Lockheed C-130 Hercules Prototypes, Variants & Projects

Photos of a C-130J in Airshow Demonstration. I took these around 2014 & 2016. Part of the Rhode Island National Guard aircraft. C-130J-1.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • C-130J-2.jpeg
    C-130J-2.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 23
  • C-130J-3.jpeg
    C-130J-3.jpeg
    1.1 MB · Views: 13
  • C-130J-4.jpeg
    C-130J-4.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 13
  • C-130J-6.jpeg
    C-130J-6.jpeg
    594.5 KB · Views: 14
  • C-130J-5.jpeg
    C-130J-5.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 12
  • C-130J-7.jpeg
    C-130J-7.jpeg
    411.6 KB · Views: 13
  • C-130J-8.jpeg
    C-130J-8.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 12
  • C-130J-9.jpeg
    C-130J-9.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 13
  • C-130J-10.jpeg
    C-130J-10.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 12
  • C-130J-11.jpeg
    C-130J-11.jpeg
    1.1 MB · Views: 12
  • C-130J-12.jpeg
    C-130J-12.jpeg
    814.8 KB · Views: 11
  • C-130J-13.jpeg
    C-130J-13.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 13
  • C-130J-14.jpeg
    C-130J-14.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 14
  • C-130J-15.jpeg
    C-130J-15.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 14
  • C-130J-16.jpeg
    C-130J-16.jpeg
    1.8 MB · Views: 28
Scott Kenny said:
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)...
Click to expand...
And I think this is one of a few principles people aren't seeing:
-The C-130 is inherently designed and built as a transport aircraft - unlike the US-2;
-As a designed and built transport aircraft, it's tail ramp configuration will allow much more versatile loading and unloading (hence the float configuration of the proposed C-130 Floatplane [the flying boat configuration of the US-2 negates a loading ramp and although it might be able to have large fuselage cargo doors incorporated, such a configuration doesn't allow/give ease of roll on, roll off of vehicles and equipment];
-The use of a C-130 Floatplane design would give a high commonality with existing U.S. military ORBAT. Where as the adoption of the US-2 add another logistic, training issues...


Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
And I think this is one of a few principles people aren't seeing:
-The C-130 is inherently designed and built as a transport aircraft - unlike the US-2;
-As a designed and built transport aircraft, it's tail ramp configuration will allow much more versatile loading and unloading (hence the float configuration of the proposed C-130 Floatplane [the flying boat configuration of the US-2 negates a loading ramp and although it might be able to have large fuselage cargo doors incorporated, such a configuration doesn't allow/give ease of roll on, roll off of vehicles and equipment];
-The use of a C-130 Floatplane design would give a high commonality with existing U.S. military ORBAT. Where as the adoption of the US-2 add another logistic, training issues...


Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Issue is that a C130 floatplane will need...

Basically new EVERYTHING to be safely used. Engines, ectronics, gear, frame, even training to handle the downright hellish change of handling characteristics.

Like this WOULD NOT be an easy modification. Generally planes that can get floats addedare either specially made for that or are small enough to fit in the C130 cargo bay. Heck as is the biggest Floatplane Im aware of is the DC3 which was a third of the size and was hard enough to do that they only made 2 of.

At best a C130 float plane be a C130 in name only at double the price.

It will be cheaper to either build a specialized Seaplane version ala Tradewind or buy off the self like the new Turboprop Albatross.
 
Good and valid points you make Firefinder.

I wouldn't worry about the issues of price either, after all, when has the Pentagon given a crap about price - especially if it's related to Special Forces and on top of that the bipartisan politcal/military "pivot to the Pacific" to face off their newly founded and endorce idelogical enemy - China.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Firefinder said:
Issue is that a C130 floatplane will need...

Basically new EVERYTHING to be safely used. Engines, ectronics, gear, frame, even training to handle the downright hellish change of handling characteristics.

Like this WOULD NOT be an easy modification. Generally planes that can get floats addedare either specially made for that or are small enough to fit in the C130 cargo bay. Heck as is the biggest Floatplane Im aware of is the DC3 which was a third of the size and was hard enough to do that they only made 2 of.

At best a C130 float plane be a C130 in name only at double the price.

