Flying boats after Korean War

Melvin Loh · Oct 20, 2004

What PODs would be required to have the WWII-era flying boats such as the PBY Catalina and Shorts Sunderland, and derivatives thereof, survive as viable combat and maritime patrol aircraft after Korea (where the USN operated the former and RAF Coastal Cmnd the latter from bases in Japan), instead of only OTL the USSR and Japan (with the SHIN-MEIWA) continuing to operate flying boats into the 1970s ?

zoomar · Oct 20, 2004

I'm not sure why the USA and UK abandoned Flying Boats while the USSR and Japan (although the JMSFD is a special case) retained them. I think the real quesion is why the USSR retained them and the USA and UK abandoned them. I suspect it has something to do with the presence or gobs of aircraft carriers and extremely long-range land based planes in the British and US navies/airforces of the period. THe flying boat is a design compromise - never as good a bomber or long-range transport as a land-based one, and not able to match the station-keeping and offensive capability of aircraft carriers, even small ones. In the station-keeping context, it is noteworthy that, for ASW and Early Warning purposes, the USN kept operating blimps (of all things) longer than flying boats.

I suppose, had either the USN or RN not emphasized carrier aviation as much as in OTL, they might have lept their flying boats longer - but given events from the 1920s -40s that's almost impossible.

Mark · Oct 20, 2004

In addition to zoomar's suggestions, I suspect that helicopters proved to be better at search and rescue, another area flying boats were used.

Roland Wolf · Oct 22, 2004

All it would take is a stronger feeling that airfields are vulnerable. That is not as far off as it may seem. During the 60`s the German Luftwaffe considered that all of it`s combat planes should be VTOL-capable since airfields were considered as large targets.
Make the early air-launced cruise missiles a bit more sucessfull (RASCAL et all) and the performance gap between becomes less of a problem.
For all of that to happen you will probably have to Â´kill Gen. Curtis LeMay and SAC.

zoomar · Oct 22, 2004

Mark said:
In addition to zoomar's suggestions, I suspect that helicopters proved to be better at search and rescue, another area flying boats were used.

Right, especially since they can be operated from a wide variety of surface ships.

zoomar · Oct 22, 2004

Roland Wolf said:
All it would take is a stronger feeling that airfields are vulnerable. That is not as far off as it may seem. During the 60`s the German Luftwaffe considered that all of it`s combat planes should be VTOL-capable since airfields were considered as large targets.
Make the early air-launced cruise missiles a bit more sucessfull (RASCAL et all) and the performance gap between becomes less of a problem.
For all of that to happen you will probably have to Â´kill Gen. Curtis LeMay and SAC.

I sort of disagree, since the real military function of flying boats is to suppliment naval assets. As Mark indicated, helicopters based on ASW ships, coast guard ships, and CV's can handle all of the search and rescure and military functions of flying boats. Regarding possiblly greater vulnerability of airfields to cruise and ballistic missiles, this could also impact the other role of flying boats as long range transports. I presume they need to
"land" at fairly developed port facilities with rail and road connections to efficiently off-load equipment, supplies, and men. Couldn't these facilities be attacked by missles just as effectively as airfields?

Maybe you were hinting at this, but your idea of not developing SAC as well as the whole separate Air Force (something the Navy was all against anyway) is a thought. Maybe this could lead to situation where the Navy becomes the USA's only long-range nuclear deterrent arm, based on an essentially mobile and difficult-to-strike triad of (1) CVN taskforces, (2) ballistic missile subs, and (3) long-range turbojet or turboprop flying boat strategic bombers operating from and and constantly shifting among many small "bases" - essentially surface tender ships - anchored at atolls, islands, and fjiords throughout the Pacific and cosatal North America, Scandinavia, the Med, and elsewhere?

edvader · Oct 22, 2004

Zoomar:This is for you.In the early 50s I was fishing with people on the Severn River near Annapolis and the Naval Academy.More than once I saw a few seaplanes manuvering on sea and in the air including a jet version.What happened to the jet seaplane.Guess the Navy dropped all seaplanes later, but I am curious about THAT one.

edvader · Oct 22, 2004

Zoomar:What happened to the jet boat-plane?Saw a few planes including a jet one out near Annapolis in the fifties on Severn River near the Bay and the Naval Academy.So?

Roland Wolf · Oct 26, 2004

zoomar said:
I sort of disagree, since the real military function of flying boats is to suppliment naval assets. As Mark indicated, helicopters based on ASW ships, coast guard ships, and CV's can handle all of the search and rescure and military functions of flying boats. Regarding possiblly greater vulnerability of airfields to cruise and ballistic missiles, this could also impact the other role of flying boats as long range transports. I presume they need to
"land" at fairly developed port facilities with rail and road connections to efficiently off-load equipment, supplies, and men. Couldn't these facilities be attacked by missles just as effectively as airfields?

Maybe you were hinting at this, but your idea of not developing SAC as well as the whole separate Air Force (something the Navy was all against anyway) is a thought. Maybe this could lead to situation where the Navy becomes the USA's only long-range nuclear deterrent arm, based on an essentially mobile and difficult-to-strike triad of (1) CVN taskforces, (2) ballistic missile subs, and (3) long-range turbojet or turboprop flying boat strategic bombers operating from and and constantly shifting among many small "bases" - essentially surface tender ships - anchored at atolls, islands, and fjiords throughout the Pacific and cosatal North America, Scandinavia, the Med, and elsewhere?

Sorry, when I reread my post I saw inconsistencies which shouldn`t have happened. Posting in a hurry in a in a language not your own.... Exuses aside the planes I had in mind were the Martin "Seamaster" see http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avcmast.html for a closer look and the Convair "Seadart". While such planes certainly need logistics and maintainance backup, it can be both mobile and a far smaller target than airports with long runways and fixed hangars.
Such planes will always have a performance deficiency compared to contemporary land-based planes, since their aerodynamics and structural design will be a compromise between air and sea use. Yet the possibility that stand-off cruise missiles made the enhenced performance of the Land-based plane unnecessary presents a way out of that dilemma. (Anybody still remembers how Pres. Carter anounced that Cruise Missiles would allow the B52 to remain in service longer, allowing him to kill the B1 ad to loose a Campaign)
If the POD you described were followed (NO SAC but a naval-based deterrent force) the successors to the Seamaster might well be quite exotic-using a combo of hydroplanes and Wing-In-Ground-Effect to get a large plane off the water for example.
Such planes would also reduce the problems of the US with the stationing of assets in crisis regions. A Seapane transport with the range and payload of a C17 might also be quite handy.

Johnestauffer · Oct 26, 2004

One problem with flying boats was the environment. They were more expensive to build and operate as they had to deal with salt water corrosion. They also had to be structurally sound to deal with the impacts of water landings.
When long range, reliable aircraft operating from land bases became available the value of the seaplane began to decline. The US did have 2 jet powered seaplanes, one a fighter, the other a 4 engined jet. But their value in comparison to other platforms didn't justify production. (They would require a whole, seperate infrastructure to operate)
It is interesting the 'seaplanes' are actually making a comeback, in the form of the WIG (Wing-In-Ground) design. These fly a few feet above the water. The Russians have tested several versions including one that is the equivalent of the missile firing patrol craft and another that is a high speed troop transport.
These WIG concepts haven't figured in any of the recent techno novels/AH volumes but they would make interesting players