unexpected requirement led directly to the development of the Mitchell Class MX Tender. To save development costs, the hull for the new tenders was derived from the US Navy's recently built Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship, albeit heavily modified for the mission of a sea plane tender. While primarily geared towards servicing the Amphibian MX "Sea Sitters", the ships can also function as submarine tenders for the MX Missile Submarines. Two ships were built out of an initial planned four, the USAFS Mitchell based on the East Coast, and the USAFS Doolittle based out of the West Coast.

The ships carried the prefix of USAFS (US Air Force Ship) instead of the usual USS or USNS. The ships were the property of the Air Force and it took every opportunity to remind the public of this via massive US Air Force and Strategic Air Command markings. Operationally, the vessels are manned by civilian crews, with Maintenance of the seaplanes and submarines performed by embarked detachments of airmen from the relevant Missile Wings (occasionally assisted by civilian contractors). A Squadron Commander and staff from the missile wing are also embarked. Command of the ship is held by a civilian Sailing Master however they are subservient to the Squadron Commander. The rear of the ships are taken up by a servicing ramp to allow for the servicing of a full B-4. An overhead gantry plane allows for replacement of the engines, missile or other components while at sea. Additional aircraft can be served by Floating platforms. These platforms are also used in the servicing of MX Submarines. The ships are capable of reloading both MX Missile systems at sea although in service this is rarely done. When originally designed the ships were envisioned as functioning as emergency command posts in the event of a nuclear attack as a revival of the "National Emergency Command Post Afloat." Budgetary cuts led to this role being axed however the ships did still receive extensive communications equipment in order to support squadron commanders. The ships are equipped with a helicopter pad forward complete with an extendable hangar capable of storing an MH-60 helicopter.

After the initial controversy that came with their commissioning the MX tenders interest in the ships died down only form them to again came to prominence during during the limited exchange of the One China Crisis in late 1998. As part of Operation Yuletide Cheer, NATO's per-announced Christmas Eve retaliation for the sinking of the USS Kitty Hawk, the MX submarine USAFS Rawlings and 5 Sea-fortresses,(from the 401st and 351st Missile Wings respectively) conducted missile strikes against the Chinese ICBM Force. Several months after the conclusion of the conflict, it was revealed that the Sea fortresses had rendezvoused with the Doolittle to be re-armed in preparation for additional strikes, and furthermore that the USAF Rawling had been en-route to the Doolittle for it's own reload of missiles prior to the signing of the Boxing Day Cease Fire. Controversy arose following this revelation both in public and behind the closed doors of the pentagon. The public was mad due to the implication that further strikes had been planned despite NATO's promise of a "limited exchange", inside the pentagon the accounts were angry as they viewed the exercise as an unnecessary waste of money. The land bases for both forces were fully intact and even had they been destroyed, over a dozen additional USAF submarines and nearly a hundred Sea-fortresses, collectively representing over 650 strategic warheads, were still at sea. When US Navy's nuclear weapons were factored in over 2000 warheads of all types were deployed, more than enough for a full exchange. The reloading of the sea sitters was seen, rightfully so, as having been done purely to help justify the continued existence of the expensive MX Tenders.

With the recent selection of a road based launcher for the "Next Generation Small Missile" program (NGSM) as the replacement for Midgetman, and the increased endurance of the new Enola Gay class MX submarines, this unusual chapter in USAF history seems to be coming to a close, leaving the future of the Mitchell Class in question. Transferring the ships to the US Navy to replace it's aging submarine tenders has been proposed but the US Navy has indicated it would prefer new build hulls. Currently the USAF plans to maintain the ships at least until the final Sea-fortress missile wings on their respective coasts coast stand down.



Data Card for the MX Sub Variants/History. I did this shortly after I drew the MX sub for the archive. The Write up needs to be edited, it's got typos galore and I never finished the service dates but here it is for now.


The Special Mission Refit on it's own:


And the Enola Gayclass the prior Writeups mention:

The Enola Gay Class was me answering the Question: "What if MX Submarine was a thing and they replaced it with a slightly less awful sub." The result was something that's still worse than Trident.


And lastly a Non-MX thing, a dumb cruiser I drew for a friend of mine a couple years back. He wanted something big and dumb so I drew something big and dumb. It's not that great, I didn't put any real thought into the design beyond "weapons here", "reactors there" and is very much just a hodgepodge of other stuff I've drawn kit bashed together but I figured I should have something other than the MX stuff here.

Well, I've always liked your think out of the box skills, as well as your drawning skills. There are people who think this is unreal, therefore not bother to reply or comment. Perhaps beyond the truth, but being able to imagine those, (and well executed) is a skill itself. So, go on; I can hardly wait continuation of these.

I comment only if I think there is something with the drawing it self


I have nothing to say about this drawing, except the idea is quite good and crazy. Any working ideas, always come from a crazy idea

I like that sea plane tender, however that seaplane seems a bit weird.

Are you sure that ICBMs fit vertical inside hull?

Love it - keep it up!

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

The sea plane is very weird. It's hard to tell from a side but it's actually a catamaran. The missile is stored horizontally in the main fuselage. For launch the missile launch tube pivots from horizontal to an upwards angle. If the aircraft is on the surface (Be it ground or floating at sea), the missile is cold launched up and out in front of the aircraft. If it's in the air, the missile is ejected down/out behind the aircraft instead.
If you scroll down, this thread on secret projects has some more info on it and related designs including a couple diagrams showing the launch configuration. I drew the smallest of the designs which would have carried the missile that became Midgetman. Other designs were big enough to carry the full sized MX Missile which became Peacekeeper.

Due to the nature of the MX program, it would have been clear from the start that none of these aircraft would ever actually be built. This leads me to have a sneaking suspicion that the engineers at Lockheed tasked with designing it decided to be as wild as possible rather than go for anything grounded in reality.

Sometimes crazy ideas are the best ideas!

Good to see some more unusual stuff in AUs.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft