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.
You can read some wonkish article about this (back in 2022) https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/sustainment-of-the-stand-i... . You'll note that the article does suggest revisiting seaplanes as a distribution option.
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).
The "Viceroy" craft that Regent has mocked up on their website claims 180 mile range, 3500lb of cargo / 2 crew + 12 passengers.
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.
It seems like combat SAR in the maritime environment is what these are best at.
> The "Viceroy" craft that Regent has mocked up on their website claims 180 mile range, 3500lb of cargo / 2 crew + 12 passengers.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
> This will not primarily be for rescue ops.
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.
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.
180 mile range, 180 knot speed, needs recharging infrastructure at both ends of the journey. This is a toy with very little operational utility.
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.)
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-...
How long did it take it for the Osprey to make it into service?
I was curious so I went and looked;
1981 - Initial development contract awarded
1983 - Bell/Boeing submitted their prototype and since it was the only submission, they were awarded the contract
1985 - Osprey designation established, first full size prototypes under development
1988 - First Osprey was finished
1989 - First testing of the prototypes started and first flight in helicopter mode (several of the prototypes crashed)
1994 - Bell/Boeing received production contract for EMD phase
1997 - First EMD flight + more testing
2005 - Full rate production authorized
2007 - Marines began fielding them
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.
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.
I mean, I'm sure any real-world version of it would actually suck, though.
The "radar-evading" rather gives the game away.
But maybe this kind of thing is made out of materials more like a surfboard than an sr-71.
"A 1/4 scale model was successfully demonstrated in 2022 in Narragansett Bay"[1]
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?
They've done boat mode tests, but they haven't flown yet.
However to poke just a little fun this line stands out as a hilarious marketing claim that cannot possibly be true
"Almost all (98%) of UAE coastal residents are interested in riding a seaglider, according to our global consumer survey."
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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." )
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.
My first assumption is that this is for stealth ops. "Rescue" doesn't need those features.
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.
We already have all-electric trainers like the Bye eFlyer https://byeaerospace.com/ 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.
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.
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.
I think you are mistaken sir.
I live by a lake myself and i've just talked to my neighbors, and they all live by a lake too.
Some of the drones are now even fiber optic guided and thus resistant to jamming by the competition!
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.
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.
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.
See e.g. https://www.regentcraft.com/seagliders/viceroy and https://www.hawaiiseaglider.org/what-is-a-seaglider
It's the same craft with a different paint job
Yes, they are Wing-in-Ground craft
The term is also being used for some underwater drones (see https://apl.uw.edu/project/project.php?id=seaglider and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaglider).
It is a ground effect vehicle.
DIY drones can do that now never mind by the time this is actually in service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_%C3%89ben-%C3%8...
I'd love one of these in MS Flight Simulator or DCS.
Regardless, the US beat Russia to that too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins_X-112
oorah!
these are prop aircraft.
>radar evading
except for that insane heat signature coming from the half dozen DC motors and the RF emissions from them.
>electric
unless teslas making it...probably not...
this sounds like a pork project...or PR fluff.
