What makes you think the USMC is looking to expend recourses on an exotic platform like this? That isn't really their MO.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The newest Herk?
- Thread starter skybert
- Start date
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. ??
Yes, and rank somewhere up there around sail boats.
Bonus fact: helicopters are also part of the rules of the road and rank almost at the top for being given way.
hlg6016
A/C Wings Here
This project is a good case of "Just because you can does not mean you should be spending money on it"
Everywhere
Just randomly picking out a bunch of islands, no idea if they're strategic or not, although there were lots of actions there in WWII. I see just a few islands with airfield in the archipelago.
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.
Having read plenty of WWII and aviation history, to include seaplane operations, I get the sense the USAF/AFSOC is overlooking just how challenging the actual practice of seaplane ops can be. There are numerous accounts of seaplanes landing in rough seas during to conduct SAR becoming damaged as a result, even purpose built and pretty rugged aircraft like the Catalina and Sunderland often sustained damaged if they landed in seas rougher than what they were designed for.
Then there is how they will go about developing and maintaining a cadre of effectively trained personnel to do these ops, there are only a few 'western' governments that still operate seaplanes and all but one do so in a fire-fighting capacity AFAIK. None use floatplanes that I know of. So how the USAF is going to create and implement a training program and maintain it is going to be interesting to say the least.
Finally there is the practical aspect but trying to restart US military seaplane ops after a 50 year hiatus with the largest floatplane ever to fly (AFAIK, biggest I can find is the CANT Z.511) is pretty ambitious and pretty risky.
That's a detail on the order of "How long should the launch bar should be to reach the deck?" or "Is the hook too close to the main landing gear?"
In other words, these things have a way of working themselves out. Job security, baby!
Can't see a sea plane suriving the tactics of the Black Cats with today's threats.
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.
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.
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, to pedantically correct your acronyms, SOCOM, SOCPAC, and AFSOC.
Africa, always the odd man out of the CCMD's.
Well, let's be honest. They called it AFAFRICA because AFAF sounds like a duck trying to sell you health insurance.
Yes, it wasn’t explicitly stated as a Marine requirement. So, pray tell, who uses Amphibious Armored Vehicles?
Maybe they are thinking non-combat ops like MP security forces during an HA/DR event? That might work in the C7F AOR.
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?
In other news, the Marines are absolutely not, ever, under any circumstance, procuring a bespoke platform for HA/DR.
None of this makes any sense. Please stop.