Amphibious C-130

Neat concept but like JATO, I don’t think they’d ever get much use out of that capability. The article mentions not needing established bases. Well, the C-130 already doesn’t need established bases. We had them flying in and out of a 5,000 ft coral runway in Okinawa. If you’re in that remote of an area that you can’t even have access to a 5,000 ft strip, then an Osprey will do just fine. Far more tactical as well.
 
I liked the drawing of it on floats. That'd be a lucrative contract for wipline.

In other news I heard on a podcast the other day that the ch47 is rated to float for 30 minutes. Not really relevant but I thought that it was cool.
 
Jim K said:
I liked the drawing of it on floats. That'd be a lucrative contract for wipline.

In other news I heard on a podcast the other day that the ch47 is rated to float for 30 minutes. Not really relevant but I thought that it was cool.
Click to expand...

It does. Generally they don’t use its complete floating capability much. They (160th) do the “Delta Queen” maneuver a lot though. A partial submersion with power still applied.

 
nauga said:
That thing gets trotted out every few years and the buzz makes it sound like it's new and real.

:rolleyes:

Nauga,
who knows which hand fills up first
Click to expand...

Just part of the hugely wasteful DOD procurement process. Wonder if this cycle is driven by DOD or by one of Lockmart's pet congress critters?

Disclosure: My father worked at Lockheed Georgia for 30+ years and was part of the group (or one of the groups) which put together pricing and proposals for various concepts the DOD asked about. He never talked about it much, but occasionally he'd drop a nugget like "We've priced <something> every two years for a decade. The USAF wasn't interested enough to get it in their budget the first 5 times, so why study it again?" Lotsa wasted effort revisiting DOD wish lists.

And don't get me started on "Yeah, this one (F-22, B-1, B-2, F-35, whatever) is expensive to own and operate, but the NEXT one will solve all of those problems." Kinda like Lucy and the football...
 
...The article mentions not needing established bases.
Click to expand...
Common misconception. Very few seaplanes are capable of landing in open ocean, or making such landings routine. That's usually very rough water....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Jim K said:
I liked the drawing of it on floats. That'd be a lucrative contract for wipline.

In other news I heard on a podcast the other day that the ch47 is rated to float for 30 minutes. Not really relevant but I thought that it was cool.
Click to expand...

Any plane can land on water, once


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Either AvWeb was low on content or perhaps this has slightly more merit this time.. the illustration looks ridiculous though

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/air-force-developing-amphibious-c-130/

From AvWeb
"
The aircraft would allow “the Air Force to increase placement and access for infiltration, exfiltration, and personnel recovery, as well as providing enhanced logistical capabilities,” Lt. Col. Josh Trantham, Air Force Special Operation Command’s science, systems, technology, and innovation deputy division chief, said in a September news release.


The Air Force apparently wants a working prototype by the end of 2022 and is working with a private company on the development. Renderings of the finished product show floats that are almost the full length of the fuselage and would raise the aircraft more than 20 feet on the float-borne landing gear.
"
 
The problem is all of the small islands in the shallow waters of the China Sea, we have no real way to access them if it came to blows.

Many of these have small Chinese military installations on then, that can’t be approached easily due to narrow and shallow waters. Helicopters as we know are noisy and very vulnerable to ground fire, so they need an alternative that can get in and out faster and quieter.

The only currently available modern aircraft for that kind of a mission that won’t require huge resources to get there is the Japanese Shinmaywa US-2, or the Russian Beriev -200. The US-2 is designed to operate safely in seas as high as ten feet.
 
Tantalum said:
The Air Force apparently wants a working prototype by the end of 2022 and is working with a private company on the development. Renderings of the finished product show floats that are almost the full length of the fuselage and would raise the aircraft more than 20 feet on the float-borne landing gear.
"
Click to expand...

That should make loading and unloading while on land interesting.
 
If I remember correctly checking the bilge pumps on a CH-47 was part of the preflight….
 
When I was in the TXARNG flying CH-47s out of Grand Prairie, about twice a year we would land (splash?) in the lake just south of what used to be Navy Dallas. Mechanics spent the day doing prep work like putting in plugs in certain places, then off we'd go. Great fun learning to taxi in the water. Just had to be careful not to back up or you'd scoop water like crazy. Flight engineer would get upset when it got higher than his ankles...
 
FlyingElvii said:
The problem is all of the small islands in the shallow waters of the China Sea, we have no real way to access them if it came to blows.

Many of these have small Chinese military installations on then, that can’t be approached easily due to narrow and shallow waters. Helicopters as we know are noisy and very vulnerable to ground fire, so they need an alternative that can get in and out faster and quieter.

The only currently available modern aircraft for that kind of a mission that won’t require huge resources to get there is the Japanese Shinmaywa US-2, or the Russian Beriev -200. The US-2 is designed to operate safely in seas as high as ten feet.
Click to expand...

If anyone thinks we should be in the business of land assault anywhere near that part of the world, the lack of an amphibious aircraft won't make the first 100 pages of thing we don't have that we'd need. Plans for that operation should be prioritized behind "Martian attack" and "Zombies". Jack London figured that out 120 years ago, and the odds are way worse now then they were then.
 
