"Next Gen" Flying Boat Design Considerations for Military Applications

Broncazonk

What the hell?
Joined
29 August 2011
Messages
134
Reaction score
5
Given a clean sheet of paper (or a blank CAD computer screen) what would a "Next Gen" flying boat look like. What would you want it to do and how would it go about doing it?

Bronc
 
Perhaps reviving the Lockheed idea of the Seastar (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,351.msg63009.html#msg63009,
#8 to 14) in its intended use as a "flying missile corvette/frigate". Given some progress in aero- and hydrodynamics, a sufficient
seakeeping qualities could be integrated into a smaller (and comparatively cheaper) aircraft. Perhaps using turboprop, instead of
turbofan engines ?
 
The Russian put a lot of thought into flying boat design throughout the 1970's and 80's, including supersonic flying boats. And of-course we had the same interest. Below is a nice article:

http://tailhookdaily.typepad.com/tailhook_daily_briefing/2007/04/flightdeck_frid_1.html?cid=6a00d8341ca54753ef01761710f388970c

Bronc
 
Yes - I'd ask Beriev... I'm sure there's some great concepts around on this forum and elsewhere. It is a fascinating discussion though - I've always loved flying boats.
 
Mainland China is currently flying a prototype of the next generation of flying boats. Its conventional configuration is powered by four large turboprops. China plans to use it to connect the "new islands" in the South China Sea with the mainland.
Japan, Philippines, Taiwan, etc. all protest China's expansion into the South China Sea.
 
Mainland China is currently flying a prototype of the next generation of flying boats.
The AVIC AG600 Kunlong, to be operated by the China Coast Guard, and the Peoples Liberation Army Navy, among other agencies of the PRC.
 
Last edited:
AG600 sort of looks like a Beriev hull mated to a Shin Meiwa wing.
Given that it’s operating ceiling is only listed as 20,000 feet, we wonder why they applied such a complex, curved, cylindrical fuselage top contour that required complex fairings to mate with the wing?

How big are cargo doors on AG600?
 
To the OP,
The first step is defining the mission: what type of cargo?
... how much cargo?
... how far?
... how fast?
... how often?

Currently, flying boat production is limited to fire-fighting and serving islands too small to build runways (e.g. Chinese”islands” in the South China Sea.).
The primary advantage for fire-fighting is the ability to refill from lakes.

One advantage of Lockheed’s Sea Star proposal is the high tail, which can hang over a dock to ease in-loading.
What sorts of cranes , elevators, ramps, rollers, etc. will the next generation of flying boats need?
Traditional freight companies want large rear doors and shallow ramps that will accommodate tandard pallets, fork-lifts and cargo containers loaded straight off an existing dock.
 
Probably need to chicken-egg how to load/unload cargo to what first. And unfortunately, the need to create an entire system is going to severely inhibit development.
For example, if I have a viable method and means to deliver cargo from seaplane to ship, a seaplane would be great for COD-type missions, and you could bypass the carrier and supply a SAG with large amounts of cargo. A bit like the V-22 plan, but able to deliver much more cargo, over much further distances, and probably faster.
BUT, since there isn't such a method that already exists, there's not much motivation to invent one because I don't have any seaplanes. And if the Navy needs to build seaplane tenders again to make it viable, it would be an uphill battle.

And there isn't much use for developing a cargo seaplane for SAG delivery, because I don't have an extant ability to use it.

Best use would still be SAR/MPA/ASW. You can add strike capabilities, but what's the real benefit over land-based strike aircraft? I can disperse them, but they still need a logistics train for operations which will include fixed facilities.

I could see some very interesting EABO tie-ins IF you simultaneously develop a method to get from plane to shore. Say you develop a small landing craft (and a system to load and launch it) that fits in the seaplane so you can launch a preloaded LC directly from plane to beach without facilities. But again, we'll now need to develop an entire family of systems to make the seaplane viable. That's big money.


A SAG centered on seaplane tenders able to support large seaplanes for cargo, ASW, AEW, and strike is interesting to me. Might ultimately be more utility than a CVBG and cheaper, but it doesn't have any interceptors or CAP outside a landbased tactical air umbrella. And good luck getting the Navy or Congress to go for it based on completely unproven napkin math. Seaplanes have a pretty high writeoff rate on the open ocean. Do I really want my expensive AEW assets to be landing regularly in the open ocean to support my SAG? Probably not.
 
Your point around cost is quite accurate and tend to explain why the vast majority of seaplanes in use around the world are low tech single piston engines. A rebirth of the category would need an automated landing fiable enough to alter that statistic.

Nowaday this is at hand reach of many countries hosting industries with the proper technologies (FBW mainly).
 
Last edited:
Just spitballing, but I bet some sort of PAR augmentation for take off/landing like the big ekranoplanes or just straight lift jets might help keep speeds down for landing, and get the nose rotated and out of the water. Both would help minimize your take off and landing run distances/time, which cuts down on the number of waves impacted. And slower speeds dramatically cuts kinetic energy from wave impact, as it squares. I don't have any floatplane or flying boat time to inform my opinion, but that would be on my wishlist if asked.
 
Currently, flying boat production is limited to fire-fighting and serving islands too small to build runways (e.g. Chinese”islands” in the South China Sea.).
The primary advantage for fire-fighting is the ability to refill from lakes.

I believe that the Russians and the Chinese also still use them for ASW duties as well. In peacetime this primarily means acting as mobile sonar pickets, as well as helping to provide up to date local oceanographic data in areas without permanent sensors. They still retain the ability to prosecute targets on their own though. Minelaying is an important secondary role, especially in the case of the PLAN.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom