P-6M Seamaster Jet Seaplane Patrol Bomber: Faster than today's B-2s, B-52s, B-21s

[@dynmicpara]

REMINDER: the U.S. Navy successfully operated and won wars with small and large SEAPLANES in "salt water" on the rough waters of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans....(eeewwww the Millennials who have no life experience tremble)...surface ships can also calm the water waves before landing: www.combatreform.org/seaplanefighters.htm Add to this that we have myriad of sensors to select the best water landing locations, PANTOBASE skis or air cushions that keep the plane 6-8 feet ABOVE the water.... Idiots that whine about "salt water" and "rough ocean landings" will have their ignorant drivel DELETED and they will be BLOCKED from commenting. DO RESEARCH BEFORE SHOOTING IGNORANT MILLENNIAL MOUTHS OFF!

[@nakinajay]

dynmicpara *fucking rights bud, about time someone put those narrow minded fucks in they're place*

[@aaronquak2139]

Gee bud, one would think you've been in a good many salt water landings yourself to get so salty! XD A beautiful, toughly built jet! If the engines were upgraded for reliability, and given nice titanium shields for the reheat, the Seamaster would be viable for submarine refueling. Now that's something to think about: second strike air capability. A pity economics and the notion of the supercarrier torpedoed the Seamaster.

[@jacobcantplay4765]

dynmicpara, why just millennials? It’s all people. Tone it down a bit buddy but great point

[@TheDieselbutterfly]

Well said

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

Holy crap, now I know why older generations had such contempt for boomers and Gen X'ers.

[@CaesarInVa]

My father, who was a career naval aviator, was assigned to the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics in the mid-50s . The P-6M Seamaster was one of the projects he worked on. He was supposed to fly on the December 7th, 1955 test flight which disintegrated in flight owing to the horizontal stabilizer's malfunction, however, he was bumped for some reason that morning. Since I was born 5 years later, the thought occurs to me that had Dad not been bumped from that flight, I wouldn't be boring you all with this comment. Dad passed away back in the 90s, but I still have one of his cherished personal items: a tie clasp of the P6M in profile (the other item being his Annapolis class ring).

[@___axg96___63]

Not boring at all! Actually quite the tale of luck! I have a similar story. My grandfather served in WWII in the pacific. Either after or during the war, he was supposed to go on a C-47 either for a ride or duty. I don't really remember because I've only heard this story once and Grandpa is gone about 8 years now. But in any case, he missed the plane, which caught a big gust of wind that smashed it into the mountainside. No survivors. Amazing how the little things can make such a difference!

[@GDMHificationranpitc]

it's amazing how people keep getting in planes too shalom

[@CaesarInVa]

Yup. My dad and your grand-dad were pretty lucky guys. Someone was looking after them!

[@robertnicholls9917]

Man, to think of never existing because of a father's insignificant decision has always scared me for some reason.

[@skeletonman1016]

k

[@zackthebongripper7274]

The engine that was "too ambitious" is the famous J58 that went to power the SR-71.

[@JL-cn1qi]

They're talking about a Turbo ram-Jet engine. The SR-71 did not have a ram jet engine. The cone infront of the SR's engine idd moved to regulate airflow into the engine at certain speeds, a mechanic used for ramjet engines but having that feature does not make it a Ramjet. It was a turbo jet engine.

[@carrionpvp]

THE engine? Or an iteration?

[@SHaughom]

The P&W J58 Engine was a Turbo-ramjet! At Mach 3.2 cruise the inlet system itself actually provided 80 percent of the thrust and the engine only 20 percent, making the J58 in reality a turbo-ramjet engine.

[@thaddeuscarpenter1580]

@@carrionpvp Iteration and manufacturer differences, and it looks like they only used the center section of the original design, the intake and exhaust had significant revisions. The P6m's engines were originally being designed and built by Curtiss Wright who had been working on the design since 1947, it wasn't until Pratt and Whitney took over the project that it actually came to fruition. Plus it didn't actually run until 1958, just before the Seamaster program ended which wasn't that big a deal because the engine had been "promised" to at least 3 other projects.

[@dB-hy6lh]

@@JL-cn1qi Kelly Johnson himself described the A-12/SR-71 engines as effectively becoming ramjets at higher Mach numbers; this might help to explain: theaviationist.com/2019/11/29/engine-nacelles-of-the-sr-71-blackbird/ .

[@kolbpilot]

The 1950's, what a time for aviation and innovation. The Seamaster is a fine example.

[@safetychoice]

I worked at the Martin Company when they were building this thing. I was in a different section but I used to walk by it and look at it. It struck me that the engines were angled inward in such a way that the exhaust would strike the fuselage and the tail,causing material damage and interfering with stability and control. But I was a young engineer on my first job. What did I know. The plane subsequently crashed on a test flight, killing the entire crew.

[@Idahoguy10157]

My service in the U.S. Navy taught me the Officers have communities. Aviation, surface ships, submarines, etc... Seaplanes was a very small sub set within navy aviation. When Aviation had to cut their budget somewhere Seaplanes were the weak sisters. It would have been like clubbing baby seals for them

[@TheIhredpower]

It looks like a Handley-Page Victor with a boat hull.

[@andrewdking]

Yep, as soon as I saw it, the very same though occured to me. I expect many Americans have never heard of the UK's Hanley Page Victor V bomber, any more than many Brits have never heard of the Seamaster. They even share having the engines close to the fuselage. Here is a photo of the Victor showing the similarities images.app.goo.gl/As6zymTLLbqU6f3M8

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

One of my all-time favorite aircraft. It is a shame that it was retired instead of being replaced by an advanced version. I always thought that seaplanes would be a great addition to our defense mix.

[@peterallen4605]

It wasn't a horizontal stabilizer malfunction. The stress analyst on the fin section slipped a digit in his analysis. The fin failed to to overstress because it was only designed for 10% of the expected load. I got that story from one of the design engineers involved when I was a kid. I later got it confirmed when I worked at the plant (as part of LM).

[@ricks1314]

Slide rules!!!!

[@gtracer6629]

During CAP summer camp at Patuxent Naval Test Center (Pax River) while in formation, I can still remember hearing a large jet overhead. When I looked up, I immediately recognized the unique shape of the Seamaster accompanied by a fighter escort. I never forgot that moment.

[@OGColorado]

In the early 2000s I was in Russia 10x and had the pleasure of being invited to the Girdroaviasalon by Beriev ANTK' General Director. It was an amazing event, still held every other even year in early September. The Beriev company has made amazing heavy amphibians for decades. The Beriev BE-200 is unparalleled to this day in it's capabilities.

[@dynmicpara]

We need to remove the depopulate 6/7th of the Earth, WW3 mongering, DEEP STATE Illuminati from participation in ANY USG position, forge a strategic friendship & alliance with Russia--to include building their seaplanes under license here in USA.

[@pepecohetes492]

This flew months before I was born! A great engineering feat and beautiful aircraft. Some designs done with slide rule and drafting boards still shine, this is one of them.

[@willardgibson1063]

P - Patrol 6 - Model 6 M - Martin Aircraft.

[@InFltSvc]

My father ( he passed in 2006) worked on this project. He worked at the then, MM in Baltimore. My Aunt worked in the office in HR and got him in . My mother hated living there and demanded to move bake to her birth place.

[@michaelmcneil4168]

B47 =.78 Mach P6M = .89 Mach with a seriously underpowered J71-A-4 turbojet whose afterburners were later crippled. The desired power would have come from Curtiss-Wright a company not over-familiar with either innovation or reliability. The big problem was spray but modern jets would eat that and as a coolant would have been perfect on the inner engines.

[@jatwakefield8462]

Michael McNeil I

[@rogerstill71]

The most beautiful aircraft are the flying boats, IMO. And I agree with what you say about the military mafia.

[@shantoreywilkins1123]

👍

[@gregg4164]

It is actually a good looking airplane. could have been very useful in air/sea rescue and off shore oil platform work.

[@MsLeesan]

The P-6M was built by the Glenn Martin Co in Baltimore , MD and was an excellent aircraft that could perform several missions well.

[@michaelvickers89]

So cool! A plane I never knew existed! I wish I could see this bad boy in action! 👍

[@harryreid1597]

Shame it never happened, both the XB-51 and Seamaster were beautiful birds.

[@MSpeck1985]

xb 51

[@tragkfshnt]

It was a shame, the plane would have outperformed even the venerable B-52 as nuclear deterrent bomber, then you couple that alongside with the Mach 2 seaplane fighter the convair F2Y sea dart waterborne jet fighter it would have been an awesome pair.

[@erikhertzer8434]

The XB-51 was very advanced for its time, just like the Xf-91...the variable incident wings, etc.

[@joeford860]

Yes a beautiful aircraft.

[@dynmicpara]

There is no "never" lets get off our asses and make seaplanes happen in America. Perhaps "FIRE!" the U.S. Navy and have a PMC do their job America needs done?

[@thegrandemperor]

Think about what they could do with this thing if the gave this thing some of the technological TLC of today. Though the the clamps to bring plane to shore was a good idea, i'd rather see landing gear inside the hull.

[@Charlesputnam-bn9zy]

The Great Lakes are ideal bases for the jet seaplanes.

[@neighbourhoodmusician]

Lovely looking plane but that's a god damned bitter video description lol.

[@dynmicpara]

BITTERNESS IS JUSTIFIED due to the FUBAR USN. Ever hear the song based on God's wisdom "Turn" it goes like; "for everything there is a season" etc. INCLUDING A TIME TO BE FUCKING ANGRY, 20-something PCnik.

[@MrLikeke]

@@dynmicpara You refer to the book of Ecclesiastes which was written by Solomon, the wisest man. Our duty is to educate the millennials who think their know nothing opinion is as worthy as a lifetime of first hand experience. Of course there is a Plan B.

[@GeckoCkCkCk]

Wonder what he'll think of Rostislav Alexeyev's work. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i52skmeEpad1jrs REPLY

[@dynmicpara]

BITTER REALITY. America needs seaplanes NOW but the evil & corrupt U.S. Navy wants their BS TIN CAN, air coverless navy instead. Wake up to the REALITY that bitter evil needs to be bitterly defeated.

[@swaghauler8334]

@@dynmicpara They could have one tomorrow. Bombardier still makes seaplanes for rescue and patrol.

[@tomski787]

I think the Seamaster was another of those absolutely beautiful aircraft whose funding wasn't up to the ambition of the project. And, as usual, politics got its grubby little fingers into the pie to effectively destroy its potential. Even today, the seamaster could fulfil a role as a surprise attack platform...its ability to handle rough seas was well-proven. Imagine...it sits there in the middle of an ocean, receives an attack order and fires off a nuclear-tipped cruise missile from a completely unexpected quarter. Defence against such a strategy would be very difficult...And, even if it was never used, just _owning_ such a wonderful-looking airplane would be worth the dollars!

[@tony_5156]

Just like the Soviet Ekranoplans, massive potential!

[@bernarrcoletta7419]

I never knew, until it was too late, that my neighbor was one of the Seamaster program managers. My materials science prof worked for Martin. He had a turbine blade from one of the engines.

[@scottmcintosh4397]

Beautiful aircraft. A longer documentary would do well. ✈

[@brandonhansen4413]

As a Coastie we use to have the Pelican. It could land and take off anywhere. It got scrapped for Jayhawk/Seahawk/Warhawk and Dolphin replaced the beloved and smaller 85 (which some are still used).

[@O-cDxA]

Wow ! The Soviets must have had their eyes all over this. This looks so much like their Ekranoplan KM - especially from the rear at 0:34

[@richardoakley8800]

A sea launched bomber with unlimited runways ... I see a use for that

[@W7ENK]

Watching this, I was beginning to wonder if the damn thing even left the water! Impressive piece of video; Thanks for posting.

[@gacj2010]

Boy oh boy do I love these vintage airplanes

[@RockerWasRight]

As a retired Navy Flight Engineer I wished this bird had made it. I would have LOVED to have crewed on it.

[@tony_5156]

Thank you sir

[@smeltedcheese]

I have an original Navy recruiting poster from 1954 featuring the Seamaster.

[@mikemills69]

Pic or bs

[@BillM1960]

Now that is one hell of a "Jet Ski"!

