Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Seaplanes
wagner95696    1/9/2004 12:28:06 AM
A modern seaplane does not need to be a high performance aircraft. PGM's mean that what is needed for anti-surface warfare is endurance, a moderate payload, and a fairly good radar system. A P-3 Orion so equipped is a serious threat to any naval ship without air cover. A seaplane would have the same advantage. If an aircraft has good enough electronics to detect the target before coming within range of its anti-aircraft system the plane will always have the advantage. Ever notice how easy it is for seabirds to catch the fish but how rare it is for the fish to catch the bird? Most of the world's navies do not have carrier air and are therefore vulnerable. Even modern fighters would be wise to give a seaplane armed with a good radar and a few long range AAM's a wide berth. In this age of PGM's the performance of the launch platform has become less important than that of the weapons.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

french stratege    RE:Seaplanes   1/10/2004 11:07:06 AM
I would also like to sea seaplane also: three design could be usefull An attack plane equivalent to A6 (30t)for performance suitable for various task according to avionic: bomber (weapon in internal bay 1,5*2*6 meters size), antiship, refuel,ASW, ligh transport for a commando paratroopers team, replacement of E2C,..suitable for aircraft carrier Abigger one 45/50 t for the same tasks but not aircraft carrier Or a strategic transport about 180 t to weight a 60 t tank on 1500 km. I think that this kind of plane could be also use in Nuc attack submarine. For some big attack subs I would like to have an internal bay (20 m*6*6) which could handle such an aircraft or cargo load or a VLS system for antiship or land cruise missiles.Or shelter for commandos.
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    Nonsense   1/10/2004 11:36:52 AM
Seaplanes are not needed because there are plenty of airfield to land on. Now if your talking about using seaplanes for air-to-air your daft. Flight performance is aboslutely critical for air-to-air. Remember, the other guy has missiles too. One final note. We already have a current seaplane thread.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    I don't think so   1/10/2004 12:11:07 PM
I you can use them it is true.But politic doen't allow that all the time.For air defense against modern fighter it is true.But an A6 like seaplane could have capability against long range reco aircraft, antiship bomber and ASW aircraft and limited capcity against 2 or 3 fighters in opportunity enconter with BVR missiles especially angainst second order air force. However I favor the 50 t airplane: for example a refueling by a tanker or a frigate could give them global capabity for reco, refueling, resupply, rescue, commando, or antiship
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:I don't think so   1/10/2004 4:52:55 PM
Look up the Ekip project craft. I suspect thats what we're looking at currently. But as said before, maintenance issues always tend to kill any large numbers of Seaplanes for strategic use. Having them for Search and Rescue, travelling to hard to reach sites or for personal use is another matter and is more of a niche group filling.
 
Quote    Reply

CDR Salamander    RE:I don't think so   11/22/2004 3:34:56 PM
Hybrid is right on. Lifecycle costs, corrosion and maintenance, are prohibitive for seaplanes vice what a land based MPR aircraft (P-3, Atlantique, Nimrod) can get you. The Coast Guard is where you need a couple of seaplanes. Search and Rescue is where they are needed now days.......but the cost-benefit analysis will kill it every time. Bean counters rule.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:I don't think so   11/22/2004 6:38:13 PM
CDR Salamander, what made you choose that name if you don't mind my asking? My grandfather was in command of HMS Salamander in WWII...
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith    RE:I don't think so   11/22/2004 10:07:40 PM
It's not just cost. Even the really big flying boats of yore avoided landing in mid-ocean. The place where most critical Search & Rescue takes place is in foul weather, high sea state conditions. You couldn't land. That was the Coast Guard's experience with the amphibious Sikorsky H-3. It could only land on flat water. Any weather at all required rescue by hoist. And if that's the case, why waste the money on the hull.
 
Quote    Reply

ej    RE:I don't think so   11/23/2004 4:19:11 PM
Helicopters were also very instrumental in killing seaplanes: they dont need an airstrip,they can land on surface ships(not carriers),and some of them can even land on water.There is simply no real need for a military seaplane.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy