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
Sam    An idea past its usefulness   1/10/2004 7:17:51 PM
Float/seaplanes served a purpose. First in the days when mechanical problems made long range over water flights risky. Up to the late 30s. Later they were useful before the advent of air to air refueling. What could they do now that non seaplanes can't do as good or better? Any country that could invest the money in a B-52 size strategic bombing floatplane, and the supply ships that would go with it, could spend money on a same size non floatplane bomber and some refueling planes. Same size would provide either greater speed, longer range or bigger payload. The idea of tying them to LHAs as CAS/NGF/Recon spotters will get you laughed out of the wardroom or chiefs mess. We have helos and UAVs on LHAs for that job. For SAR, might work but is it worth the risk? The cold reality is that rescuers are 3x more likely to be hurt or killed then the person being rescued. Much safer to drop a raft and supplies from a coast guard C-130 to the shipwrecked survivors. Then send a cutter or have the nearest ship pick them up.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:An idea past its usefulness   1/11/2004 3:33:13 PM
One advantage of the seaplane/tender combination is that it offers mobilty. This is the same precept used to justify aircraft carriers and submarine deployed nuclear assets. A moving target is harder to pin down. Also, by being mobile they can rapidly be deployed to many parts of the world where there are not pre-existing airfields capable of accomodating comparable performance land based aircraft. Furthermore a seaplane tender is much cheaper and would have lower operating costs. Admittedly, a CVN and all its attached retinue wields considerably more power but at what cost? There are many hotspots in the world that deserve some attention but which can not justify commitment of a significant portion of our naval force. I believe that flexibilty and versatility will be increasingly important as we are called to simultaneously take on more assignments worldwide. No one would claim that proposed littoral combat ships or other proposed light forces are superior to a carrier task force but we don't have enough of them and we never will. Besides, it just isn't very efficient to swat flies with a sledgehammer.
 
Quote    Reply

leoinnyc    RE:C-130 seaplane   1/28/2004 10:17:59 AM
I was just thinking that the C-130 has an airframe that seems perfectly suited to conversion to a seaplane. Is this silly, or would it be possible? Its props sit high off of the ground/water, as does its pit. It is just about the right size for what I have in mind, and it already has wing hardpoints that could be converted to floats. And it has a fantastic range -- just under 4000nm. What do you think?
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:An idea past its usefulness   1/29/2004 3:59:28 AM
Alright looks like we're getting into this again. Hehehe. First to the sea plane tender idea. What size are we looking at here in cargo space? Remember this is something even Boeing has looked into. For resupplying a carrier you need to carry several hundred to several thousand tons of aviation fuel to it every 4-10 days depending on op tempo. Thats the extreme end of the ladder. When you talk about a tender you got to take into consideration size and purpose and efficiency. Now as far as a bomber goes. Its doable, but your maintenance issues are going to make any bomber as big as the B-52 or larger more expensive to operate than even the B-52, which in turn will drive congress and the air force generals (who also don't like bombers very much it seems) to kill such a program as a waste of money and thats assuming the air force was running the show and not the navy. Inter branch rivalries over who would control these planes would also occur. During the 50's the air force fought the navy to try to control the SLBM's in its subs and bring it under airforce control. A similar replay of that would occur for any strategic lift/strategic bomber sea plane. The infighting alone may just kill a project like that. So whats a seaplane good for? Well lets see, if we throw turbo props on it instead of jet engines we can have a sub hunter or better yet a coast guard plane that can do maritime duties and land in tougher spot areas. SAR isn't too far fetched either, if the situation is too dangerous the plane can drop off a raft or supplies like current planes do. Personally I see a modern seaplane as simply being best for the Coast Guard rather than any other branch of the services currently.
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:C-130 seaplane   1/29/2004 4:00:45 AM
Leo its been made, read the full thread, its called the C-130 floatplane conversion kit. Range and payload get reduced drastically with the kit.
 
Quote    Reply

jacques    RE:What ever happened to Seaplanes?   1/30/2004 1:38:23 AM
The Seamaster was a good airplane. But the doctrine to use it was flawed. It shouldn't be service by seaplane tender. To make it more appealing you have to use submarine to service it. That way the place it land, service, refuel, and re arm remain a mystery all the time. A seamaster armed with mica missiles, torpedoes, cruise missiles, bombs, and mines mysteriuous appearing on your shipping lane is a maritime nightmare to any nation.
 
Quote    Reply

leoinnyc    RE:c-130 floatplane - hybrid   1/31/2004 11:14:21 AM
Yes -- I'm a dumbass for forgetting. But I draw diffferent conclusions than you do. The specs that I've seen (http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/articles/float.htm) suggest an aircraft with amazing capacity. Yes, there is a 30% reduction in airborne payload and range capability from the baseline C-130, but you still get a plane with that can carry "payloads up to 27,000 pounds" and "ranges more than 2,200 nautical miles with 10,000 pounds of cargo are possible." Which is not too shabby by itself, on top of which you have to remember that while you're sacrificing some cargo and range capability, you're gaining an incredible flexibilty and a wide range of new missions that you couldn't otherwise do. It's like saying that a Harrier is just a slow Hornet -- except that a Hornet can't take-off vertically. And besides, I have this sense that there must be a better way to do this than just slapping on a couple of giant floats... And last, in terms of mission -- everything that you've described and more. Yes, refuel from subs -- refuel from anything you want. But more importantly, refuel other aircraft; vastly expand the Naval Air Tanker fleet without wasting F-18s as very-low-capacity tankers, or using up Carrier deck space. Do coastal patrol, SAR and ASW, amphibious operations (imagine the over-the-horizon staging that you could do with a fleet of C-130 Seaplanes.) And just generally do things that you need big planes for. Whay should the Navy always have to hand-over airborne command and control to Air Force AWACs in Joint Ops, or refuel from Air Force tankers, etc.? Why does the Air Force have the monopoly on large ELINT platforms, airborne Gunships, etc.? Because the Navy just can't fly these aircraft off of Carriers. When the US fights a major war these days, it always tasks these platforms, so if the airforce is going to used anyway, why bother even having Naval Aviation? And if Navair is around (in this post-cold war era) to act as a deterrent to certain contingencies (Taiwan Straits, etc.) then why operate with the handicap of not having any large airframe to work with in Theatre?
 
Quote    Reply

johnset    RE:c-130 floatplane - hybrid   1/31/2004 5:04:00 PM
Instead of a seaplane how about the concept of a very large aircraft carrier (I mean really large--180,000 ton +) to replace unpopular forward basing in the Pacific? Could not that platform provide for larger aircraft? Granted a C-130 would still have to be converted for carrier landings, but a 10 acre flight deck could enable landing and takeoffs, thus conversion designs, less drastic. The "controlled crash" of today's fixed wing carrier landings might be softened by a longer landing strip. I realize that arrest and catapult would still be required, but underway replenishment of a seaplane doesn't seem practical.
 
Quote    Reply

leoinnyc    RE:johnset   2/1/2004 8:40:27 PM
Mobile Offshore Base
 
Quote    Reply

JamesL    RE:What ever happened to Seaplanes?   2/11/2004 10:19:16 AM
I am an engineer working on new seaplane technologies. Seaplanes can potentially handle about twice as rough water as current aicraft do. Their performance and payload-range has the potential to go up by 30%. This we believe will drive a welcome resurgence .... we have been working on a civil development lately and are now taking a closer look at SAR, CSAR, Coastguard, Special Ops insertion and extraction etc. We are seeking info to support the business case. Info for civil 6 seater on
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics