Finally! USAF MC-130J Amphibious Aircraft Is Coming

The C-130J is an incredibly versatile aircraft, and since its creation, it's landed on rough fields, in arctic locations, and even an aircraft carrier. Yet, it cannot land on water, covering about 71% of the planet.
In partnership with the Air Force Research Lab's Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation 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 a removable amphibious float modification for an MC-130J would enable "runway independent" operations, which, according to Trantham, would extend the global reach and survivability of the aircraft and Air Commandos.
Support us:
Facebook: / usdn.official
Instagram: / us_defensenews
If you have any problems viewing this Video, please report it here: [e-mail]

[@michaelkuhnert7128]

The Japanese Shin Maywa US-2 could do all this at a fraction of the cost that a seagoing C-130 will cost the tax payer. Not to mention the fact that an amphibious flying boat can operate in much worse sea conditions than a float plane.

[@kdrapertrucker]

Us-2 cannot do what the MC-130 can. This is special forces aircraft.

[@BilltheTulaneGuy]

No gunship version either.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@kdrapertrucker Yes, a special forces aircraft so we can lose another war. America, winless in war since 1945.

[@peterevans8194]

I would think it far easier and more effective to start with the US-2 design and modify it for SF and/ or gunship use rather than converting a C-130 into a float plane...The modified US-2 could even be built under licence in the US....

[@JFrazer4303]

"Not invented here", is the problem. Even trying to license build it would raise a stink among congress-critters who only want more contracts for their districts, and to hell with the mission and servicemembers otherwise. The only thing the US-2 as flown now couldn't do it drop pallets out a back door.

[@ib7610]

The US should just use the Japanese designed flying boat as it’s a proven design with a good track record

[@syedputra5955]

Japanese have the shinmaywa amphibious planes

[@lancecahill5486]

It's about time. The C-130 is an all-weather aircraft. It should be able to operate in water too.

[@MrFlatage]

It's like a Magic Dragon really.

[@whyjnot420]

Next upgrade being a snorkel then?

[@user-ui4rk5lu9v]

In water?

[@MrFlatage]

@@user-ui4rk5lu9v It is like people who claim to have served on a submarine. When people who actually did know well to stay inside of it. Should be able to though. It's been done before.

[@sirclarkmarz]

japan already has a very capable seaplane they should consider buying some of those

[@rdglde3087]

Why don't they try the Japanese US-2? It is a purpose built amphib & uses the same engines/props. Primarily used as a SAR ac but probably could be adapted to other needs.

[@joemajarucon9090]

It’s an awesome plane, impressive performance and flying. It makes a lot of sense to buy a wing of say 60. Japanese engineering is great

[@311Bob]

@@joemajarucon9090 I was in Iwakuni in the 80s these planes were stationed across the base. Sat on the seawall and watched them go through there paces. Very impressive on land it seemed to be able to take off in twice its length would be a good idea

[@frankcessna7345]

Finally someone who gets is…! The US-2 has been evaluated and already choose should funding (their is none) and requirements (their is no requirement) should comeabout

[@MrFlatage]

@@frankcessna7345 'who gets is'? What does that even mean? Nah no one who cannot end sentences will ever develop an actual seaplane ... Just look at all the braindead trollers, lmao!

[@frankcessna7345]

@@MrFlatage Hello Michel. May have tagged you by accident…. A commenter in the tread made the point the the Japanese’s US-2 flying boat had already been evaluated and chosen by the US if and when a need arouse for a flying boat program. All the best. Frank

[@geneard639]

Yeah, I just don't see a C-130 sporting floats big enough to keep it upright at sea or streamed enough to be low drag airborne. It would make more sense to buy a cadre of ShinMaywa US-2 seaplanes.

[@usamwhambam]

Completely agree.

[@Easy-Eight]

*$30* Trillion in debt does not end well. The USA is steaming full speed towards currency insolvency.

[@tboltaq2]

Why not built a more modern version of the Martin Mars with turbine engines? Retrofitting a C-130 seems to be a bit of a compromise that will have too many issues to make it a good option, Too many compromises to make it work well. External floats are a huge drag generator and make they whole thing look unwieldy. They tried adding external floats to C-47's and that never worked well. Purpose built is best as the whole hull can be used for floatation and with increased aerodynamics.

[@briananthony4044]

The proposed amphibious version was to have the engines on top of the wing like the Orion, it also had retractable undercarriage so could land on water or land. Floats were tried by cut range and payload by up to 30%.

[@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665]

The Russians years ago developed the Be 200 tubofan powered jet Amphibians.. The Chinese have developed a large 4 engine turboprop transport and the Japanese operate the Shin Mewas which are 4 engine turbo prop stol flyingboat that can operate in the roughest sea conditions of any Flyingboat.

[@bryanrussell6679]

@@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 Yeah, the Japanese ShinMaywa US-2 looks like an incredible amphibious plane that would surely be a better option than mounting large pontoons on a C-130.

[@kdrapertrucker]

Did they use the floats as fuel tanks? Fuel is less dense then water.

[@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665]

@@kdrapertrucker Putting some extra fuel in floats has been done on several floatplanes but its a bit risky if you hit floating debris or a rock . Largest conventional Amphibious floats built and fitted to a transport before this were those fitted to a pair of post war Dc 3s The drag as you can imagine is huge.. as is the not insubstantial wt of the floats gear and mounting struts. Which is part of the reason that its better to have an amphibious flyingboat rather than put a land plane on floats if its to carry a load. There is another tack that can be taken both Russians and the Italians built twin hulled flyingboats..the Russian ones were large. Britains SaRo Princesses had the hull wings and fuselage to act as major transports but the geared turboprop engines were in their infancy and like the Convair Tradewind were underpowered and unreliable...when the world decided it didnt need to be able to land and take off from 2/3 the 🌏surface 🙄🤷🏻‍♂️

[@DugganSean]

@@bryanrussell6679 100%

[@jamesberwick2210]

years ago, they came up with a boat hull mod to a C-130, they built an RC model and proved it would have worked. Never went further.

[@beverlychmelik5504]

That would be a better option. less drag and able to operate in heavier seas.

[@jamesberwick2210]

@@beverlychmelik5504 Skies for landing on the South Pole slow it enough, large pontoons would slow it even further.

[@ChaohsiangChen]

Would it be easier and cheaper to build new PB2Ys with modern engine and avionics?

[@jeffbybee5207]

The best thing about seaplane when used to fight forest fire is that can load much more water than helos with out landing.. we should have a fleet of 150 to stop fires and save a whole lot of timber

[@3204clivesinclair]

Never going to happen - cost, load/performance issues, etc. we already have Chinooks that can do water landings. Maybe a V22 Osprey conversion?

[@peterkennedy668]

Several years ago at a seaplane rendezvous at Moose Lake in Maine, there appeared a DC-3, or c-47 on Twin pontoons. It was quite a sight.

[@clydeosterhout1221]

I have seen the same bird on Moose Lake a couple of times. It truly is a remarkable sight! I would love to see it in actual flight..

[@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665]

There were two built originally to evaluate the floats the largest amphibious ones ever built.😎

[@Snailmailtrucker]

Gooney Bird !

[@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665]

@@Snailmailtrucker Thats one nickname for it 😉 I wish i could remember the name of the famous company that built the floats ?.. I thought it was Elco but they built fast boats.... I think they were still building floats till recently or still do there cannot be that many float builders still out there.

[@Snailmailtrucker]

@@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 I used to fly around Thailand in a few of those Gooney Birds C-47s Taking pictures with the door removed in the rear as an Areial Photographer in the USAF back in 1967/68...fun little plane to fly on ! I also flew lots of Refueling (KC-135) and Bombing (B-52) missions during those years too ! B-52 was the smoothest flying plane I ever flew on !

[@ironwolfF1]

About damn time...this should have worked out ten years ago (and amphibians should have _never_ been totally abandoned). An additional step could be retractile (snub) wings in the floats to give the plane a 'ground effect' element for low-level stability (...I'd at least do computer modelling to test the feasibility).

[@TheDoorspook11c]

That about the size of it. A ground effect model would be primo for SOCCOM

[@joshschneider9766]

Every Marsoc and SEAL officer just came in their pants with the lights on, seeing this lol. That is an absolutely genius piece of gear right there. Bravo to it.

[@jameson1239]

Except for the massive drag from the floats

[@billmorris2613]

I can remember when the Air Force and Lockheed were considering an amphibious version of the C-130 in the late 60s or early 70s. There was two versions. One was the floats they are considering now. The other was a redesigned hull that would be amphibious.

[@Baconatorz]

Honestly I'm surprised they didn't already have something like this. Seems like a no brainer.

[@billmorris2613]

Bacon Actually they did. After WWII their need was no longer needed and they were phased out. There was a few that were nearly the size of the C-130. They had 4 large round engines. A few of the most popular ones was the twin engine PBY Catalina, Grumman Goose, & Mallard, Boeing 314 Clipper.

