Never one to promote the AF, but what is wrong trying to promote a service no one else provides? Seems to me that maybe quick response by SOCOM to the pacific littorals might be useful. I mean, the alternative IS a slow boat to China, no?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Little known / experimental aircraft
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
Just like finding a landing spot over any given terrain or in any weather for conventional land airplanes. Ya pays yur money and takes yur chances.
Ain't nothing gonna break my stride, nobody gonna slow me down...
Well, first off, there is no service as this capability doesn't exist. And perhaps the article got it wrong or missed some nuance, but it sounds like this is being done the wrong way in that they haven't figured out the CONOPS for it. The way it's supposed to work is that if a capability gap is identified in planning then you first look at other ways you can address the capability gap without developing a new platform. It didn't sound like that had been done. To that end I'd be curious if the gap is such and needs the development of a niche capability in a very unique aircraft. I think jmquate hit on the other limitations of these platforms in that they're heavily limited by sea state. It would seem that a CV-22 was bought to address these very issues (see Operation Eagle Claw). Oh, and you put a CV-22 on just about every major type of surface ship.
Also, developing a C-130 into a seaplane isn't an easy task. That's essentially making a new airplane. So it won't be cheap, easy, or fast. So it'll be an expensive and very niche platform. At some point that money is coming from somewhere else and DoD needs to ask if their RDTE is better spent on this or something for relevant.
But all that said, it's still a romantic idea because who doesn't want to SPECOPS Jimmy Buffett?
That is the kind of unimaginative defeatist thinking that has prevented the phoenix like rise of the S-3 Super Viking.
Bitchin thought, right up to the point you are reminded he sunk his Grumman Widgeon and was nearly shot down by Jamaican forces as he landed his HU-16 Albatross in Montego Bay.
S-3C amphibious Viking? Finally worthy of its namesake, the masters of amphibious warfare and power projection.
I like the idea. The engines would have to have some sort of secondary intake system, kinda like those louvers in the top of the MiG-29 intake ducts to keep rocks from getting sucked in on those old Soviet grass strips in Siberia.
Would the engines still make that distinct hoover sound if they sucked in a wave?
(Speaking of the old War Hoover, the sound the Canabus A220 makes when they run up the engines to takeoff sounds a whole lot like the sound the S-3 used to make.)
I like the idea. The engines would have to have some sort of secondary intake system, kinda like those louvers in the top of the MiG-29 intake ducts to keep rocks from getting sucked in on those old Soviet grass strips in Siberia.
Would the engines still make that distinct hoover sound if they sucked in a wave?
(Speaking of the old War Hoover, the sound the Canabus A220 makes when they run up the engines to takeoff sounds a whole lot like the sound the S-3 used to make.)
I get the MH-64 “Seapache” (pronounced See-Patchy) before we bring back any Zombie Vikings!
Would be curious to know if the Marine Corps is interested in this as well. The Commandant has really turned things upside down - and it probably needed to - with the change in threats and emphasis on small units and missiles in the Pacific.. C-130’s have a lot more range and a lot more payload than V-22’s…
I didn't know that about Jimmy and his airplanes but not surprising. I can only imagine that a guy with a Jimmy Buffett attitude is not great at the finer points of detailed flight planning.
I mean the P6M was a super 1950s idea. Jet powered (one proposal included a ramjet apparently because they could) seaplane nuclear bomber. It almost made it to the fleet before someone thought that maybe our nuclear detergent shouldn't be sea state dependent. But the idea of a longer range aircraft that can be operated from austere atolls with maybe a tender is a cool one. But at some point you're still hooked to a boat or fixed facility.
Also this idea would obviously necessitate the resurrection of the Sea Dart as well. Because it'd need jet sea plane fighters to defend it.
I like the concept picture that gives it a big funny nose to hold the radar.
And winders.............because "FIREBIRDS". Never underestimate the power of Nick Cage.
That's not auto correct...who needs a detergent that only suds in certain sea states? That certainly won't help get the stains out of our trop whites.
(Sometimes I love autocorrect.)
If truly amphibious no need to be tied to a tender. I am not prepared to propose a conops, but I bet there are plenty of islands and conventional airports it could operate from and have the range to get where it needs to go and splash in. Certainly no need for at sea tending. It is just a tactical airlifter with more landing options.