SEA PLANES! THIS TIME WITH... JET ENGINES?!

How rough of a sea could a Jet Seaplane operate from?

Use of Seaplanes and Integration within a Sea Base seems to indicate that conditions at sea, globally, only exceed sea state 5 less than 10% of the time, and sea state 4 only 15% of the time (the graph they use is a bit hard for my eye to read). So any seaplane jet could be capable of operation in almost any of the same conditions a carrier jet could. Yes, they are going to be more expensive than an equivalent carrier jet (already more expensive than an equivalent land-based jet), but versatility, and the lower cost of entry in terms of outfitting a carrier, has to count for something.

And in terms of tenders, they don't need to be surface based. Submarine tenders could surface, refuel, rearm, or swap crews, and then submerge.
 
VTOL seaplanes

Isn't catapult launch a form of VTOL? Can we conjure up a jet fighter that is catapult lauinched from a small(ish) ship and after its mission lands on the water and is hoisted back? a sort of modern day Kawanishi N1K1?
 
Isn't catapult launch a form of VTOL? Can we conjure up a jet fighter that is catapult lauinched from a small(ish) ship and after its mission lands on the water and is hoisted back? a sort of modern day Kawanishi N1K1?

The Floatplane variant is known as the N1K. The landplane was N1K1J.

There was an aircraft that could take off vertically off a small deck, and land back on a small deck. There's going to be a new one, but it'll cost a fortune. How many catapult-launched floatplanes are required? A small number will require a large fortune to design and manufacture, and will be subject to having it's electronics subject to the vagaries of life in the sea.


The US Navy has done studies on sea basing. Probably googlable. I'm not sure what the exact mission would be.


There's more to sea state than wave height. Wave shape and distance from crest to crest is also a factor.
 
N1K1

According to William Green's complete book of fighters, and to Paul Eden's encyclopaedia of world aircraft, the N1K1 was the floatplane, and he first land version was the N1K1-J. Mick Spick's book of fighters says the same. All Japanese navy fighters had a final number for version, and so N1K was the generic type designation, and they all had a Mark number. It's like saying the carrier zero version was the A6M, not the A6M2 or 5...
 
OK... Given the inherent problems vectored jet nozzles would have in providing lift from the surface of the sea/water, How about a focus on the Sea Dart retractable skid method of take off and landing for calm waters but with a Jet nozzle array for vertical landings on solid surfaces etc? (This could phase out any need for landing gear for wheels being implemented in the design) Wouldnt this VTOL capability also be useful for landing on the water when the sea's are rough and there is not a sufficient stretch of water to skid down on to? If the plane is watertight for the pilot and instruments etc and sufficiently buoyant then even if it plunges below the waters surface on VTOL landing, it could just float back up to the surface ready for refuel or its next usage.

If you have both options engineered in to the Seaplane then yes it will undoubtedly be more expensive but it will also have greater operational capability.

What do you think?
 

NothingNow

Banned
OK... Given the inherent problems vectored jet nozzles would have in providing lift from the surface of the sea/water, How about a focus on the Sea Dart retractable skid method of take off and landing for calm waters but with a Jet nozzle array for vertical landings on solid surfaces etc? (This could phase out any need for landing gear for wheels being implemented in the design) Wouldnt this VTOL capability also be useful for landing on the water when the sea's are rough and there is not a sufficient stretch of water to skid down on to? If the plane is watertight for the pilot and instruments etc and sufficiently buoyant then even if it plunges below the waters surface on VTOL landing, it could just float back up to the surface ready for refuel or its next usage.

Why not just raise the jet nozzle a couple inches more above the water, with a more buoyant float, and stick with the skid?
 
How rough of a sea could a Jet Seaplane operate from?

Use of Seaplanes and Integration within a Sea Base seems to indicate that conditions at sea, globally, only exceed sea state 5 less than 10% of the time, and sea state 4 only 15% of the time (the graph they use is a bit hard for my eye to read). So any seaplane jet could be capable of operation in almost any of the same conditions a carrier jet could.
That assumes that jet seaplanes can take off in such sea-states, but I wouldn't bet on it myself, the faster you go, the rougher the surface of the water is going to seem, and no aircraft takes well to repeatedly running over speed bumps.
 

NothingNow

Banned
That assumes that jet seaplanes can take off in such sea-states, but I wouldn't bet on it myself, the faster you go, the rougher the surface of the water is going to seem, and no aircraft takes well to repeatedly running over speed bumps.

Yeah, but a P6M, or any modern Shin Meiwa design can easily take off in Sea State 4 conditions (and I honestly think a P6M could take off in a Category 2-3 Hurricane were the crew so inclined,) and pretty much anything under that is easy enough for a large seaplane (pretty much anything bigger than a Catalina) as it is. Seriously, 1.25M is nothing to an aircraft that's got a 4M tall hull, and is built to take off in it anyway.

Seriously, you're not going to win this argument dude. Seaplanes are built tough, and long ranged. Pretty much anything built for military or SAR service is going to be built for sea state 4 conditions, and overbuilt for that. After all, they've got to handle the same conditions ships do.
 
I've worked on a few sea planes over the years they are built extremely tough much more so than 'ordianary' aircraft. That being said I think that there will be sea states where it would be difficult to work in .
Also high speed is not allways required to take off . It is possible to build and configure the wing such that it requires less motion to work efficiently.
Such aircraft are never that fast but are fuel efficient.
 

NothingNow

Banned
I've worked on a few sea planes over the years they are built extremely tough much more so than 'ordianary' aircraft. That being said I think that there will be sea states where it would be difficult to work in .

Yeah. As an extreme example, the Martin P6M, one of the fastest seaplanes ever built, had skin on the wingroots about a quarter of an inch thick, since it was made to survive Transsonic flight at very low altitude, along with the normal stresses encountered by a Seaplane. The hull's almost as thick, and with it's hull shape, it'll take a hit better than you'd think. But provided you don't hit a snag or a log (which are remarkable less common in open water, go figure :rolleyes:,) your average seaplane can probably handle Sea State 3 conditions just fine.
It'd certainly be less jarring in a 100 ton seaplane than the Power boats and sailboats I've gone out in.
 
How about as airborne ABM platforms, patrolling the coasts of countries for SLBM threats. Make it modular, so they can be re-purposed if need be.
 
Top