Why dont we launch planes like we do missiles?

If it was better, that is how it would be done now.

it might make a 747 take off really fun to watch.

originally posted by: tadaman
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.

the fact of the matter is that billions, likely even trillions of dollars have been invested into VTOL research. VTOL is pretty much the holly grail of air forces around the world. and the reason is that strategically the easiest way to defeat any airpower, is to destroy airfields. since of course most aircraft can not be used without runways. during the cold war they sunk a lot of research into VTOL for that very reason. and it is the same reason everyone was trying to develop the same in ww2. when they did put a lot of effort into destroying runways, to prevent the opposing side from being able to launch and recover aircraft. and it is still a major concern to this day. trust me, if it was feasible. everyone would be using such VTOL aircraft for that very reason.

and i certainly would not say that a modern jet fighter is "less complex" than the space shuttle. first of the computing power used in the space shuttle is now something even many watches have more of. forget about the computing power found in a modern fighter jet. and in all honesty the space shuttles were actually rather simple in design compared to a fighter aircraft. although to be fair. the two are like comparing apples to oranges, since they are used so differently and so are completely different in design. for example the space shuttle is not designed to really maneuver. unlike a fighter which is designed to be able to handle the stresses of a lot of maneuvering. and stress is another problematic issue with a VTOL like you are describing. it not only would have to be designed to be a lot more robust to deal with the power of such a launch. which of course increases it's weight. but the stresses from such launches would also mean that the airframe would not last anywhere near as long due to those stresses. catapult launches are hard enough on airframes. and that is nowhere even near the stresses that would be involved in something like a "rocket launch" system.

It would be a small logistics nightmare for a niche that is already covered.

When I was in pilots required a certain amount of flight time to stay certified. They also need a runway to land on. If they are close enough to land then they should be close enough to use that as the base instead of parking some rocket platform in a different area and having pilots twiddle their thumbs for some anticipated launch.

originally posted by: tadaman
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

you do realize that those Jap subs each only carried 4 aircraft. and the fourth was actually stored as parts, so not really usable. the idea was to have a fleet of such submarines. but in the end only 3 of the 18 subs originally ordered were actually completed. now even if all 18 had been completed, that would only mean a viable attack force of 54 aircraft. and one of the three was actually converted into a tanker. so that attack on the canal would have been an attack force of 6-8 aircraft. nothing more than a desperation play than any real strategic reality.

and the reason they were able to take off from the sub was that the aircraft were designed (as were almost all aircraft at the time), for slow speeds. those slow speeds meant that they did not need much speed to take off and fly, when compared to a jet aircraft. and those lower speeds equal lower stresses on the launched aircraft. in fact many ships at the time had similar short launch rails for observation/attack (seafires, pretty much a spitfire, were popular) aircraft. even some aircraft carriers originally had similar launch rails as well as the flight deck to take off from. in fact the only real difference between aircraft launched from those subs, and any other ship was the storage of the aircraft. they were specifically designed to be stored in the space of their propeller arc. with the wings and tail being folded to conform to the space limitation, and the landing gear actually having to be attached when the aircraft were out of the hanger. the other real innovation aside from their storage, was the fact they designed a system to preheat the oil in the aircraft so that they would not have to warm up like every other aircraft. and thus could be flown as soon as they unfolded it and attached the floats.

such a launch system would be perfectly as viable today as it was then. it's just that you would be flying an aircraft that could only go a couple hundred mph against aircraft that can fly over the speed of sound, which would put them at a severe disadvantage. rather like bringing a knife to a gun fight. sure you could put it on a truck and launch from anywhere, no runway needed to take off (landing is a different story). but do you really want to fly a spitfire against an F-16, F-18, F-14 or F-35? heck even a warthog would be more than a match for it in a dogfight.

Most missiles blow up or crash somewhere. Count me out, I'll fly American Airlines if I need to fly.

I should get air miles for promoting American....but I don't need to fly anyway, what would I do with airline miles.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Phage

It could slow down after launch you know.

EDIT TO ADD:
Also, it could just be under a 10 second flight until sufficient speed and altitude is gained for the plane to recover from after break away.

