SeaDart SeaplaneFighter Threat to Aircraft Carrier Racket

[ludvan64]

The demise of the flying boat & seaplane was a very sad one. I suppose in the future we will have spacecraft fighters on board a sort aircraft space station that could reach any trouble spot on earth with 90 minutes. Present day air carriers are a bit of a conundrum. The ships carry very fast supersonic planes, but the ships the ships themselves can barely do 40 knots, taking a long time to reach a target. The best solution is of course would be to have peace, but the military won't like that.

[Lizzard343]

I don't see how this will replace carriers, elaborate, please?

Why should every ship in the fleet carry a single fighter?

[dynmicpara]

@Lizzard343 READ WEB PAGES offered as links in video description for details.

[strikedizzle]

Imagine the maintenance on that thing.

[dynmicpara]

@strikedizzle Beats the SALVAGE of the ships that will be sunk by PGMs without them.

[ericartwo1]

The question of suitability of this aircraft and comparing it to others is immaterial. America possesses many types of aircraft and each one meets a different need. I can see the usefulness of this type of plane which can be kept in a seclude environment for a particular purpose (examples; espoinage, undercover missions, etc.)

[dynmicpara]

@ericartwo1 The American carrier navy has no ASW planes...no long endurance scouts...no CAS types....it's asking to be sunk by PGMs. So its not "immaterial" when our quantity and quality of sea aircraft is deficient.

[dracheous]

The problem isn't whether or not you can take off a plane from water; but can that aircraft effectively combat say an F22 Raptor? F18 Super Hornet? Or F15 Eagle?  The problem with aircraft that take off from the water is weight = drag = fail lift off. Strong winds can mean no ability to get off the water; rough seas = forget about it. Take into account all that and then try to fight an F18 with the excess weight of water gear.

[dynmicpara]

Hell yes, a modern seaplane fighter is far more streamlined than a bloated F-18 Stupor Hornet. Look up the APA web site for details on that overweight flying turd.

[sravps]

Nice video, nice aircraft indeed, but there's no chance a sea plane can beat the logistic around an aircraft carried, we are talking of moving an air base everywhere you want... while with a sea plane, you just do it in the shores.

[dynmicpara]

FALSE. Go to web page offered in video description. The USN operated seaplanes in OCEANS for almost 60 years.

[sravps]

@dynmicpara The seaplanes can be used in the oceans, yes, but you cant operate them at 100%.

Even if you don't want to use it at 100%, you need a logistic ship system around it, involving gas suppliers, weapon suplliers, and even new crew.

With an aircraft Carrier you've got all that covered, an even better, you use the same planes you could use over land.

[dynmicpara]

FALSE. CATBAR planes have heavier landing gear, frames and tail-hooks compromising flight performance--look up the APA web site on the F-18 Stupor Hornet. Packing all your seaplanes onto a few carriers that will be knocked out and sunk is unsound.

[dynmicpara]

Another point, you cannot operate CATBAR planes from carriers 100% of the time, either in the face of bad weather.

[FormerlyFlightsuit]

Fascinating plane. I do wish, however, that people posting aircraft videos would refrain from adding generic guitar-rock soundtracks.

[dynmicpara]

You can turn volume down. We are trying to make a pleasing to watch video.

[FormerlyFlightsuit]

Well the music you added only makes the video pleasing to watch if you like shitty music.

[TheAEOC]

the idea is a great one, no runways required, but the taking off rattled the shit out of the pilots and the airframe.

[ztcamper]

While having a large fleet of carriers seams unnecessary, having a couple doesn't hurt. I think France and Britain got it right. The only reason to have an aircraft is to have a mobile air base. Only reason to have that is to attack someone. Having even a single carrier though doesn't seam like a bad idea. Just in case. It doesn't even need to be fully maned. Skeleton crew and all that. Probably the only real unavoidable annual money sink on that beast is an unstoppable nuclear reactor.

[dracheous]

France and Britain, don't have to travel around the world 9 times of 10 for a major conflict. Typically all the "large" wars still happen over seas in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. For the States this means getting equipment and personnel over there is a challenge. They also do not have a LOT of ground bases over there to keep; so make it mobile. Put a flat deck with support ships to protect it and you now have a base that can cross the oceans to any fight or come back home to take on closer

[dynmicpara]

NOT ENOUGH. A carrier with a dozen ships is 1 + 12 TARGETS that cannot put up enough aircraft to protect themselves from HUNDREDS of PGMs.

[dynmicpara]

The point of seaplanes is to GET MORE AIRCRAFT into the air to have a chance to survive against air, surface, undersurface and land threats. Not willing to do this, you are asking for defeat at sea from PGMs. Be careful what you wish for.

[dynmicpara]

Exmech2 writes:

"The missile threat is far greater than you actually mention in your "interesting" website. Sea skimmers are merely the tip of the iceberg."

[a4devin]

Where will they refull?

[dynmicpara]

On the ship after recovery. Go to the seaplane fighters web page offered in the video descrption

[adigital1]

Money paid is so much, its ridiculous.You speak truth. The need is real, in big wars, aircraft carriers are last survivors? Housing so much armor & protecting decks full of parts to rebuild various types of aircraft (or what ever the next stealth are). Its always debatable subjects. I did my 6 Yrs& pay big taxes &more, want options. In U.S. we all use to do a fair share, all helping build volunteering. I cant wait to rebuild properties.Hse's & factories=10,000 almost free properties every week.

[CaptainCrunch60]

Boating , flying and rock'n roll combined, more fun than humans are allowed!

[Cab0cl0]

With the costs of carrier operations, do you think some coutries could turn to the idea again?

[wraithman07]

I doubt it, although carriers are expensive, refitting an air force / navy with all new fighters is a lot more costly.

[dynmicpara]

You doubt wrong.

A super carrier costs $5 BILLION to build. $100 MILLION a year to operate at best 70 x $60 MILLION bloated Stupor Hornets.

A seaplane fighter at $10 million each on destroyers/cruisers we already have is far cheaper.

Do the math.

[Hellamar]

gr8 )))

[Kayback]

Curious though, these bloated aircraft carriers seem to be doing the job now. Why go backwards?

Catapault launched aircraft were used back in the day, but especially the Hurricane fighter ones were fire and forget. The pilot couldn't land. They ditched.

Is this what you are suggesting? Or are you more the hover for recovery like the Brits tried with their Harriers a couple of years ago?

Your idea is more suited to vertical launched UCAV's than piloted planes. Something in development already

[dynmicpara]

Aircraft carriers are not doing the job of sea control but they are making America go broke. Why don't you go to the web page offered and see what we are proposing to "see" (pardon the pon) how MANNED seaplanes are recovered. UAVs crash often and cannot see squat so don't pontificate that seaplane versions are the answer.

[BiccusD]

I think this is a very interesting concept, and could be used in certain situations. However, I really don't see how this negates the need for carriers. Are they just gonna sit offshore, each pilot waiting in his own lil jet? What about when the seas are 10 ft plus? I really cant see this plane taking off or landing in the anything over 2 ft waves. I don't really follow your thoughts here... please elaborate.

[dynmicpara]

The seaplane fighter is on a CATAPULT on the cruiser/destroyer/submarine in a ready-to-launch DRY mode. The first planes launched against us at Pearl Harbor were cat-launched scout SEAPLANES from a cruiser. The point is to have EYES OUT LOOKING; if your aircraft carrier deck is "fouled" (weather or damage) you are BLIND and fatally vulnerable.

[BiccusD]

That is an interesting concept, thank you for sharing.

[felixu95]

You see, the reason why they don't use that with destroyers and other such battleships is the problem of refueling an object that is consuming fuel just to keep up with you. Of course, you could just tow the plane, but that would also prove to be a problem. How would you manage to get the cable from the plane to the ship, or vice versa, without damaging any components of the two? Of course, the F-35 would be a better option, but then that would also lessen the time that a ship would be at sea.

[dynmicpara]

We saddle our Aegis cruisers and destroyers with JP-8 fuel-hungry, slow, short-range helicopters NOW. Fixed-wing, Seaplane fighters would be far better,

[ALoveEternal]

FINALLY!!!

a video that dosen't have shitty ignorant rap or fucking disguisting whiny pussy boy emo music!!!

satch rules!

[bridgeman11]

That's San Diego bay and the San Diego Aerospace Museum has one of those planes on display. Thanks for the posting.

[jmaugham]

Holy crap where's the mute button. That is some seriously crap music.

[THEpearldrummer]

even though thats joe satriani, who happens to be one of the greatest guitarists ever. get some taste buds bro.

[tibchy144]

music sucks

[dynmicpara]

Maybe YOUTUBE should offer ALTERNATIVE MUSIC soundtracks to everyone who watches a video as an option? If there's no words required to express the message, why not?

[custardypants]

Damn, those test pilots had cohones!

[whatzupa]

Don't forget the Navies ground support role too.

[whatzupa]

hmmm I'll have to think about it more.

I suppose that aircraft carriers can resupply and turnaround far greater numbers of aircraft in shorter times. So it depends on your goals, if the aim was to take out a single frigate one on one, then yes, the sea-dart with air to surface missiles is the way to go. If you want sustained air to air coverage over great distances in a multiple threat environment, then the carrier seems like the way to go.

[dynmicpara]

@whatzupa The American carrier navy has no ASW planes...no long endurance scouts...no CAS types....it's asking to be sunk by PGMs. So its not "immaterial" when our quantity and quality of sea aircraft is deficient.

[456run]

why isn't such a great idea fully developed and used today????

[Strykaas]

Too dangerous I guess.

[dynmicpara]

READ VIDEO DESCRIPTION

[lavers13]

It looks great here but the vibrations for the pilot during take off were exceptional.

Also in anything above flat calm you couldn't take off; the seas were too rough to get the ski which acted as the nose-gear on the plane.

It was a good idea but the need for it was not there after WW2 (See the Saunders-Roe SR A/1) and carriers can do the same as the Sea Dart in any weather with greater capability with all the maintainance etc in one (if rather large) unit.

[dynmicpara]

@lavers13 NOT. If the carrier is sUNK nothing is going to fly off them. Placing all our aircraft on a few bloated carriers is fatal in the PGM age. If we want to survive on the sea surface we will need seaplane fighters---a lot of them.

[johnkamm]

This is a clear example of a design WAY ahead of its time. It does hold some major speed records for a seaplane too.....

[cajunhornet60]

Your posts are GREAT thanx again!!

[cajunhornet60]

GREAT Posts...I was a USAF Brat; and my Dad was a line chief; I remember climbing in B-36's when I was 5 years old.

Served in USAF in Helicopter Squadron in Vietnam

Bob in Louisiana

[dynmicpara]

Where did the obsolete Swede's comments go?

[BlacktailFA]

The Sea Dart is a design that has always appealed to me --- no carriers sunk, no runways cratered!

[Crediblesport]

Hello,

Where can one purchase this video dvd?

Thanks

Credible Sport