[@safetychoice]

You did not read my post carefully. I did not say the engine angle had caused the crash. I was right about the engine angle because on flight tests the engine exhaust did indeed strike the rear fuselage when the afterburners were on. As a result, the engine angles were changed on subsequent models.

[@BoomerKeith1]

Would love to see a modern version of the P-6M. While speed is always good to have, with today's technology the speed isn't as imperative. With today's engine technology the P-6M could be equipped with smaller engines that offer the same (if not better performance). Seems that this kind of program could go a long way in helping reduce overall military costs (as mentioned in the video's description) and off the Navy a reduced size/role (while maintaining the same, if not better, operational options).

[@mrsaturdaynightspecial3055]

China just built one.

[@benhvt14]

@dynmicpara I hear you, man . . . it was the same way with the XB-70 Valkyrie . . .

[@gg5115]

Well, the Valkyrie was less useful once ICBMs and boomer subs had it covered. And danged expensive for something that you now don't have to have, so I understand cancelling it. But a sea plane is always going to be useful for about 100 different things.

[@JFrazer4303]

Need more than aircraft and seabed listening nets for serious ASW work. Always will need large seagoing platforms with real big sonar sets, even if they're lightly armed or subs. A CVBG with good listening ships in the outer ring can listen across hundreds of miles, and support itself in all ways. Granted, I'd rather see the stupid war-making stop and a fraction of that money go to opening space. (6 weeks of the Iraq invasion/occupation was equal to our annual NASA budget.)

[@Injuntru]

I WAS THERE AT STRAWBERRY POINT WATCHING THE TESTING. I was totally over taken by the sight and sound of POWER!!!

[@gaius_enceladus]

Awesome aircraft! If it had had good powerful engines, it could have been a *legend*! A sea-going equivalent of the B-52! Heck - if *I* were in DARPA, I would be looking at getting an updated, *bigger* version of this up and running *now*!

[@fireplanes]

Beriev took this concept to a functional level in the A40 and Be-200.

[@slapmesillyguy]

Both test aircraft suffered in flight emergencies and were lost. The partially completed number 3 plane is at the Glenn Martin Museum. Production was scrapped because of the loss of those 2 planes and the military wanting to eliminate the high cost of maintaining seaborne aircraft in a saltwater environment. The advent of carbon fiber may change all that.....someday!

[@aker1993]

Dude the Russians didnt abandon the seaplane they thought its was cheaper to maintain due to the vastness of Russia they can land over lakes and rivers making them the not vulnerable to to attack also japan build seaplanes to as anti sub operations due to its range and the ability to land of water making them the most effective sub hunters in Self defense force

[@MrLikeke]

@@avolantyable ADM Rickover was a proponent of nuclear powered 'cargo' submarines.

[@klatu1956]

What ever happened to the submarine seaplane?

[@TheDieselbutterfly]

@@avolantyable shhh damn you....we DO HAVE it

[@DanielBrown-sn9op]

Most beautiful bomber of any kind ever. Was way ahead in so many things. I think USN decided to develop sub launched missiles instead of seaplanes to carry nukes.

[@foamer443]

Could you imagine this today as a water bomber, though I suppose one might need a fair sized body of water.

[@SmartassX1]

Russia had a similar-looking, but smaller 2-engine plane that actually made it into service in multiple versions. Beriev Be-10 .

[@User8571]

Keep your G6's, Gulfstream. I'll take one of these and a lake house, please.

[@JLanc1982]

Such a Beautiful Bird! The beaching system is so cool!

[@mpw1986]

The P-6M Seamaster was a Plane in search of a Mission, that politics and service in-fighting and Changing priority's withen the Navy, Killled any chance of it becoming operational.This was part of the Navys ill-fated Sea Control Concept, that would have had the Seadart fighter, the trade-winds Cargo Aircraft and the seamaster, eliminating any real need for an aircraft carrier. When technology and the angled flight deck as well as the Sub launched Missle where being developed, the Seamaster had lost all of its support.Sad on what might have been.

[@dynmicpara]

Seaplanes already have a combat and peacetime mission ( I know you were being artful in your verbiage); they are a vital and necessary air/water/land interface the greedy TIN CAN ship builders and operators oppose for evil, selfish reasons. The USMIL is a bureaucracy; a profession would see and act on this.

