Thought it was interesting and pertained to China but I did not want to start a new thread .
Don't the Japanese have/had something that looks just like that?
I'll say.........even down to the paint jobHas a strong familial resemblance to the Japanese US-2:
...Tokyo is expected to sign its first major defense deal in the last 50 years, the sale of US-2 Amphibious aircraft to India. Sources also say that the aircraft will bear the name US-2i, which clearly indicates how serious Modi is about promoting the “Make in India” campaign. The US-2 aircraft will enable India to better surveil its Exclusive Economic Zone in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean region. This will in turn speed up an Indian Navy response to incidents near the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, major strategic holdings from a geopolitical viewpoint.
Given that: squabbling over unimproved islands in the IO and SCS looms large, you need fixed-wing aircraft for heavy logistics, building airfields is a political trigger, and questions about cost and vulnerability of carriers, I wonder if this will bring about the revival of heavy seaplanes?
As big as a fan I am of seaplanes I really don't see the utility for bigger ones like the US-2, if there was there would be more of them out there and not just the US-2 and the Chinese equivalent. Other than for some a little unique long-range SAR utility their role can be done by something else, usually much cheaper and much more efficiently. For supplying far-flung island outposts ships are a lot more useful, ones with helos even better. Seems more like a political move more than anything else.
Agree. Seaplane development in the inter-war years was because of there being no airport infrastructure (the reason why there are so many in Alaska). Also their use is extremely limited by sea state. I can't think of one that went into military production for us since WWII.Other than for some a little unique long-range SAR utility their role can be done by something else
Well, one could always rock an ekranoplan . . .I've heard that occasionally political goals drive military strategy, which drives military procurement. Not lately, I'll grant you, but you know...back in the day.
Martin P5M MarlinAgree. Seaplane development in the inter-war years was because of there being no airport infrastructure (the reason why there are so many in Alaska). Also their use is extremely limited by sea state. I can't think of one that went into military production for us since WWII.
That came to mind............just too lazy to look it up. I knew it wasn't the Mars. Also I think the HU-16 Albatross was post war.Martin P5M Marlin
I've heard that occasionally political goals drive military strategy, which drives military procurement. Not lately, I'll grant you, but you know...back in the day.
Martin P5M Marlin
To do what? Not being a dick, interested in your thinking.there is a viable role for large military seaplanes.