Lockheed C-130 Hercules Prototypes, Variants & Projects

More jets will be difficult to sustain with only financial aid from allies. The EU candidacy should be used to leverage loans.
 
MadRat said:
Cannot fathom that a twin turbofan version is still not in the works. Turboprops are great and all, but they are maintained by iPads and contractors these days. Would rather have more options for maintenance than the current sole source arrangement.
Click to expand...
You actually lose a bunch of STOL capabilities that way. Compare C-130 and KC390.



TsrJoe said:
Fire training with high pressure water jets might be a solution on a cold day
Click to expand...
It is my favorite way to deal with idiots.
 
Correct. C-130 next generation should focus on popularizing improvised runway/STOL operations while still mixing conventional capabilities. It will stand as his own niche in term of cost and performances for a long time.
 
TomcatViP said:
Correct. C-130 next generation should focus on popularizing improvised runway/STOL operations while still mixing conventional capabilities. It will stand as his own niche in term of cost and performances for a long time.
Click to expand...
I kinda suspect that the next C-130/replacement will be an ESTOL design. Won't be a VTOL, but 1000ft/330m takeoffs fully loaded.
 
nationalinterest.org

C-130 Keeps Getting Better: The Block 8.1 Super Hercules Has Arrived

The United States Air Force's combat aircraft like the B-52 and F-35 often get all the glory, but a fact remains that the U.S. military relies on aircraft like the Lockheed C-130 Hercules more than most people probably realize. Since it first entered service nearly 70 years ago, the turboprop...
nationalinterest.org nationalinterest.org
 
GTX said:
nationalinterest.org

C-130 Keeps Getting Better: The Block 8.1 Super Hercules Has Arrived

The United States Air Force's combat aircraft like the B-52 and F-35 often get all the glory, but a fact remains that the U.S. military relies on aircraft like the Lockheed C-130 Hercules more than most people probably realize. Since it first entered service nearly 70 years ago, the turboprop...
nationalinterest.org nationalinterest.org
Click to expand...

"it is capable of using unprepared runways for takeoffs and landing"

Not sure why this myth won't die, the Herk really is nothing special in terms of runway capability. Aircraft Classification Numbers for flexible subgrades, lower is better. Data from Transport Canada.

TypeACN @ MTOWACN @ min weight
C-175428
C-1415215
C-1302912
Il-76TD2711
C-52710
Transall84
DC-374
DHC-563
Skyvan33
DHC-432
 
Last edited:
hesham said:
Hi,

The Lockheed had old project called C-130J,it was developed
from C-130E with increase aileron and rudder chords, wider u/c
track, improved braking system and additional armored protection;
do you have a drawing to it ?,(of course I know there was a new project
to Lockheed in 1996 called C-130J ).
Click to expand...

No drawing survivor to this old project ?.
 
fightingirish said:
The Lockheed AC-130J was set to get the first operational airborne laser weapon, but that plan is over as the gunship changes to ensure its relevance. IMHO, the Lockheed AC-130J will add more capacity to launch more precision-guided munition and (suicide) drones.
Source:
https://www.twz.com/air/ac-130-gunships-laser-weapon-cancelled-105mm-howitzer-may-be-removed
Click to expand...
Im honestly wondering how useful that laser been if they mod it for anti drone use.

Imagine a C130 circling the back lines helping protect the Arty, Tocs, Mechanics basically all the logi needed to keep the front line running. And just using its laser as an shueld against all the cheepo drones as another layer to the defense net.
 
If only the USAF Inc. would be willing to "waste" a C-130 and crew on such a frivelous mission. But we will do that with UAV as they are the 'cause de jure' just now.

Now back to our regularly scheduled TAC airlifter discussion (please!)
 
From, flygrevyn_1957-3
 

Attachments

  • 10.png
    10.png
    503.8 KB · Views: 57
  • 11.png
    11.png
    2.8 MB · Views: 57
Eyeah every C130 crewmember Ive shown the Seaplane all basically said the same thing.


Dont.

I say buy the US2s or fund the Catalina 2 Turboprop Cat or get someone to copy that russian jet which Cali was going to buy for wild fire fighting.