[@davidtwyford8755]

I was lucky to have seen it takeoff as kid at Holly beach near Middle river. Very impressive.

[@Theneweastwood]

We need there here in Florida today! Small is better. Quick travel to the Bahamas, perfect!

[@BruceThomson]

To reduce the enormous drag of water on the hull, I wonder if they could have installed easy-spin rollers or ball bearings on the under surfaces. 'Especially at the front where there is an angled surface directly confronting the water. What do you think? Obviously air drag would be affected later unless (complicating, more weight) retraction devices or cover were provided. Perhaps these days there are nanotech surfaces that are super-slippery, but the problem is still there of mechanically displacing very heavy loads of water away. Also, perhaps these days they would use an underwater 'wing' that lifted the hull upward, cutting easily through the under water like a wing of a plane.

[@jpatt1000]

She sure was sleek. Too ban none survived to go into the Naval Museum in Pensacola. I think all that remains is a T-tail and some assorted parts. The Seamaster book by Stan Piet and Al Raithel gives a run down of the leftovers. (It is also an excellent read.) You mentioned Russian jet seaplanes. The Beriev Be-200 is an amazing plane but it is an amphibian. I think that is where the Seamaster went wrong. The added flexibility to be able to land on runways as well as on water may have made it more attractive. (But gives up the romance of being a pure flying boat.)

[@dynmicpara]

EASY to make the Seamaster an amphibian. PBYs began as seaplanes and became amphibians.

[@YDDES]

I think during the early 60’s in the cartoon ”Buz Sawyer”, They had a plane exactly like this, that was powered by a nuclear reactor.

[@edweston8044]

No mention of one of the major jobs it would have had, sub hunting. Till recently a job done by the P3 airframe. It would have been able to land in a hot spot and search. From experience in the P3B in the early 70's. Nuc subs were not easy to find.

[@fairlanejay]

A travesty of military politics obviously. Impressive it could hit mach .89, Very few subsonic jets can achieve that today. Thx for the vid.

[@abrahkadabra9501]

Actually calm waters make it harder for a seaplane pilot to take off due the hull's tendency to pull the aircraft back into the water. Waves on the water actually create more air under the hull making it easier for the pilot to get airborne. Ask any amphibious or float plane pilot about this.

[@dynmicpara]

Millennials know it all from their tiny self phones--don't bring FACTS and REALITY into the discussion. We refer them to web pages showing seaplanes landing on the OCEAN for DECADES by the then-competent USN before opening their mouths here--yet they choose to be ignorant and blab do-nothing excuses.

[@michaelmixon2479]

Awesome looking plane! Looks as if it could carry a lot of troops as well as it's other missions.Should have worked the problems out and built a few just to see if they were really good.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

michael mixon The Navy had to make a choice. Nuclear bomber vs. missle subs. The sub folks wonnthe check book battle.

[@zorkmid1083]

@@WALTERBROADDUS A missile is a lot harder to intercept than a bomber, and until stealth technology was available, you could detect a bomber much more easily than a submarine.

[@zorkmid1083]

It's intriguing, but isn't it restricted to landing in coastal waters or lakes? Otherwise, I can see it being used as a ferry between offshore assets (which doesn't necessarily have to be a supercarrier) and something inland. Wonder how the capacity and logistics would compare to helos.

[@brenttesterman3171]

This is by far one of the most badass planes ever!

[@brenttesterman3171]

Happy Independence Day everyone! Peace through strength, knowledge, love, and Faith

[@angryneighbor6]

What documentary is this from? Please I am trying to find the full version online

[@johnathancarter8237]

Hercules seaplane

[@pinz2022]

@safetychoice I've got the story in "Raise Heaven And Earth: The Story of Marin Marietta People and Their Pioneering Achievements", by William Harwood; an official history of the company. The first two prototypes came a cropper because the original wind tunnel data on the "T"-tail was bad. An in-depth examination of the data revealed the mistake.

[@fw1421]

A very attractive airplane. Why wasn't any kept for museums?

[@hoplite46]

fw1421 they destructed

[@dynmicpara]

ANSWER: THE FUBAR USN bureaucracy does not want the American people to know their ship racketeering is fucked up and there are BETTER WAYS to project military power at sea..

[@gravelydon7072]

@@dynmicpara Actually, it would be better if you blamed the USAF for them not being around. The USAF was very unhappy about the Navy even existing after WW II and very much so when it came to them having anything that could deliver a nuke. Plus the SeaMaster was faster than anything the USAF had as in one test flight, it exceeded Mach 1 in a shallow dive. The development of this plane and a really big " Super Carrier " were stopped by the USAF going to Congress.

[@erikhafer1415]

Never knew of this Aircraft. Thank's.

[@BrianPatronie]

Nice to see the old Martin facility in Middle River when they were building whole aircraft, now all they do is build thrust reversers...

[@tacticalmattfoley]

Wow. I've never heard of this plane before.

[@crosbonit]

I have long wondered why we spend so much money on aircraft carriers, and other surface warships in general. A carrier group can be spotted and taken out with a nuke. Submarines and planes like this would be harder to find and can get the hell out of a place quickly if need be. If it were up to me, I'd go all submarines, sea fighters, sea bombers and sea service aircraft in the Navy. I would phase out the "Here I am. Sink me." vessels.

[@normg2242]

The most beautiful plane - EVER...!!!

[@jg3000]

This is still a good idea. Maybe get rid of surfice ships that are to big.

[@ricksadler797]

Cool vid Wish we had made more of them

[@ilotitto]

Imagine a modern version of this wonder in a rescue/fire suppression version OR a jet powered flying luxury yatch for the uber rich.

[@hymanocohann2698]

ilotitto don't let Kermit see this...

[@BitwiseMobile]

I was going to argue with you about CAP, but then I remembered we already have an Air Force! :) F-15's with some KC-135's and a couple of AWACs would provide enough air cover for those bombers. I happened to have been stationed on the U.S.S. Enterprise, so I am partial to the Navy :D. I do remember during GQ drills while hearing that characteristic BRRRRRRRR and thinking that those CIWS better get any incoming missiles if this were a real battle. We had drills that simulated the island getting hit (my shop and berth was in the island - AIMD) and I always thought that's probably going to be a bad day if that ever happened.

[@dynmicpara]

If we want a surface fleet that will not be sunk in the first few hours of Nation-State War and thousands of Sailors men & women dying from exposure and sharks we damn well better get some multi-mission SEAPLANES. Hire a PMC to operate them--fuck the corrupt USN.

[@mikeoconnell4108]

It is a shame these were never manufactured and put into service.

[@fredal2264]

So what they are both designed as sub sonic.

[@Imnotyourdoormat]

good video...but id have to scrutinize the intel. im sure it would be a close match with the 52 speedwise. maybe at different altitudes or something like that.... the B-52 is, or rather can go supersonic, but seldom ever, if ever... do.

[@dynmicpara]

THE POINT IS THE MILINDCOMP LIE THAT SEAPLANES HAVE TO BE AERODYNAMICALLY INFERIOR TO LAND PLANES IS DEMOLISHED.

[@reallyhappenings5597]

Flying boats are marvelous

[@aguagou]

¡Más rápido, más ligero, más barato, llevando más letalidad al enemigo! 👍 👍 🙌🙌🙌. Y con menos gastos para los contribuyentes, unos cientos de ellos pueden hacer una gran trabajo, podrían llevar una MEU de Marines más rápido, tipo "Infantería de Marina Aerotransportada". Exelente video 👏👏👏.

[@Arkanoid1212]

Suddenly aircraft carries seem such a silly concept. Well, that would have been one route. These ideas were abandoned because of the development of nuclear submarines. However... i can't help myself thinking that these are two completely different areas. These are beautiful machines, including the fighters and the big, Russian ecranoplanes. It still got a lot going for it: turning the entire ocean into a substitude for a runway and the ground terrain lift effect when flying low altitude over ground (or water) saving lots of fuel. You could deploy using cargo submarines as a mobile and submersible airbase. Operational range, possible deployment zones, stealth - you name it. Its still a good conept, i think. Maybe an even better one than employed today and ceratianly more fuel efficent in public transportation than conventional passenger aircraft (ground effect). Its even ecologically feasible. Its a win-win-win-win-win... scenario.

[@ethanperks372]

The comment above is true. But this is true of most government operations.

[@MarshallJukov]

Actualy first design plans of ekranoplan was presented by Grokhovsky back in 1932. First Alexeev`s ekranoplan flew 22 july 1961.

[@Ricky40369]

Why even bring up ekranoplan. Completely off subject.

[@rickdavis3593]

Actually Bullwinkle, the two have nothing to do with each other.

[@devondetroit2529]

1955 ?? That’s incredible

[@jcannoncraig]

The profile view of this craft looks a lot like the F-35, (well, from the end of the nose cone to the rear of the cockpit, anyway).

[@allenjenkins7947]

All the ASW expertise deployed to protect a large aircraft carrier probably wouldn't be worth a damn in an all-out war situation. Anyone able to openly challenge the US navy will almost certainly have strategic nuclear weapons. As a carrier task force is not a tactical group, but a strategic one, why wouldn't you just hit it with one or more warheads from a ballistic missile (however launched)? Even the stripped-down Royal Navy has enough warheads for this task (Assuming that the US would actually let them use their Trident missiles!). The weak link with conventional land-based aircraft is the airfield. A flock of seaplanes, which can be deployed at will anywhere there's a suitable stretch of water, makes a much more difficult target to locate and destroy. There's also been another 60 years of aircraft development since the P-6M.

[@jimdanielson272]

I wish I could say the B2 is slow looking but it has a higher cruise speed than a B52 I still do not like flying wings except on drones.

[@scottdoran3112]

Akronoplan? That flies...

[@ZedAlfa.]

Takeoff starts at 4:07

[@jayjayadams2003]

Holy shit this was posted 11 years ago!?!? I feel old now >~~

[@JFrazer4303]

Post war seaplanes were too much of a threat for either side of the cold war to pursue. You can build a dozen LPDs or kits to turn any merchant hull into a seaplane tender, and nobody could tell how many or where each other had prepositioned assets to support staging or recovering a strike. Assemble planes from various places, arm them and ferry them to a fueling point somewhere, with fighters and ASW & AEW. Anyplace in half an hour can be a temporary airbase. Spot 60 planes and have them all aloft at once, with never a crosswind or short runway. After their (escorted) strike, bombers can exit anywhere off shore refuel at another mobile temporary fueling point. Anyone can do this, and nobody knows where or when a strike can be readying. Seaplane striking forces are too destabilizing, too scary. They only make the attackers' options better and the defenders worse. And note that the first ever naval air strike was by seaplanes from a tender and forward deployed supplies, when the Japanese hit German positions in Tsingtao, 1914. By the mid -50s, the USSR was working on strike seaplanes like the Myassishev M-70, with mach 2+ @70k' height dash, or close to transonic at low level. There were seaplane fighter design from all over the world, and lackluster performance if a couple of test planes of a couple of designs, doesn't say the concept is invalidated. See also the Chase/Stroukoff YC134E, upgraded from a C-123 with boundary layer control and modified simple aerodynamic fuselage, and added a semi retractable set of skis, which functioned on pavement and unimproved ground, snow & ice, sea, sand, swamp, etc. Myassishev and Beriev & Bartini had designs for everything from logistics/tankers, ASW, to bombers or fighters using skis, as did US, British and others. See the Be-10 "Mallow" which was operational for testing & training at the same time as the P6M. Some use GE; Bartini with developments leading up to the V/STOL amphibian VVA-14. The related KOR-70 was to be an attack variant.

[@anonemus4851]

Huh. Holy shit, something i didn't know.

[@glennwilson6179]

Yup. Me too.

[@ChaplainDMK]

Remember that this plane is dead if waves excede 9 feet, probably less in a landing situation. It is a wonderful aircraft, but it could only fill out a very niche role akin to the WW2 flying boats. While aircraft carriers are in many ways vounrable, so is any other warmachine. A good military will have a wide array of assets so it's flexible in it's reaction.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

The P6M could also be tended by submarines. If a designated tending marina was for whatever reason unavailable, the P6M could be redirected to land at an alternate site and refueled/reserviced by a submarine or tender.

[@dynmicpara]

The seaplane-less USMIL is then NOT A GOOD MILITARY, right?

[@jebbushell]

@@dynmicpara I think satellite surveillance, ship-to-ship missiles and submarine drones may have changed the game.

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

The modern ShinMaywa US-2 uses boundary layer suction to achieve STOL performance and can thus operate in waves 1/3rd it own length ie about 20ft. Flying boats must obsessively be built for STOL otherwise they are useless. Boundary layer suction doesn’t detract from performance it just takes up a bit of space. The international community should get together to fund flying boats as rescue aircraft around the world. One day one of these giant ETOPS airliners is going to ditch and probably even break up in the North Pacific, Atlantic, Southern Indian Ocean and then nothing can be done to save hundreds of people who will perish in 3 hours.

[@maureencora1]

Looks Like the Seaplanes in 1964 Hanna-Barbera "Jonny Quest".

[@oddjob1795]

Did the racketeers really want to wreck this aircraft before it went into serial production?

[@BingleFlimp]

Apparently, after the armed forces weren't biting the company's founder tried to sell a civilian version of the aircraft called the SeaMistress. I am shocked and appaled by the rich for not buying this aircraft. I am nowhere near rich, nor do I believe I ever will be but if I was then one of the top things on my list to own would be a private jet-propelled flying boat. I very much doubt I'd ever be asked "Why would you buy that?" because the clue should be in the name. "Why you ask? Did you not hear? It's a JET PROPELLED FLYING BOAT!".

[@martinleicht5911]

GR8 VID!!! I grew up on those waters!!! 🐸

[@xmodfreak2011]

@kylemcevoy They needed a quick fix. They couldn't rip the whole thing apart and rebuild it. Removing afterburners is way easier, cheaper, and quicker. But for a finished product, they should have moved them out.

[@joebryant7550]

Could you imagine a strike force comprised of Seamasters, Tradewinds, and the British Saunders-Rowe flying boat fighter?

[@dynmicpara]

...and for air cover the perfected, single-ski SEA DART fighter....just watched the Convair 1956 FINAL REPORT...SEAPLANE FIGHTERS WERE READY! The dangerously corrupt carrier mafia blocked and still blocks seaplanes...they cannot even fathom several smaller carriers that might SURVIVE to render some air cover over the fleet...want too-few, $14B each USS DEEPSTATEturd stupid carriers. USN will have to get asses kicked in a major war they can't mouse-click excuse their way out of.

[@joebryant7550]

dynmicpara If the SaRo a1 could have been perfected it would have made a perfect next-gen cat launched fighter/observer. But I live in a diesel-punk dream world.

[@dynmicpara]

NO. You are RIGHT. The world we live in is PHYSICAL. The DEEP STATE has sabotaged our militaries with MENTALISM BS that physical weaknesses can be overlooked by computer tricks. All that C4ISR is going to find the PHYSICAL WEAKNESS, Single-Point-of-Failure and smash it: the too few bloated stupid carriers. WW2 was won with 124 carriers most converted civilian cargo ships. USN egotists refuse to mass-produce carriers or seaplane fighterize all its ships so they don't end up like the HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales. USN headed to PDM ass-kicking at sea.

[@Rob-vv5yn]

Another beautiful design let down by poor engines, happened a lot in the 50/60s and was the death of a lot of promising planes.

[@dynmicpara]

American aerospace industry still needs to learn how to do contraprops to meet military threats today!

[@urdnotwrex6969]

Yes Mr. War Thunder, I want that.

[@Blogengezer]

Read Martin's life story and companies that he spawned. A very great man and way ahead of his time a true visionary, Kelly Johnson and others just carried on where he left off. He risked his own wealth many times to prove his theory's.

[@staison999]

That’s a fine looking plane!!!

[@blaudrache8434]

Seems stealth is the in thing these days. Who knows this premise of a sea plane bomber could make a comeback.

[@navnig]

Looks a BIT like a Handley Page Victor...

[@arroy624]

this one looks ok... but caspian sea monster is my personal favorite.

[@arodrigues2843]

arroy624 THAT IS an EKRANOPLANE, NOT an AIRPLANE!!!!!!!!!!!