/k/ - Weapons

>>626484

Just add vtol so that you can land slowly. There, I fixed it. :)

>>626484

Floats could be just placed on water and plane would need to hit it during landing just like it needs to hit arresting wire on classic aircraft carrier runways.

>>626499

Then just land on a carrier.

>>626501

Carrier = limited runway

Water surface = unlimited runway

unlimited runway > limited runway

Water surface > Carrier

>>626502

If you gotta land on a specific apparatus in order to land on the water at all you might as well land on the carrier.

>>626503

No, because length of runway makes a difference. You can't land heavy planes on short aircraft runways. But you can land them on water.

>>626499

but the wire is attached to something on the carrier. the floats would just be floating in the water and pushed and not really be of much use.

>>626480

Where'd you store them? Kinda useless to have that ability (>), if you're limited by your hangar space anyway.

>>626506

But you'd need floats the mass of a rated vessel for the plane to land safely, else the floats will just tip over and sink upon the plane catching the wire(s).

Just bring back seaplanes and flying boats.

Then bring back seaplane tenders and load them with anti-ship missiles, CIWS, and sea mines or depth charges.

Then spam enough Zuiuns to block out the sun.

>>626499

Hitting a miniscule float bobbing in three dimensions is going to be far more difficult than hitting a wire. And how would the plane even connect to the float? You need a secure mechanical connection between the float and the plane for it to do anything besides inconvenience the pilot. I want you to try something: go to your local lake or pool, throw an air mattress into the middle, and try landing on it from a running jump. Now imagine you have to not just land on it, but land standing on your feet. Now imagine doing that at 150 miles per hour. In the middle of ocean waves. Throw in some inclement weather for good measure, too. Now imagine you can't actually see the float until you've already started the jump, and you have to rely on your friend shouting directions at you while you're doing your running leap to aim properly. Get the idea?

And even if it were no more difficult than a regular runway and a tripwire, you've got sortie rate to consider. The Nimitz-class can launch a plane every 20 seconds and land one every 40. With the number of steps you've added to the procedure with this float system, those times would almost certainly get longer, plus the extra time required to get planes in/out of the water. Further, because you're dedicating cargo space to all these floats, you're going to have less room for planes.So you're left with a "carrier" that can launch slower, carry less, and can't defend its cargo as easily, for the marginal benefit of being able to launch planes that are a bit larger. The only way I could see this working is something like >>626524, where the aircraft have their own floats and are somewhat independent of the tending vessel.

>>626538

>Why did they go out of style?

Chairforce has to have them supersonic jets, don'cha know? Anything else wouldn't be HIGH SPEED LOW DRAG enough. And don't forget Lockheeb's shekels either,

Why not just make hundreds of artificial islands that can serve as airfields?

>>626560

I will admit that mass producing the aquatic real-world equivalent of a Protoss carrier is a very tempting idea.

>>626541

> Hitting a miniscule float bobbing in three dimensions is going to be far more difficult than hitting a wire.

Float could be made bigger with bigger "connection" area. Carrier's runway also bobs in three dimensions.

> And how would the plane even connect to the float? You need a secure mechanical connection between the float and the plane for it to do anything besides inconvenience the pilot.

That is a solvable problem. It could be some kind of friction mounts. Plane's gear would slide into them during touchdown.

> Now imagine doing that at 150 miles per hour. In the middle of ocean waves. Throw in some inclement weather for good measure, too. Now imagine you can't actually see the float until you've already started the jump, and you have to rely on your friend shouting directions at you while you're doing your running leap to aim properly. Get the idea?

There are already solutions for these problems:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_edge_lights

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_landing_system

> you've got sortie rate to consider.

Sortie rate doesn't depend on duration of float handling. You know planes on regular carriers do not just go from idling to the air in 20 minutes. They are taxiing, doing pre-flight diagnostics.

What is important is right capacity to do preparation on multiple planes simultaneously so that they could be "buffered" and by this non-stop launching/recovering could be achieved.

>>626566

>Carrier's runway also bobs in three dimensions.

The difference being carriers are FUCKING HUGE and have lots of inertia, they won't be moving nearly as much as a float that wil have a density of near zero.

>that is a solvable problem. It could be some kind of friction mounts. Plane's gear would slide into them during touchdown.

So now in addition to just trying to hit the float, you've got to precisely slot the landing gear into friction catches? This is a new level of stupid, to go back to the previous example this is like floating some waterskis in the middle of a pool and trying to leap into them without falling over.

>There are already solutions for these problems:

>-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_edge_lights

>-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_landing_system

Okay, so in addition to a float for each plane we've now got to have floating landing lights for each plane. The runway is no longer "infinite" in length either. And since between these lights and the limit of how big your floats can be you're putting an upper limit on how big your planes can be, which negates the one advantage of this whole system. You're just recreating an AC deck for a lot more expense and a lot less practicality on the ocean surface, for no tangible gain.

>Sortie rate doesn't depend on duration of float handling. You know planes on regular carriers do not just go from idling to the air in 20 minutes. They are taxiing, doing pre-flight diagnostics.

And the pre-flight shit will take far longer in your memecarrier than it would on a regular one, because you have to move everything to the water and keep track of it.

>What is important is right capacity to do preparation on multiple planes simultaneously so that they could be "buffered" and by this non-stop launching/recovering could be achieved.

Except you can't even do that. You've got to set out a new float for every plane you want to launch and recover the float for every plane that takes off. Every "runway" you set up has to be completely rebuilt every time a plane takes off.

>>626480

Fighter jets are neither built to float, nor is their fuselage made to withstand water density. Not even carrier-based ones.

There are these two things called surface tension and pressure, you might have heard of them. They don't quite like a jet grazing by at minimum lift speed (i.e. 200+ kph).

>>626538

The nips still have a handful for SAR, but they don't get a lot of use. They offer greater endurance and possibly greater speed than rotary wing alternatives, plus the ability to actually hit the water and make a rescue, provided seas are calm. The Komsomolets disaster was as bad as it was in part because the Be-12 that located the sub couldn't make a landing.

Helicopters can operate in worse conditions and still deploy baskets or swimmers. The ability to hover is also a great benefit, allowing rescue from a damaged or sinking vessel without necessitating immersion.

>>626577

>plus the ability to actually hit the water and make a rescue

There are amphibious helicopters too.

>>626571

You can make floats longer to prevent tipping over.

>>626580

Most of those have very poor stability, excepting a few models, I'd imagine seaworthiness is even lower than fixed wing amphibians. Most are amphibious only to the extent that emergency water landings can be performed with a longer buffer for the crew to bail out. No one really seems interested in reinforced fuselage/boat hull and stabilizer designs anymore. The Mi-14 and S-61 are about it, and both designs are aging fast.

>>626480

Russia, come take care of your runt, he's shat the bed again.

>>626561

Because that will lead to many ethno-micro nations so (((they))) won’t allow that to happen.

>>626680

https://archive.is/V6vDt

hownew.ru?

>>626610

The amount of floats is lesser than the amount of planes.

>>626692

By the way the ruskies are gonna bring it back

>>626696

Don't you fucking tease me like that.

>>626696

>>626702

>By the way the ruskies are gonna bring it back

Some of the small Orion-12 and Orion-14 and maybe 2 (med size) Orion-20 are in service but it's dubious the big ones are ever coming back, Russia has no money.

They can't even build the Be A-40 and had to settle for the considerably smaller and cheaper Be-200 (which is still the best seaplane in service but it's not a monster like the A-40).

The minute they have money Beriev wants to build that (take a breath before clicking):

http://www.beriev.com/eng/Be-2500_e/Be-2500_e.html

It's basically the fusion of everything, one giant seaplane that can use ground effect to have stupid endurance but can still fly properly.

>>626718

I had no idea how bad things really are

>>626690

>planes don't need to be stored in bad weather conditions

>>626718

The leaf: never fails to deliver.

>>626735

I believe there was more but both F-35 threads should still be in the catalogue somewhere.

>>626740

Everyonce in a while you stop and think about the last ten thousand shitposts you made and get a slight need to make a decent post. Luckily it passes quick.

>>626702

>>626707

>They've been hinting at it since 2013.

Try 2006.

Threatening to give Iran tech is the Russian trump card for the region. Israel is scared shitless, and as a result America is scared shitless. But the problem exists, how to give Iran something really really quickly? Enter large ekranoplan transport aircraft.

The one in that image is an attack variant which I doubt will get built unless Arctic situation gets out of hand.

>>626560

Why bother make the airframe and air-intake stealthy when you just hung on it 4 external hardpoints and a lazer that have like 20 times its RCS?

>>626571

>Even a C-130

The Hercules was built with extreme STOL in mind.