Or remake the R3Y Tradewind amd use the 130 parts like the engines, electronics, hydraulics whatever. Pretty sure GD still does planes and they did buy Convair who made the Tradewind...
 
www.twz.com

Our First Look At The Tiny Cruise Missile That Aims To Arm AC-130 Gunships

Special Operations Command sees a mini-cruise missile as a top priority that will help ensure the relevance of AC-130s and other aircraft.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

1715264711687.png

In 2021, SOCOM did issue a contracting notice regarding a Stand-Off Precision Guided Weapon Program Cruise Missile outlining interest in a weapon of this type with a range of between 200 and 400 nautical miles (around 230 and 460 miles or nearly 370.5 and almost 741 kilometers) that could fit inside a standardized cylindrical Common Launch Tube (CLT). CLTs are in widespread use within the U.S. special operations community, as well as the rest of the U.S. military, as a means for launching various munitions and other payloads from different crewed and uncrewed fixed-wing aircraft, as well as helicopters. The CLT can accommodate payloads up to 42 inches in length and 5.95 inches in diameter, and has a 100-pound weight limit, according to a separate SOCOM contracting notice issued around the same time. It is unclear how feasible it would be to design something that meets these requirements with a 200-nautical-mile range, let alone the ability to hit targets out to 400 nautical miles.
Click to expand...
The Stand-Off Precision Guided Weapon Program Cruise Missile notice also called for the system to "include, at threshold, an EO/IR [electro-optical/infrared] seeker and as an objective incorporate a multi-mode seeker package able to acquire and/or reacquire targets in flight." Furthermore, the weapon "at threshold... shall have a removable payload section that can accept 13lbs of warhead or other desired payload (objective of 37 lbs), compatibility with an X-Net radio, electric propulsion, and an INS/GPS (M-Code) capability."
Click to expand...
 
I can understand why the USAF has armed all of the Cargo aircraft, since it cannot afford the proper number of bombers or fighter bombers. I am however concerned that because the USAF will need these platforms to launch missiles that those who are reliant on the CARGO aircraft will be left waiting for some other means of transportation.

While I doubt that the U.S. Army would attempt to reinvestigate the acquisition of C-27J, it might be prudent since the CB-130 and CB-17 fleet is likely to be busy elsewhere.
 
Firefinder said:
I say buy the US2s or fund the Catalina 2 Turboprop Cat or get someone to copy that russian jet which Cali was going to buy for wild fire fighting.
Click to expand...
I know there are still several SA-16's scattered about the desert and that the type was frequently tasked with special forces support once upon a time. Refurbishing or new builds would probably be better than Catalinas, though not nearly as romantic.
 
BlackBat242 said:
The USAF should get with the Darwin, Aussie company (Amphibian Aerospace Industries) that is starting up a new-production turboprop-equipped Albatross (Grumman SA-16) production line for a batch of... oh, 24 or so.

AAI G-111 Turbo Albatross - program supplier guide | Airframer

www.airframer.com www.airframer.com
Click to expand...
If you're going to get a ~16pax seaplane like the Albatross or Turbo Catalina, just buy a CL415/DHC515. 200mph cruise instead of 125mph cruise, and the CL415 holds 18x paratroopers.

I'm sure AFSOC would love to get a handful.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If you're going to get a ~16pax seaplane like the Albatross or Turbo Catalina, just buy a CL415/DHC515. 200mph cruise instead of 125mph cruise, and the CL415 holds 18x paratroopers.

I'm sure AFSOC would love to get a handful.
Click to expand...
Why not the US-2 then? 4 AE2100 plus larger airframe should be quite ideal to AFSOC
 
SK2 said:
Why not the US-2 then? 4 AE2100 plus larger airframe should be quite ideal to AFSOC
Click to expand...
Depends on how big an airframe you want. If you need a C130 sized flying boat, you buy US2s. If the need is for ~16-18 paratroops, you can get the CL415.

I suspect AFSOC would ideally want both, just because CL415s are cheaper to operate than a US2 for those times you don't need a US2/C130 sized cargo bay.

But if they're choosing for supplying Marines on islands, I suspect the need is for a US2 and they'll suck up the greater operating expenses compared to a CL415.
 
US2 doesn't have a cargo bay, at least not in the sense of a C-130.

