August 30, 20241 yr Author We need this and we need retirees trained in it in case we need to fly a mission to the USVI… Seastar for training and little missions
August 31, 20241 yr 18 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: We need this and we need retirees trained in it in case we need to fly a mission to the USVI… Seastar for training and little missions Sign me up!
March 27Mar 27 Author ATR 72 float plane https://aerialfiremag.com/2025/03/25/bridger-aerospace-and-positive-aviation-announce-joint-partnership-for-the-development-of-water-scooping-aircraft/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/bridger-aerospace-to-launch-amphibious-firefighting-plane-in-north-america/ar-AA1BEicl
March 28Mar 28 The SOF strikers got their tailwheel rating, now give us herk drivers our multi-engine seaplane rating!
March 30Mar 30 Author The SOF strikers got their tailwheel rating, now give us herk drivers our multi-engine seaplane rating!You got my voteThis would be a good fit for a PACAF based Herc unit(s) - a detachment at each of seaplanesVideo from the company developing themSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
May 2May 2 Author Seaplane news https://www.twz.com/air/liberty-lifter-ekronoplan-demonstrator-aims-to-lift-c-130-sized-payloads I think a C-130 seaplane would be easier but whatever
July 6Jul 6 Author https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-mysterious-sea-skimming-ekranoplan-seen-in-full-view
July 6Jul 6 Author 1 hour ago, FourFans said: Meh. More proof that China has finally entered the 80's. Yeah but they are moving on something where we seem to be navel gazing a bit when I comes to the new logistics platforms we keep saying are gonna be necessary for runway independent ops Along with 69 other projects, it’s time to get the USA a modern seaplane Military, Coast Guard, Aerial Fire Fighter all from the same platform. That can get a bit of economy of scale and get the price per tail to something reasonable. Money for anything but the shiniest and pointiest planes is not easy to find but a plus sized version of the US-2 is probably feasible if the money could be had.
July 6Jul 6 1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said: Yeah but they are moving on something where we seem to be navel gazing a bit when I comes to the new logistics platforms we keep saying are gonna be necessary for runway independent ops Where have I heard this thinking before...
July 7Jul 7 Author 1 hour ago, Boomer6 said: Where have I heard this thinking before... Oh yeah, there’s truth in that but if the shift to the Indo-Pacific is real, if we want to be able to sustain forces after destruction of bases, runways and docks, if we want to project power on multiple axis to complicate China’s problems we have to begin to look at unconventional capabilities The problem is money mainly as usual, to do this a bill payer would have to be found, changing out our tactical air mobility systems seems to be where to start.
July 7Jul 7 If we're going to look at unconventional capabilities I'd rather we spend money on something like turning their electricity off indefinitely over finger banging with some boat planes.
July 8Jul 8 I agree with Boomer here, our unconventional fight isn't on the high seas with big planes... I do think a small, specialized seaplane would be good for a lot of SOF related actives as well as CSAR. The USAF used HU-16s to support lots of clandestine operations worldwide till they reached their service life. USCG was still flying them when I was a kid. A C-130 on floats is the wrong answer and money is the least of the problems. I was at AFSOC HQ when this idea was in full force. The meetings were a riot, essentially the problem set was "the pacific has a lot of water" without much other discussion. Words were thrown around that had zero substance but sounded good: "sustain the fight" "ACE" "give China dilemmas." Obviously the corporate knowledge on seaplane operations has long left the building. Most nations divested of seaplanes for a multitude of reasons. The few that remain are typically small (exceptions are the C-415 and US-2) specialized aircraft (SAR & firefighting) and have multitude of operating restrictions. 1. Sea state. Blue water ops are hard and often out of limits. Japan FAFO'd with this a few years back and lost a US-2. 2. Surf break. How are you getting to shore? How are you getting back out to open water to launch? 3. Reefs. I'm sure the draft on a 130K float plane is decent enough, tides are both your friend and foe here. 4. Cargo. How are you delivering it? Sand is soft, beaches have waves, the list goes on. You aren't just driving up to the beach willy-nilly and backing in to drop shit off. What is the expectation of realistically sustaining forces here? Do we have floating K-loaders? The floating dock in Gaza didn't do so great... 5. Basing. Where are the seaplanes operating from? We had a fleet of seaplane tenders for a reason AND we had seaplane bases all over in various harbors. These planes need sustainment just like any other plane, even more so with salt water issues. I could keep going but you see the point. When people brought these issues up, the C-130 mafia scoffed dismissively....because C-130 on floats! So again, something small for SOF/SAR type things I think would be a good asset. Otherwise, let's focus on shutting the power off for a bit...
July 8Jul 8 Author If we're going to look at unconventional capabilities I'd rather we spend money on something like turning their electricity off indefinitely over finger banging with some boat planes.Get both, the exotic unconventional and the regular unconventional (no paradox intended)That’s the deterrence we want, not only will your military be blunted but your economy and society will be destabilized Don’t even try it But to the seaplane, I’d argue generally it will give more bang over more missions with more flexibility in basing vs a water based ground effect platform Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
July 9Jul 9 Author The official end of Liberty Lifterhttps://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/07/09/darpa-ends-cargo-seaplane-program-eyes-new-uses-for-tech/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_dfnSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
July 10Jul 10 17 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: The official end of Liberty Lifter https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/07/09/darpa-ends-cargo-seaplane-program-eyes-new-uses-for-tech/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_dfn Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Bummer
July 10Jul 10 On 7/7/2025 at 10:42 PM, contraildash said: I agree with Boomer here, our unconventional fight isn't on the high seas with big planes... I do think a small, specialized seaplane would be good for a lot of SOF related actives as well as CSAR. The USAF used HU-16s to support lots of clandestine operations worldwide till they reached their service life. USCG was still flying them when I was a kid. A C-130 on floats is the wrong answer and money is the least of the problems. I was at AFSOC HQ when this idea was in full force. The meetings were a riot, essentially the problem set was "the pacific has a lot of water" without much other discussion. Words were thrown around that had zero substance but sounded good: "sustain the fight" "ACE" "give China dilemmas." Obviously the corporate knowledge on seaplane operations has long left the building. Most nations divested of seaplanes for a multitude of reasons. The few that remain are typically small (exceptions are the C-415 and US-2) specialized aircraft (SAR & firefighting) and have multitude of operating restrictions. 1. Sea state. Blue water ops are hard and often out of limits. Japan FAFO'd with this a few years back and lost a US-2. 2. Surf break. How are you getting to shore? How are you getting back out to open water to launch? 3. Reefs. I'm sure the draft on a 130K float plane is decent enough, tides are both your friend and foe here. 4. Cargo. How are you delivering it? Sand is soft, beaches have waves, the list goes on. You aren't just driving up to the beach willy-nilly and backing in to drop shit off. What is the expectation of realistically sustaining forces here? Do we have floating K-loaders? The floating dock in Gaza didn't do so great... 5. Basing. Where are the seaplanes operating from? We had a fleet of seaplane tenders for a reason AND we had seaplane bases all over in various harbors. These planes need sustainment just like any other plane, even more so with salt water issues. I could keep going but you see the point. When people brought these issues up, the C-130 mafia scoffed dismissively....because C-130 on floats! So again, something small for SOF/SAR type things I think would be a good asset. Otherwise, let's focus on shutting the power off for a bit... Lotta very good points here. I'll add one caveat; the bulk of the MC-J community outside of AFSOC/HQ thought that putting floats on an MC-J was either very dumb or very funny, depending on who you asked. Everyone knew the concept wasn't going anywhere. However, the two AFSOC/CCs that were in charge when this was being kicked around weren't the types who took feedback very well.
July 10Jul 10 Author I agree with Boomer here, our unconventional fight isn't on the high seas with big planes... I do think a small, specialized seaplane would be good for a lot of SOF related actives as well as CSAR. The USAF used HU-16s to support lots of clandestine operations worldwide till they reached their service life. USCG was still flying them when I was a kid. A C-130 on floats is the wrong answer and money is the least of the problems. I was at AFSOC HQ when this idea was in full force. The meetings were a riot, essentially the problem set was "the pacific has a lot of water" without much other discussion. Words were thrown around that had zero substance but sounded good: "sustain the fight" "ACE" "give China dilemmas." Obviously the corporate knowledge on seaplane operations has long left the building. Most nations divested of seaplanes for a multitude of reasons. The few that remain are typically small (exceptions are the C-415 and US-2) specialized aircraft (SAR & firefighting) and have multitude of operating restrictions. 1. Sea state. Blue water ops are hard and often out of limits. Japan FAFO'd with this a few years back and lost a US-2. 2. Surf break. How are you getting to shore? How are you getting back out to open water to launch? 3. Reefs. I'm sure the draft on a 130K float plane is decent enough, tides are both your friend and foe here. 4. Cargo. How are you delivering it? Sand is soft, beaches have waves, the list goes on. You aren't just driving up to the beach willy-nilly and backing in to drop shit off. What is the expectation of realistically sustaining forces here? Do we have floating K-loaders? The floating dock in Gaza didn't do so great... 5. Basing. Where are the seaplanes operating from? We had a fleet of seaplane tenders for a reason AND we had seaplane bases all over in various harbors. These planes need sustainment just like any other plane, even more so with salt water issues. I could keep going but you see the point. When people brought these issues up, the C-130 mafia scoffed dismissively....because C-130 on floats! So again, something small for SOF/SAR type things I think would be a good asset. Otherwise, let's focus on shutting the power off for a bit... Concur with that idea that if we acquired a seaplane platform it would have to be right sized in terms of platform and fleet size, with that in mind if I was asked in the matter I’d buy an existing one, pretty much the US-2 seaplane or maybe the FF72 ATR based floatplane I would not call it niche but optimized light-medium long range utility for the maritime environment Here’s where I’m guilty of putting the cart before the horse in this idea, I could see having to or choosing to buy specialized or new equipment to be transported by this hypothetical platform vs what we have now, especially if this platform didn’t have a ramp cargo door system. This would be to get more out of it, especially when doing resupply to remote and austere locations. That makes you question the rationale for it in the first place. Not managing the jenga puzzle of requirements/budgets/compatibility/constraints, it’s easy to just yes to cool seaplane, details later but reality always kicks in…If the price could be better; AFSOC, AMC, USMC, USCG & interested Allies could negotiate a mass buy, one configuration and each buyer tailor their planes as desired.Keep it right sized but enough to get Shinmaywa interested AFSOC gets a maritime lift/strike/ISR/CSAR platform AMC gets a long range mobility and probe/drogue tankerOther services would probably use those two configurations WAG fleet size (all users) 100-125 tailsSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Create an account or sign in to comment