Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What ever happened to Seaplanes?
leoinnyc    11/2/2003 10:34:59 AM
I know that this is probably the wrong forum for this question, but why don't we still use seaplanes? They seem so useful, both for the military and civil aviation. They could resupply ships at sea, be little sub tenders; perform major rescue ops at sea. An air tanker varient could fly into the theatre from CONUS during a big conflict, take on jet fuel directly from a supply ship and hugely enhance the Navy's tanker capabilities for like, no money. They'd also be great for SEAL and Marine Recon insertion. I can think of lots of other stuff. And they'd be a natural compliment to the Mobile Offshore Base concept. And for civil air, they'd do wonders for airport congestion anywhere near the ocean or a big lake. Here in NY we have a major airport congestion issue, despite having three major airports. But we've got a huge harbor and underused port facilities. And anyway, when they're not being used as seaplanes, they can always operate from regular runways, so there's no tradeoff in capability. What do y'all think?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
Aardwolf    RE:What ever happened to Seaplanes?   12/20/2003 6:30:46 PM
The SeaMaster was a good aircraft, problems that caused the crashes had been solved before it was cancelled. It still is, AFAIK, the most advanced flying boat ever built in terms of both hydrodynamic and aerodynamic performance. It was significantly faster than any B-52 at low level, and if it had been similarly large and powerful (and amphibious), would have actually made a better penetration or saturation bomber--which would not have been tied to huge airbase installations.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:What ever happened to Seaplanes?   1/1/2004 1:50:35 PM
The P6M Seamaster was an excellent plane and capable of transonic speed, actually went supersonic once it a dive. Technology has changed in the last 45 years, titanium, composites, etc. Much of the corrosion problem would be easily solvable today. The engine corrosion problems for a jet or turboprop seaplane should not be any different from those of any naval aircraft. Really, what difference is there between an F-18 coming in at 50 feet or a P6M doing the same? Compared to helicopter carried AEW or air-surface radar, seaplanes would have more range, endurance, speed, and payload. The only thing it could not do is hover, however a seaplane could fly 1,000 miles offshore, land, pick up 25-50 survivors and return. True if weather is too rough to land it is at a disadvantage but helicopters can not effect rescues in all weather conditions, either, and they can only rescue a few and if you need to go farther than a 'spit and a holler' and do it in less than 'tomorrow and a half' choppers themselves are useless. Seaplanes do not require a longer landing run than landplanes, most require far lesser landing and takeoff rolls. Take off and landing can be a bit rough but much of this could be eliminated by using tilt wing or gyropter main rotore that would significantly reduce take-off and landing speeds. True there are times when seaplanes would not be able to operate because of sea conditions but there are times whem helicopters and surface ships, including CVN's, can not operate because of weather/surface conditions. The P6M was supposedly able to operate 85 % of days in the North Atlantic, better elsewhere. Because of their superior seakeeping abilities large seaplanes could loiter on the surface for ASW or in many AEW or airborne surveillance situations. With reasonable warning AEW seaplanes could easily evade threating enemy aircraft just as AWACS does. Helicopter AEW does not have the capability to avoid enemy fighter threats. Large seaplanes armed with AS miles could deny huge areas of the ocean too far from land to be covered by land based patrol planes to enemy surface ships unaccompanied by carrier fighter planes. Furthermore, compared with surface ships, they would be almost immune to attacks from submarines. P6M was not cancelled because of any defects of the plane but because the 'carrier admirals' saw it as a threat to the strategic (nuclear) role of of carrier aviation. I remember when Tradewinds operated out of Alameda. They were great planes crippled by a piece of Allison crap (turboprop engines). They could serve in antisubmarine, patrol, and transport roles and set turbo-prop speed records that still stand. If a similar plane were built today using modern corrosion resistant materials, powered by a modern high power fuel efficient turboprops [TP400-D6 @ 11,000 shp, each], and equiped with modern electronics it could replace much of the surface fleet. Essentially it could do almost anything that cruisers were expected to do in the old days; scouting; screening; trade route raiding. Imagine the modern equivalent of the Altmark and the Graf Spee only with a seaplane tender and a squadron of modern seaplanes armed with missiles. No navy without carriers [that is 90% of the world's fleets] could stay at sea against them.
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:What ever happened to Seaplanes?   1/1/2004 5:16:16 PM
A couple of things here. Seaplanes are very maintenance intensive (hence why Boeing's Pelican WIG idea isn't a seaplane). They take a beating taking off and landing since the hull is being accelerated at around 150-200 mph and especially during landing this is the equivalent of hitting a brick wall while traveling at the same speed. Combine that with saltwater landings and you get all sorts of materials engineering problems you run into. I'm not saying it isn't POSSIBLE to do it. Just very very very expensive to maintain if you're using jet propulsion and carrying very large loads.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    Seaplane technology - Floatplanes   1/1/2004 5:53:29 PM
I've always wondered why with the current cost effectiveness and flexibility of compound polymers, carbon fibre technology etc... why this hasn't been revisited. There does appear to be a capability to use seaplanes as multi mission platforms, even small ones assigned to LHA/docks as spotters/CAS for landings etc... There seems to be a view that a platform should provide outright capability for a task, when what we are witnessing across all military technologies is platform flexibility. We don't necessarily need to go back to monster Berievs or Mariners etc... but the capacity to use an Albatross sized seaplane or a BN Islander sized floatplane for MMA/CSAR/SAR becomes a very flexible additive for an expeditionary force.
 
Quote    Reply

Aardwolf    RE:What ever happened to Seaplanes?   1/4/2004 11:19:33 PM
>>True there are times when seaplanes would not be able to operate because of sea conditions but there are times whem helicopters and surface ships, including CVN's, can not operate because of weather/surface conditions. The P6M was supposedly able to operate 85 % of days in the North Atlantic, better elsewhere. So give it retractable _landing_ gear instead of beaching gear, like later Catalinas and the PBM-5A. It'd have better operational flexibility then anyway. An amphibious B-52 size Seamaster with B-52 range and load carrying capabilities would have been one potent system. (The P6M itself would have been impressive enough, all the more so if it had the ability to use land bases if it needed to.)
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:Seaplane technology - Floatplanes   1/8/2004 1:03:15 PM
Conservatism of militaty establishment and priorities in funding programs only
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Seaplane technology - Floatplanes   1/8/2004 3:19:44 PM
I fooled around with designing a Seamaster amphibian (true amphibian--not one with a roll-on wheeled collar) as an ASW platform, with MAD, passive sonar array, and rails for Harpoon. It could wait out on the ocean for subs, then pounce, or provide quick response to a sea unit under attack. Also might be a way to catch diesel-electric boats recharging their batteries. Add on a FLIR turret under the nose and B-1 engines, and you're ready to rock! Don't know if it's feasible; I just wanted an excuse to fool around with the old P6M.
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:Seaplane technology - Floatplanes- sentinel28a   1/9/2004 2:49:04 AM
ever tried to adapt your Seamaster amphibian idea to a tilt rotor design? you'd end up with something like a SH-3 Sea King, with the utility of an MV-22 Osprey. You'd be able to land and take off vertically onto the water. Reflatable floats would give you a broader surface area to counter act the stability effects of the heavy engine pods at the ends of the engine.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Seaplane technology - Floatplanes- sentinel28a   1/9/2004 4:07:43 PM
Nah--it would be ugly. If I was trying to sell it to someone, then yes, I'd probably look into it, but since I'm just fooling around and converting old model kits, I'll stick with original design. Neat idea, though.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:What ever happened to Seaplanes?   1/10/2004 1:11:57 AM
An interesting aside regarding the Hughes HK4 Hercules ['Spruce Goose']. Although it has often been described as the largest airplane to ever fly, at least at the time, it was in fact a WIG as on its only 'flight' it never got out of ground effect
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics