Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8
Anonymous
Zero length launch systems, why didn't they get used more often? 2017-01-24 06:47:56 Post No. 32758262
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Zero length launch systems, why didn't they get used more often? 2017-01-24 06:47:56 Post No. 32758262
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: F-84_Thunderjet_ZELL.jpg (55KB, 550x444px) Image search:
[Google]
55KB, 550x444px
Zero length launch systems, why didn't they get used more often?
Anonymous
2017-01-24 06:47:56
Post No. 32758262
[Report]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SabWGCETDN0
It seems like a great idea to be able to station fighters around key defense points, such cities/ports/etc, and scramble then quickly without needing a nearby runway. Yet I've never heard of it until now, nor have I ever seen the concept practically utilized.
They could easy be launched if enemies were detected on radar, defend the area until out of fuel or ammo, and then land at an actual airstrip somewhere else.
>>
>>32758262
Its probably obsolete, but what about the times before SAMs were a thing? Like in the early 50's or something I could see a point defence interceptor being useful
Just have one mounted to a truck bed type of deal that follows the armor. When enemy planes are sighted the trailer could launch the fighter and it'd be able to cover the ground forces quickly. Seems like a great idea before missiles were the end all defence
>>
>>32758453
>Its probably obsolete, but what about the times before SAMs were a thing?
Are we forgetting about the worlds only rocket fighter to reach operational service?
>>
File: Hawker_Hurricane_launched_from_CAM_ship_c1941.jpg (152KB, 654x502px) Image search:
[Google]
152KB, 654x502px
>>32758262
Zero length launch is/was more about being able to use anything and everything to get your aircraft into the air assuming that your airbases were, or were soon to be, glass car parks.
Firing things off the back of a truck was basically an alternative to the many complex VTOL designs of the time.
The CAM ship is yet to be reinvented.
>>
>>32758262
Tendency of JATO bottles to detonate, most likely
>>
File: stratos4.jpg (93KB, 1024x725px) Image search:
[Google]
93KB, 1024x725px
It was used in my japanese animes.
>>
File: lrg0605.jpg (27KB, 428x315px) Image search:
[Google]
27KB, 428x315px
>>32758778
ZLL rocket sneers at your puny JATO bottles.
>>
File: Thunderbird 2.jpg (36KB, 468x286px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 468x286px
>>32758262
:)
>>
File: Ty4y5NT.png (727KB, 800x2277px) Image search:
[Google]
727KB, 800x2277px
It was nostalgic toys...
>>
File: F-100_zero-length-launch_trial.jpg (286KB, 1800x1189px) Image search:
[Google]
286KB, 1800x1189px
>>32758262
Never used because those were dangerous as fuck.
>>32758778
Most land based fighters back in the day had shitty slow speed handling, the risk that ZELL booster just fizzle out and lose thrust was probably higher than just exploding.
Even bigger issue were indirect costs, when aircraft are operated from a truck, you still need fuck load of mechanics at both launch sites and airbases where aircraft would return. When only few planes are operated from each scattered launch site, there isn't benefits that come from mechanics being able to work on multiple aircraft. Also just securing the launch site would require a lot of military police and security forces.
>>
cost of recovery
>>
File: MIM-104 PATRIOT PAC-3 launch.jpg (738KB, 1200x1528px) Image search:
[Google]
738KB, 1200x1528px
>>32758262
They get used all the time.
Thing is, the interceptors are unmanned, and not designed to land.
>>
>>32758262
>Zero length launch systems, why didn't they get used more often?
Because we invented better missiles. Both missiles we fire from the ground and ones we fire from planes.
Zero-length launches seemed like a great idea when your only option for interdicting an enemy bomber was to put a relatively slow fighter plane very close to it.
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8