tell me again why seaplanes were eventually left behind in the tech race? you don't need a carrier to lift off or land, and they can be easily transported by almost any ship.
As speed increases, drag gets worse. Much worse.
>>61502121they were too based
>>61502121> you don't need a carrier to lift off or landBecause you can't beat a carrier or land fighter. Period.Carriers were common and range of land/carrier aircraft keep increasing, the niche for floatplanes was null and its aerodynamic is worse than a second wing+struts. For example, Japan had the last relevant fighters floatplanes (Aichi M6A, N1K, Zero) but they're useless against any Japanese conventional fighter (N1K-J, normal zero).
>>61502121helicopters
>>61502133Dubs o' Truth
I would like to see what could happen after the Sea Dart, if they continued on that line.
>>61502133spbp
>>61502121Aren't the Muricans making a fuckhuge ground effect/skimmer seaplane? I mean that looked more like a cargo plane than a small recon or attack one, so maybe that doesn't fit your definition of a "seaplane".While I don't think modern militaries would really need a seaplane since carriers have gotten so advanced and so big they're basically full size runways now I could see a modern seaplane made with current tech being pretty cool, you could design it in such a way that the floats are contiguous with the wings themselves and end up with just a decent all around jet that's also sea capable.Just about the only use-case for a small modern seaplane I can think of is Coast Guard search and rescue so you can literally just land it near people you're trying to save instead of having to lower a rope from a helicopter at sea, but then if someone needs rescue at sea there's a good chance it's because the seas are rough as fuck to the point landing a seaplane would be a nightmare.
>>61502121Fuck I almost forgot about these. They were all over 90's media
>>61502121Jet engines. Salt water is HELL on jet engines which makes aircraft design more complicated. You also had issues with takeoff speeds since high max speeds and low stall speeds tend to demand different designs. The Sea Dart is possibly the only US attempt at a supersonic seaplane. It's actually a clever little design based on the Delta Dagger. Besides shifting the air intakes above the wing, they also gave it skis. The problem was that moving the air intakes compromised the super sonic capabilities (but nobody realized this until after it was too late) and the skis were unstable and haphazard. Then on November 4, 1954 one of the test pilots exceeded the Sea Dart's limits and the whole thing tore it'self apart in mid-air. That was it for super sonic sea planes in the US.
What if you could ditch the skis to take off and land on a balloon or sumn?
>>61502121Because nuclear carriers and mid-air refueling became a thing
>>61502382a balloon or sumn.
the world wasn't ready for them
>>61502382We tried that. Both of the US Zeppelin carriers (USS Macron and USS Akron) broke their spines and sank in storms. We also lost the Shenandoah in a similar fashion. Fullsized carriers were just more efficient and safer. At least the madness lives on in Crimson Skies...on that note, the US and England both had >sidewheel steamer< aircraft carriers. Which are neat as fuck.
>>61502121Maintenance nightmare. Corrosion control nightmare. Turning sorties is already labor-intensive without adding labor while slowing the process down.Seaplanes require either seaplane tenders or fixed basing for maintenance and replenishment. Combat aircraft exist to produce high effective sortie rates and quick turning float planes is much slower than conventional aircraft on a carrier deck..
They were indeed too based for this fallen world
>>61502474
>>61502463>on that note, the US and England both had >sidewheel steamer< aircraft carriersI know about the Great Lakes carriers, what are the British ones?
>>61502121>they can be easily transported by almost any ship.Easier to accommodate a helicopter in a hangar of any size.
>>61502463>AkronAltimeter problem, thought they were hundreds of feet higher than they actually were.>MaconUncompleted repairs weakened the tail which later snapped under pressure thanks to never getting anything better on it than damage control splints.>Shenandoah Mother of all pressure fuckups right the heck outta' nowhere, possibly some screwups with penny pinching on the helium release valves.>Fullsized carriers were just more efficient and safer.Apples and oranges. While the ZRCVs were to have some actual striking power, the ZRS were pretty much entirely on a scouting focus, though in her final exercise Macon was planning to launch simulated divebombing attacks on the Lexington that night. If you're gonna compare zeps doctrinally, it needs to be against cruisers and sorta flying boats, not carriers. The potential to sweep 129,000 square miles in twelve hours really shouldn't be scoffed at
>>61502121They're too pure for this world>We have the technology for flying nuclear submarines but refuse to capitalize on it
>>61502121At least we still have flying boats.
>>61502214Did they use the pontoon for fuel storage?
Planes got too fast.
>>61502121floating logs and other things will absolutely destroy a seaplane that is traveling at the speeds necessary for a jet aircraft to take off.
>>61502572Sorry, they were French not English, my memory shat on me. They converted a couple of 1890s Channel sidewheel steamers to be patrol carriers during World War I, Le Nord and Pas-De-Calais. French requisitioned them in 1914, converted them in 1915 and 1916, respectively, and decommissioned both in 1919. They carried three seaplanes internally and could launch them all in about half an hour. More importantly they could both do around 20 knots, so they actually did some decent scouting during the war. Foudre was 15 on a good day after the conversion. Campinas did less than ten; she spent most of the war hiding in the Aegean and Egypt. Sadly I have yet to come up with pictures of either during the War, but you can see they were sexy little beasts before the conversion. More pics in a second.
>>61504150And pas-de-Calais in port. Unfortunately there's an active Channel ferry named "Nord Pas-De-Calais", which is violently queering my searches outside of one autist's incredibly broken website. And the US Naval archives have one incredibly tantilizing photo series of a French seaplane landing in Le Nord's home port in 1918, taxiing towards the berths, and being winched onto.. something. Out of frame. At which point the series ends.
>>61504161A shot of the Nord in port over the stern in 1903. There appears to have been another packet of the class named "Bologne-sur-Mare" which was never converted.
>>61502121Seaplanes are actually much more difficult to operate than regular planes, jet engines don't work well with seaplane operations, WW2 saw a massive amount of infrastructure built to facilitate air transport and combat operations that removed the need for seaplanes, and increasing efficiency and fuel economy meant it was easier to reach land-based facilities.
>>61504335And RMS Victoria pulling into port alongsaide Pas-De-Calais. Again, they're pretty trim little ships aside from the wheels, I'd be fascinated to know what exact modifications were made. Also I've been balls deep in the French naval archives for almost three hours looking for more references to the ships, and found a whole bunch of issues of "Les Flottes Des Combat", an early French competitor to Jane's All The World's Fighting Ships. Interesting disparities of information between them. Especially because the French apparently straight-up told Jane to fuck directly back to Blighty until 1919. Relevant link: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb344987846/date&rk=21459;2 They have shitloads of issues of it, too.
>>61502463The old American symbol was so good
>>61502121They are still quite useful for getting supplies to where they need to be in shitty waters. Not quite as useful as a submarine, or a littoral combat ship, but if cheap is your criteria you can get something like pic related to drop 2,000 pounds off wherever you need it.
>>61502121Useful in WW2 only as long range patrol craft or a short range spotting plane to assist cruisers who didn't have carrier support. Otherwise the performance was too poor.Carrier planes and island based patrol bombers were better whenever they were available.
