Whether it’s changing aircraft carrier designs or bringing back battleships, President Trump’s interest in returning to a bygone era of naval development is clear, but there may be one relic that is worth bringing back. Seaplanes were produced by the thousands in World War Two. Their roles included air-sea rescue, reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare, bombing, cargo transport, and more. Even so, the last amphibious aircraft left U.S. Navy (USN) service in 1967. American naval supremacy was dominant in the postwar world. American aircraft carriers and a globe-spanning array of runways meant there was little need for seaplanes in military service. Yet, as new threats have arisen in recent years, runways and flight decks are becoming less secure, while drone rescue capabilities remain in their infancy. In these circumstances, the unique attributes of the seaplane would be useful once more.
The New Threat Environment
Carriers have never been more vulnerable. New weapons like one-way attack drones and hypersonic missiles, as well as improvements in surveillance and ballistic missile technology, could drive carriers further away from the action in hypothetical conflict with China. Even with these defensive measures in mind, losses would be harsh. In a series of wargames run by CSIS, the USN lost two aircraft carriers in every scenario, on top of hundreds of aircraft and thousands of personnel. Such a debilitating event would be made even worse by inadequate sea-air rescue capabilities.
However, carriers are not the only thing being threatened. In the aforementioned wargames, most of the aircraft damaged or destroyed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) were lost while they were still on the ground. Airbases, while easier to repair, are easier to hit. More recent analysis has suggested that even with defensive countermeasures such as hardened hangars and dispersed airframes, American airbases in the region could be paralyzed for days or weeks by a concentrated surprise attack from China. Such an attack would cripple vital tanker aircraft operations in the opening days of a conflict, limiting strike aircraft and helicopter range by proxy. This same analysis recognized that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force emphasizes this tactic in their doctrine. This is where seaplanes come into their own, as they can operate without runways.
What Kind of Platform? What Kinds of Missions?
The modern military seaplane is not a new idea. Japan and Russia both operate amphibious aircraft, while China has plans to start mass-producing its own AVIC AG600. So far, recent American efforts in this arena have run aground. SOCOM’s (Special Operations Command) MC-130J floatplane program was put “on pause” and the DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Liberty Lifter concept was canceled last year. Both programs suffered from overambitious requirements and budget reallocations. Learning from these projects, a more practical and budget-friendly approach provides a better solution.
Take the Japanese US-2 seaplane as an example. With a range of about 2,400 nautical miles and an ability to carry 20 passengers or 12 stretchers in addition to its 11-man crew, it lends a tremendous advantage in Combat Search and Rescue and Air-Sea Rescue to the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force. In comparison, rescue helicopters like the HH-60W, with less than one-fifth of the range of the US-2, would struggle to compete in the vast expanses of the Pacific. The US-2 even flies at a similar cost per hour to other comparable airframes. It can be used for special forces infiltration, exfiltration, resupply, and perhaps air-to-air refueling missions with the right modifications. One application of these abilities is the Marine Corps Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) Pacific strategy, which plans to deploy small units temporarily to remote islands. Seaplanes are the ideal support platform as they could resupply troops where other assets would struggle. With seaplanes providing some of the necessary logistics and the Marines constructing temporary refueling stations on suitable islands, the two could complement each other. Seaplanes would lend the U.S. greater flexibility by conducting more effective long-distance combat air-sea rescue operations and further enabling the EABO concept, all while not relying on long runways or aerial refueling to do so.
Why not a Drone?
Some may ask: Why not just use more drones for rescue missions? Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) can loiter for longer periods of time, are more expendable, and are already in U.S. service. There is no doubt drones have a huge role to play in search and rescue efforts, but they do have their downsides. A plane like the US-2 costs around $100 million per airframe. In terms of drone prices, a MQ-9B SeaGuardian is around $80 million per unit, but significantly less than the $238 million for a MQ-4C surveillance drone. UAVs like these are highly specialized and valuable assets that could help locate pilots or sailors in the ocean, but unlike seaplanes, they need the help of other systems to rescue anyone.
The role of Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) in sea rescue missions has already been highly publicized. The first known rescue using an unmanned vehicle was conducted by a USN drone in the Gulf of Oman in June 2026. Though impressive, this effort was made simpler by the geographic factors involved and still necessitated the use of a rescue helicopter once the drone made it to a safe distance. A similar mission in the Pacific would present many more challenges. For one, the distances are simply much larger than in the Persian Gulf region, meaning that sea drones would be too far away and too slow to be very effective in most combat rescue situations. Second, USVs like the one used to rescue pilots earlier this year would not be able to traverse high waves the way seaplanes are able to. In a region prone to strong currents and storms, handling rough seas is hardly optional. Lastly, drones can provide medical equipment but are incapable of providing medical care. If someone were injured or unconscious in the ocean, a drone can only help by alerting nearby manned assets, while a seaplane has a crew to administer aid immediately. In these circumstances, modern drones are no substitute for the many advantages seaplanes can offer in rescuing our most valuable asset, people.
Conclusions
Helicopters and drones do not yet have what it takes to pull off sea rescue operations in the Pacific the way seaplanes can. For now, drones are better equipped for a supporting role when it comes to sea rescue, and helicopters, while very useful, are not well-suited for long-distance operations in the Pacific. Crewed amphibious aircraft can simply fly farther, faster, and longer than a helicopter and free up valuable drones and tankers while they are at it. Considering this, and their illustrious history in the Pacific Theater of World War Two, bringing seaplanes back into USN service would shrink America’s capability gap in the Pacific.
Robert Jackson graduated from George Washington University with a bachelor’s degree in International Affairs and a minor in Political Science in May of 2026. While at George Washington University, he became interested in and studied naval procurement. He has previously written articles for Arab America.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.