They probably wanted to launch boats out of the back of the Seaplane C-130, I don't think that can be done with any currently existing seaplane or flying boat.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
They probably wanted to launch boats out of the back of the Seaplane C-130, I don't think that can be done with any currently existing seaplane or flying boat.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's where you tell AFSOC to bring their checkbook. And I'd still want to do something like the US2, or put a US2 boat belly onto a C130.

The Catalina can carry a RHIB or similar on the wing hardpoints, some 2000lbs worth.
 
Firefinder said:
Eyeah every C130 crewmember Ive shown the Seaplane all basically said the same thing.


Dont.

I say buy the US2s or fund the Catalina 2 Turboprop Cat or get someone to copy that russian jet which Cali was going to buy for wild fire fighting.

Or remake the R3Y Tradewind amd use the 130 parts like the engines, electronics, hydraulics whatever. Pretty sure GD still does planes and they did buy Convair who made the Tradewind...
Click to expand...
The actual flying boat version that Lockheed proposed years ago would be awesome. A stock C-130 with massive floats bolted on would be an un-aerodynamic mess.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If you're going to get a ~16pax seaplane like the Albatross or Turbo Catalina, just buy a CL415/DHC515. 200mph cruise instead of 125mph cruise, and the CL415 holds 18x paratroopers..
Click to expand...

Because the Albatross is over-built and capable of operating in 10' swells, has a cargo door, optional small platform for launching or recovering boats, has a mount for a search radar, has longer legs, lower rotation speed, can be fitted with drop tanks for more range, fitted for JATO for getting back out of hard to reach spots or rougher seas, etc
With the old 1250 hp radials.
 
_Del_ said:
Scott Kenny said:
If you're going to get a ~16pax seaplane like the Albatross or Turbo Catalina, just buy a CL415/DHC515. 200mph cruise instead of 125mph cruise, and the CL415 holds 18x paratroopers.

I'm sure AFSOC would love to get a handful.
Click to expand...

Because the Albatross is over-built and capable of operating in 10' swells, has a cargo door, optional small platform for launching or recovering boats, has a mount for a search radar, has longer legs, lower rotation speed, can be fitted with drop tanks for more range, fitted for JATO for getting back out of hard to reach spots or rougher seas, etc
With the old 1250 hp radials.
Click to expand...

And with the planned PT6A-67Fs producing 1,700 shp each, the cruise & top speeds should be a bit higher.
 
_Del_ said:
Because the Albatross is over-built and capable of operating in 10' swells, has a cargo door, optional small platform for launching or recovering boats, has a mount for a search radar, has longer legs, lower rotation speed, can be fitted with drop tanks for more range, fitted for JATO for getting back out of hard to reach spots or rougher seas, etc
With the old 1250 hp radials.
Click to expand...
CL415s are in current production. No digging through the Boneyard for viable aircraft, or waiting for someone to successfully get a new production line set up.

JATO is a non-item, nobody has made the rockets for decades. Blue Angels don't do the JATO show anymore, haven't for nearly 20 years because the rockets all aged out.
 
Scott Kenny said:
CL415s are in current production. No digging through the Boneyard for viable aircraft, or waiting for someone to successfully get a new production line set up.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to wait on anything you buy. The Bombadier -415 line closed almost a decade ago. I don't think Viking Air/DHC has actually produced a single flying airframe for the 515 line they have set up or will set up. They have overseas orders for 22 the last I heard. They haven't even contracted with subs yet, and deliveries wouldn't be until after 2027. Assuming a similar rate of production as the earlier birds, you're looking at 2031 before taking delivery on a new order, assuming no delays.
 
Back on topic folks. The last few posts are not C-130 related.
 
_Del_ said:
You're going to have to wait on anything you buy. The Bombadier -415 line closed almost a decade ago. I don't think Viking Air/DHC has actually produced a single flying airframe for the 515 line they have set up or will set up. They have overseas orders for 22 the last I heard. They haven't even contracted with subs yet, and deliveries wouldn't be until after 2027. Assuming a similar rate of production as the earlier birds, you're looking at 2031 before taking delivery on a new order, assuming no delays.
Click to expand...
Well, bugger.

Guess it's a C130 seaplane or US2 or nothing. And since the US2 isn't anywhere near as big a fuselage as a C130 despite the same engines (plus an extra for BLC)...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom