Ha, I love the "rescue ops".<p>This will not primarily be for rescue ops. This will be for supporting Marine standin operations on and within the first island chain. The marines have been trying to figure out how they can handle sustainment and logistics in that environment.<p>You can read some wonkish article about this (back in 2022) <a href="https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/sustainment-of-the-stand-in-force/" rel="nofollow">https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/sustainment-of-the-stand-i...</a> . You'll note that the article does suggest revisiting seaplanes as a distribution option.<p>With a few hundred miles range, these craft would be suitable as one way island to island hoppers, or 2 way over the horizon ship to shore transports. For a sense of scale, its ~140 miles from Luzon to Scarborough Shoal (one of the contested islands in the South China Sea).<p>The "Viceroy" craft that Regent has mocked up on their website claims 180 mile range, 3500lb of cargo / 2 crew + 12 passengers.<p>EDIT: And to be clear, the article title says "to get", but the article makes clear, this is basically a testing and development contract. There's no certainty that the Marines will get this capability in any meaningful way. Probably better to replace with "to test". This is particularly important because the commercial version of this craft is also still in development and testing.
> This will not primarily be for rescue ops<p>It seems like combat SAR in the maritime environment is what these are best at.<p>> The "Viceroy" craft that Regent has mocked up on their website claims 180 mile range, 3500lb of cargo / 2 crew + 12 passengers.<p>This is like 1/4th the size needed for minimum scale sustainment and support. Not to say that it won't be used for that in a pinch or for special operations, but it's pretty limited. Of course, there's been talk about building huge ones.
The company press release states "The second phase of work will examine seaglider capabilities across missions including contested logistics and medevac/casevac".<p>I agree that this would be useful for medevac/casevac, but I'm less sure about the search part of SAR. 180 miles is not a lot of range for searching.<p>I still believe this is primarily about contested logistics, because the USMC still hasn't solved that issue. One of the stand in force concept's biggest weakness right now is how will the marines go about sustaining the force. There's a lot of good ideas written down, but concretely they still don't have good solutions.<p>I think it's fairly clear that the Marines will look to unnamed undersea vehicles as one vector, but I think they're looking for flexibility and redundancy (and certainly the speed that these guys offer would be interesting).<p>What's written about SIFs is that the Marines anticipate the majority of SIFs to be deployed in the crisis building phase. They do not envision on day one of a shooting war, somehow dispersing all of their forces across the first island chain - they take for granted that they will somehow do that in the build up. After that, then ya, maybe just med/casevac and resupply is what they're after.<p>I have a hard time finding concrete examples, but I always envisioned an example detachment being roughly platoon sized. Basically, imagine being able to man a NMESIS launcher or two, ISR, and a squad or two of infantry for security. I think at that point, these vehicles become more viable for certain types of sustainment. You could for example priority rush more NSMs to a detachment.
> I think at that point, these vehicles become more viable for certain types of sustainment. You could for example priority rush more NSMs to a detachment.<p>Sure-- like 3 per trip. If they're not too long for the vehicle (they might be).<p>You might be able to barely sustain a platoon-sized force with a trip per day, but this seems very marginal.
> but I'm less sure about the search part of SAR<p>The article never mentioned the search part of SAR, only the rescue part. The range is still something of an issue with that, though, as you'd need to be fairly close the people needing rescuing. So I still agree that contested rescue is likely a side mission for this.
Pretty sure the search mission has been taken over by sats and drones for the most part
> I have a hard time finding concrete examples, but I always envisioned an example detachment being roughly platoon sized. Basically, imagine being able to man a NMESIS launcher or two, ISR, and a squad or two of infantry for security.<p>Most of the scenarios I've participated in have involved reinforced companies.
> Ha, I love the "rescue ops".<p>> This will not primarily be for rescue ops.<p>It's a common meme in dual use tech. When you apply for funding you mention "search and rescue applications" and people know what's up.
While I'm sure the US military sees the obvious possible logisitical solution for the island chains - and I've read them saying that in the past - that doesn't mean there's something deceitful going on here.<p>Before you make national security depend on a new, developing technology, and one that is also in limited supply, you give that technology a simpler, smaller mission to try it out and to develop it. That is, they don't want control of the first island chain to depend on Regent Craft all-electric sea gliders quite yet.