Center for Maritime Strategy
By Robert Jackson
Whether it’s changing aircraft carrier designs or bringing back battleships, President Trump’s interest in returning to a bygone era of naval development is clear, but there may be one relic that is worth bringing back. Seaplanes were produced by the thousands in World War Two. Their roles included air-sea rescue, reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare, bombing, cargo transport, and more. Even so, the last amphibious aircraft left U.S. Navy (USN) service in 1967. American naval supremacy was dominant in the postwar world. American aircraft carriers and a globe-spanning array of runways meant there was little need for seaplanes in military service. Yet, as new threats have arisen in recent years, runways and flight decks are becoming less secure, while drone rescue capabilities remain in their infancy. In these circumstances, the unique attributes of the seaplane would be useful once more.
The New Threat Environment
Carriers have never been more vulnerable. New weapons like one-way attack drones and hypersonic missiles, as well as improvements in surveillance and ballistic missile technology, could drive carriers further away from the action in hypothetical conflict with China. Even with these defensive measures in mind, losses would be harsh. In a series of wargames run by CSIS, the USN lost two aircraft carriers in every scenario, on top of hundreds of aircraft and thousands of personnel. Such a debilitating event would be made even worse by inadequate sea-air rescue capabilities.
However, carriers are not the only thing being threatened. In the aforementioned wargames, most of the aircraft damaged or destroyed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) were lost while they were still on the ground. Airbases, while easier to repair, are easier to hit. More recent analysis has suggested that even with defensive countermeasures such as hardened hangars and dispersed airframes, American airbases in the region could be paralyzed for days or weeks by a concentrated surprise attack from China. Such an attack would cripple vital tanker aircraft operations in the opening days of a conflict, limiting strike aircraft and helicopter range by proxy. This same analysis recognized that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force emphasizes this tactic in their doctrine. This is where seaplanes come into their own, as they can operate without runways.
What Kind of Platform? What Kinds of Missions?
The modern military seaplane is not a new idea. Japan and Russia both operate amphibious aircraft, while China has plans to start mass-producing its own AVIC AG600. So far, recent American efforts in this arena have run aground. SOCOM’s (Special Operations Command) MC-130J floatplane program was put “on pause” and the DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Liberty Lifter concept was canceled last year. Both programs suffered from overambitious requirements and budget reallocations. Learning from these projects, a more practical and budget-friendly approach provides a better solution.
Take the Japanese US-2 seaplane as an example. With a range of about 2,400 nautical miles and an ability to carry 20 passengers or 12 stretchers in addition to its 11-man crew, it lends a tremendous advantage in Combat Search and Rescue and Air-Sea Rescue to the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force. In comparison, rescue helicopters like the HH-60W, with less than one-fifth of the range of the US-2, would struggle to compete in the vast expanses of the Pacific. The US-2 even flies at a similar cost per hour to other comparable airframes. It can be used for special forces infiltration, exfiltration, resupply, and perhaps air-to-air refueling missions with the right modifications. One application of these abilities is the Marine Corps Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) Pacific strategy, which plans to deploy small units temporarily to remote islands. Seaplanes are the ideal support platform as they could resupply troops where other assets would struggle. With seaplanes providing some of the necessary logistics and the Marines constructing temporary refueling stations on suitable islands, the two could complement each other. Seaplanes would lend the U.S. greater flexibility by conducting more effective long-distance combat air-sea rescue operations and further enabling the EABO concept, all while not relying on long runways or aerial refueling to do so.
Why not a Drone?
Some may ask: Why not just use more drones for rescue missions? Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) can loiter for longer periods of time, are more expendable, and are already in U.S. service. There is no doubt drones have a huge role to play in search and rescue efforts, but they do have their downsides. A plane like the US-2 costs around $100 million per airframe. In terms of drone prices, a MQ-9B SeaGuardian is around $80 million per unit, but significantly less than the $238 million for a MQ-4C surveillance drone. UAVs like these are highly specialized and valuable assets that could help locate pilots or sailors in the ocean, but unlike seaplanes, they need the help of other systems to rescue anyone.
The role of Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) in sea rescue missions has already been highly publicized. The first known rescue using an unmanned vehicle was conducted by a USN drone in the Gulf of Oman in June 2026. Though impressive, this effort was made simpler by the geographic factors involved and still necessitated the use of a rescue helicopter once the drone made it to a safe distance. A similar mission in the Pacific would present many more challenges. For one, the distances are simply much larger than in the Persian Gulf region, meaning that sea drones would be too far away and too slow to be very effective in most combat rescue situations. Second, USVs like the one used to rescue pilots earlier this year would not be able to traverse high waves the way seaplanes are able to. In a region prone to strong currents and storms, handling rough seas is hardly optional. Lastly, drones can provide medical equipment but are incapable of providing medical care. If someone were injured or unconscious in the ocean, a drone can only help by alerting nearby manned assets, while a seaplane has a crew to administer aid immediately. In these circumstances, modern drones are no substitute for the many advantages seaplanes can offer in rescuing our most valuable asset, people.
Conclusions
Helicopters and drones do not yet have what it takes to pull off sea rescue operations in the Pacific the way seaplanes can. For now, drones are better equipped for a supporting role when it comes to sea rescue, and helicopters, while very useful, are not well-suited for long-distance operations in the Pacific. Crewed amphibious aircraft can simply fly farther, faster, and longer than a helicopter and free up valuable drones and tankers while they are at it. Considering this, and their illustrious history in the Pacific Theater of World War Two, bringing seaplanes back into USN service would shrink America’s capability gap in the Pacific.
Robert Jackson graduated from George Washington University with a bachelor’s degree in International Affairs and a minor in Political Science in May of 2026. While at George Washington University, he became interested in and studied naval procurement. He has previously written articles for Arab America.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.