No offense but thats not how physics works boss man

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

That's actually pretty close to how it worked. The F-100 was under rocket power for 4 seconds, then they dropped away. At the public demonstration the pilot performed a barrel roll immediately after the rockets released.

There were hardened RLG systems in the 1950's that used jam proof mid flight correction.
Once the vehicle was launched there would be no further communication possible mid flight.
Generally without hard encryption if you could communicate with it, someone else could communicate with it, and even with encryption usually a DOS attack is trivial.

In a word...JARTS!

We don' need no steenking runway!

a reply to: tadaman

And it takes time to react and send them INTO harm's way

Not as much as you think.
Even the old giants (C-130s , B-52s) would amaze you.

The Germans had the idea for the Natter in WWII when their airfields were being blown to bits.
The single manned fight resulted in the death of the test pilot.
Not a success.

The Bachem Ba 349 Natter (English: Colubrid, grass-snake[1]) was a World War II German point-defence rocket-powered interceptor, which was to be used in a very similar way to a manned surface-to-air missile. After a vertical take-off, which eliminated the need for airfields, most of the flight to the Allied bombers was to be controlled by an autopilot. The primary role of the relatively untrained pilot was to aim the aircraft at its target bomber and fire its armament of rockets. The pilot and the fuselage containing the rocket-motor would then land using separate parachutes, while the nose section was disposable. The only manned vertical take-off flight on 1 March 1945 ended in the death of the test pilot, Lothar Sieber.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Phage


How do astronauts survive the trip up?

Magic, obviously. If you don't believe so you must be a "science denier" (whatever that means) and must believe the Earth is flat. Because you asked a question.

a reply to: butcherguy

It resulted in his death because of a canopy that wasn't fully latched. They surmised that he accidentally pulled back on the stick, which pitched the nose up, at which point the canopy and headrest separated. His head would have snapped back and it either knocked him out or broke his neck.

a reply to: Phage

♫ THUNDER! ♫

It wasn´t really providing much thrust, or was it?

a reply to: Phage

ive seen it a few times , its rather amazing .

a reply to: tadaman

We do. They're called aircraft carriers.

There is no technical reason for not doing it. As mentioned already there have been rocket assisted start systems.

Imho the actual issue is the cost of such rocket boosters, especially if you want to make them as safe as possible.

But in the end it is much cheaper to start from a runway, or even a road if you really need a forward operating location.

a reply to: tadaman

Because humans are squishy and easily crushed by high G forces.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: RadioRobert
a reply to: RazorV66

Thats awesome! Why dont we use these types of systems instead of airbases everywhere?!

Whats the downside that makes this so unappealing?

Somehow missed this.

The basic answer is it is a lot easier to have an airbase where fuel and ammo depots permanently reside, where parts and maintainers are centrally located. You need an airfield to recover aircraft anyway. It's a lot harder to kill a runway than it sounds.
Trying to run 36 separate dispersed launch sites is also a logistical nightmare and personnel drain even if you're tied logistically to a fixed base. And if you're tied on a short tether to a fixed, central location anyway, then why go through the hassle?

It offers very little utility over conventional usage, and the payoff isn't worth the costs.


Like lots of neat ideas, it's all about $$$.

a reply to: schuyler

It's actually not untested at all, we did do a bunch of work on TEL and ZEL launch systems, and then there's the cormorant UAV project which very likely allows a UAV to be launched from a shallow depth submerged submarine from a VLS tube. (Someone correct my terminology please, I horribly bastardized it and used the terms I know which I'm not sure apply to subs.)

Also though, there's the Saab Gripen which can launch and land from highways and is designed to allow very sparse ground support from a personnel and equipment standpoint to rapidly turn aircraft and get them up for another sortie.

It's not that people aren't pursuing this or etc so much as there isn't really much talk about exactly what they're doing along these lines.

Also schuyler... Tell the no runways were harmed thing to the ships and airbases that are supposed to support v-22/f-35b!

They have to reinforce and otherwise very specially treat such areas or accept them getting destroyed in crazy short order by flight operations.

The v-22 actually can't be used off some Navy ships because it will burn holes through the flight deck!