It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why dont we launch planes like we do missiles?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Because landing distance is usually considerably shorter than takeoff distance. You can run arresting gear and stop a fighter in a couple hundred feet. Then put it back on the rail and launch it.

The F-100 zero length launch tests only put the pilots under 4Gs. The rocket motor burned out after 4 seconds. The Russian SM-30 (modified MiG-19) underwent 18 Gs after the catapult was set wrong but yet pilot was fine.




posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Because landing distance is usually considerably shorter than takeoff distance. You can run arresting gear and stop a fighter in a couple hundred feet.
Yes. But why bother unless you're on the water?



The Russian SM-30 (modified MiG-19) underwent 18 Gs after the catapult was set wrong but yet pilot was fine.
He stayed awake? Them Russians are tough!
edit on 5/13/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler




The sudden jolt would be unsustainable by the pilot


False.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   
www.youtube.com... Imagine this perhaps doubled.. The G force would be the limiting factor I believe. Not to mention propellant costs and hardware.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   
this is pretty much the whole point of VTOL aircraft such as the Harrier jump jet. the ability to take off and land without an airfield. and the idea of such aircraft goes back to at least ww2. the Germans did in fact have one or two they did try to use. plus a few on the drawing board and in early testing. both the Japanese and Germans had attack craft (pretty much suicide aircraft) based on the V-1. even the US was working on VTOL during the war. but it was not very practical.

one of the big issues with "rocket propelled craft" is that it takes a lot fuel to get going to be able to launch. another issue was the volatility of the fuels. the Germans did in fact use one rocket aircraft during the war, the ME 163 komet. although it took off and landed more like a standard aircraft not VTOL. the fuels it used were extremely dangerous. so dangerous in fact that there were some interesting and intricate fueling protocols in place, since if the two fuels mixed or touched at all it tended to cause explosions. C-stoff and T-stoff. it also had limitations such as a short flight time, about 7 1/2 minutes due to the fuel consumption of it. it carried a little over 4,000lb's of the two fuels, for that 7.5 minutes of powered flight time. because of this they were extremely vulnerable at landing as they were pretty much a slow unpowered glider. something the Allies capitalized on, attacking them as they went to land. which all in all canceled out the advantages of it's speed. the Germans were also working on a rail launched aircraft. i can't think off hand right now if it was a jet or rocket powered. but they ran into problems with the force of launching it damaging the aircraft.

now of course i suspect you are thinking using a more conventional powered jet. but with say an external rocket motor that would be ejected after launch. just look to the space shuttle program to answer why that is not the best idea. quite frankly rocket fuels by their very nature tend to be very dangerous. and are prone to explosions. which should not be surprising since it is that same volatility that makes a rocket motor work.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: generik

Thanks for the concise reply.

I still cant consolidate the fact that we have made significant progress since WW2 Germany and that a jet fighter is smaller and less complex than a space shuttle with what everyone says about how these systems wouldnt be a game changer if applied correctly.




edit on 5 13 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: schuyler




The sudden jolt would be unsustainable by the pilot


False.


Unnecessary. If you want the capability you suggest, use VTOL aircraft. Problem solved. No need to invent some basically untested and dangerous new method to launch aircraft. Just-take-off-vertically. And land the same way. End of story. No runways were abused in the composition of this post.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

The space shuttle's mission was entirely different than that of a combat aircraft.

Who everyone?



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

The same spirit of innovation that made people make VTOL aircraft and face the exact downsides you just mentioned could be applied in the future once more.

I know we figured it all out already and dont need to keep looking for new ideas or better ways of accomplishing old ones.

I just thought what we are doing now is already getting old. Maybe some new blood down the line will think we need new things and new tactics.

Next major actual war between formal nations, actually.


edit on 5 13 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes it was different. And?

The purpose I suggest is different. The system would be designed around its purpose.

Every Phage I know. That everyone.
edit on 5 13 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Phage

The purpose I suggest is different. The system would be designed around its purpose.


No it isn't. What you have here is a half-baked, untested solution in search of a problem that is already solved. Innovative solutions are cool, but this is a step backwards.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Yeah my first thought was for the pilot but I agree, could be good for drones when needed.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

No its not.

Stop thinking in terms of primitive Nazi tech or space quality NASA tech.

Military launcher for plane. No need for expensive and complex VTOL specific planes.

Launch, recover, rinse and repeat.

No nukes killing fleets. No mortar or missile attack hitting concentrations.

No need for stealth. Mobile ground platforms dont show on radar.


edit on 5 13 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

At the time it was because airfields were more vulnerable. Take out the runway and you've got a bunch of paper weights. Now, there is no reason for it. Ranges have increased to where the airfield can be farther back, and defenses have improved.

Eighteen Gs for a few seconds isn't a huge thing. The big thing is duration. Pilot's ejecting don't lose consciousness under 12-22 Gs, because the duration is so short.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

The problem with VTOL is that they are extremely limited in what they can carry when taking off vertically. Depending on the VTOL they couldn't even go vertical with a full fuel load. That's one reason they do rolling takeoffs and vertical landings.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

The problem would still be logistics and security. That was the big issue with the program. Transporting the launchers was difficult, and maintaining security was a pain.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: UnendingVigilance

There was no issue with the pilot in the ZLL program. They underwent fewer Gs at launch than they did flying the mission.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I imagine its risking more people and assets in an environment with more unknowns.

What if it was more of an X factor capability? Not a mass conversion to existing forces but as an augment to existing forces as an option for specific circumstances.

Like Give a special forces team instant and long loitering full air support behind heavily guarded enemy airspace. Then it scrams. Things like that.


edit on 5 13 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Your idea was attempted during world war 2. The idea was great no runway needed to launch a plane but reality showed how impractical it was.

en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I think it was impractical in WW2.

I believe it would be advantageous as well as practical by applying the entirety of the progress made technologically in the last 80 years.

It was impractical to launch planes from submarines but the Japanese did exactly that as well.

The war ended but their plan was to launch raid type missions with sudden heavy air attacks well beyond the front line.

The Panama canal was going to be attacked by such a submarine but it was recalled when it checked in.

It could have easily went silent and just completed its mission never knowing the war ended. That would have sucked. lol


edit on 5 13 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)







 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join