[@ParadigmUnkn0wn]

@@Baconatorz aerial refueling, aircraft carriers, and a strong global network of allied airfields and military installations greatly reduces the need for amphibious landings. It's certainly an awesome trick to have in your bag, but the actual **need** for this capability is quite niche. The level of need is not zero, just much lower than it was when seaplanes were still the main form of transportation across the Atlantic.

[@thomasblankinship98]

This has been in the C 130 design since the 60's. No one was willing to pay for it at the time. The C 130 has variants that land/ takeoff on snow (ski ship), a super short take off version with RATO , they even had one with arms mounted on the front of the plane that caught a cable attached to a balloon to rescue shot down pilots.

[@billmorris2613]

Bacon Another large amphibious flying boat that is larger than the C-130 is the Martin Mars water bomber. It is 117 feet long, with a 200 feet wingspans, with a max takeoff weight of 164,900 lbs. it has 4 R-3350s making 2,500 HP each. The standard C-130 is 97 feet long, with a 132 feet wingspans, and a non wartime max takeoff weight of 155,000 lbs. it 4 turboprop engines produce 4,200 HP each.

[@Dra741]

During WWII we had the long-range flying boats in some of them had the ability to 8,000 and I believe I might be wrong 12000 MI, so this craft you could stay an area and look for Pilots that are down, you could deliver supplies to Allied Forces, we need this capability back again and is some area of focus

[@whyjnot420]

The Kawasaki HK8 (aka Emily), arguably the best flying boat built anywhere in ww2 had a ferry range of around 4500 miles. But that is the maximum range from point A to point B. The range for a patrol would be less than half of that, since it needs to be able to go back home, as well as have the ability to hang around somewhere for a little and drop depth charges or whatnot. (you don't really hear this called a combat range like you do with fighters, but it is the same idea) Floats on something the size of a C-130 is somewhat asinine. A dedicated flying boat would be far more ideal if they want the ability to land on water. Floats impact performance in a way that is similar to what fixed landing gear does, but far worse. Also they are far more limited in what sea states they can handle in comparison to a flying boat which literally has a hull. Simply put there is a reason you don't see big floatplanes. Flying boats are far better suited to being amphibians than floatplanes as well since the landing gear can be more roboust.... granted, this is more about being able to roll up out of the water than truly landing on a regular airstrip, so it is not like they need the main gear of a 747. Those USCG flying boats around 3 min in show this One of the benefits that floatplanes get though, is that the floats can be used as fuel tanks just like how planes use wing tanks. That extra fuel can compensate for the extra fuel burn from the large amount of drag added by the floats. Whether or not it can make the range even further than the original version depends on the actual airframe, size of the additional tanks and how well designed the floats are from an aerodynamic viewpoint. All in all, this might be a good idea for niche applications like special forces, but it is pretty stupid for more general use. But there are reasons why we don't use flying boats anymore. addendum: that bit about not being sea/float planes, is idiotic nitpicking from the guy they are quoting. Amphibian or not, if it has floats it is a floatplane. Amphibian or not, if it has a hull it is a flying boat. I love flying boats and would love to see them return to common use.... but the reality is, they only have niche applications these days.

[@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665]

@@whyjnot420 It may seem a Niche but done well and as Amphibians they could solve both difficult logistic and emergency problems and save a fortune on energy and concrete as all they need is a slipway ramp and hard standing .. Islands remote coasts and lakeside communities can be directly connected at speed from point of embarcation to remote deployment in one flight. You can also refuel on Land and at sea. The other point is if a key runway is destroyed or substantially blocked ..you have no where to land... Water however is a generally a bombproof earthquake proof self leveling runway. 😉

[@whyjnot420]

@@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 And there are some interesting ways to calm the ocean for a short time in order to land in open water too, from simply using a ships wake to create a smooth spot to chemicals you can add to the water to limit wave action for a short while. Given that I love ships and love planes, flying boats are basically the ultimate machine to me. So you are preaching to the choir. My main point was really just to emphasize that there are not that many places where floatplanes and flying boats make a lot of sense these days, even when fully amphibious. Not to say that there is zero use for them. For example their use in archipelagos still remains viable for commercial use today in a few places, which shows that they could be viable in such a locale for military purposes as well. Granted combat in such places today, would likely not be on a large enough scale to warrant their development. I do like the idea of having the capability if needed. I just don't see it making sense to do more than develop this capability for the time being. Perhaps deployment and large scale production could happen in the future if things change, but for the time being..... btw as for runways. The speed at which a runway can be prepared and repaired, even for large aircraft, going as far back in time as ww2, is ludicrous. Sure it takes longer than some water does to settle down. But there are example after example after example of both land strips and carriers being back in action in less time than it takes to cook and eat lunch.

[@budisutanto5987]

It's a freight plane, but it's use by the military, so it's a war plane. If . . . building a military from the beginning, I would choose flying boat for all freight plane. Because in war, there's reason to not make runway. Such as : time & resources (man & machine), the need for clandestine, temporary but essential use of island, etc. Think of it as a multirole plane. F18 is a good enough example. It's a fighter & a strike aircraft. F35 is a bad example, but it's because politics, not technical issue. Let's not go there. )) With current technology, it's possible to have a flying boat with retractable landing gear. As flying boat in the past able to survive for days in rough sea, it must be better today. I'm sure civilian can't wait to purchase such plane because the high survive feature.

[@thedudeman8408]

DC-3 were fitted with floats

[@wlewisiii]

I am sure that will be just as successful as the thousands of amphibious C-47s!

[@stankaliski]

This is as amazing as when they did the C-130 Aircraft Carrier Landing Trials. To think that a plane that big could land on an aircraft carrier deck and take off again is amazing.

[@whyjnot420]

While I agree with it being pretty awesome they did that was a C-130, there is a MASSIVE downside to it when it comes to how they pulled it off. One of the single largest reasons to have an angled flight deck on modern carriers, is the ability to use the front third or so of the flight deck for non-landing stuff without the risk of a plane which is landing, plowing into the stuff there. In order to land the C-130 they had to take everything off the deck, thus rendering it unusable for other purposes like it is designed to be. Just like with this amphibian stuff, sure there are some niche applications, but for general use it was just as useless. At least when they were using the U-2 from carriers, it was still about the primary mission of the plane rather than wedging it into some niche. And even then, they did not do a whole lot of it. (It is pretty awesome to watch carrier operations with a U-2 though)

[@norms3913]

They did have a c-130 land on a aircraft carrier before only 1 time years ago

[@whyjnot420]

@Steven Strain During the month of testing they did with the C-130, including 21 full landings, none of which needed arrestor gear, they landed the plane at its max weight, and stopped it in 460 feet. Taking off using 745 feet, while weighing in at 121,000 pounds. Again, all 21 of the takeoffs performed were unassisted. They also did 29 stop & go landings, which are a version of touch and go, that requires the plane to come to a full stop before taking off agin. They literally pained the words "LOOK MA NO HOOK" on the nose of the plane.

[@higgs923]

Propeller aircraft do very well on carrier takeoffs. We used to go back and forth to the boat in S2's. No cat needed, a loaded S2 could deck launch. When they were cat shot they were wheels off the deck with the aircraft straining at the bridle before the end of the cat track.

[@jamesmunoz9090]

@@whyjnot420 Successfull yes, but impractible becase the flight deck shut down while the plane was on it. do- able for like a 1 time Doolittle raid?

[@Mordock999]

“No. We don’t need the Martin P6M SeaMaster or any other seaplane.” - The US Military 63 years ago.

[@donaldclay9535]

The U.S. Marines Should MC-130J Amphibian Too. Semper-Fi.

[@Dra741]

Now that we're in the Pacific we need to have a lot of flying boats that can land on water is everywhere out there during World War II we had the flying boat, which is able to rescue Pilots conduct maritime operations and also participate in offensive operations against the enemies of the United States during that time, but we need to have a incredible flying boat, to work in the Pacific not only to rescue American or alliedpilots but the rescue our enemies as well

[@animalanimal7939]

Bro we have been in the pacific for a while

[@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665]

They forgot the role of the black cat PBYs.. working behind sea lines... and they under estimate the costs, maintainance time and speed limits of Helicoptors.

[@cesaravegah3787]

Not sure if it is a good idea, maybe would be a better to buy upgraded versions of well designed floatplanes like the japanese one.

[@randalbloomquist7812]

As soon as I saw that float assembly I thought about the drag count added to an already slow aircraft. I'm sure the wing can handle the extra weight but that weight has to be added to the aircraft zero fuel weight. The difference between ZFW and max gross weight for takeoff equals allowable fuel and cargo. The increase drag equals higher fuel consumption for normal cruise speed and range will be affected. May also affect G limit's and low speed manuvering speeds at critical phases of flight. Another consideration is the corrosion associated with operation on and around salt water. The NAVY is very aware of this problem and their aircraft are built and maintained accordingly. USAF not so much, they normally operate from inland bases where salt water associated corrosion is not prevalent. A purpose built amphibian based on the C-130 airframe would be more practical. Safer, faster, more fuel efficient and maintain or exceed current payload capabilities. A redesigned composite amphibian fuselage? Lockheed Martin has amazing capabilities.

[@JFrazer4303]

And? so you plan around it. But now you've got a plane that has access to the rest of the 75% of the planet that isn't a runway.

[@baginatora]

Wouldn't it be easier to redesign the lower part of the fuselage for floating/sailing and add balancing floats on the wings. The C-130 would become some sort of a Super Catalina :)

[@roykliffen9674]

Those floats look horrendously drag-inducing. My bet would be on a single float slung beneath the fuselage, in affect cradling the fuselage turning it into single flying boat hull. The outer drop tank mounting points could be utilized for floats.

[@oldgysgt]

Yes, because of drag, flying boats have always been more efficient than float plains, but if you are trying for an amphibian, a twin float is easier to do than a single float. Also, it was found years ago that a twin float has only slightly more drag than a similar single float plane, With a single float, the float needs to be larger, and you have the additional drag drag of the stabilizing wing floats. A new flying boat amphibian would be better, but that would take years to develop. The best solution might be to lease land on Pacific islands, and start making airbases once again, just like in WWII. Land planes always have superior performance than sea planes of a similar size, and they are easier to load, unload, and maintain.

[@davidmackie8552]

Agreed. Why not design a seaplane?

[@eugenescoj]

@@davidmackie8552 real simple... they are NOT practical... ask the chinese. the cost of maintenance vs. extremely limited usage is not practical.

[@eugenescoj]

@@oldgysgt i was in the USAF back in the 70-80's and there has always been the of why there is not a large amphib plane. we had them not of the size of the 130's and found that they were just not practicle... cost of owning and maintaining for such a limited service NO! even the coast guard and navy dropped the thought. helicopters and parachutes do a far more efficient job. never will a plane of this weight be landing on water supporting its weight on its wings by means of floats or sponsons it would probably tear them right off.

[@oldgysgt]

@@davidmackie8552; it takes years to design, prototype, test, and produce a new aircraft. From concept to operating hardware in the field usually takes at a minimum around 10 years nowadays. I don't know if the Communist Chinese are willing to wait that long. Also, land based aircraft outperform water based aircraft, and they are easier to load, unload and maintain. There are good reasons most militaries stopped using water born aircraft years ago.

[@franksmith2666]

About time , should have done this DECADES ago!

[@daveanderson3805]

That sounds exciting But how about a modern version of the Catalina and the Sunderland? That would really be cool But I wish them success with the Herk development It's great 👍

[@dabraze]

Nobody would like that more than me, and China and Japan have both gone that route, with (near) C-130 sized flying boats. But developing a whole new airplane is very expensive (Japan only expects to produce 8 total of their updated US-2, China just test flew theirs, not even in production), and the U.S. already has a large fleet of capable aircraft the right size and capability. It's a heck of a lot cheaper and faster to just develop removable floats. Added bonuses: a) C-130 will be fully amphibious. It can take off from land, fully loaded and reach anywhere in the world with existing refueling capability and land on either land or water. The Chinese and Japanese have landing gear but they are lightweight, and NOT for use fully loaded. b) Russian and Chinese craft are designed primarily as patrol aircraft (secondary role search & rescue). Presumably they can carry weapons. The C-130 amphibian is patrol capable and has much more load capability (even with the floats). The tailgate would make sea rescue much more flexible and fast, and the cargo capability (for resupply) is needed if the U.S. (as is being discussed) places small bases on islets in the N. China Sea. Or troops. I imagine the U.S. could, if needed, produce a hundred or two sets of C-130 floats in about the time it takes China or Russia to make a dozen seaplanes.

[@whyjnot420]

@@dabraze I love flying boats as well, but yeah, their practical use these days as far as the military goes, is pretty limited. Even when talking amphibians. That said, a proper flying boat is always going to be a better plane than slapping floats on an existing plane (all things being equal). But as you more or less said, raw performance isn't everything. BTW for Dave Anderson: the Kawasaki HK8 was far superior to the Catalina as far as ww2 flying boats go. While it did not play as big a role as the Catalina, in terms of performance it was amazing. So if you are looking for a large flying boat of that period to use for comparisons, I would argue for using it. I really do not see a Catalina sized flying boat as being very viable at all these days, I think you are right to think of the Sunderland in this regard. Not that I think any flying boat would be too viable right now. Really the military use of flying boats and floatplanes in numbers worth the effort of making a new plane (amphibian or not), is a thing of the past. As sad as I am to say it.

[@davidmackie8552]

Agreed

[@longrider42]

With modern materials, an updated version of the Catalina or Sunderland would be a great idea.

[@Coyote27981]

The problem is that turboprops/turbofans really hate sea water. And good luck convincing the navy/af buying a piston engine. If you really want a modern catalina, you can always buy a Beriev BE-200.

[@xavierng1951]

I would suggest that Lockheed and USAF would be better off with a proper amphibious fuselage for the C-130J instead of those massive floats. A proper airframe would be able to withstand the stresses better than an ordinary Hercules.

[@arts6821]

The glorious days of amphibious planes like the PBY are coming back!

[@Prairietrucker]

Game changer for special forces but could see a ton of uses for Navy and Coast guard too.

[@Dra741]

And the PB wise anti-submarine Warfare program was running quite very well against the the Jerry's

[@mithileshjha2561]

Excellent Amphibious Aircraft's.

[@WalterCruz-USA]

Number 1 USA.🇺🇸🌍🗽 God bless America.🇺🇸🙏🏻

[@TheJazsa80]

The US should purchase the US-2 from Japan.

[@Trevwhitesailing]

The Catalina's were the back bone of SF operations in the Pacific. SF have been calling on this capability for year

[@Zakaius]

A converted C-130 not a a seaplane. AG-600 is a pure breed seaplane

[@Dra741]

British Airways and boac, frequently used the islands in the Pacific for flying boats and Recreation and God give us the gift what-have-you

[@timsmith1345]

I wonder if they have figured weather or not that plane can be fully loaded as normal and lift off with the added weight of those massive pontoons. Seems also if they landed somewhere on water with a full load, there would be so much water displacement. Makes me think with the existing engines there would not be enough power to take off and I would think there would be a great fear of disaster trying to land bringing in a full load. The C-130 is a great aircraft and one of my favorites of all time but I don't see this happening without more modifications than they talk of.

[@deezynar]

Pontoons add weight and drag. Having the fuselage double as a hull is much more efficient. But that requires a plane that is designed from the beginning to be able to land on water.

[@raymond7880]

It's a compromise. Floatplanes always have more drag than purpose built flying boats. In WWII there was a DC-3, a Junkers Ju-52, a stop gap Spitfire, a Zero etc. Performance fell. It's a mystery why all that brilliant WWII flying boat know-how was abandoned - Grumman Albatross, Boeing , Martin, PBY, Shorts, Supermarine etc. The Indo-Pacific is huge and needs long range amphibians.

[@flfun1684]

As a former aerospace worker..I always knew engineering could float these cargo planes!

[@Burhanontheranch]

This could be the ultimate party boat/RV

[@JFrazer4303]

Nobody suggests that a water landing capability removes land operations. By going with floats, they remove it's ability to operate on land, but every seaplane since the mid-40s has had landing gear and not just beaching or taxiing casters.

[@billmorris2613]

There are plenty floats that are amphibious with retractable gear in the floats. Amphibious means capable of landing on land and water.

[@donstewart2059]

I would build it with a fibreglass bottom like the caterlina design and it might need 2 extra engines

[@Posttrip]

Yup. It was only a matter of time. Amphibious capability should never have left the services. There are so many rivers and lakes to be turned into staging areas, insertion and extraction points. I’m looking forward to the demonstration and what this will unleash.

[@albertoswald8461]

I agree. I think that they messed up in getting rid of blimps back in 1964, diesel subs in the 1990s and not at least researching Air Independent Propulsion submarines. We also need at least a few decent small combatant ships that are better than those garbage Littoral Combat ships!!

[@thomascharlton8545]

One word: Corrosion. While amphib floats are doable, It'll come at a very high maintenance cost.

[@Conn653]

If adding amphibious floats to a DC-3/C-47, I'm sure it can be done on a Dollar Thirty! The DC-3 was quite successful on amphibious floats, just required a tall ladder to climb into the fuselage.

[@bryanrussell6679]

Seems like they could build a new amphibious plane that would not only perform better, but may even be cheaper in the long run than trying to modify a C-130. Those floats are going to cut the range in half.

[@jerrybennett7856]

I love the C-130. Worked in them in early 60's. How to make an ugly airplane even uglier? Put big ass floats on them. Beautiful.

