Floatplane fighters: wishful thinking or tactical resource?

[msxyz]

Thread says it all. I don't need to explain why a floatplane is at disadvantage compared to a contemporary land based plane (or carrier based).

Yet every nation with interests on the sea toyed with the idea at some point. Only Japan fielded them in numbers during ww2 but I don't think the results were noteworthy: not even the mighty N1K 'Kyofu' could hope to best a contemporary US fighter, if not caught off guard).

The idea persisted well into the '50s with the remarkable Convair F2Y 'Sea Dart', which, at least, had the advantage of being supersonic and capable of using rockets and missiles
(when the engines worked: Westinghouse poor jet engines nearly ruined a generation of promising Navy fighters)

While being able to take off without a runway is certainly an advantage for any aircraft (STOL/VTOL planes have found their niche), when you know well in advance that your 'fighter' will be hopelessly under performing, why insist?

 

[Shortround6]

Thread says it all. I don't need to explain why a floatplane is at disadvantage compared to a contemporary land based plane (or carrier based).

Yet every nation with interests on the sea toyed with the idea at some point. Only Japan fielded them in numbers during ww2 but I don't think the results were noteworthy: not even the mighty N1K 'Kyofu' could hope to best a contemporary US fighter, if not caught off guard).

The idea persisted well into the '50s with the remarkable Convair F2Y 'Sea Dart', which, at least, had the advantage of being supersonic and capable of using rockets and missiles
(when the engines worked: Westinghouse poor jet engines nearly ruined a generation of promising Navy fighters)

While being able to take off without a runway is certainly an advantage for any aircraft (STOL/VTOL planes have found their niche), when you know well in advance that your 'fighter' will be hopelessly under performing, why insist?

In the early part of WW II the float fighter could protect bases (mostly naval) from common recon planes and perhaps nuisance raiders without a lot of infrastructure.
They could, in theory, provide air cover while runways were built or for temporary operations. The US even put a C-47 on floats, unloading into small boats was a problem
For the US the float fighter was replaced by the Bulldozer and metal matting for very rapid airstrip construction.

 

[pbehn]

There was a niche use for float planes operated from battleships as spotters and scouts, some other uses grew out of that just because they were there.

 

[Graeme]

There was a niche use for float planes operated from battleships as spotters and scouts.

There was a belief in Australia that such aircraft were the only aerial threat to our coastline.
Our response was an armed version of the Wirraway which we thought would easily deal with this.
We were wrong.

 

[ThomasP]

The IJN intended the floatplane-fighters to be used to eliminate/chase off enemy reconnaissance aircraft, as well as performing reconnaissance themselves, with a better chance of surviving any encounters with enemy aircraft. While a carrier based fighter is obviously better at the eliminating role, the Japanese intended many of their their cruisers to be employed as trade protections ships - often(usually?) without carrier protection. This was similar to the UK's concept of using/designing many of their cruisers for trade protection - the RN equipped their ships intended for trade protection with floatplanes as well.

 

[msxyz]

There was a niche use for float planes operated from battleships as spotters and scouts, some other uses grew out of that just because they were there.

Scouting was a popular role for floatplanes (and today many navies operate helicopters in the same role) but a fighter needs to unite acrobatic qualities with speed and very good power to weight ratio. Italy tried to have jack of all trades with the Imam Ro.43/44 but these planes ended up being used only as spotters, artillery directors and trainers because, as fighters, they would barely be able to fend off the old biplanes that the British navy was still operating in the Mediterranean theater. As a curiosity, in Italian there is even a specific word to identify a flaotplane fighter: "Idrocaccia", still mentioned in vocabularies.

As for the Japanese floatplanes, am I remembering correctly that either the A6M2-N or the N1K had the ability to drop their wing floats in an emergency to gain some extra speed? (landing would still be possible on the central float; although I guess that once they stopped, they would roll to the side like a bicycle left without its stand)

 

[buffnut453]

For the US the float fighter was replaced by the Bulldozer and metal matting for very rapid airstrip construction.

Bingo! The floatplane fighter concept was born due to fears that airfields may not be available close enough to the area of operations. The emergence of rapid airfield construction during WW2 effectively made the requirement obsolete.

The idea got a slight second wind during the Cold War. In the immediate aftermath of WW2, the British saw floatplane fighters (e.g. the Saunders Roe SRA1) as a means of rapidly re-imposing military force in the Empire at relatively low cost.

The Sea Dart was the true last gasp effort, perhaps encouraged by Russia becoming a nuclear power in 1949. If your airfields are going to be nuked out of existence, having a fighter that can operate anywhere that there's a substantial body of water seemed like a decent contingency plan. This wasn't the stated design purpose behind the Sea Dart...but it's a useful ancillary benefit of the design.

 

[pbehn]

Compared to Europe, Japan and many areas of the Pacific it is much easier to operate from the sea than from land. A float plane fighter is at a disadvantage against conventional fighter, but probably good enough to fend off low level bombers, dive bombers of the day. Of course single engine planes have such short range. dont they? The sort of incorrect assumption that led to the Defiant.

 

[msxyz]

Of course single engine planes have such short range. Don't they?

Good thing that the floats offer a lot of volume to store extra fuel.

 

[Shortround6]

When you expect the opposition to be flying boats or bombers like the B-18 a good float fighter may make sense.

Once carrier based retracting landing gear fighters show up things don't look so good.

Another change of times factor, the US had a massive carrier construction program going on.
By the time they designed a float fighter (follow up to the F4F on floats) and got it built many of the first wave of carriers would be finished.

 

[nuuumannn]

The floatplane fighter is a bit like the philosophy of the Fulmar and Roc two-seat naval fighters. They were designed for shooting down bombers and recon aircraft far out to sea and were unlikely to encounter single-seaters. Putting floatplane fighters on lonely atolls out in the Pacific was similar, unless enemy carriers were around, of course.

As well as the Convair Sea Dart, the other notable waterborne fighter was the Saunders Roe SR.A/1.

0207 Solent Sky SRA.1

 

[Akuma]

Let's not forget that before the advent of helicopters, float-planes were the only long range reconnaissance resource available for warships other than aircraft carriers.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I have to think that the central float idea had more merit that the two canoes under the wings.

 

[pbehn]

I have to think that the central float idea had more merit that the two canoes under the wings.

View attachment 629961

View attachment 629962

If you have a large central float, on occasions where the two outer floats dont both settle in the water, how do you taxi the plane?

 

[glennasher]

I have to think that the central float idea had more merit that the two canoes under the wings.

View attachment 629961

View attachment 629962

Didn't the Spitfire get it's roots from the Supermarine S-1? Or was it the R-1 (one of those letters, anyway ) Lest we forget, those racing seaplanes were the world's fastest aircraft in the 1930s, along with the Italian efforts, and they were 400 mph back in those days.... Let's not place a floatplane in the rubbish bin too quickly.

 

[SaparotRob]

Didn't the Spitfire get it's roots from the Supermarine S-1? Or was it the R-1 (one of those letters, anyway ) Lest we forget, those racing seaplanes were the world's fastest aircraft in the 1930s, along with the Italian efforts, and they were 400 mph back in those days.... Let's not place a floatplane in the rubbish bin too quickly.

Good point!

 

[pbehn]

Didn't the Spitfire get it's roots from the Supermarine S-1? Or was it the R-1 (one of those letters, anyway ) Lest we forget, those racing seaplanes were the world's fastest aircraft in the 1930s, along with the Italian efforts, and they were 400 mph back in those days.... Let's not place a floatplane in the rubbish bin too quickly.

Well that is a historical basis, there was little to connect a Supermarine racer to a Spitfire other than the names Supermarine and the designer Mitchell.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Good point!

Agreed, but the Kawanishi N1K1 "Rex" has them beat.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Given that the Japanese were working the offensive, having floatplane fighter/scouts made sense so long as they didn't run into retractable-carriage enemy fighters. Quickly deployed to bare-base ops with minimal support, they could provide a modicum of coverage/scouting, and perhaps light bombing capability?

I think everyone then understood that floatplane fighters had a limited scope of operations. But when your enemy has no or few planes, a squadron of Rufes could be very useful, chasing off PBYs and engaging light attacks, when not doing scouting duty.

Clearly the design parameters were laid out without much considering carriers on the offense.

 

[SaparotRob]

Glennasher did bring up a good point. Before WW 2, when racing sea planes were the fastest flying machines, it may very well been a good idea. Glad I checked Wiki first because I was going to post "who thought there would be a multitude of island airfields on December 6, 1941?" It seems the US did in 1934 and later in August(?) 1941. But beside a very few, who thought that remote airbases could be or even needed to be built? Look at the pics of the Spit and F4F with floats. Not long ranged to begin with. Bring a few on catapult equipped ships for air cover cover or station the planes when you go to Dengue Atoll or The Diptheria Islands. It seems that somebody was thinking about forward bases in the US but elsewhere? Did those guys ever chat up the officials in procurement or with Supermarine or Grumman? The IJN thought float fighters was a good idea. A few Rufes should keep a PBY ( a flying boat) away.
I see floatplane fighters as a dead end. I'm blinded by 20-20 hindsight on the topic. I do see why it did seem like a good idea, certainly in the 30's.