Well TBF they will be likely primarily used to "rescue" marines off suicide deployments in 1IC. Marine haphazardly rebranded themselves into MLR / littoral regiment, AKA NMESIS missile battery uber drivers for Pacific theatre to stay relevant. But anyone with half a brain saw how proposal was not sustainable one way mission for crayon eaters. 12 passengers + 3500lb cargon won't reinforce much, i.e. replenish couple Naval Strike Missiles... but likely just supplies to keep the people going, but more realistically it's good for evacuating whose left + body bags because region is going to be saturated with PRC fires. This glider proposal is consoling marines MLR that yes, their rebranding / new conop/conemp isn't terminally stupid, there is an exit plan after hopefully the NMESIS squeeze off their shots, assuming they survive PRC drones/missiles etc.
I laughed when I saw the article photo combined with the headline. The Marines will be island hopping in Higgins boats again before these are adopted.<p>How long did it take it for the Osprey to make it into service?
> How long did it take it for the Osprey to make it into service?<p>I was curious so I went and looked;<p>1981 - Initial development contract awarded<p>1983 - Bell/Boeing submitted their prototype and since it was the only submission, they were awarded the contract<p>1985 - Osprey designation established, first full size prototypes under development<p>1988 - First Osprey was finished<p>1989 - First testing of the prototypes started and first flight in helicopter mode (several of the prototypes crashed)<p>1994 - Bell/Boeing received production contract for EMD phase<p>1997 - First EMD flight + more testing<p>2005 - Full rate production authorized<p>2007 - Marines began fielding them<p>They were still testing the various modes (carrier onboard deliveries, etc) into the 2020s but the most favorable case is that it took over 25 years from prototype to service.
These are nothing like the Osprey. The Osprey is way more complex. If one of the engines goes out on the Osprey, there is linkage that will allow the remaining engine to continue to power both rotors. Nevermind the mission profiles are completely different.<p>How long did the SR-71 take to make it into service? How long did the F-22 or F-35 take? None of those answers have anything to do with the other.
Worth noting that the Cold War ended in the middle of the Osprey's development, and the peace dividend really stretched out the timeline for a lot of programs of that era. With higher consistent funding like we're seeing now, stuff will probably be adopted faster
My father was a Marine in the late 80's, early 90's and would talk about the Osprey being in development. They were still in development 20 years later when I was a Marine. I did get to fly in one before getting out though.
Would be a cool life, you operate a converted PBY Catalina that is a cargo plane and you bum around ferrying stuff
It's a thing! <a href="https://www.instagram.com/thatmallardguy/" rel="nofollow">https://www.instagram.com/thatmallardguy/</a>
Tales of the Gold Monkey / TaleSpin / that one season of Archer, has been the fantasy-life I wanted since I was very young.<p>I mean, I'm sure any real-world version of it would actually suck, though.
A DC3 is probably more practical.<p>But certainly less romantic.
> With a few hundred miles range<p>180 mile range, 180 knot speed, needs recharging infrastructure at both ends of the journey. This is a toy with very little operational utility.
><i>a toy with very little operational utility</i><p>A perfect match for the modern Marine Corps! (Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but a Marine Corps that has abandoned amphibious assault and port seizure in favor of helping the Navy with sea control has arguably lost its reason for existing.)<p><a href="https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/amphibious-assault-over" rel="nofollow">https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-...</a>
Ww3 is gonna be wild.
> This will not primarily be for rescue ops.<p>The "radar-evading" rather gives the game away.
Low altitude is no longer a viable strategy for evading radar. Especially with the advent of datalink enabled satellite and other forms of downward looking radar. The propellers show up on pulse doppler like a flashing emergency light. Especially over the ocean with so little ground clutter.
This is like the old Soviet Ekranoplans [1].<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan</a>
It will have many of the same issues too, common to all ground-effect sea planes, namely that wave height, rogue waves, weather conditions, and the ability of pilots to remain highly focused will be major limiting factors.
Why must pilots be highly focused? To avoid hitting the ground? I hope there is some autopilot to help with that ...
I just wonder about the corrosion problems of an aircraft that spends all its time next to the water.<p>But maybe this kind of thing is made out of materials more like a surfboard than an sr-71.
I'm guessing modern sensors and fly-by-wire systems might at least handle the last part.
From the wiki I take it they have yet to build and fly a full-sized prototype<p>"A 1/4 scale model was successfully demonstrated in 2022 in Narragansett Bay"[1]<p>Also I assume radar-proof is just because it's a ground effect vehicle that will never fly high enough to show up on radar it certainly doesn't look all angular like a stealth bomber. In which case my bicycle is also radar-proof?<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REGENT_Viceroy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REGENT_Viceroy</a>
They just started testing a full scale prototype like at the start of March. <a href="https://www.regentcraft.com/news/regent-begins-sea-trials-of-first-passenger-carrying-seaglider">https://www.regentcraft.com/news/regent-begins-sea-trials-of...</a><p>They've done boat mode tests, but they haven't flown yet.
Thanks for sharing, I honestly wish this company the best electric planes are a hard problem to solve and it's good to see anyone making an honest effort.<p>However to poke just a little fun this line stands out as a hilarious marketing claim that cannot possibly be true<p>"Almost all (98%) of UAE coastal residents are interested in riding a seaglider, according to our global consumer survey."<p>It's also interesting to note that the CEO has appeared on no fewer than 13 different podcasts between mid-2022 and last week which is I suppose how one would go about getting a high value US defence contract these days.
> Also I assume radar-proof is just because it's a ground effect vehicle that will never fly high enough to show up on radar it certainly doesn't look all angular like a stealth bomber. In which case my bicycle is also radar-proof?<p>From the way the article is worded, it does seem the author is only considering air search radar with this claim. Without low observability features, this will show up on surface search and surveillance radars. There might be an initial period where some radars fail to register it because they reject it as a possible target due to its kinematics. If craft like this become common, though, the signal processing algorithms will be updated to handle them. Most can already deal with very low-flying helicopters anyway.<p>That said, just because it isn't angular doesn't mean it doesn't have low observability features. Radar absorbing material would still make it harder to detect. So would more subtle elements of the physical design. I don't think "radar-proof" in that section header is justified, though.
Even on airborne radars like AWACS, they can detect ground movement. They typically have a filter to ignore things under certain speeds as they are not typically concerned about traffic near highway speeds. However, the proposed speeds for this thing would still show up with those filters enabled. It would be interesting to see what minimum speeds would be.
Yes, AWACS has limited moving target indicator (MTI) capability. A full-featured maritime MTI radar would easily pick this up, provided the signal processing algorithms don't reject the track for moving too fast.
> Also I assume radar-proof is just because it's a ground effect vehicle that will never fly high enough to show up on radar<p>My guess is yes. Simply because the Caspian Sea Monster [1] was "the largest and heaviest aircraft in the world from 1966 to 1988", not at all stealthy looking, and simultaneously also "undetectable to many radar systems, as it flew below the minimum altitude of detection."<p>So yes, a much smaller craft will also be hard to radar. Notwithstanding that the tech has moved on at both the "detect" and "don't be detected" ends of the contest.<p>As I understand it, it's also easier and safer to fly these craft now, as they are computer-stabilised, which the 1960s design could not have been. And therefore easier and safer to fly them lower. (The Caspian Sea Monster "was destroyed following a crash caused by pilot error." )<p>1) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster</a>
I wonder why the title clarifies "for rescue ops".<p>Is there anything inherent to this technology that prevents it from being used for anything else? The article body insists on "demonstrations relevant to specific defense operations" which sounds quite broad and not limited to rescue ops in any way.
It sounds less aggressive.
wonder what people thought when "the war department" became "the department of defense"
Sounds nice and friendly, just like all those autonomous drones for SAR
- Very fast
- avoids radar/detection
- water based<p>My first assumption is that this is for stealth ops. "Rescue" doesn't need those features.
TBF, You never know when you might need to sneak up on a shoreside compound, go in and “rescue” a bunch of people from their beds, and get back out undetected.
Fast and water based I can sort of see, but there's no point to it avoiding radar. The range of 180 miles (assuming I read that correctly) also makes it pretty pointless for search and rescue. You would have to know where someone is, the weather must be good enough to land on water, and they can't be more than 60 miles away.<p>A NH90 helicopter is faster, at 190mph (300km/h) and have longer range at 500 miles (800km). It also doesn't have to land to rescue someone.
Stealth and rescue can go hand and hand, no? I guess stating “rescue” still may bury the lead in that case.
It's too low to do anything else. Snipers would decimate an entire attack squadron.
It's a YC W21 company!<p><a href="https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/regent">https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/regent</a>
Wow, that's quite the "mission pivot".<p>We already have all-electric trainers like the Bye eFlyer <a href="https://byeaerospace.com/" rel="nofollow">https://byeaerospace.com/</a> so I can see this "working", but I'm not certain how effective it would be compared to something as well-tested as the "stealth" version of the MH-6 helicopter that's been in production for about a decade.<p>Additionally, the basic non-stealth MH-6 airframe and power-plant configuration has been around since the 1960s so its base flight characteristics are well-known.
Seeing YC-backed companies turn into DoD contractors makes me a little sick to my stomach.
Ében-Émael on Sea!<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_%C3%89ben-%C3%89mael" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_%C3%89ben-%C3%8...</a>
Ground effect vehicles could be the thing that's needed to make drone based delivery a reasonable thing to do, especially around lakes. It's one of life's perennial disappointments that such things only get done in military terms and under the ludicrous notion they are rescue vessels.
I think drone based delivery is a solved problem by now, thanks to the very rapid developments in the last 2 years ?<p>Some of the drones are now even fiber optic guided and thus resistant to jamming by the competition!
Lol depending on what you’re delivering and whether you want the aircraft back to fly a second mission or not.<p>For civilian drone delivery there are some use cases where you can squeeze out a small profit doing drone-based delivery as opposed to conventional truck-based delivery, but it’s not a sure thing yet in general. A Transit van can cover a huge number of miles for a relatively small capital investment. Covering the same number of miles with a drone (even factoring in that you aren’t constrained by the road network and can do straight line flights) for lower cost is… hard.
That's never going to happen. Only a tiny fraction of the population live directly on lakeshores, and basically no warehouses. If drone based delivery is going to work then they'll have to fly out of ground effect to avoid structures and trees.<p>The main advantage of ground effect vehicles is lower fuel consumption over long distances. That's not a priority for the short range battery powered drones used by delivery services.
>Only a tiny fraction of the population live directly on lakeshores,<p>I think you are mistaken sir.<p>I live by a lake myself and i've just talked to my neighbors, and they all live by a lake too.
is this a ground effect machine?
"seaglider" is apparently a new word for ekranoplan. The difference is, the new ones tend not to be so enormous [1].<p>See e.g.
<a href="https://www.regentcraft.com/seagliders/viceroy">https://www.regentcraft.com/seagliders/viceroy</a> and
<a href="https://www.hawaiiseaglider.org/what-is-a-seaglider" rel="nofollow">https://www.hawaiiseaglider.org/what-is-a-seaglider</a><p>It's the same craft with a different paint job<p>Yes, they are Wing-in-Ground craft<p>1: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster</a>
I suspect that in this case "seaglider" is just REGENT's marketing name, rather than a term with broader uptake. All the places I'm seeing the name 'seaglider' used in this context look like REGENT's prospective customers.<p>The term is also being used for some underwater drones (see <a href="https://apl.uw.edu/project/project.php?id=seaglider" rel="nofollow">https://apl.uw.edu/project/project.php?id=seaglider</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaglider" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaglider</a>).
Sure, it seems to be this Regent that wants to make "seaglider" a thing.<p>You can understand why they don't use "ekranoplan" as the marketing term. Its going to only be familiar to those who are into Soviet History, Aviation trivia or specific Sci-Fi.<p>And it's not going to bring small, modern, electric craft to mind.
Thank you for bringing this up. All the marketing (and the "journalism" regurgitating it) are writing as though 'seaglider' is a word I ought to be familiar with, but have never encountered before. I had a lot of "these things seem a lot like an ekranoplane variant, but they're not calling them that" puzzlement.
I think the other commenter is correct, that it's one company (Regent) trying to make "Seaglider" a thing.<p>For obvious reasons - which word would you rather introduce to the public: "Ekranoplan", or "Seaglider".<p>If anyone else is working on modern Ekranoplans, I'd like to know. But AFAIK, it's just one company working on it, and promoting it.
One more litetal translation of "ekranoplan" is "screen glider", so sea glider isn't that far away from it.
"Our vehicle, called a seaglider, is an all-electric, wing-in-ground-effect craft that operates within a wingspan of the water's surface and couples the speed of an airplane with the operating cost of a boat."
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXE0UTHnV5g" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXE0UTHnV5g</a><p>It is a ground effect vehicle.
$4.75mln seem like a great deal for a working prototype?<p>I'd love one of these in MS Flight Simulator or DCS.
So they are just at Phase 2 of developing prototypes with the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory? Ok, that explains why I've not heard/seen any deployment plans for these things within the next 5 years out here....which probably means if we <i>do</i> get them, we'll get them too late to influence the war with China over Taiwan.<p>Other comments are correct that the Corps isn't even close to solving the contested sustainment/logistics problems here in the First Island Chain, or in the South China Sea.<p>These seagliders are a nifty solution to the signature management issues, but their payload is tiny. We need the ability to move pallets of munitions or other cargo.
Are they drone evading though? Because if not, then this is a waste of time and taxpayer money. Literally any idiot can 3D print a drone capable of defeating tens of millions of dollars in military hardware from 15-20 miles away. We're not in Kansas anymore.
Hello Greenland
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Congratulations for having capabilities Russia has had for three decades.
>high speed<p>these are prop aircraft.<p>>radar evading<p>except for that insane heat signature coming from the half dozen DC motors and the RF emissions from them.<p>>electric<p>unless teslas making it...probably not...<p>this sounds like a pork project...or PR fluff.