>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.
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?
> world than a meme ship
>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.
>Not lashing your planes together and chilling with your pilotbros on your makeshift comfy plane island home
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.
Sea state 5:
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?
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.
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.
>airframe inspection after every landing
Hey! I have Lil Bub too!
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>The Japanese also used cruiser based floatplanes (Aichi E13A) to scout for their carrier task forces, with a 1300 mile range.
They had one task force, which was sent to the bottom of the ocean on its third mission.
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.
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.
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
ShinMaywa US-2 claimed take off capability at Sea Sate 4, and limited capability at Sea Sate 5.
>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?
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.