>tfw the seaplane tender concept is dead and buried
I know that it probably wouldn't be terribly cost-effective, but the idea of resurrecting the concept is very appealing to me. Convert a bunch of Tucanos into seaplanes and have a few tender ships to keep them supplied and maintained.
>>28474922
This isn't your blog.
Tucanos are officially a meme plane.
Betcha with a little work you could get sea planes that can land/take off in rough seas
>>28474922
And what, serve to fulfill your little fantasy. Fuck off
>>28474991
A seaplane tender to support littoral COIN operations is a lot more relevant in today's world than a meme ship like a Battleship, yet we still have battleship threads every day of the year.
Why so mad battleshipfag?
catalina will always be my planefu
>>28474982
Cant they just take off and fly over any bad weather and wait for their tender to arrive on the other side?
>>28475010
> world than a meme ship
>meme
>>28475069
Battleships were a meme ship when they were introduced, and they're certainly nothing more than a meme now.
>>28475069
Not him, but at this point battleships threads are memes.
>>28475033
>four days later the tender arrives
>pilot ate copilot yesterday, then shot himself
People that have no sense for the scale of naval ops yet constant comment upon them are like MSNBC reporters talking about procurement. I can only take so much stupid at once.
>>28475135
>Not lashing your planes together and chilling with your pilotbros on your makeshift comfy plane island home
How exactly do these operate in bad sea states?
Its a rhetorical question. Because they don't.
>>28475135
>can't bring 100 pounds of water & food for "just in case" situations
uh huh
>>28475210
Put a billion dollars of research into em, and I bet you could make one that operates in sea states 5+
Helicopters have issues operating in rough seas too
>>28475210
Stack them on the deck and lash them down.
>>28475304
nigger, the only way 10kton DESTROYERS can perform flight ops in sea state 5+ is using the bear trap system, and you're suggesting a flying boat is taking off or landing in 4 meter swells in one piece? Holy fuck.
Bear trap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAbm2XDpx9w
Sea state 5:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LfGstL6o00
>>28475359
Turn into the wind and take off with a modern STOL system, I really don't see the issue.
>>28475372
>STOVL
>while being awash/swamped in swells
is it me or does /k/ get stupider every day?
>>28475372
because there are tons of STOVL systems out there that play nice with water in the intakes and work for long range patrol ships, amirite?
>>28475402
>>28475444
You are floating on the top of the water, you aren't a heavy long ship that plunges into waves.
>>28475577
Never tasted salty air before eh?
>>28475577
Have you ever even been at sea? Seriously. Do you have no concept of how much MORE violent it is for smaller craft?
>>28475595
Doesnt matter when you can just fly away from bad weather.
>>28475669
So. You really haven't ever been at sea in any capacity. Do you have any clue how large an area sea storms/elevated sea states cover? Do you have any clue how few options it leaves when you're limited to lowish sea state 4?
>>28474922
>>28474982
>>28475010
>>28475033
>>28475135
>>28475210
>>28475359
>>28475372
>>28475402
>>28475577
So, um, it seems everyone has a different idea on how seaplane ops are supposed to work. I figure I should describe how I think they used to work and then we can argue from there.
So, the seaplane system had a lot of iterations but the final system used was pretty good for not having to remodel the entire warship just to deal with aircraft.
To begin with, you used a crane to load an aircraft onto a catapult. The seaplane would start it's engines and then the catapult would fling it off the ship at takeoff speed. The seaplane could then complete it's mission as normal. Since the seaplane had floats it didn't need to land on the ship, just land in the waters near the ship. As long as it didn't crash in the process the ship could swing around and pick it up with the crane. Some systems even had elevators into the lower decks.
Most seaplane systems were replaced by helicopter pads simply because it was easier to manage. Personally, I think a seaplane tender would make a good ghetto escort carrier if said tender also needed to play double duty for ASW or shore bombardment. HOWEVER, a seaplane is going to be inferior to a carrier plane because of the floats.
On a side note, using seaplanes is a pretty good way of apocalypse proofing your air force since it doesn't need runways. Both the US and Soviets tried to make seaplane bombers during the cold war with marginal success.
>>28475896
No, I have an excellent understanding of how seaplanes work.
>As long as it didn't crash in the process
That's the rub. Any significantly elevated sea state renders them useless. If you were relying on them for ASW, supply or medivac, you're SOL. Not to mention you have to stop the whole strike group just to land/embark them. The bear trap system for chopper decks allow them to operate at several sea states beyond sea planes, and land based patrol aircraft have the range and basing to do all the seaplane ASW without the weather/sea state limitations. They are outdated technology.
>>28475896
>apocalypse proofing your air force
>>28474922
>massive corrosion.
>airframe inspection after every landing
no thanks
>>28476754
Composites.
Japan still makes and uses seaplanes for their JMSDF.
>>28476754
Hey! I have Lil Bub too!
>>28475896
Wouldn't that be a poormans alternative to an aircraft carrier? For a poor nation that wants an aircraft carrier, just slap some floats onto a bunch of Tucanos and send a tugboat with them to refuel.
>>28476826
That makes even less sense, considering the ranges their navy is expected to operate from land based aircraft. They never leave their back yard.
>>28475995
>If you were relying on them for ASW, supply or medivac, you're SOL. Not to mention you have to stop the whole strike group just to land/embark them.
Familia, I don't think you're paying attention.
Recall that in the scenario given, the seaplane tender is being used as a low-cost solution for providing air support to COIN operations. You're not relying on them for ASW, Supply, or Medivac. It's sitting off the coast of some unimportant shithole being dirt cheap to operate as it flies shitty prop planes to drop bombs on shitskins. If the weather gets bad they can just lash them to the deck and ride it out.
>>28476892
That was in fact the exact scenario laid out in the original post.
>>28475896
You are thinking primarily of floatplanes carried on cruisers and larger warships that were primarily used for either long range scouting or spotting for the main guns. Seaplane tenders were not used for this purpose. In the USN, seaplanes (PBY, PB4-Y-2, etc.) were very long range scout aircraft (longer ranged than any shipboard float plane) that could also serve in an ASW role or anti-shipping role. They flew from atoll lagoons, not from the open ocean, and seaplane tenders served them as a mobile repair and refueling base. In Japanese service, the H6 and H8 flying boats performed the same role, while they also had seaplane fighters intended to operate from atolls that could not support or did not yet have airfields on them. Once again, not from open ocean.
I am this close to filtering the word tucano, fuck that meme plane.
>>28477313
>floatplanes carried on cruisers and larger warships that were primarily used for either long range scouting
Floatplanes carried by cruisers and BBs were not used for long range scouting, as they were not long range aircraft.
The P-51 Mustang was like 100mph faster than the Super Taco, and it's 70 year old technology.
>>28478053
Long ranged is a relative term. The Vought Kingfisher was widely used throughout WWII on US cruisers and battleships. It had a range of just over 800 miles. For a single engined floatplane, that is long ranged. That range lets a surface taskforce recon quite a large distance around itself.
The Japanese also used cruiser based floatplanes (Aichi E13A) to scout for their carrier task forces, with a 1300 mile range.
>>28478295
Could they store fuel in the float?
Being launched from a ship saves a ton of fuel, too.
>>28476966
>COIN
In blue water? Anything brown water is close enough to use land-based aircraft. Anything too too far out in the water is a concern for the Navy, and will more-likely be settled by ships than sea planes.
>>28476940
They have a huge backyard.
>>28475304
Last time I checked aircraft needed air breathing engines and air speed. Flying boats needed large areas of calm water to reliably operate. try doing that when you hit waves hard enough to rip off the bottom of your hull and and your engines ingest water. Also salt water is hell on airframes.
>>28475577
Ever take a ride in a speedboat going 40 knots? It takes a pounding. Now try that at 100 knots in something light enough to fly. Pretty little whitecaps are hazardous to seaplanes.
>>28478295
>The Japanese also used cruiser based floatplanes (Aichi E13A) to scout for their carrier task forces, with a 1300 mile range.
>task forces
They had one task force, which was sent to the bottom of the ocean on its third mission.
>>28477313
Good to know,
On a side note, how hard would it be to fit rocket assist takeoff gear on a seaplane?
>>28476754
I have a friend who owns an Albatross. He was telling me that it's not the airframe corrosion that you worry about when you land on salt water, it's all the little electrical contacts and switches that go bad. The landing gear micro - switchs, light contacts, etc.
>>28478398
P-3/P-8 have massive patrol ranges. Upwards of 2,000nmi for both of them.
>>28474922
I'll tell you why. We have these things called aircraft carriers and they are surrounded by smaller ships. We pack greyhounds full of shit and fly it to the carrier while out to sea, and then an SH-60 flies the shit from the carrier over to the small boys. for major resupplies they fly a c-40 to the next port that the ships will hit and load up there. No reason to nigger-rig a plane to double as a shitty boat to add cost to an effective program.
Could you make a plane, so fucking large, that its wings would be the runway for a series of smaller planes, that are all suicide bombers anyway
>>28479009
>suicide bombers anyway
Lol, you mean rockets? Yeah, we have those.
>>28478879
dude, read the thread. Skim the thread. We're not even at 100 posts yet.
The consensus is that floatplanes and seaplanes can be used as a poor man's aircraft carrier. Carriers are very technical and highly specialized in dealing with aircraft. They really aren't good for anything else. Takeoff and landing on a carrier also take skill and technical know how.
Sea and float planes have runways miles long and about as wide. As long as they don't try landing in rough seas they'd be fine. The crane and catapult for floatplanes is pretty simple and was often mounted on cruisers before being replaced by helicopter pads. A seaplane tender really just needs a good cargo hold and maybe a crane for the heavier ordinance. A seaplane tender could double as a ASW ship or cargo hauler
>>28478047
filter cuckano while you're at it fedoralord
>>28478671
>Throttles on the ceiling
MUH DICK
>>28475359
ShinMaywa US-2 claimed take off capability at Sea Sate 4, and limited capability at Sea Sate 5.
>>28479184
>The consensus is that floatplanes and seaplanes can be used as a poor man's aircraft carrier.
There are only one, maybe two people in the who thread that agree with this. Everyone else is pointing out how limited sea planes are.
>Sea and float planes have runways miles long and about as wide.
Not in any sea state worse than 3 they don't. Did you not pay attention when anon above noted they operated out of reef-shielded lagoons in the pacific?
>The crane and catapult for floatplanes is pretty simple and was often mounted on cruisers before being replaced by helicopter pads.
Once again, were you not paying attention when anon above noted that none of that gear was for the large multi-engine boat planes like the PBY, and only for single engine scouts?
>A seaplane tender could double as a ASW ship or cargo hauler
How is a single engine scout performing as a cargo hauler?
Why are you so fucking shit at paying attention and learning a single fucking thing that might disagree with your fantasies?
>>28479383
Any proof that it actually operated under such conditions? Because the PBY was rated as high as sea state 4, but the USN grounded them for anything but emergencies past mid-state 3.