Piperonca said:
When I was in the TXARNG flying CH-47s out of Grand Prairie, about twice a year we would land (splash?) in the lake just south of what used to be Navy Dallas. Mechanics spent the day doing prep work like putting in plugs in certain places, then off we'd go. Great fun learning to taxi in the water. Just had to be careful not to back up or you'd scoop water like crazy. Flight engineer would get upset when it got higher than his ankles...
Click to expand...

Yeah, this mission isn't done anymore in SpecOps. Infil is still done, but the exfil of boats isn't done.
 
Warlock said:
If I remember correctly checking the bilge pumps on a CH-47 was part of the preflight….
Click to expand...
yeah, there's no bilge pumps in an H-47... it's all hands and shop towels.
 
Flymy47 said:
Yeah, this mission isn't done anymore in SpecOps. Infil is still done, but the exfil of boats isn't done.
Click to expand...

Seems like that exfil would be an accident waiting to happen. Very little room for error on both sides.
 
Deliberate water ops in a helicopter is asking for trouble. Looking back those many years ago I’m surprised we got away with it. Purpose built airplane is what you want.
 
Part of me hopes this eventually comes to fruition. The Catalina is up there as one of my all time favorite planes.. something cool about 'flying boats'


FlyingElvii said:
Japanese Shinmaywa US-2
Click to expand...
Speaking on:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-it-looks-forward-to-its-own-amphibious-plane

TheDrive, or, TheWarZone, tends to have somewhat better military reporting than the typical 'main stream media'

From the article linked above:
upload_2022-2-23_17-21-2.png
"Airmen from the U.S. Air Force got up close and personal with the Japanese ShinMaywa US-2 amphibious aircraft during the latest iteration of the Cope North exercise, which took place recently in the Asia-Pacific region. The rare, potentially first-time exposure to one of the few amphibians in military service today comes as the service looks increasingly at an amphibious variant of the C-130 Hercules transport to operate from littoral areas in support of special operations forces."
 
Jim K said:
In other news I heard on a podcast the other day that the ch47 is rated to float for 30 minutes. Not really relevant but I thought that it was cool.
Click to expand...

That's 30 minutes after the rotors have stopped. Even assuming all the drain plugs are working, there is no way anyone would be stupid enough to try that.


Piperonca said:
Deliberate water ops in a helicopter is asking for trouble. Looking back those many years ago I’m surprised we got away with it. Purpose built airplane is what you want.
Click to expand...

We actually did autorotations and running landings to the water in AQC and the IP course at Ft. Rucker. They would give us an aircraft that was going into maintenance anyway, since the wheel bearings would have to be pulled and repacked.

The CH-47F is not approved for water landings, since it has never been tested. Too many electronicals near the water line!
 
IK04 said:
We actually did autorotations and running landings to the water in AQC and the IP course at Ft. Rucker.
Click to expand...
Those must have been belly-whoppers. Full touchdown autos? Ever cover up the canopy with water splashing?
 
IK04 said:
That's 30 minutes after the rotors have stopped. Even assuming all the drain plugs are working, there is no way anyone would be stupid enough to try that.

We actually did autorotations and running landings to the water in AQC and the IP course at Ft. Rucker. They would give us an aircraft that was going into maintenance anyway, since the wheel bearings would have to be pulled and repacked.

The CH-47F is not approved for water landings, since it has never been tested. Too many electronicals near the water line!
Click to expand...

Hey, I learned something new about Chinooks today!

I didn't know the F's were prohibited from water ops. The Echo's and Golf's are prohibited for the exact reason you stated.
 
I seem to recall seeing Navy H46s doing water landings in Otay Reservior back in the day, or am imagining that?
 
Piperonca said:
Those must have been belly-whoppers. Full touchdown autos? Ever cover up the canopy with water splashing?
Click to expand...

No, not at all... The rear wheels dig into the water and slow everything down real fast from a water entry speed of about 20 Knots.

Water taxi speed is limited by keeping the chin bubbles (windows) out of the water.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I seem to recall seeing Navy H46s doing water landings in Otay Reservior back in the day, or am imagining that?
Click to expand...

I think this is actually a CH-46 but they are dunking the back of that machine pretty deep in the water.

 
topgun260 said:
I think this is actually a CH-46 but they are dunking the back of that machine pretty deep in the water.

Click to expand...

Nope. A 46 is not big enough for the Delta Queen Zodiak boat mission.

See that guy clinging to the left side of the cabin? He crewed with me in Afghanistan.
 
IK04 said:
Nope. A 46 is not big enough for the Delta Queen Zodiak boat mission.

See that guy clinging to the left side of the cabin? He crewed with me in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Did they do anything special to those 47's to dunk their rear in the, I'm assuming, salt water often?
 
topgun260 said:
Did they do anything special to those 47's to dunk their rear in the, I'm assuming, salt water often?
Click to expand...

No. Nothing major. A few wires were relocated higher and lots of Proseal to keep things dry. A thorough wash afterward was SOP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top