Posted on 08/24/2026 1:26:27 PM PDT by Red Badger
The idea of a plane that can land on and take off again from water isn't a new thing. Landing on water is easy, but it's taking off again that's the trick, which is why flying boats, as they came to be called, were a common thing back before the country was so liberally dotted with airfields. The United States and other countries made heavy use of them, right up through the Cold War. But the idea goes back to the very beginnings of powered flight. There are two basic designs: a small airplane fitted with floats instead of wheeled landing gear, and a larger model where the fuselage itself is, essentially, a boat with wings. Most of these used in military applications are of the latter sort.
In World War II, the U.S. Navy made good use of the Consolidated PBY Catalina and the Martin PBM Mariner. They were ideal for the far-flung Pacific theater, for patrol and reconnaissance, transporting VIPs, and hauling cargo. They were versatile and had good range, but they were slow and vulnerable to enemy fighters. The last flying boat used by the United States Navy was the Martin P5M Marlin, and it was retired in 1967. The Coast Guard continued using the Grumman HU-16 Albatross until 1983.
Which brings up the notion: Would a new, modernized flying boat be useful today? Mind, we wouldn't have to build one. Our Pacific ally Japan already makes one, the ShinMaywa US-2. Task & Purpose's Kyle Gunn recently made the case for the United States Department of War buying some of these.
United States Pacific Command is made up of over one hundred million square miles of territory, which is over half the Earth. The majority of that is water. This puts a premium on land, especially airfields. Despite technological leaps that make crossing thousands of miles faster, and arguably easier, aviators still face some of the same hurdles today as they did back in World War II.
As leaders plan for a potential fight in the region, new doctrine like the Marines’ Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations and the Army’s Multi-Domain Operations all consider the challenge of maintaining logistics for small and dispersed teams in austere conditions, with little infrastructure for traditional cargo aircraft or watercraft.
The situation looks even more dire when you consider that existing airfields and ports would be high-value targets in the opening moments of a conflict, further complicating logistics.
There is an advantage in having a good-sized aircraft that can land on water. But there are some pretty serious cons in this notion. Were the United States facing a near-peer conflict, seaplanes would be very vulnerable indeed in contested airspace, perhaps even more so than in 1941-1945. They are slow and cumbersome. But they can land on a lake, a large river or a lagoon, and perhaps more importantly, they can take back off again. In a theater like the Pacific, a flying boat could be very useful back in the logistics zone. A flying boat would also be a great search and rescue craft for oceanic environs, and indeed the PBY and PBM did a lot of that in both the Atlantic and Pacific in World War II.
The Japanese US-2 has some things going for it as well.
The US-2 is built by ShinMaywa Industries with a design lineage going back to the Albatross the Coast Guard flew. It has a 2,900-mile range, can fly as fast as 330 miles per hour, go as high as 30,000 feet, and only needs about 900 feet of water to take off and about 1,100 to land. The most remarkable trait the US-2 possesses is that it can fly as slowly as 55 miles per hour, thanks to a fifth engine that runs a compressor to blow air over the control surfaces. It can also operate in waves as high as 10 feet, which is a third of the aircraft’s height.
Most importantly, though, it is flown by Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force, and U.S. service members have trained alongside the aircraft. A small U.S. fleet would help solve several of the problems that planners are facing in the Pacific theater, and Japan has also started opening up its defense industry to more exports.
That's all good, logistically, especially in the Pacific, where in any major conflagration we may well be fighting alongside Japan.
A seaplane would be sort of the Swiss Army Knife of oceanic aviation. They can land and take off anywhere there is sufficient water, and the US-2 only needs about 1,000 feet of open water. It's not fast, and it's not sleek, but it is versatile and could be useful for a wide range of purposes.
It might be worthwhile for the Department of War to take a good long look at this aircraft. Having at least a few of them around doesn't seem like a bad idea.
You can see Mr. Gunn making his own case for the seaplane here.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I used to fly Chalks from Miami to Cat Cay...Mallards I think. I remember when they installed turbo props. The vibration on the metal floor would tickle my feet.
The seaplane ramps are still there on Ford Island, Hawaii
Still at Midway with big hangars still in decent shape!
Are there enough areas of water calm enough for operation?
Read of PBYs landing open ocean, but could not take off in the swells.
Thanks for the picture !
We had a Squadron of these when I was at Coco Solo,C.Z
‘55 to ‘57.
On hit a breakwater,all lost but one 18 year old. RIP
Thanks for the picture !
We had a Squadron of these when I was at Coco Solo,C.Z
‘55 to ‘57.
On hit a breakwater,all lost but one 18 year old. RIP
A J3, 65hp, on Edo1320 floats was a lot of fun in ‘72
Instructor said always make your downwind along shoreline. I asked was for safety, he said no, he was looking for girls sunbathing or couples doing it
The Catalina II is just one example of seaplane that's being revived in a modern version:
https://www.designnews.com/industry/modernized-catalina-flying-boat-returns-to-the-skies
"Florida-based Catalina Aircraft plans to revive the 80-year-old design with new technology. The Catalina II is available in two new production variants, a NGAA Civilian Variant and a NGAA Special Use Variant for government and military customers. The Air Force has recently expressed interest in amphibious aircraft, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting proposals for a ground-effect seaplane."
"The plane’s civilian variant will have a 32,000-pound Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) and be sea state 2-capable. It can carry 34 passengers or 12,000 pounds of cargo for private or commercial operators."
"The military version will be rated for a 40,000-pound MTOW and can handle sea state 3 for military CONcepts of OPerations (CONOPs). This version flies faster than the civilian plane, with a cruising speed of 230 mph or 200 knots. A fuel capacity of 2,710 gallons promises to keep the Catalina II in the air for more than 19 hours. Catalina says the plane will be able to carry as many as 30 troops and their gear. Both versions of the plane will feature dual ultra-wide, 4-segment touch screen displays (with night vision goggle compatibility for the military version) and a dark cockpit interface to reduce pilot workload."
"Catalina promises to deliver the first planes in 2029, though pricing hasn’t been announced yet."
See also: https://theaviationist.com/2026/07/16/first-customer-next-gen-catalina-flying-boat/
Airplanes are faster, more fuel efficient, more reliable, and can lift more cargo.
The Albatross was an awesome and capable aircraft.
I say yes to seaplanes.
Military has to go with the flow like anything else.
Turbine powered Catalinas.
Who could ask for a better aircraft?
Yes it is, because now you're committing two aircraft and two aircrews to a mission that a single a/c of proper capabilities could have performed.
Yes, it is.
Every aspect of helicopter operations — from purchase to cost per fight hour to maintenance and repair — costs 3-5 times what it would for a fixed wing of similar performance and capabilities.
Plus, the top speed of (non-compound) helicopters will forever be limited by something called “retreating blade stall.” It doesn’t matter how much horsepower you put in them, they just can’t go any faster (without bad stuff happening). The Westland Lynx is the only production helicopter that will do better than 200 mph. The world is full of turboprop airplanes that will do more than 300 mph, and many will do more than 400. The Tupolev Tu-95 ‘Bear’ has a top speed of over 500 mph.
Plus, there are only a few helicopters that have been equipped with anti-icing equipment, and as far as I know there’s never been a production helicopter certified for flight into known or forecast icing conditions. That alone should disqualify them from consideration for Pacific ocean-wide SAR.
Unless you have an absolute need for either vertical take-off or vertical landing or hovering, fixed wing is a better, cheaper solution.
Puff the Magic Dragon
lived by the sea.
And frolicked in the autumn mist
in a land called Hone-lee.
And what exactly is this "single a/c of proper capabilities" supposed to be used for that our other assets don't already cover? Are you going to fly it up the Euphrates and land on the river? Have it land next to a frigate and toss pizzas over the side to the crew? Are you going to commit billions of dollars to field a new fleet of aircraft and training pipeline to have these things sitting around for the off chance that they might be useful for something one day when we already have other assets better suited already? Tankers are an integral part of any strike planning, fielding an entire fleet of aircraft to avoid using a tanker for a mission that might pop up once every five years is an extremely poor use of resources.
Flying boats were basically useless by WWII and that was before helicopters and tiltrotors were invented, now no serious military planner would find a use for them. Obsolete platforms get grounded for a reason, they no longer fulfill a needed mission. At one time warriors carried swords, now they're just ceremonial. Do you want to bring back hydrogen filled dirigibles also?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.