Lockheed C-130 Hercules Seaplane/Amphibious Versions

Leaving aside the concerns about what sea state will permit operations, I'm curious what they are going to use as a lead-in trainer for this. Even with a sea within tolerance (how often will that be? Alright, I can't leave it aside!), it will require careful handling of the aircraft. That's a lot more surface area, metacentric height and engines to handle than a Cessna Caravan after-all. I'd want a long run-up to IOC for sure.

I was going to ask would a US-2 purchase not have been better but I suppose it is to do with vehicle deployment, RIBs etc. It's a loooong way down though....

If you can drag a CV-22 with a KC-10, do you really need this? It's bigger and faster than an Osprey, although with those floats, how much faster? Enough to justify the risk I suppose but I'd like to see the performance metrics myself. It will certainly be faster and more "riskable" (though less stealthy) than a SSN. It still strikes me as an odd decision though, at least on the surface, this late in the Hercules' day.
 
While I acknowledge that sea state(s) in the open waters are going to prohibit any seaplane operations at some point, I suspect that the majority of the efforts are going to be done in and around land (lagoons, ports, etc.). You can put boats, and other assorted special things inside of C-130 that cannot fit inside of CV-22. I will admit to being a great fan of Seaplanes as it is next to impossible to make a permanent dent in the runway. Also there is an awful lot of runway, especially in the Pacific. Finally I imagine that the reason they have gone the C-130 route is that it can be done with modification to an existing airframe.

sofrep.com

AFSOC Moves Forward With Plans for an MC-130J Seaplane

"Seaborne operations offer nearly unlimited water landing zones, providing significant flexibility for the joint force," AFSOC said.
sofrep.com sofrep.com
 
Last edited:
shin_getter said:
www.thedrive.com

It Looks Like A C-130 Seaplane Is Finally Happening

Air Force Special Operations Command says it needs an MC-130J on floats and it looks like it has a plan to get it.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

In partnership with the Air Force Research Lab's Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation (AFRL-SDPE) directorate, AFSOC is developing an MC-130J Commando II Amphibious Capability (MAC) to improve the platform's support of seaborne special operations. "The development of the MAC capability is the culmination of multiple lines of effort," said Lt Col Josh Trantham, AFSOC Science, Systems, Technology, & Innovation (SST&I) Deputy Division Chief. "This capability allows the Air Force to increase placement and access for infiltration, exfiltration, and personnel recovery, as well as providing enhanced logistical capabilities for future competition and conflict."
Click to expand...

Here we go again?
Click to expand...
I wonder if there's anything in the Key West Agreement forbidding the USAF from procurring waterbourne aircraft. I know, they operated the HU-16, but the Navy also used to fly R6Ds.
 
Aside from the weight and drag (which will be worse than predicted in the 1990s, if they insist on that Bailey Bridge structure) nobody seems to be paying much attention to stability and control or handling. There's going to be a spectacular nose-down moment when you advance the throttles for takeoff, and the float bows are surprisingly far back by classical standards. And you're going to need spectacular jacks to install/remove the floats, but the floats also crowd the jack points.

Sideshowbob9 - I think you're right about the RHIBs being an issue for the US-2, and about the handling/training issues.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom