SOAR

[taxi1]

It would essentially need a well deck.

 

[ChuckMK23]

The mission and aircraft development is real and its on the developmental funding train. The way I heard it, the amphibious floats are being designed as an engineered accessory - akin to the skis on the Artic hercs. Not a new aircraft that requires any approval above Major Comand level. The C-130 dudes at the office say its very real.

You could see this pulling up to an an LPD at anchor to get fuel!

 

[ChuckMK23]

I'm baffled as to what they think they are going to use it for. Honestly this seems like a solution in search of a problem and a byproduct of SOCOM often doing its own thing no matter what the CCMD's are actually planning to do.

Hmmmm not baffled:

The Commando II flies clandestine, or low visibility, single or multiship, low-level infiltration, exfiltration and resupply of special operations forces, by airdrop or airland and air refueling missions for special operations helicopters and tiltrotor aircraft, intruding politically sensitive or hostile territories. The MC-130J primarily flies missions at night to reduce probability of visual acquisition and intercept by airborne threats. Its secondary mission includes the airdrop of leaflets.

This capability makes sense - neither the Marine Corps or Navy have such a capability as described above. If you want a V-22 or a helo in a high value/high risk mission in this theatre you would most certainly need AAR.

I'd love to hear a Marine herc dude comment if they could do this with their KC-130's as well.

 

[Pags]

Hmmmm not baffled:

The Commando II flies clandestine, or low visibility, single or multiship, low-level infiltration, exfiltration and resupply of special operations forces, by airdrop or airland and air refueling missions for special operations helicopters and tiltrotor aircraft, intruding politically sensitive or hostile territories. The MC-130J primarily flies missions at night to reduce probability of visual acquisition and intercept by airborne threats. Its secondary mission includes the airdrop of leaflets.

This capability makes sense - neither the Marine Corps or Navy have such a capability as described above. If you want a V-22 or a helo in a high value/high risk mission in this theatre you would most certainly need AAR.

I'd love to hear a Marine herc dude comment if they could do this with their KC-130's as well.

Yeah, but why do I need it to land on the water?

And if it was going to taxing up to an LPD to get gas why not just use an airplane that can land on the LPD?

I get that this is a neat shiny object for you but beyond being excited that it's different you haven't really answered the "why?"

 

[taxi1]

Yeah, but why do I need it to land on the water?

Again, landing on water opens up huge chunks of the Pacific with their island chains that have no runways (i.e., targets). Land in the lagoon or on the downwind side and the seas are always calm. Infil and exfil...how else would we do it?

I see it as a littoral capability rather than blue water.

 

[HSMPBR]

They could call it the Littoral Combat Seaplane, or LCS for short!

 

[Pags]

Again, landing on water opens up huge chunks of the Pacific with their island chains that have no runways (i.e., targets). Land in the lagoon or on the downwind side and the seas are always calm. Infil and exfil...how else would we do it?

I see it as a littoral capability rather than blue water.

If it's an opposed infil I'd imagine with a sub. So people youre trying to sneak up on don't notice the giant airplane in the lagoon. Or you could use V-22s or other rotorcraft to land on the beach.

Sea state is going to really limit the use of this...it doesn't take much to whip up a sea state of 3.

Maybe you could use it as a floating mother ship for some Operation Eagle Claw refueling still seems very niche.

If the idea is to fit a very specific niche than maybe making 1 or 2 makes sense but still seems a lot like an AFSOC solution looking for a problem. Also seems like the kind of solution that C-130 guys with little or no exposure to ships and expeditionary warfare would come up with, ie reinventing the wheel.

 

[hlg6016]

Hmmmm not baffled:

The Commando II flies clandestine, or low visibility, single or multiship, low-level infiltration, exfiltration and resupply of special operations forces, by airdrop or airland and air refueling missions for special operations helicopters and tiltrotor aircraft, intruding politically sensitive or hostile territories. The MC-130J primarily flies missions at night to reduce probability of visual acquisition and intercept by airborne threats. Its secondary mission includes the airdrop of leaflets.

This capability makes sense - neither the Marine Corps or Navy have such a capability as described above. If you want a V-22 or a helo in a high value/high risk mission in this theatre you would most certainly need AAR.

I'd love to hear a Marine herc dude comment if they could do this with their KC-130's as well.

Some body will pipe up on it. Harvest hawk was first sketched out on napkins at the Yuma O-Club.

 

[jmcquate]

A buddy of mine at JPRA told me the biggest obstacle to the Navy getting a bigger piece of the SAR/CSAR mission is no aerial refueling capabilities on their 60s. Is the probe too space prohibited on the Boat?

 

[Pags]

A buddy of mine at JPRA told me the biggest obstacle to the Navy getting a bigger piece of the SAR/CSAR mission is no aerial refueling capabilities on their 60s. Is the probe too space prohibited on the Boat?

Probably not. There's probably just never been a big enough requirement to pay for it...ie Big Navy probably doesn't want a bigger piece of SAR because then they'd have to share their helos. But V-22s and 53s both have probes and are shipboard rotorcraft.

 

[jmcquate]

But V-22s and 53s both have probes and are shipboard rotorcraft.

I realize that, but they're not part of the Air Wing.

 

[nittany03]

Some body will pipe up on it. Harvest hawk was first sketched out on napkins at the Yuma O-Club.

Harvest Hawk != AFSOC MC-130 for lots of reasons.

 

[Hair Warrior]

 

[fc2spyguy]

A buddy of mine at JPRA told me the biggest obstacle to the Navy getting a bigger piece of the SAR/CSAR mission is no aerial refueling capabilities on their 60s. Is the probe too space prohibited on the Boat?

The problem was the people making the requirements. They’re often so far removed from the problem that they don’t know what the heck they’re doing. Take a Helo guy in the navy that hasn’t done anything overland and have him make the requirements. That’s how you end up with an aircraft that has crap for fuel capacity and horrible programming for the mission. Originally you couldn’t even put in a TOT and have the aircraft help you with a ground speed to get there on time. It was all dog houses on a map and you doing quick mental math in addition to everything else. The 60S is there because the airframes were available and the navy people making the requirements didn’t know what they were doing.

 

[bubblehead]

A buddy of mine at JPRA told me the biggest obstacle to the Navy getting a bigger piece of the SAR/CSAR mission is no aerial refueling capabilities on their 60s. Is the probe too space prohibited on the Boat?

The Navy should be focusing on what it does best and SAR/CSAR is not one of those things.