[@drbendover7467]

I sort of want to see one of those tests, now this video has sparked my interest:)

[@scottjackson5173]

The baseline C-130 aircraft is pretty robust. Just the same; in this weight class? A redesigned hull, will be necessary. I would also add an improved wing design. Higher lift for taking off from the water. Perhaps if the outboard engines had a limited tilt for takeoff. Overall I suspect that more powerful engines will also be needed. Another possibility could be adding light weight pontoons outboard of engines 1 and 4. The purpose of which would be twofold. 1 additional stability while afloat. 2 the addition of hydrophoyal blades for improved water lift, and improved take off stability. Boeing produced the 318 flying boat amphibious aircraft. The consolidated PB-2Y is another 4 engine design. So far we may be better off buying the Kawasaki flying boat amphibious aircraft from Japan. Manufacturing them on license. I still like the older Catalina PBY two engine design better. With the use of modern composite materials. The PBY, is an aircraft that could be modified for CVN cross deck operations. Adding a whole new dimension to the concept of amphibious operations.

[@737MaxPilot]

This smells a lot like the effort they put into the two C-130s modified to go rescue the hostages from Iran…cool, but not very realistic. 23yr C-130 FE here.

[@dalevaughn9446]

The navy U.S.A., thru away our jet powered flying boats in the early 1960s. Some of the know how went to Japan.

[@biggalute0075]

First thing I thought of is the C130 USS Forestal experiment. That was cool to see a C130 on an aircraft carrier!

[@MrFlatage]

It looked like complete crap really ... compared to the rocket assisted take off version. ;-)

[@bmwlane8834]

As a former C-130 loadmaster I don't see a huge advantage with this....doubt it would ever happen anyway. We can put a lot of equipment and operators on target with airdrop and navy can extract them.

[@franksmith2666]

I am actually surprised the Navy/Marine Corps didn't try this , also Lockheed should have developed a dedicated Amphibious or Seaplane version.

[@MarkHennessey]

Corrosion control will be a nightmare..

[@JFrazer4303]

Beriev bought back from the Navy, 3 or 4 BE-12 "Mail" planes, to be rebuilt and worked into a -200 configuration to test the systems being built for the Be-200. After ~20+ years in Navy service, they found no/little corrosion issues.

[@C-130-Hercules]

Load Clear 👍

[@ericcallender1575]

Seaplane are a great asset.

[@davidbenner2289]

This is good use of our tax money. I first traveled in a C-130 and C-130A in Laos and Thailand in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Later had a tour of a C-130J in, of all places, West Virginia!

[@alexbuckle1085]

This should concern advisories, they can do logistics, EW, gunship, rapid dragon, ect

[@Meat_Demon]

I love my country, our military is such a beast! We adapt so fast and are always ready globally. This plane + the rapid dragon upgrade for transports means fresh hell for the enemies of the USA. 😁 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@dkoz8321]

Our capability outreaches our political will and political-diplomatic application. That means our civilian elected and appointed officials are lacking in vision and overall leadership. We need to do better at who we elect, and who those elected appoint to civilian offices. One thing is certain, civilian authority over military is Constitution proof. I am prior service, commissioned officer. I'll be damned, dead, and rotting before I see a uniformed American as POTUS , VPOTUS, and any Cabinet or elected Office. Prior service is great! But to run for Office, Senate, or Cabinet Appointment, the uniform comes off after retirement or resignation of commission, and Brooks Brothers suit goes on. Saville Row is OK, but that's in questionable taste for D.C. Exception is Joint Chiefs, as those have to be uniformed per Federal Law and Army/Navy-MarineCorps/Air Force/Space Force Regulations. I can't believe we have a Space Force. I am glad we have a Space Force. But wouldn't Space Force be better suited as being a Command within Air Force. US Air Force - Space Command. Or merge the two and rename Air Force as United States AeroSpace Force or US Air & Space Force.

[@grantbuchanan7295]

@@hermes6910 yep, the guys in dreamland.

[@alpenglow1235]

This is a huge mistake. Floats are to unstable. A flying boat hull design should be adapted to the Herc.

[@billmorris2613]

Good morning to all from SE Louisiana 23 Jan 22.

[@davidbeattie4294]

Whats new is old. EDO built floats for the C-47 (DC-3) in the 40's for essentially the same reason. At time it wasn't adopted for service but the concept is sound.

[@sheilaolfieway1885]

they had amphibous planes before but they were all old or never continued.... this is honestly kinda sad.. RIP PBY Catalina and other actual sea planes...

[@steve-rr3nq]

The C130 is so versatile, I wouldn’t doubt they could strap rockets on it and deliver cargo on the moon.

[@davidkermes393]

I'll believe it when I see it. And when I see it I'll give a cheer!

[@gazof-the-north1980]

C-130 is the best plane ever!

[@richardcupp454]

The US in the Pacific, we did this once USMC

[@Dra741]

And during WWII a lot of Pilots were rescued by the pby, and they had the lawyer capability to spend more time searching for you and they brought everybody home they could God Bless America

[@ericcallender1575]

Loiter

[@6B8RX]

17 MONTHS? In WWII, they would have had a working prototype in 17 days, and they'd have done it with slide rules, not supercomputers. RIP Kelly Johnson.

[@michaelmazerat8765]

what will be the MISSION be. Supporting AFSOC, USSOCM, and other major commands. Resupplying subs and use as Aeromed mission for the Navy and Coast Guard?

[@talvid1988]

Haven't seen one since the PBY Catalina

[@user-ei1ym1lq6h]

Say if I have an idea that would really improve upon this concept, who could I reach out to?

[@robertschultz6922]

Boeing

[@Prairietrucker]

@@robertschultz6922 C130 is built by Lockheed Martin, not Boeing.

[@Yeetusdeleetus979]

they are gonna do everything to keep the 2nd oldest aircraft in service. keep in mind the c-130 is basically as old as the b52's first seeing service in the Vietnam. its time for an upgrade.

[@timbrwolf1121]

An AC-130 landed on the water would have more firepower than some coastal combat ships

[@TripleZ89]

If this was WWII we would already have this damm thing built.

[@EricPham-gr8pg]

We can have telescoping bottom platform only extent during landing then collapase and pull up close in to bottom

[@porkerthepig]

I’ve never understood why literally every western nation totally abandoned sea planes

[@enricol5974]

maybe because there are cheaper helicopters ?

[@JFrazer4303]

because big CVs are sexier and easier to get taxpayers and politicians in favor of, and control immense lobbying power in congress and within the Navy.

[@fredtedstedman]

flying boat = lands with hull in water . Seaplane = lands on floats .

[@jb6027]

This, and variations of this, for the C-130 have popped up from time to time. People keep forgetting that landing on water, especially with aircraft equipped with pontoons, requires very smooth water like lakes and bays. Open ocean landings are exceedingly dangerous, even with dedicated flying boats, and are to be avoided if at all possible. This is going to be a big waste of money, and it will likely be mooted as another "new" project in another 10 years.

[@GreenStarTech]

Amphibious AC130 would be interesting.

[@dabraze]

This'll be a dream come true to scale RC modelers. I'll bet the message boards are burning up. Conflict (N.China Sea, in this case) is bad for everyone but aviation enthusiasts.

[@mikee9065]

I'll believe that when I see it fly

[@danielherrera7169]

No es.lo.mismo aterrizaje en el agua que en tierra. Pero llevar este proyecto no fue fácil porque está con tan grande complica pero se.logro. Saludos que belleza es más práctico ingenio humano .. 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@thun_hauw]

China : thanks you, it's good idea i will do it. USA. :

[@wesleyfoster1967]

30min, live notification,set to ALL received , subscribed, given 👍, Audio, Video is Good.

[@colintraveller]

TBH I would rather see the PBY Catalina's make a comeback ...

[@stankygeorge]

Good luck with this one, this will be like trying to make led float!

[@andrew9371]

this is for sure a pivot for the possible coming chinese war

[@mikeanjor9079]

Go US Go 👍

[@p.j.882]

Double propeller and stronger piston engine might be needed.

[@Xynudu]

That thing is gunna be mega slow. The wind drag on those massive floats will be huge. The C130 is a well proven and capable plane, but this whole stop gap idea is totally outside of it's designated design functions. Good luck landing it on rough water. Better dust off the Spruce Goose.

[@andrewpotter1159]

About time they did an amphib version

[@ana-oliveira-yk9bb3xj1g]

The sea is always beautiful.🏖🌊😍😘

[@Kane-ib5sn]

Great Job Lockheed. Now, you'll have both an amphibious assault transport, and a fire-fighting aircraft potential...

[@stephenhudson6543]

It seems like they would have to waterproof the belly and the after cargo door ramp but otherwise it seems feasible if they can make floats big enough and buoyant enough to support the weight of the aircraft

[@kobusdutoitbosman6240]

great strategic development, which should be used extensively