Lawman Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Pull the Marlins out of museums. Then the Navy has a plane as old as the B-52. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Clark Griswold Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 8 minutes ago, Lawman said: Pull the Marlins out of museums. Then the Navy has a plane as old as the B-52. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Not bad but if Congress and the Navy get drunk and irresponsible, they should fund a modernized R3Y Tradewind Totally a valid requirement because if China gets cool new toys then damn it if we shouldn't also... but just another expeditionary capability to add to their mix. 1
Lawman Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 I'm not gonna lie I love old Seaplanes. I don't care if it's fiscally responsible or even mission effective over land based counterparts when you look at our tanker capability. There is a mystique to them that overrides that logic in my head and says damn those are cool Id love to fly one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Clark Griswold Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, Lawman said: I'm not gonna lie I love old Seaplanes. I don't care if it's fiscally responsible or even mission effective over land based counterparts when you look at our tanker capability. There is a mystique to them that overrides that logic in my head and says damn those are cool Id love to fly one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Ditto There is a cool factor and nostalgia that I love too. Not to stretch logic and credibility but there is an argument to be made (sorta) for a modern seaplane for Coast Guard missions (SAR, LR maritime patrol, etc.) but given to state of acquisition / development I imagine the requirements inflation monster would push it thru FL450 in development cost even if you took an old but proven design and adapted proven systems to it or vice versa, of course this is just me pontificating on what only appears to be be straightforward and easy... yeah, just slap some J model motors on, glass up front, it all work no problem... still as a taxpayer I'm for it...
Clark Griswold Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 (edited) 23 hours ago, Lawman said: Not full scale deflection from the subject of this thread but getting there... Historical video on the operational concept of the Tradewind... Basically, you get self deployment capability into an amphibious setting for about a rifle company sized unit and a couple of vehicles / artillery / supplies with a built in tanker capability for probe & drogue for a CAP to support about 600 nm from base. Not sure if the Chinese decided they want to do this with their seaplane (eventually) but for their artificial islands and any possible plans to seize other islands, atolls, reefs, platforms, etc... this could be viable, relevant and not that expensive a capability to build. They're making noise about expanding their outer chain of islands: China: We Can Seize More Islands In South China Sea. If you wanted to avoid the sub threat (assuming the air is permissible) you could keep the flag planted and defended in a lot of places way out there. Edited January 10, 2016 by Clark Griswold
Stitch Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 On 1/9/2016 at 10:08 PM, Clark Griswold said: Ditto There is a cool factor and nostalgia that I love too. Not to stretch logic and credibility but there is an argument to be made (sorta) for a modern seaplane for Coast Guard missions (SAR, LR maritime patrol, etc.) but given to state of acquisition / development I imagine the requirements inflation monster would push it thru FL450 in development cost even if you took an old but proven design and adapted proven systems to it or vice versa, of course this is just me pontificating on what only appears to be be straightforward and easy... yeah, just slap some J model motors on, glass up front, it all work no problem... still as a taxpayer I'm for it... I agree! The Catalina had long legs and was good enough to find the Bismark in May 1941 and the Japanese fleet for the Battle of Midway in June of 42. Like Clark said, one of these with Herk motors and a glass cockpit! It'd be badass!
HerkPerfMan Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 On 1/9/2016 at 0:08 AM, Clark Griswold said: Ditto There is a cool factor and nostalgia that I love too. Not to stretch logic and credibility but there is an argument to be made (sorta) for a modern seaplane for Coast Guard missions (SAR, LR maritime patrol, etc.) but given to state of acquisition / development I imagine the requirements inflation monster would push it thru FL450 in development cost even if you took an old but proven design and adapted proven systems to it or vice versa, of course this is just me pontificating on what only appears to be be straightforward and easy... yeah, just slap some J model motors on, glass up front, it all work no problem... still as a taxpayer I'm for it... If you want to get funding, it has to be sexier...
Clark Griswold Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 7 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: If you want to get funding, it has to be sexier... Seamaster was awesome too but if we want to take this thread derailment to it's logical conclusion... On a serious note, it was interesting to see even back in the 50's there was an effort to merge more of the mobility missions into one platform, direct delivery into an austere / difficult AOR and AR for a support CAP
slackline Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 If you want to get funding, it has to be sexier... Seamaster was awesome too but if we want to take this thread derailment to it's logical conclusion... On a serious note, it was interesting to see even back in the 50's there was an effort to merge more of the mobility missions into one platform, direct delivery into an austere / difficult AOR and AR for a support CAP Awesome!
Clark Griswold Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) Getting ready for the worst, maybe... https://warisboring.com/articles/the-pentagon-readies-backup-island-base-in-case-of-chinese-missile-onslaught/ Reminded me of this from a few years ago where the Marines were renovating and doing exercises from old WWII airfields, this again on Tinian... https://www.defensetech.org/2012/06/04/air-sea-battle-and-our-buildup-in-the-pacific/#more-17417 I haven't seen the USAF (or any other branch) participating lately in dispersal or road base exercises; might be worth our while to reacquaint ourselves with that if we think they might send a couple of thousand DF-26 missiles to Anderson, Kadena, Osan, etc... Autobahn Landing Exercise Nordholz from back in 82 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7Meo7w-pY Edited February 26, 2016 by Clark Griswold minor
Clark Griswold Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) On 1/9/2016 at 0:31 AM, Lawman said: I'm not gonna lie I love old Seaplanes. I don't care if it's fiscally responsible or even mission effective over land based counterparts when you look at our tanker capability. There is a mystique to them that overrides that logic in my head and says damn those are cool Id love to fly one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk A new seaplane to love. First AG600 off the line. https://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-07/23/c_135534988_2.htm We can not allow a seaplane gap... ************************************************** CCTV video on the AG600 Edited July 24, 2016 by Clark Griswold just added video
Clark Griswold Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Why do they get all those wonderful toys? https://www.janes.com/article/63341/china-and-ukraine-agree-to-restart-an-225-production
JarheadBoom Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 13 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Why do they get all those wonderful toys? Because their population has no say (whether actual or perceived) in China's military spending? And if we're gonna close the seaplane gap in a cost-efficient manner, we should just buy some ShinMaywa US-2s from our Japanese friends.
Clark Griswold Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Because their population has no say (whether actual or perceived) in China's military spending? And if we're gonna close the seaplane gap in a cost-efficient manner, we should just buy some ShinMaywa US-2s from our Japanese friends. True US-2 would be cool, surprised the Coasties never tried to acquire it or a similar aircraft Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pbar Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: True US-2 would be cool, surprised the Coasties never tried to acquire it or a similar aircraft Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk The poor Coasties seem to be so underfunded that they could only get that in their wildest, 4-day-bender-in-Vegas dreams. I've never understood why, if Homeland Security is our #1 priority, the Coast Guard is chronically underfunded.
Clark Griswold Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 5 hours ago, pbar said: The poor Coasties seem to be so underfunded that they could only get that in their wildest, 4-day-bender-in-Vegas dreams. I've never understood why, if Homeland Security is our #1 priority, the Coast Guard is chronically underfunded. No argument on that, as it is done at sea I think in some ways it is an out of sight out of mind thing for why the CG doesn't get the resourcing it needs.
HerkPerfMan Posted September 6, 2016 Posted September 6, 2016 On 9/2/2016 at 2:25 AM, pbar said: The poor Coasties seem to be so underfunded that they could only get that in their wildest, 4-day-bender-in-Vegas dreams. I've never understood why, if Homeland Security is our #1 priority, the Coast Guard is chronically underfunded. On 9/2/2016 at 8:07 AM, Clark Griswold said: No argument on that, as it is done at sea I think in some ways it is an out of sight out of mind thing for why the CG doesn't get the resourcing it needs. Right now, CG is more worried about funding to actually operate the C-27J hand-me-downs and a few C-130J add-ons they've been gifted recently. New airframe acquisition will be on the back-burner for a long time.
Clark Griswold Posted September 6, 2016 Posted September 6, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: Right now, CG is more worried about funding to actually operate the C-27J hand-me-downs and a few C-130J add-ons they've been gifted recently. New airframe acquisition will be on the back-burner for a long time. No doubt, saw an HC-27J a few months ago, looked good in Coastie colors but me still thinks the Guard should be flying it. There's a market and requirement for a common light tactical airlift in the US amongst the military & public safety agencies, ala the JCA. Forest service, CG, Military and with some of our usual friends, too bad we couldn't heard all the cats together to settle on one. Switching gears to Chinese airlift, saw the Y-30 concept, A400 clone or just inspired by? Edited September 6, 2016 by Clark Griswold food for thought 1
HerkPerfMan Posted September 7, 2016 Posted September 7, 2016 19 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: No doubt, saw an HC-27J a few months ago, looked good in Coastie colors but me still thinks the Guard should be flying it. There's a market and requirement for a common light tactical airlift in the US amongst the military & public safety agencies, ala the JCA. Forest service, CG, Military and with some of our usual friends, too bad we couldn't heard all the cats together to settle on one. Switching gears to Chinese airlift, saw the Y-30 concept, A400 clone or just inspired by? Form factor looks "inspired by" A400M but the early specs I've seen suggest a smaller size - more like 180,000 lb GW vs 260,000 lb for an A400M. The size may grow as the design matures to get it beyond the C-130 weight class. Not sure what they have in mind for engines, as that may also be a limiting factor on GW.
Clark Griswold Posted September 7, 2016 Posted September 7, 2016 4 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: Form factor looks "inspired by" A400M but the early specs I've seen suggest a smaller size - more like 180,000 lb GW vs 260,000 lb for an A400M. The size may grow as the design matures to get it beyond the C-130 weight class. Not sure what they have in mind for engines, as that may also be a limiting factor on GW. Copy that. Aviation Week says it will be in the 30 ton payload class with 5000 HP motors, with a wider body than a Y-9 or the 130. https://aviationweek.com/defense/new-chinese-airlifter-could-enter-service-2020s I guess they passed on the An-70 with propfans for the benefit of their domestic aviation base development.
FourFans Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 Revival. Poking the Dragon. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/05/590803578/a-u-s-aircraft-carrier-is-docking-in-vietnam-for-the-first-time-since-the-war
ClearedHot Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 I believe there was also a pres release stating they planned to sail the CSG through the waters claimed by China.
pbar Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 They are getting really bold. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5688095/U-S-complains-China-laser-incidents-Djibouti.html
Breckey Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 The Air Dominance’s Intel blog on SIPR has a good write up on those aircraft along with some NASIC analysis. It’s a good read.
Kenny Powers Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 Care to provide this civilian with a link? You can't access it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now