What makes you think the USMC is looking to expend recourses on an exotic platform like this? That isn't really their MO.
What makes you think the USMC is looking to expend recourses on an exotic platform like this? That isn't really their MO.
Oh, I don’t know….maybe the article:What makes you think the USMC is looking to expend recourses on an exotic platform like this? That isn't really their MO.
Side question: When a seaplane is on the water, do they have to follow nautical rules of the road???♂️
This project is a good case of "Just because you can does not mean you should be spending money on it"I'll take "things that will never, ever happen" for $1000, Alex.
EverywhereI suppose the one thing I'm lost on is: Where do you need a C-130 in the island campaign that you don't already have a runway in which a C-130 could land?
What was once old, is new again. I'm assuming this is an attempt by the AF to stay relevant.
Didn't the US move away from seaplanes due to the large list of CONs?
Looking at the concept art on this beast and I see no means of beaching the plane, How do they plan on servicing and maintaining it?
Large seaplanes often had cradles with wheels that would be attached under the hull in the shallows or individual wheels that would be attached to hard points on the hull. Then it taxied or was dragged out up a ramp.Looking at the concept art on this beast and I see no means of beaching the plane, How do they plan on servicing and maintaining it?
The article doesn't state a Marine requirement, which is kind of a prerequisite. I've said it here and other venues - using a platform like this for CSAR in C7F is a non-starter.Oh, I don’t know….maybe the article:
“The U.S.’s Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) is seeking an experimental “X-Plane” approach to create a new Wing-in-Ground (WIG) Effect seaplane to transport (amphibious) armored vehicles and heavy cargo at flying speeds above the wavetops for naval forces.”
I don’t know if the Army or Air Force uses Amphibious Armored Vehicles….but I highly doubt it. ??
Well, to pedantically correct your acronyms, SOCOM, SOCPAC, and AFSOC. But as to your larger point, at least as far as I'm concerned, ding ding ding, we have a winner!I think it is more SOCOM and SOCAF trying to remain relevant in the PACOM theater having gone from being a centerpiece in the last 20 years to a supporting player, and a relatively small one at that.
Well, to pedantically correct your acronyms, SOCOM, SOCPAC, and AFSOC. But as to your larger point, at least as far as I'm concerned, ding ding ding, we have a winner!
Well, let's be honest. They called it AFAFRICA because AFAF sounds like a duck trying to sell you health insurance.Africa, always the odd man out of the CCMD's.
Yes, it wasn’t explicitly stated as a Marine requirement. So, pray tell, who uses Amphibious Armored Vehicles?The article doesn't state a Marine requirement, which is kind of a prerequisite. I've said it here and other venues - using a platform like this for CSAR in C7F is a non-starter.
I'm not sure I understand the question. I mean, amphibious armored vehicles also fit on a commercial RORO, but that doesn't mean the Marines want, or will procure a fleet of RORO ships. If I wrote a story for The Drive detailing a lighter than air blimp that had an amphibious armored vehicle attached to its undercarriage, would that mean the Marines are now buying those too?So, pray tell, who uses Amphibious Armored Vehicles?