26f463 No.541391
Let's have a thread for all the strange weapon systems that have been experimented with, regardless of whether they ended up working or not.
To start off, I present to /k/ the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda. Designed in the mid-30's as a dedicated bomber destroyer, the Airacuda featured design features that are nearly unique, although rightfully so. As you can see, the Airacuda had three seperate crew compartments, two located just fore of the pusher-prop engines, and a primary compartment in the central fuselage. The central compartment held the pilot, a copilot/navigator who also acted as a fire control officer and a radio operator who was also responsible for manning the defensive waist machine guns. In each of the engine mounted compartments sat a loader/gunner whose primary purpose was to reload the 37mm M4 autocannon turrets, although he could also operate them independently.
The issues with the Airacuda basically included every aspect of it's design. It was heavy, slow and maneuvered poorly, being slower than most of the bombers it was designed to hunt. The 37mm autocannons turned out to be somewhat less capable that anticipated, in addition to rendering the loaders compartment with smoke during firing. The engines were horribly prone to overheating, to the point that the aircraft was unable to taxi under it's own power and could only start it's engines when towed to the runway immediately before take-off. Speaking of the engines, the failure of either engine during flight would immediately send the aircraft into a spin. Finally, the Airacuda used an independent APU to power every electrical system on the aircraft. This meant that in the event of a failure of the APU, the entire aircraft effectively shut down, leaving the crew with almost no control at all, as the hydraulic, vacuum, fuel pumps, flaps and engines were all dependent upon it. Despite all this, only one death occurred in the Airacuda's two year career, when a pilot's parachute failed to deploy.
The Airacuda entered service in 1940, before being retired in March 1942. All 9 remaining examples were scrapped.
394486 No.541410
Some of the aircraft prototypes in WW2 were pretty crazy.
9583bc No.541480
Easily my favourite experimental aircraft.
07067c No.541482
Forgive me if you've heard this one before:
The American Convair NB-36H Crusader and Soviet Tupolev Tu-95LAL were modified versions of existing aircraft designed to be nuclear powered long range bombers. Though neither actually had functioning nuclear engines, both held functioning reactors during flight to test if they were safe enough to fly. Despite the enticing potential of a bomber staying in the air for weeks, the projects never really had a chance. They required a LOT of heavy lead shielding to protect the pilots, and nuclear reactors are not easily started up or shut down like conventional propulsion systems. The projects were shuttered since ICBMs became a much more feasible way of transporting nuclear ordinance.
Nuclear reactors make more sense in dirigibles anyway.
3dd562 No.541514
>>541391
Legend has it that there was a Type 4 tank that was sunk into Lake Hamanako right before the end of the war. To date, nobody has found it.
As Oddball would put it; It's a mother beautiful tank!
394486 No.541555
>Our strategic bombers aren't hitting like they used to, what do we do?
>Let's strip out the cockpit, place a massive warhead in it and turn the bomber into the bomb
No matter how hard I try, I still can't comprehend this plan.
788a08 No.541556
>>541410
#2 reminds me of pic related.
ab7673 No.541565
Since I can't remember any names I barely know what to search for but … not that many years ago, on TV there was a documentary about a leaf that wanted to sell his military on the idea of a small ducted fan fighter.
The prototype he built was actually only half-ducted; you could see the fan completely and while the wing bent around it, the swamp-airboat sized fan was otherwise in open air.
His idea was, he could build his own for less than twenty grand … "imagine that instead of a single F-15, the horizon was filled with ten thousand of [my aircraft]"
ring any bells, that you could help out here?
b8c6c5 No.541767
Why don't militaries attach anti-infantry weapons to the wheels of tank treads? We're moving towards the age of spherical/airless wheels, so I don't see why you couldn't attach a gun to one of the least-armoured portion of your vehicle, even if it's just a .22lr full auto turret.
3dd562 No.541771
>>541410
>>541555
Richard Vogt (left of Udet) was probably the finest Turbo-Autist to have ever designed planes. You may know some of his designs like the massive Bv238 and the weird Bv141. Anyways, he was seemingly obsessed with wacky designs and his designs would never really take-off (figuratively, not literally;they flew pretty well) with the Luftwaffe.
He also worked in the US after the war, and worked on the Nuclear Powered Bomber project.
26f463 No.541779
I'll bring up a few more things I've seen around.
>RBT-5
Simply looking at this thing tells you everything you need to know.
>Flakboot
An attempt to counter British air patrols over the Bay of Biscay, several Type-VII Uboats were modified by cramming as many AAA guns onto the deck as possible. Proved fairly useless and the modifications were either canceled or undone.
>San Shiki shell
A naval round developed by the Japanese in WWII, these shells consisted of a mass of thermite-filled tubes (1,200 in the 16" version) in an attempt to combine a shotgun and a flamethrower into an anti-aircraft weapon. Generally considered ineffective.
>ASM-N-2 Bat
A WW2-era radar guided 1000lb bomb. Combat service began in April 1945, sinking several Japanese ships, including damaging an escort destroyer at a range of 37km.
>>541767
I have honestly read your post at least half a dozen times and I cannot for the life of me figure out what you hope to gain from this. Closest I can figure, you're trying to bring sponsons back? That's fine, but why the wheels? Who would control these? Are you putting one on every wheel? And what does spherical wheels have to do with anything?
e73f55 No.541780
>>541767
>Why don't militaries attach anti-infantry weapons to the wheels of tank treads?
You might just be a shitposting genius. Thanks for the inspiration.
cac5fb No.541847
>>541780
Nah like saw blades
00bef3 No.541849
>>541480
What was the problem with this one?
Canards made it too unstable for the era?
00bef3 No.541850
>>541482
>They required a LOT of heavy lead shielding to protect the pilots
They should have just made bigger bombers.
4805cf No.541894
>>541565
Rohr 71X
Today it would cost as much as a ultralight due to cheapo steel construction, but be as tough as a CAS.
b8c6c5 No.541981
>>541779
>>541780
I mean put a ball & socket joint-style turrent on the wheel part of the treads, and remote control it from inside the tank. It doesn't even need a big barrel, just fill the ball with ammunition like a giant drum and pew pew at the infantry that approach/that you spot. Use a cable connection to prevent hax. What's the worse that could happen?
fd25f9 No.541984
>>541981
All of the barrels would get fucked by terrain features riding that low on the vehicle, there would be no way to aim them unless you think a camera mounted way down there would stay clean/functional, no one would be up to the task of actually operating them because they would be busy with servicing the non-retarded guns, a hollow drum would make for some really shit tier running gear and would dent/cave in easier than a solid wheel would crack also meaning that the ammo inside would undoubtedly get damaged and cause jams which cant be cleared because the guns are inaccessible, there's no way to stabilize something that is built to bounce up and down with the terrain so it could only be used while stationary but you cant use it while in a hull down position because the guns are on the bottom of the vehicle, there's no way to clear a stoppage or reload without having to pull out the tanker bars and lift the track off, loading new ammo would get a road march's worth of mud inside the drum, no way to change the barrels you fucked up by hitting on rocks and shit and also got obstructed by mud and burst when you tried to shoot without having to pull the entire assembly apart… Fuck this may be a worse idea than invading Russia in late summer with an army relying primarily on horse drawn transportation.
8d2578 No.545316
>>541849
It was an odd, experimental, prop-driven aircraft that was pitched shortly after the RAF and Fleet Air Arm had been shown the proposals for 1st gen jet aircraft. The rear mounted wings & canards were intended to make it easier to land on aircraft carriers (by giving the pilot a better view of the deck) but some of the limited documentation suggests that the design added a few new problems with landing that at least cancelled that advantage out.
>>541985
>anti-tank TORPEDOS
For use against amphibious tanks?
2bb5b5 No.545438
>>541555
U.s. Tried that too with operation Aphrodite which killed a Kennedy, likely a reason that fucker ted took his place as a presidential hopeful (until he killed his pregger secretary)
a6d918 No.545456
Ok /k/ I need some help.
I remember seeing in a book mention of an obscure early (around the end of WW1, maybe early 1920's) US bomber prototype that had two or four engines, mono wings, all metal AND welded construction.
Now for the really odd part; it was made of either Iron or Steel, the reason being supposedly they only had the technology to weld ferrous metals at that time or in widespread use.
The plane itself was a fairly bland and forgettable looking design from the picture and drawing they had of it.
I've tried looking for it myself but any mention of an Iron bomber just get's me TF2 weapon results and Steel bomber comes out as "Stealth" bomber.
The closest I've found was a German design during WW2 (BV.184) that used steel or a US design also from WW2 that used stainless steel (RB-1/C-93).
3b4ef2 No.545491
>>545456
Budd RB conestoga?
Kalinin k7 also had an all steel construction, it was common of early monowings.
a6d918 No.545632
>>545491
>Budd RB conestoga?
That was the US WW2 design I mentioned.
>Kalinin k7
I forgot that was also a steel construction, and it is much closer to the time period.
The plane in question actually looked a lot like the BV.184 though the wings where stouter
23c13a No.546421
Alright folks, let's bust out some weird ass shit.
>Stipa-Caproni 1933
A testbed for the concept of "intubed propeller", the Stipa's design sought to improve the engine efficiency by placing it within the fuselage. While it did this, it's downsides (low top speed, high aerodynamic drag) made it unattractive to the Regia Aeronautica that they did not pursue further development, although the design is said to have influenced jet propulsion development.
>LIG-7/Razdvizhnoye Krylo (RK)
Another testbed for new technology, the LIG-7 was a novel design in creating variable area wings. The aircraft's main wing was rather narrow, but a series of wing sections were clustered within one another at the root. Through operation of a hand-crank, these wing sections could extend over the main wing, enlarging it's area for more efficient takeoff and landing performance. Despite the apparent absurdity, the RK system worked excellently, although it's only application would be the…
>RK-I
In 1938 the designer of the RK system submitted his design for a variable wing area fighter. Intended to be armed with twin ShVAK 20mm cannons and a pair of machine guns, the fighter would also have two sets of wings, with a similar extending wing sheath to transform them into a single large wing for landing and takeoff. Regretably, the RK-I caught the attention of Stalin, who demanded that the plane make use of the M-106 engine, which was just coming into production. While the airframe was completed, the engine was far from ready. Testing in wind tunnels indicated that the RK-I might be able to reach speeds of 780km/h (for reference, the Bf-109E was capable of roughly 550km/h) in it's 'small wing' configuration. The German invasion forced resources away from non-essential war efforts and the project was abandoned.
bab702 No.546541
>ywn never serve on an airborne aircraft carrier
>ywn witness a B-36 giving birth in midair
>ywn fly a tank
Life is suffering.
487599 No.546827
>>545456
doesn't fit your time frame but otherwise meets your description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YB-9
isn't US but does fit time frame and the article specifically mentions steel and difficulty of working with other metals https://alchetron.com/Junkers-J-1
probably not a martin b10
>>545456
not that it helps, but you can search your phrase in google and subtract results you dont want e.g. "iron bomber -tf2"
974058 No.549046
>designed to go fast
>contra-rotating propellers
>remote control .50's mounted in the trailing edge of the wing
>8,000lb bomb load
>attacker variant intended to be armed with 16 machine guns or a 75mm cannon
>set a transcontinental speed record (697.8 km/h)
>cancelled because jet engines became a thing
3b4ef2 No.549058
thunderscreech and boeings microfighter
cant be assed to find pics
386147 No.549062
>>545316
>Amphibious tanks
Slav interwar design was crazy.
11a62f No.549111
>>549058
Idk about the latter but apparently pilots and ground crews were having seizures over how loud the thunderscreech was. Contrarotating turboprops tend to have this problem because the props break the sound barrier.
Iirc submerged submarine microphones can hear when a tu 95 flies overhead.
2a5f97 No.555093
>GT-1 (Glide Torpedo 1)
A torpedo strapped to a simple wing, this allowed torpedoes to be dropped from up to 40km away. Only came into production during the final stages of WWII, but was used successfully, with three of the thirteen launched landing hits on ships within the Japanese harbor of Kagoshima.
>Lockheed XFV-1 / Convair XFY-1
Just look at these motherfuckers.
>Maj. Reed's Dreamboat
In late 1942, the Army determined that the B-17 required modifications following it's heavy losses over Europe. To that end, they tasked Major Robert J. Reed to compile a list of changes that would improve the aircraft. Reeds changes were significant enough to require returning to America to have access to adequate facilities and included:
>Replacing nose and tail guns with turrets from the B-24
>Moving the bombardier to a chin gondola
>With the improved visibility, the bombardier also became the navigator, reducing the crew from 10 to 9
>moving the radio 'room' and operator to the nose, which eased communications
>the radio change also shifted the center of gravity forward, which improved flight characteristics
>improved dorsal and ball turrets
>replaced waist guns with additional dorsal turret (crew from 9 to 8)
>redesigned bomb doors that induced less drag when opened
>1000lb weight reduction
Despite this, the changes were seen as too much of a burden on the production lines, so the Dreamboat was never adopted, although many of the changes were used in the B-29 and B-32 bombers currently in testing.
b2a1bd No.555214
>>541507
Is this even feasible?
8dcad7 No.555217
>>555214
Theoretically, yes. So far as I'm aware though nobody has tried to build one yet, not even the Nazis ended up in that very precise sweet spot where you're screwed enough to want it and doing well enough to green-light weird experimental aircraft prototypes.
b2a1bd No.555222
>>541779
I demand sponsons.
a6d918 No.555254
>>555222
Have some Aku approved sponsons.
3b4ef2 No.555261
>>555214
Because it has high airflow and good compression (when moving), while no moving parts, it's possible to run a ramjet or pulsejet on anything combustible. That includes wood dust, sugar, wax, or plastic explosives….
d1c9b2 No.555272
>>555254
>that profile
At that point why not just say fuck it and make a star fort on treads?
8dcad7 No.555424
>>555272
>a star fort on treads
That is pretty much what the early tanks were though, just a (vaguely) mobile fortification. I imagine the reason that they weren't made star shaped was that it would make the geometry of the tracks an absolute bitch to work with, assuming you gave it tracks to drive in each of the directions the points were headed.
27773b No.558409
>>541780
What's with the buttplug on the back?
e70436 No.558440
>>558409
I believe that vents the hot exhaust upwards.
09aaf5 No.558472
>>541482
I think Tu was flying with nuclear engines.
3bd03b No.558479
Belyayev designed this thing as a long-range bomber in the 1930s, but it turned out inferior to the Tupolev DB-1.
ac364f No.558508
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>555093
>GT-1 (Glide Torpedo 1)
SS-N-16 Stallion
Torpedo-> missile-> torpedo.
09aaf5 No.558514
>>558508
>Torpedo-> missile-> torpedo
?
It's missle launched from torpedo tubes.
47f82c No.558542
>>558514
Do you even google the shit you say mate
0b335e No.558546
>>558472
>>541482
A nuclear thermoelectric drone would be possible now.
>>558479
I think I've seen the specs for that awhile back. It would have been a decent tactical bomber compared to even P-38.
fd25f9 No.558642
>>558440
>>558409
That's part of the snorkel kit for deep water fording. A taller pipe is bolted onto that section stuck to the air intake. Seems pretty obvious for a tank belonging to the marines, flying a maritime themed flag, and that heavily corroded on the surface from wading through the ocean more than a few times.
3bd03b No.558774
This abomination would be amusing, if it wasn't a mass grave on threads.
>huge siluette with paper-thin armour, but still 50 tons
>crew of 10, all turrets are separated with no passage and no internal comm
>front machine gun turret in forward position will jam the driver's hatch, lest he accidentally bail out
>main turret at 11 o'clock position will also jam the machine gunner's hatch with the cannon
>main turret bustle blocks egress from rear turrets, but it's not like they could fight anything from there
<but hey at least it looks cool on parades
>when they don't break down in the middle of the street because the crappy transmission shatters from pushing its bloated weight
Can you believe the Soviets actually sent these to fight?
7716fc No.558792
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>558774
While it was super stupid atleast they can make excuse that it was designed in 30´s when nobody have much clue how to use tanks.
This stupid think on the other hand…
4de606 No.558806
>>558792
>Not realising that the Maus was entirely successful in its main aim.
>Not realising that instead of being an effective combat vehicle it was in fact part of a project to see 'just what crazy shit Hitler will sign off on, dude it will be so fucking epic!'.
3bd03b No.558835
Nothing says epic like a three-barreled revolver even if it's .22
>>558792
Other nations in the thirties could see that these designs are idiotic.
The Maus actually fits into the autistic trends of German heavy tank design. It's more like a logical conclusion.
7716fc No.558847
Multi-turret tanks were used by every major nation at the begining of WW2 (generaly less idiotic designs though).
Maus is such terrible idea even when you dont have critical shortage of fuel,steel and planes to protect it.
c4460b No.558905
>>558774
It does look super fuckin' cool though.
3bd03b No.559128
>>558847
The Churchill I and the Char B1 were the only "mass-produced" models that had a second gun, and they weren't multi-turreted, the howitzer was mounted on the chassis.
deb76f No.559133
>>541410
That J7W looks cool as fuck. Might have to make an rc model of that if I get the time.
680abf No.559171
>>559128
You forgot the M3.
465db8 No.559172
>>559128
you forgot pretty much whole interwar period. which still counts for early war because allies dunkirked
3bd03b No.559248
>>559171
It was a stop-gap model, not made for the same reasons as the rest.
And still not multi-turreted.
>>559177
Never went into production.
e61794 No.559254
>>559128
The Char B1 was designed to be a heavy assault gun to break through trenches. They just gave the commander a cupola with a machine gun, and that's not a bad idea at all. The problem is that later they went full retard and gave the commander one of their horrible one-man turrets. As for the Churchill I, as far as I understand the howitzer really was just a secondary weapon, exactly like the machine gun it was replaced by.
379a3c No.559264
>>559177
>>559248
Only three were used in the campaign in Norway. The Germans knew these things sucked, but they sent them to Oslo as a stunt. They wanted the British and French to believe that the Panzerkorps possessed heavy tanks. The Neubaufahrzeug design was to be a test bed for mounting a more powerful howitzer on the same sized turret ring of a Panzer IV. They were not supposed to fight, as the first two models were made of mild steel.
46c014 No.560464
Here's another project of the Luftwaffe that never left the development pipeline: The Arado E.654.
Because engine nacelles end to be a major source of drag for twin engine heavy fighters they tried to minimize it by putting the engines inside the main fuselage. Alas problems with the long drive shafts and gear boxes caused the project to cancelled.
>>558774
It fascinates me how the people designing these multi-turreted tanks ignored the experience naval architects had with building battleships (e.g. importance of fire control, no mixed caliber main guns). No wonder these things ended up being horrible.
3bd03b No.561160
Why did the ekranoplan never catch on? Is it limited wave height tolerance?
>>560464
I recall from somewhere that the original design plan of the P-38 was similar.
64868c No.561163
>>561160
The engines in pic 2 make it look like a Starfleet design.
95f074 No.561164
>>561160
>a boat cruising at 500km/h with six heavy anti-ship missiles
If you could stealth this how would it be countered?
601e41 No.561166
>>559128
it was a sound design early on. the turret holds a small caliber high velocity anti tank gun, the hull has a large gun for lobbing HE at things. engines get better, armor gets thicker, then small caliber AT doesnt cut it.
3bd03b No.561171
>>561163
It's about as real as one. (T__T)
4de606 No.561177
>>561171
Are these things worth the cost? For the price you spend on them what they give you seems to be very limited. Cool as all hell, sure, but I'm not so certain they're worth the price.
3bd03b No.561180
>>561177
Depends. If you badly need an extremely fast missile carrier / troop transport floatplane that flies hugging the water, then yes.
They are certainly cheaper than the Zumwalts.
95f074 No.561185
>>561171
How are four huge jet engines blowing their exhaust on deck a good idea?
95f074 No.561186
>>561185
Sorry I meant the 6 frontal ones.
344c3f No.561193
>>561160
Limited strategic value I believe. The original idea behind them was, IIRC, to dash across the Baltic into Scandinavia and establish a beachhead if WWIII broke out.
fccdd0 No.561195
>>560464
>importance of fire control
They did tested a naval-style fire control system on it. It turned out to be too complex to use.
>>559248
Except Americans produced 6500 of those deathtraps in 1941-1942, while the production run of T-35 ended in 1939, with 60 units produced in total (and the tanks produced in 1939 were also up-armored). It only went into combat because of dire situation where everything was going in, and Germans actually did the same during battle of Berlin and sent a captured T-35 in combat.
3bd03b No.561221
>>561185
See third pic here:
>>561180
They are angled down.
3bd03b No.561229
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>561195
The M3 had quite good combat record for an alleged deathtrap.
Like I said, it was a stopgap design that actually worked.
And like I also said, it was not a multi-turret.
ce464d No.561234
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>561177
They don't actually cost more than a plane or ship.
Also they gulp way less fuel than a plane (and carry more per wing load), they have lots of reactors to start flying but once in flight they don't work.
The 3rd pic is the model that was last in use, the two turbo reactor at the front are to get it to move, the tail engine is what it uses once in flight, the reactors being on idle or at a very low regime simply working to balance the plane, but not consuming much fuel.
Just the the difference in fuel bill over the service life of the ekranoplane compared to an aircraft equivalent is way more than enough to cover any R&D and specific manufacturing costs.
Also while the thing had been dead largely due to budget cuts with all the big ones trotting away, they're back with a vengeance. Russian gov' renovated all the design and especially the specific testing facilities needed (which really is what cost the most) and they've been making new proto mainly for arctic transport for the border guards/emercom.
They hope to have a transport one in service for 2020.
96bcc8 No.561278
>>561229
>The M3 had quite good combat record
Where? In North Africa, where Germans and Brits had even shittier tanks? Or maybe in Pacific, against Japs, for whom even tanks such as M3 Stuart and BT-7 were formidable adversaries, even in 1945?
>Like I said, it was a stopgap design that actually worked.
It worked so well that Americans sent most of them to their allies.
>And like I also said, it was not a multi-turret.
Yeah, but it still had 7-man crew, it was too tall and it had one turret too many. I know that it turned out that way because turret for 75mm gun wasn't ready yet, but they could've made it an SPG instead of a giant mobile target with useless turret - even fucking Italians knew better than this.
015e1b No.561282
>>561278
>>The M3 had quite good combat record
>Where? In North Africa, where Germans and Brits had even shittier tanks? Or maybe in Pacific, against Japs, for whom even tanks such as M3 Stuart and BT-7 were formidable adversaries, even in 1945?
>where Germans and Brits had even shittier tanks?
>stopgap design
>against shittier tanks
>STOPGAP DESIGN
Isn't that why he's saying it's good for a tank that was made in a rush?
fd25f9 No.561284
>>561278
>where did the tank do well!? All of these major theaters where the tanks it fought were worse than it!?
How is this even a fucking argument?
ae2c84 No.561306
>>561278
>the tank performed well? where, in places it could perform well?
4c4ec3 No.561311
Such a majestic creature.
4ed985 No.561330
>>561229
Vehicles are judged more by how much their crews liked them, than by their combat record.
For example some truly stunning vehicles have a shitty combat record, because they just didn't get a chance to shine, or had even better adversaries. Whereas some shitty tanks had GREAT combat records, because they had a good chance to shine, and crappy adversaries.
The M3 was absolutely despised by everyone that ever been in it, saw it, smelt it… even enemies felt sorry for the people riding in it.
4ed985 No.561331
>>561177
According to the Orlyonok they cost less than a boat of equivalent size, yet carry more armament, father, faster. The only downside of the ekranoplans is that they find it hard to float in place, or turn on a dime. Common misconception is that they can't rise out of ground effect, but they can fly at 10km altitude, only they consume as much fuel as a jet if they do it.
95f074 No.561372
>>561311
Going to bed that US' planned 6th gen fighter will be based on it.
3bd03b No.561764
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>561234
Iran has fielded two squadrons of the smaller ones.
Note that these are the Lippisch-type reverse delta winged variants, that have better stability and can climb higher in the ground effect, meaning more seaworthy.
aff5a2 No.561781
>>561331
>Common misconception is that they can't rise out of ground effect, but they can fly at 10km altitude
Ekranoplan can't fly outside of ground effect. Ekranolyot can. Orlyonok was an ekranolyot and had a ceiling of 3 km.
>>561764
You know the best thing? They took that design out of Soviet modeling magazine
4ed985 No.561848
>>561781
>Ekranoplan can't fly outside of ground effect.
This is a misconception, just because it is most efficient in ground effect doesn't mean it can't rise to a greater altitude. Orlyonok was an ekranoplan, so was the Lun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan#Specifications
Please don't be confusing the issue by adding yet another non standardized and poorly defined term that appears in the research for maybe ONE design somewhere.
3bd03b No.565556
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>Extreme cross-country ability
>SUBTERRANEAN TANKS SO EBIN
>Missile tanks
>Convertible wheeled/tracked
>Armoured convertible hovercraft
>Rocket-powered self-unditching / afterburning turboshaft
We can't have nice things.
4bb00d No.566335
>>541410
The Shinden layout (pusher prop canard wing) saw a lot of success in the kit airplane market. Ever heard of Burt Rutan? he made his start by making the Rutan vari-eze, which not only made canard planes somewhat popular, he also developed a whole new method of making composite aircraft wings, hot-wire cutting styrofoam and fiberglassing directly on top of it. Some fighters use similiar construction (a hard plastic foam instead of styrofoam wrapped with fiberglass/carbon fiber, i heard they can make aluminum foam for this as well)
Rutan liked the canard layout because it creates less drag than a standard cantilevered monoplane. the tail on a normal plane almost always induces drag. In the varieze(and like 20 different versions from different manufacturers, it's a core concept he pioneered in the 70's)
*every* surface on the airplane is producing lift, including the wheels fairings and struts. Rather than using a single large wing to lift the entire weight of the aircraft, and using the elevator for pitch control, a canard design actually increases/decreases lift in the canard to pitch the nose up or down. The fuselage of the plane is a giant airfoil as well. In the kit plane world, there is a noticeable(10-20%) increase in cruise speed of this design philosophy versus more standard planes with the same engine/weight.
3bd03b No.566869
>>566335
The alleged advantages of canard wings, if they really exist, manifest so poorly in application, that in practical terms, they might as well be a meme.
Rutan used it because it allows for a more compact fuselage, and because the pusher engines do not allow tails. And maybe because he thought it looked cool and unusual.
His personal airplane, the Boomerang, is not a canard.
f3f0e4 No.566877
>>546421
>they did not pursue further development
They did though. With the Campini-Caproni and the CA. 183Bis(half build though)
Also Stipa won a lawsuit against Henkel because it used his patent if I remember right.
f43d22 No.569799
>>561372
I don't think US could afford a 6 Gen fighter.
d5f5be No.569807
>>566869
Canards are fine, and in the age of modern control systems there are plenty of good reasons to use them. Without getting into the details, canards allow a plane to be more efficient.
d5f5be No.569809
>>566335
Didn't see this post before. To elaborate for others, the increase in efficiency from using the canard to pitch the nose up versus a tail is because a tail needs to push down (creating lift in the downward direction), which creates an overall reduction in lift. This is what's referred to as "trimming" the aircraft to fly at a specific flight state.
Regarding Rutan's aircraft in particular, there is also a benefit to using a pusher prop aircraft in that the propeller actually creates a stabilizing effect. This is because the propeller causes the air to stay laminar against the surface of the wings and body of the aircraft, pushing back the transition to turbulence. In other words, air stays attached to the wings for longer, making the aircraft more stable.
344c3f No.569835
>>566877
>They did though. With the Campini-Caproni and the CA. 183Bis(half build though)
True, that's what I meant with "influenced jet propulsion development", although I suppose the link was direct enough to say it was a development of the design.
65f8c5 No.580993
9a4a50 No.583580
Can't get much stranger than this.
30c2b3 No.584624
>take a blackhawk
>attach wings to the airframe
>put propellers on the wings
>poorly blur her lewd bits and fly her passed an adult only barn
What are they trying to tell us here?
9d628b No.584625
>>584624
>Hey, remember how great the Osprey was?
>Well now we've teamed up with Lockheed to make a new one!
How wonderful.
63049b No.584627
>>584625
Oh look, it's another 'upgrade program' that uses less than 10% of the original parts and costs twice as much as a new production 'X'.
3d5130 No.584628
Pictured: WW1-era bomber interceptors armed with upwards firing 37mm autocannons
Not pictured: Good ideas
>>584624
What does it…do?
8f6ff1 No.584636
>>584628
The germans used that principle against british lancasters to a great effect.
072ecd No.584666
>>584624
I still don't get the point of craft like this or the osprey when we have wildly more safe/successful designs like the Black shark or the Chinook.
>>584636
They fit the cannons onto obsolete BF110s and also fit RADAR on them for night ops. Bit different I'd say.
5f9568 No.584700
>>584699
those giuns were suposed to be 18 inchers.
ccdc3c No.584702
3dba44 No.584791
>>584695
Huh. I had a box of assorted die-cast planes as a kid and the F-19 was one of them. What a bizzare rumor of an aircraft.
0c8fbc No.585016
>>584624
The fuselage and nose look nothing like a UH-60.
6a9e1b No.585073
>>584698
>>584699
That's just some modeler's fantasy, as far as I'm aware the US had no plans for anything larger than the Montanas (nothing that made it past the napkin phase, at least) and certainly never considered actually fielding the 18"/47.
3d5130 No.585084
So, we're all in agreeance that launching troop-carrying F-35's (represented by F18s) off an Iowa-class refit to be a carrier-battleship hybrid is the future of warfare, correct?
f7856f No.585088
>>585084
I don't agree about that refitting rusty old battleships to turn them into carriers is THE future, but it's certainly a badass idea.
f5c0d2 No.585108
>>585084
How much use would you get out of the rear turret? Would it be better to remove it entirely or redesign the carrier-battleships to have their turrets in a Nelson configuration?
3d5130 No.585114
>>585108
If someone told me to refit an Iowa for the modern day, I'm not 100% sure where I'd go with it. My original idea was going to be rip out the aft turret, replace it with a flight deck for helos and basically try and operate it as a Wasp-class with it's own fire support, but after looking at the size of each (nearly the same) I don't think that's viable.
3abda7 No.585115
3abda7 No.585116
>>585108
That's a stupid idea. We might as well turn the rear to hold a ton of VLS cells.
85c075 No.585119
>>585114
>>585108
Take some of the guns, tear out the rifled barrel liners, replace with smoothbore, use for gun-launched missiles.
eba4ed No.586176
>>541391
I thought this was going to be a cool thread but:
>Inb4 planes, trains, & automobiles
So what about Tesla's Death Ray?
>Inb4 microwave gun
e9bb29 No.586281
>>584666
The Osprey is 80% faster, has more than double the range, and has a higher flight ceiling than the Chinook while carrying slightly less cargo. And it totally eclipses the Black Hawk in capability. A V-22 could carry a Black Hawk on a sling.
As for safety, there's no way you're pioneering a completely new type of aircraft without crashes, and if no one does it first then we'll never know how far the limits of aviation can be pushed.
cd7c3d No.586293
<Interstate TDR
A TV camera equipped drone that transmitted it's feed to controller aboard a chase plane. It could either be 'kamikaze'd' into the target or drop it's payload conventionally. In 1944, before they were capable of being used, politics intervened and the only squadron (STAG-1, in the Pacific) equipped with them was recalled. Despite this, the commander managed to get a temporary delay issued and was given 30 days to play with his toys. Within that month, 46 were used, 37 reaching the target areas and at least 21 executing a direct hit upon their target. Despite this success, the program was scrapped at the end of the thirty days, as it wasn't considered to be needed given the collapse of Japan.
>>586176
>So what about Tesla's Death Ray?
You've pretty much summed up the entirety of conversation that can be had on the topic.
03b9e0 No.586314
>>586176
>microwave gun
Hell no.
Teslas death ray was essentially a particle gun. It was a gun like any other, it just shot a hose of hydrogen at near light speed.
In its time it would be revolutionary. Putting it on a tall tower would mean a huge horizon that no rifle or cannon could respond from, and the nature of particle weapons means it would be impossible to shield against. If you lined up a set of them on a border, it would absolutely own any enemy army with impunity as long as you fed it power.
However with the advent of guided missiles, it's become too vulnerable to be really used until the targeting issue is solved.
Still, I think in the future all warfare will be carried out with particle weapons. DEWs are garbage.
5713bd No.586357
>>585084
Well if it was a helicopter-carrier-battleship then it just might be cost efficient and useful. Majority of cities are near coast, and infantry always has a need for cost-efficient firesupport. If there was a vehicle bay for a few amphibious vehicles then I imagine that it would be fun for the whole spec-ops and marine-family.
Ofcourse it would be slow as fuck and completely worthless in any conventional war.
8e8cc4 No.586436
>>561164
It is an innately stealthy aircraft by virtue of its low flight altidude (~10 meters maximum) and speed. Assuming a ship's radar is mounted 50 meters above the surface (my rough estimate of an Arleigh Burke destroyer's mast height), that places the line of site horizon ~25km away. A Luns class Ekranoplan is ~20m tall so assuming it is at its maximum altitude of 10 meters, that ship's radar will only be able to detect the approaching doomplane at a distance of ~32 kilometers.
An Ekranoplan flying at 550kph can close that gap in just ~210 seconds, except it doesn't need to get anywhere near that close to pose a terminally lethal threat. The misdiles it carries (P-270 Moskit) are capable of Mach 3 and fly at a mere 20 meters above sea level so they would be similarly undetectable beyond ~30 km. The destroyers operating on the furthest edges of a naval battle group would have a mere ~30 seconds after detecting an approaching Ekranoplan to react before the first of its supersonic cruise missile hit. 30 seconds is such a ridiculously short span of time that almost nothing can prevent an Ekranoplan launched attack from succeeding. Basically it's pic related.
The only way modern navies are able to defend against such threats is by optimizing everything toward protection against high flying, high speed aircraft and incredibly slow, incredibly large naval vessels. An Ekranoplan is fast enough to completely obviate any defenses targeted towards engaging surface level threats and large enough to mount a radar capable of spotting any fighters/interceptors before they spot it. "Fly" it in between the airborne defensive net and whatever it's going after is dead.
e9bb29 No.586443
>>586436
Six Moskits wouldn't be enough to guarantee a high probability of kill on a modern AEGIS cruiser (let alone a battlegroup) provided it had SEA RAM instead of Phalanx. In the 70's when the Moskit was designed ships used twin-arm launchers and a 30-second warning wouldn't have been enough, but today that's an eternity. And in a wartime environment, the Burke's MH-60R would be deployed and searching with its own airborne radar. The detection range would be hundreds of kilometers, and the ekranoplan would need an incredible amount of luck to even perform a long-range launch unawares - let alone actually aproaching to within 32km.
If ekranoplans were so good why did the entire concept get scrapped, huh slavaboo?
e2758e No.586444
>>586357
That was my original idea, but comparing the size of the Wasp and Iowa, it's pretty damn similar.
>>586443
>If ekranoplans were so good why did the entire concept get scrapped
IIRC, wasn't their primary use intended for an amphibious invasion of Scandinavia? The other issue is that they're not true ocean-going craft, so unless you foresee an enemy battlegroup steaming into range of a port hosing them, they're kind of without a purpose.
03b9e0 No.586446
>>586436
The screenplane carries six P-80 Zubrs not six Moskits. The P-80 is an older, solid fuel booster version of the P-800. It only had a 3rd of the range of a Moskit, but it traveled faster, and was slightly lighter.
Don't bother looking for it on the internet, it's not there.
>>586443
>Six Moskits wouldn't be enough to guarantee a high probability of kill on a modern AEGIS cruiser
Is this a joke? Ticonderoga are barely tested against subsonic swarm attacks.
And the thing both of you are ignoring is that both ekranoplans and anti ship missiles were in their infancy at the time of the Lun, and and the design was UNDERLOADED because it was rushed into service to defend the Kaspian sea.
A properly designed modern screenplane like A-050 is going to carry fifteen Kh-15s (or 100 troops), and it's a third of the size of the Lun.
https://interestingengineering.com/russia-is-redesigning-the-soviet-unions-1960s-ekranoplan-technology
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/06/ekranoplan_returns/
A half a dozen of these craft can easily wipe out a carrier battlegroup, it's not even a contest.
48fabf No.586448
>>586436
How would a so low flying aircraft fare against airborne missiles and look down shoot down radars?
Too fast for ASMs?
Too low for AAMs?
or vulnerable to both?
9d628b No.586465
>>586446
>It's been dubbed as the ekranoplan Chaika A-050
e9bb29 No.586473
>>586446
>Is this a joke? Ticonderoga are barely tested against subsonic swarm attacks.
I'd like to know what year and under what circumstances that exercise took place.
At a range of 30 km the Moskit will take at least 40 seconds to reach the target since it travels at only mach 2.2 at sea level, and that isn't taking into account the time required to accelerate. Let's be generous to the ekranoplan and assume that both the DDG's helicopters are out of action and the ship is totally alone and helpless. AEGIS reaction time is secret but the reaction time of land based SHORAD systems is about 10 seconds so lets go with that. Let's also assume the minimum range of the DDG's missiles (probably RIM-162 ESSM) is 5km. That leaves 25 seconds to launch. The Mark 41 has a rate of fire of 1 missile per second - 25 missiles in the air, 4 per target. Even if the Pk of the defensive missiles is an abysmal 50% each the DDG still stands a good chance of shooting down every Moskit before they enter CIWS range.
15 supersonic ASMs is enough to guarantee a kill on any single warship, but 6 of those new ekranoplans by themselves does not have a snowball's chance in hell against a carrier battlegroup. You seem to be forgetting that every vessel in the BG has air assets with radar that can extend the firing range of the whole BG, if not just go kill the ekranoplans outright. They will never, never, never "get the jump" on an entire battlegroup. A combined-arms attack would be mandatory.
48fabf No.586477
>>586465
Overused but classic at this point.
6a9e1b No.586487
>>586443
>40 year old missile that isn't even in service anymore can be (according to Raytheon) countered by a cutting-edge missile defense system that we currently only use on carriers
>this means that the entire concept of launching missiles from a fast sea-skimming vehicle is obsolete
>>586473
>ekranoplans don't work because the ekranoplan can never have any kind of support ever while the defenders will always have the support of a full CBG
e9bb29 No.586492
>>586487
Try reading the post I was replying to, faggot.
>>586446
>A half a dozen of these craft can easily wipe out a carrier battlegroup, it's not even a contest.
>A half a dozen of these craft can easily wipe out a carrier battlegroup, it's not even a contest.
>A half a dozen of these craft can easily wipe out a carrier battlegroup, it's not even a contest.
03b9e0 No.586495
>>586473
I'd like to know the year and circumstances where AEGIS was tested against a single seaskimming mach 2+ maneuvering missile fired at it, let alone a swarm.
>reaction time of land based SHORAD systems is about 10 seconds so lets go with that.
Which reaction time? Tracking? Targeting? Launch? Engagement? Destruction? Not to mention SHORAD can't even respond to targets going above a certain speed.
>Even if the Pk of the defensive missiles is an abysmal 50%
That would be a ridiculously good probability for a maneuvering mach 2 target at sea level. For a helicopter flying at 25m altitude most air defenses score only .6 kill.
>You seem to be forgetting that every vessel in the BG has air assets with radar that can extend the firing range of the whole BG, if not just go kill the ekranoplans outright.
And you seem to be forgetting that you aren't fighting Durkas in the 80s, it's possible to completely blind AEW.
e9bb29 No.586598
>>586495
>I'd like to know the year and circumstances where AEGIS was tested against a single seaskimming mach 2+ maneuvering missile fired at it, let alone a swarm.
Wouldn't this mean that seaskimming supersonic missiles are similarly untested? Has one ever been fired at any ship with a functioning air defense system at all? I think it's much more rational to give AEGIS the benefit of the doubt, given that it has at least demonstrated the ability to intercept multiple less-capable threats (attack on USS Mason, etc.).
>For a helicopter flying at 25m altitude most air defenses score only .6 kill.
The Pk of missiles against helicopters is almost always cited as being lower than against supersonic aircraft. I don't know the reason, perhaps because missiles weren't designed to hit something so slow. So you may want to take the value against helicopters with a grain of salt. Russian sources also consistently claim their air defenses have a much higher probability against a helicopter than .6, so are they just lying or what?
03b9e0 No.586648
>>586598
> I think it's much more rational to give AEGIS the benefit of the doubt
Well of course you do, and in your position I would too, but that kind of thinking is just wrong. AEGIS is a more complicated system with a hell of a lot tougher job, because its working against the physics of the situation.
>I don't know the reason
It's a bunch of reasons.
Two of the ones I'm aware of: Turbulence near sea level is higher due to denser air, which makes it harder for a missile to move correctly. There's more ground clutter (waves/trees) that a missile can accidentally hit while maneuvering, it's onboard computer assumes its free to move through the air with no obstacles…
There are probably other difficulties.
>Russian sources also consistently claim their air defenses have a much higher probability against a helicopter than .6, so are they just lying or what?
It depends on the system, if you're talking about their close in systems you have to keep in mind their missiles don't have seekers.
5713bd No.587115
>>586448
I am doubtful that anti-ship missiles have been designed to be used against that fast moving targets. Sure it'll probably score a hit depending on the software and the co-operation of that said ground-effect plane pilots.
And I'd imagine that most of the anti-air defense systems will just outright shit the bed. Well, unless the missile system was specifically designed to deal with anti-ship missiles, then it would probably work as long as the people in the decision making loop wouldn't screw up.