Battleship Fighters

[Volkodav]

Inspired by all those sexy floatplanes posted lately, how about an enthusiast with a lot of political pull, be they a politician, or perhaps an ex RNAS officer who had risen to rank in the new RAF, pushes the concept of small floatplane fighters for new and modernised battleships, battlecruisers and cruisers? 

Inspired by the Supermarine S4/5/6/6B Schneider Trophy racers, a new class of small point defence fighter is designed to fit a folded pair in each Walrus seaplane shipboard hanger.  Small and light with a single centreline float (to reduce folded width as well as to permit the same launch arrangements as the existing seaplanes), synchronised machine guns and perhaps a single cannon firing through the propeller hub.  Two will fit in the hangers designed for a single Walrus, providing each so equipped ship with a pair or more floatplane fighters, in addition to a remaining seaplane.  Imagine POW and Repulse with a single Walrus each and six float plane fighters.

Alternatively the float plane fighter is a straight, folding wing version of existing land based types, Hurricane, Spitfire, Typhoon etc.

[Weaver]

Main question is the same as for any floatplane fighter: how is it going to win in the air?

One partial soultion might be a retractable float like the Blackburn B.44: http://www.unicraft.biz/on/b44/b44.htm

Another approach might be something I've mulled over for a while: a push-pull tandem twin-engined fuslage pod (like a Fokker D.XXIII) with a central float and the tail surfaces supported by an extension on the float rather than wing booms. This way you get the same engine:drag-body ratio as a single-engined fighter but with a float. Of course, you need some clever way for the pilot to bail out.

In either case, I think a gun firing through the engine hub is an unneccessary complication, given that no standard British engine was adapted for it and the numbers of these planes built would be tiny. Since they have no undercarriage in the inner wing, the ideal weapon location would be there, synchronised to fire through the prop. If the synchronisation is too much of a pain, then they can be just outside the prop disc, but with their ammo inboard rather than outboard in order to centralise mass in partial compensation for the tip floats.

[jcf]

So a single float Savoia S.65 then? 



BTW the Supermarine S.4 is very different from the later S.5/6/6B, almost a completely different design approach,
and none of the Schneider aircraft, from any country, are a realistic basis for a warplane. By the time you redesigned
any one of them into something even remotely capable it would have little in common with its origin, biggest possible
engine in smallest possible airframe with minimal fuel/oil/cooling capacity isn't a formula for a successful warplane.

Perhaps something along the lines of the Parnall Prawn, enlarged of course with a larger engine.
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/KleinBernhard/7703.htm



However the size limitation would automatically produce an aircraft with several strikes against
it and I don't see the Admiralty, or ship Captains, willingly giving up an aircraft with a known utility (Walrus)
to lug around fighters they may never need, never mind the extra space they would take up, both the airframes
and the support materials. While the Repulse could technically carry four aircraft (one in each
hangar, one on the catapult and one on deck) she normally only carried two. Depending on period Repulse
carried the Blackburn Shark, the Fairey Swordfish and finally, from August 1941, the Walrus. So just based on
shipboard accomodations ther's no way to carry one Walrus and six fighters.

Realistically the only way to have saved Repulse and Prince of Wales from meeting their fate in December
of 1941, was to not send them.

[Volkodav]

I was looking at, or an expansion of, the hanger configurations on the KGV, modernised Queen Elizabeths and Renown, as well as the more modern cruiser designs, Towns, Crown Colonies, some modernised County class heavy cruisers, a hanger each side of the funnel(s), with a cross deck fixed catapult.  If each of up to four hanger bays is large enough for a single Walrus or a pair of floatplane fighters then a capacity of four Walrus can equal up to eight floatplane fighters, with mixes being 4, 3:2, 2:4, 1:6, 8. 

Obviously as the aircraft grow in size they will reach a point they can only be swapped one for one, but at the same time there capability and flexibility will increase, i.e. a Defiant or Fulmar would be able to conduct some of the missions of the Walrus, bar of course the SAR, utility etc.

Not perfect, even quite flawed but weren't many military ideas over the years, especially the ones that were intended to get around treaty or design limitations.

[Weaver]

So a single float Savoia S.65 then? 

Yes, thank you! I knew somebody had done it but I couldn't remember enough to make a google search

[Acree]

Or a single-float version of this:

[Logan Hartke]

Sounds like you're looking for something like the Loire 210, just British and actually workable.



For "What If" aircraft, I find this one to be pretty practical and attractive. The fuselage looks like a cross between the FDB-1 and the P-66 Vanguard to me.



And here's a few more "what if" designs that I like, but are certainly less practical. They sure do look neat, though!



It was only a matter of time before Bill Barnes' designs found their way on this thread:









Maybe not practical, but with folding wings, they should meet the criteria.

Cheers,

Logan

[Weaver]

That Chaparral design might be workable if it had swept back wings with the roots rather further forwards.

[Logan Hartke]

Here's another view of that design:



Cheers,

Logan

[jcf]

We always have room for Bill Barnes.  :)

[Weaver]

Ah, didn't realise the Chapparal had a T tail. I thought it was tailless.

[TurboCoupeTurbo]

Main question is the same as for any floatplane fighter: how is it going to win in the air?

This is a good question.  But I think it's better asked this way "What is the purpose of putting a float plane fighter detachment on a battleship or cruiser?"

Because let's face it, float plane fighters are never going to out perform non floatplane fighters.  But I think a good case could be made for a floatplane interceptor in the last few years before WW2, maybe as late as '41.  Maritime patrol aircraft and bombers could fly farther than escorting fighters.  If navies took the threat of aircraft launched ordnance against capital ships more seriously, a detachment of interceptors combined with early warning radar could provide surface ships with air cover against the unescorted bombers or patrol aircraft.

Of course, once long range fighters start showing up or more carriers enter service, the interceptors could be withdrawn from frontline duties.

[finsrin]

Saw 1/350 Mogami with seaplanes kit box this last week.
Aside from practicality (or not) of such ships;  box art is superb :)
Seems it would help sales.

[Volkodav]

The idea actually came to me when I was reading in detail about the loss of POW and Repulse of Malaya in WWII.  They were sunk by long range medium bombers armed with torpedos and 500lb bombs, operating at extreme range from Indo China.  Someone else posted somewhere that Singapore based Brewster Buffalos could have successfully seen off the attack had a CAP for the ships been planned, also that had a replacement been available for Indomitable the Nells could not have pushed home their attacks without fighter escort, which means not at all.

The whole idea is the RN (or another navy for that matter but most likely the RN) determines that a suitable floatplane fighter would permit major surface units to operate in more areas quite effectively without concern of air attack as that would be able to engage and destroy any long range scout or bomber aircraft that could reach them.

[GTX_Admin]

Because let's face it, float plane fighters are never going to out perform non floatplane fighters. 

Actually, you might be surprised - I have read accounts that one (the Nakajima A6M2-N) actually was able to hold its own quite well.

[GTX_Admin]

The only practical problem with this idea is that the battleships typically carried their aircraft to provide a observation/liaison type role.  With space limited aboard, I believe this will still take priority over dedicated fighters.  That said, it is still a cool whiffing idea.  Maybe something like a floatplane Fairey Fulmar or Fairey Firefly that could effectively perform both roles...and look odd/cool to boot.

[ericr]

beautiful documentation in this topic, thank you for sharing !

And the Rufe apparently had a reputation of success indeed.

[Acree]

How about, instead of a battleship toting fighters, a dedicated seaplane tender carrying a squadron.  Perhaps FOUR catapults for launching an entire section at once, maybe 12 fighters total on board, plus some guns for self defense, etc.  Could be a cheap alternative to escort carriers?  Maybe in WHIFWORLD!

Chuck

[jcf]

Don't forget that the Blackburn Roc was also intended to fulfill a specification for a shipboard catapult floatplane
fighter. Three conversions were made an flown, parts for a fourth were used to produce the Hurricane float fighter.
Flying characteristics of the float mounted Roc were abysmal.

[Logan Hartke]

Flying characteristics of the float mounted Roc were abysmal.

Fixed that for you. 

Cheers,

Logan

[Volkodav]

In the late 30s if you're going to build a seaplane carrier or a hybrid you may as well build a light carrier.  Another whiff of mine is Autralia builds their own heavy cruisers they subsequently switch the 6" gunned and then light carrier versions of the platform based on types developed for the RN, and a role of this cruiser based light carrier would be supporting cruiser and battleship squadrons.

Anyway I see the Walrus as a very versatile and capable platform, definitely better than the Seafox or floatplane versions of some other, low performance types and probably well worth retaining.  The question is what does the seaplane fighter need to do, if it needs to be capable of traditional seaplane missions of spotting etc. as well as the fighter missions, or if the one or Walrus are sufficient for the traditional roles that a single seat high performance type wouldn't be allowing them to displace some Walrus.

While Floatplane Tempests, Fireflies, Bearcat and Furies would be cool this concept would likely become obsolete once there were sufficient carriers available to provide CAPs as required.

[Weaver]

There's also the question of numbers. If a battleship can only put up one or two fighters, that might save it from half a dozen bombers, but it won't save it from forty-odd.

[Volkodav]

There's also the question of numbers. If a battleship can only put up one or two fighters, that might save it from half a dozen bombers, but it won't save it from forty-odd.

Two battleships, idealy operating with a cruiser or two as well would be able to put up a few, the advantage there is they could disrupt and break up the bomber formations or torpedo runs.

[TurboCoupeTurbo]

Any defense is better than no defense.

[Old Wombat]

Any defense is better than no defense.

Which is why battleships come with a fleet attached.

[finsrin]

One thing about battleships and cruisers that are partly seaplane ships.   They can look pretty darn good in styrene.

[TurboCoupeTurbo]

Any defense is better than no defense.

Which is why battleships come with a fleet attached.

Only when one is available 

[Kelmola]

Well, as late as 1980's they thought of putting Harriers on a modified Iowa (rear turret replaced by hangar and STOVL flight deck). So clearly, even some "professionals" seemed to think for a long time that having organic air defence/support when the carrier is not present or otherwise occupied might be a good thing.

[Volkodav]

Well, as late as 1980's they thought of putting Harriers on a modified Iowa (rear turret replaced by hangar and STOVL flight deck). So clearly, even some "professionals" seemed to think for a long time that having organic air defence/support when the carrier is not present or otherwise occupied might be a good thing.

During the 70s the US were looking at building a class of AEGIS equipped, 17000ton nuclear powered strike cruisers, Longbeach was to have been the prototype.  As I understand it there were two basic versions, the first the 17000 ton Mark I that looked like an enlarged Virginia or CGN-42 Class cruiser (an AEGIS version of the Virginia) and a Mark II CSGN that was even larger at 21000 tons with long flight deck down the port side.  Armament was to have been a pair of Mk-26 (64 missile version), two quad Tomahawk, four quad Harpoon, 2 Phalanx, a pair of triple torpedo tubes and 8" MCLWG.

What was really interesting about the Mark II was the hangers that formed the lower section of the large starboard island superstructure with separate doors for each of the six hanger bays, designed to accommodate a mix of Harriers and helicopters.

[Volkodav]

I must be going senile, I completely forgot about this topic I stated late last year and then I post the following on ericr's floatplane topic:



Re: catapult, blue, with Saab 91 : primary seaplanes

« Reply #177 on: Yesterday at 11:58:55 AM »

Been doing a bit of reading on British battleships and cruisers and was surprised to see just how important float and seaplanes were to the RN plans between the wars.  The were requirements for light reconnaissance/spotting (Seafox), long range reconnaissance (Fairey IIIF), floatplane fighter (Flycatcher), reconnaissance fighter (Osprey, later Skua and Roc) and torpedo bomber (Swordfish). 

The idea was each cruiser in the force intended to hold the Japanese until the arrival of the Mediterranean Fleet would each carry a number of aircraft and together provide an adequate mix of types in sufficient numbers to be effective.  Light cruisers would carry a minimum of a Seafox but the larger ships would have a mix of fighters and reconnaissance types while some would carry torpedo bombers instead of one or more of the other types.  The battleships and battlecruisers in particular would carry fighters to defend themselves against torpedo bombers.  It was realised that carriers would be more effective but also that due to treaty limitations they would often not be available where needed, hence the requirement for what was basically a fleet unit of a capital ship or two plus several cruisers to be able to put up their own force of reconnaissance, fighter and strike aircraft.

Off topic but pre Washington treaty one option the RN was looking at for operations in SEA was a new large cruiser along the lines of the Courageous class, that, in addition to big guns, torpedos and aircraft, also carried a couple of MTBs (motor torpedo boats) in addition to the ships boats.  now that would be a ship and a half, multiple catapults (or at least a midriff one flanked by large hangers) as well as a pair of MBTs on davits.



How weird that I read that what I thought was my bright idea was actually RN "between the wars" strategy for pretty much the reasons I brought up.  Anyway having read the actual RN thinking what I am really talking about is a new generation of aircraft to replace existing or retired types.

One of the factors that killed off the plan was the Seagull V / Walrus, it was apparently the first ship based  aircraft capable of operating from rough (or at least rougher than glass flat) seas, so dramatically expanding the operational envelope of ship based aircraft operation, that it simply made sense to transition to that more versatile and effective type.

The concept of capital ships and large cruisers carrying MTBs was also very interesting but obviously completely unviable once the Washington Treaty displacement limits came in.  While an option on a 15-20000 ton cruiser or 50000 plus ton battleship there was no way a 10,000 cruiser or 35000 ton capital ship could afford the space or wait such an arrangement would require, or more to the point the reduction in other areas it would entail.  My thoughts of how it could have come about while still having a naval limitation treaty would be that instead of an overall and individual maximum displacement limits for each type there was simply a maximum number of ships of each type that could be built, while retaining minimum replacement age and maximum calibre limits, plus maybe a maximum number of guns at maximum calibre.  This would still limit the maximum reasonable size for a battleship or cruiser because it would just be wasteful building a ship greater than a particular size if the number and size of guns were capped but the British could probably surprise everyone when their new ships appeared in the late 20s with half a dozen or more float planes of different types and a pair of MBTs.

[Volkodav]

Hawker Henley done up as a float plane fighter reconnaissance aircraft for battleships and larger cruisers fitted with the heavy catapult.