It will be cheaper to either build a specialized Seaplane version ala Tradewind or buy off the self like the new Turboprop Albatross.
Click to expand...
Hell, just flying off of water is complex enough that it's considered a whole separate rating civilian-side. You got the right certs for a Cessna 182RG? (complex, high power, retractable gear)

Well, if you want to fly a 182 on amphibious floats, you need about as much training time as getting your pilot's license in the first place.
 
Firefinder said:
... Heck as is the biggest Floatplane Im aware of is the DC3 which was a third of the size and was hard enough to do that they only made 2 of...
Click to expand...

Only two twin-float Douglas/Edo XC-47Cs were built because they were no longer needed operationally. And those two XC-47C prototypes were far from the largest floatplanes ever flown.

The Italian trimotor Z.506 was about the same size as the XC-47C and CANT built 356 of those during WW2 - albeit, most were patrol aircraft, not transports. But Filippo Zappata's Z.511 was a transport and it was slightly larger than a C-130 - at least in span and wing area.

I'm thinking the big challenges for a float-equipped Hercules would be weight - the empty weight of the C-130 being about the same as the MTOW for the CANT Z.511. Mind you, the C-130 has at least three times as much power to counter that weight increase.

Doubtless, significant modifications would be needed to turn the C-130 into an operational floatplane. And the need for specialized training is a given ... but not a deal-breaker if the operational need was there. I'm thinking that the situation in the South China Sea at least hints at a possible need.

Here's the thing: Lockheed Martin gross profit for FY2023 was USD 8.426 billion. If LM wanted to expedite a float Herk, sounds like they've got the petty cash available to do a PoC demonstrator conversion. So why don't they?

Just for context, Edo designed its Model 78 float gear for the XC-47C with a retractable wheel gear incorporating parts of the original C-47 undercarriage. (So, rather more complicated than simple floats tucked under a C-130.) Neither Douglas nor Edo installed those floats - all mods were performed by American Airlines. Within two weeks of its maiden flight, the first XC-47C was delivered to Wright Field for service tests. Actual conversions happened fast back in the day.

By contrast, LM has proposed/studied/imagineered float C-130s for decades without ever being willing to pony up. I'm thinking that Lockheed Martin should go ahead an build and test such a float conversion or just shut up about it ...
 
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 armoured 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...

From Putnam's book.
 

Attachments

  • 18.png
    18.png
    93.4 KB · Views: 33
Scott Kenny said:
Hell, just flying off of water is complex enough that it's considered a whole separate rating civilian-side. You got the right certs for a Cessna 182RG? (complex, high power, retractable gear)

Well, if you want to fly a 182 on amphibious floats, you need about as much training time as getting your pilot's license in the first place.
Click to expand...
Transport Canada says that you can add a float rating - to your pilot license - in as little as 7 hours of instruction. Taking off from a smooth lake is only a tiny fraction of the knowledge needed to operate around harbours, rivers, boats, etc. Mind you, most insurance companies want new pilots to have at least 50 hours of float time. That is why some Canadian flight schools offer 15 hour courses or 50 hour courses.
 
Firefinder said:
Issue is that a C130 floatplane will need...

Basically new EVERYTHING to be safely used. Engines, ectronics, gear, frame, even training to handle the downright hellish change of handling characteristics.

Like this WOULD NOT be an easy modification. Generally planes that can get floats addedare either specially made for that or are small enough to fit in the C130 cargo bay. Heck as is the biggest Floatplane Im aware of is the DC3 which was a third of the size and was hard enough to do that they only made 2 of.

At best a C130 float plane be a C130 in name only at double the price.

It will be cheaper to either build a specialized Seaplane version ala Tradewind or buy off the self like the new Turboprop Albatross.
Click to expand...
C-130 starts with a huge advantage in that it is already STOL. Seaplanes need STOL performance to slow landing speeds and minimize pounding when operating from rough water. And I am only referring to the rough water inside harbours and atolls. Not even Grumman or Consolidated knew how to make seaplanes survive landings in large ocean waves.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The issue I see with a Herc on floats is loading and offloading cargo.

Those floats are going to put the cargo floor probably 2m above the no-floats Herc floor.

Design a damn seaplane and give it a cargo ramp aft.
Click to expand...

For a Herc on floats, delete the upward folding door section and substitute a new ramp which extends for the entire length of the rear cargo hold opening. With suitably-sized hydraulics, that 2 metres is not going to be a problem.
 
Apophenia said:
For a Herc on floats, delete the upward folding door section and substitute a new ramp which extends for the entire length of the rear cargo hold opening. With suitably-sized hydraulics, that 2 metres is not going to be a problem.
Click to expand...
Good point.
For unloading cargo on a beach or dock, you need a ramp that extends to the tails of the pontoons.
 
riggerrob said:
C-130 starts with a huge advantage in that it is already STOL. Seaplanes need STOL performance to slow landing speeds and minimize pounding when operating from rough water. And I am only referring to the rough water inside harbours and atolls. Not even Grumman or Consolidated knew how to make seaplanes survive landings in large ocean waves.
Click to expand...

There's nothing particularly STOL about a C-130, certainly not compared to the US-2 with its 280m take-off run. Remember the '130 was originally designed as a linehaul replacement for the C-54 / C-119 and still has that original wing.
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has put out a video about the wild C-130 project created for the botched 1980 Iranian Embassy hostage rescue:


After the failure of Operation Eagle Claw to free a group of 53 American hostages held inside Iran, the U.S. military started looking for outside-the-box solutions for the ongoing crisis... And one seemed to arrive in the form of a rocket-propelled C-130 Hercules.
Click to expand...
This seemingly-insane concept went from concept to reality in just over three weeks, and had the real potential to work, had the crisis not ended first by other means.
Click to expand...
Let's talk about Operation Credible Sport, and how the lineage of this insane concept lives on in today's combat aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Credible Sport really needed the various rockets controlled by radar altimeters and probably the vertical speed of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
It would still have been fail-deadly, but at least that failure would have been less likely. Unless there was an electronic failure, in which case it might have been more likely.
 
Yellow Palace said:
It would still have been fail-deadly, but at least that failure would have been less likely. Unless there was an electronic failure, in which case it might have been more likely.
Click to expand...
The whole mission profile was fail-deadly, though. So reducing the chances of the braking rockets firing at the wrong time increases overall mission survival chances.
 
Scott, do you what the thrust (And its' burn time) for the Mk-37 ASROC rocket-motor was? I was figuring it was about the same as the VLA's Mk-114 (11,000Lb for 5s burn time).
 
NMaude said:
Scott, do you what the thrust (And its' burn time) for the Mk-37 ASROC rocket-motor was? I was figuring it was about the same as the VLA's Mk-114 (11,000Lb for 5s burn time).
Click to expand...
No, I don't have a reference for that. But I can say that the VL-ASROC has a little over twice the range of the ASROC, so I would expect about half the thrust in the rocket.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Possibly. Might not have enough range, and would be obscenely vulnerable to MANPADS.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess naval drones could be fitted with MANPADS, like Ukraine has, but I've not seen anything successful come from such yet and a 105mm at 10,000ft could probably match a naval-drone-mounted MANPADS for range and targeting from a naval drone is probably not that easy. Guess it depends on drone sophistication though.
 
The Republic of Chad nearly became a L-100 operator back in the late 1970s.
PR200013Z DEC 75
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO AMEMBASSY NDJAMENA PRIORITY
INFO AMEMBASSY PARIS

CONFIDENTIAL STATE 29961 1

E.O. 11652: GDS

TAGS: MASS, PFOR, CD, US

SUBJECT: MEETING BETWEEN ROASNGAR AND MULCAHY

REF: A) STATE 293666; B) NDJAMENA 3171

SUMMARY: MINISTER OF TERRITORIAL ADMINISTRATION ROASNGAR PAID FAREWELL CALL ON ACTING ASSTSECY MULCAHY DEC. 15. ROASNGAR DESCRIBED THE CONTACTS HE HAD HAD WITH AMERICAN ARMS MANUFACTURERS, AND SOLICITED DEPT'S SUPPORT FOR CHAD'S EFFORT TO OBTAIN CERTAIN EQUIPMENT NOT READILY AVAILABLE ON COMMERCIAL MARKET AND FOR ARRANGING FINANCING. ROASNGAR THANKED MULCAHY FOR DEPT'S ASSISTANCE AND SAID THAT HE WOULD MAKE FULL REPORT TO PRESIDENT MALLOUM. MULCAHY INDICATED THAT DEPT WOULD FAVORABLY CONSIDER ANY REQUEST FOR AN EXPORT LICENSE BY FIRMS WISHING TO SELL EQUIPMENT TO CHAD, BUT THAT CHAD WOULD HAVE TO WORK OUT QUESTION OF FINANCING ON ITS OWN. END SUMMARY.

1. MINISTER OF TERRITORIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ENVIRONMENT ROASNGAR, ACCOMPANIED BY AMB. ALINGUE AND LT. KONDOL, PAID FAREWELL CALL ON ACTING ASST. SECYMULCAHY DEC. 15. ROASNGAR GAVE RUNDOWN OF HIS VISITS TO FOUR AMERICAN FIRMS DURING PERIOD DEC. 12-15. DETAILS OF FOUR VISITS AS FOLLOWS: A) LOCKHEED: CHAD INTERESTED IN L-100, CIVILIAN VERSION OF C-130 "HERCULES" CARGO PLANE. CHADIAN DELEGATION TOLD LOCKHEED THAT IT WAS INTERESTED IN ACQUIRING TWO L-100S. FINANCING HOPEFULLY TO BE ARRANGED THROUGH EXIMBANK. B) CHAD INTERESTED IN S-58T HELICOPTER (COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT, ADAPTED FROM FORMER MILITARY VERSION). THIS HELICOPTER WELL ADAPTED FOR CARGO/PASSENGER TRIPS ACROSS RUGGED TERRAIN. AGAIN, MONEY HOPEFULLY TO BE BORROWED FROM EXIMBANK FOR PURCHASE. C) CHADIANS VERY EXCITED BY OV-1 "MOHAWK" AIRCRAFT, WHICH IS TURBOPROP OBSERVATION PLANE, PRODUCTION OF WHICH CEASED IN 1960'S. VARIOUS FEATURES OF PLANE MAKE IT IDEAL FOR CHAD'S NEEDS— CAN LAND ON SHORT RUNWAYS, ADAPTABLE TO DUSTY TERRAINS, LOW PRICE, LESS MAINTENANCE NEEDED COMPARED TO JET AIRCRAFT. GRUMMAN ALSO OFFERED COMPREHENSIVE TRAINING PROGRAM THAT WOULD PRODUCE CHADIANS CAPABLE OF FLYING CRAFT WITHIN SIX MONTHS. HOWEVER, USG IS OWNER OF ALL REMAINING COPIES OF THIS PLANE IN US; SPECIAL PERMISSION WOULD BE NEEDED TO SELL MOHAWK TO CHAD. FURTHER DETAILS IN PARA 4. D) C ADIT LAC-GAGE: CHAD INTERESTED IN V-55 "COMMANDO" ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIERS. CHADIANS SAID THAT THEY MIGHT PURCHASE AS MANY AS TWENTY OF THESE.

2. FOLLOWING ACCOUNT OF HIS FOUR-DAY WHIRLWIND TRIP AROUND US, ROASNGAR ASKED FOR DEPT’S ASSISTANCE IN SECURING PERMISSION TO PURCHASE OV-1 MOHAWK AND FOR RAISING MONEY TO FINANCE PURCHASES. ROASNGAR MADE EARNEST PLEA FOR HELP IN SECURING EXIMBANK CREDITS. MULCAHY NOTED THAT EXIMBANK WAS AUTONOMOUS ENTITY WHICH FOLLOWED ITS OWN CREITERIA IN MAKING LOAN DECISIONS. HOWEVER, DEPT WOULD FAVORABLY CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FOR PURCHASE OF ANY EQUIPMENT THAT CHAD CAN FINANCE.

3. ROASNGAR CLOSED MEETING BY NOTING THAT HE WAS OBLIGED TO RETURN TO CHAD IMMEDIATELY IN ORDER MAKE FULL REPORT OF HIS VISIT TO PRESIDENT MALLOUM. HE STATED THAT EQUIPMENT CHAD WAS SEEKING WAS MINIMUM NECESSARY FOR GOC TO INSURE INTERNAL SECURITY. ROASNGAR THANKED MULCAHY FOR ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY DEPT IN ARRANGING APPOINTMENTS AND SAID THAT RECEPTION FROM AMERICAN FIRMS WAS EXCELLENT.

4. DIFFICULTY WITH CHAD'S REQUEST FOR OV-1 MOHAWK IS THAT USG OWNS ONLY COPIES CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. CHAD NOT CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE THESE USG-OWNED AIRCRAFT UNDER THE PROVISIONS IN FOREIGN MILITARY SALES ACT (FMSA). DOD HAS NO RPT NO AUTHORITY TO SELL AIRCRAFT TO US FIRM SUCH AS GRUMMAN FOR RESALE TO FOREIGN COUNTRY WHICH WOULD BE IN CIRCUMVENTION OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN FMSA.

5. WE HAVE LEARNED THAT FIGURES FOR HELICOPTERS CITED PARA 2 REF (C) ARE IN ERROR. SIKORSKY HAS INFORMED DEPT THAT ONLY PRICE IT MENTIONED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH CHADIANS WAS BASIC PRICE OF DOLS 800,000 PER AIRFRAME. CHAD REPORTEDLY INTERESTED IN TWO S-58S, SO TOTAL PRICE WOULD BE BELOW DOLS 2 MILLION.

6. IN MEETING WITH DEPTOFF DECEMBER 18, AMBASSADOR ALINGUE EXPRESSED HIS PERSONAL FEELING THAT IF US WISHES TO REMAIN CHAD S "ALLY", IT WILL EXERT ITSELF TO ASSIST CHAD IN OBTAINING MILITARY EQUIPMENT. ALL OTHER BILATERAL PROBLEMS (INCLUDING STAND ON KOREA AT UN) ARE SUBORDINATE TO QUESTION OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE, DUE TO PRESSING NATURE OF PROBLEM. ALINGUE SAID HE WAS SPEAKING ENTIRELY ON HIS OWN, BUT MENTIONED THAT HE FELT US COULD MAKE SIGNIFICANT INPUT INTO CHAD'S FOREIGN POLICY IF IT PROVED TO BE A FAITHFUL ALLY IN THIS CASE. ALINGUE FELT THAT HE WILL BE INFORMED OF WHAT PATH CHAD WILL TAKE IN FUTURE VIS-A-VIS US DURING HIS CONSULTATIONS IN NDJAMENA. HE PLANNED TO DEPART WASHINGTON FOR CONSULTATIONS DECEMBER 18.

7. COMMENT: OVERALL, ROASNGAR'S TRIP WENT SMOOTHLY.

HE AND ALINGUE BOTH STRESSED THAT EQUIPMENT NEEDED ASAP TO COUNTER INSURGENCY PROBLEM. LOCKHEED L-100 AIRCRAFT APPEAR OUT OF REALM OF POSSIBILITY FOR CHAD DUE HIGH COST (ABOUT DOLS 13 MILLION FOR TWO REFITTED CRAFT), AND OPTION OF SALE OF MOHAWKS DOES NOT APPEAR POSSIBLE UNDER EXISTING LAW. KISSINGER




CONFIDENTIAL
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Doing some further quick digging, it looks like it was the L-100-30 model they were looking at, presumably customised/militarised on the production line for COIN support duties.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Possibly. Might not have enough range, and would be obscenely vulnerable to MANPADS.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't these and a lot of other large aircraft have DIRCM by now? There are of course many missiles using other guidance methods to worry about, but I'd hope that such DIRCM could counter the ever-common Strela threat.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Shouldn't these and a lot of other large aircraft have DIRCM by now? There are of course many missiles using other guidance methods to worry about, but I'd hope that such DIRCM could counter the ever-common Strela threat.
Click to expand...
They should, but the US has lost a couple of AC130s to MANPADS.
 
Forest Green said:
Yeah, I guess naval drones could be fitted with MANPADS, like Ukraine has, but I've not seen anything successful come from such yet and a 105mm at 10,000ft could probably match a naval-drone-mounted MANPADS for range and targeting from a naval drone is probably not that easy. Guess it depends on drone sophistication though.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't take much to force the AC130 to fall back to a longer distance away.

NMaude said:
Once Ukraine has a large number of F-16s in service I'd love see the US donate them several early model AC-130s to Ukraine so we can see these gunships do horrible things to Russian meat-waves and armoured vehicles.
Click to expand...
Funny enough, most of the guns have been moved up to newer planes. I'm not sure how many airframes there are to employ. Plus, the -H models are completely worn out. The -U models might have some airframe life left in them.

And remember, cargo gunships DO NOT OPERATE where the enemy has MANPADS or larger AA systems available. A Shilka is able to turn a C130 into swiss cheese.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Shouldn't these and a lot of other large aircraft have DIRCM by now? There are of course many missiles using other guidance methods to worry about, but I'd hope that such DIRCM could counter the ever-common Strela threat.
Click to expand...

AC-130s do not (generally) operate during daylight due to the MANPADS and AAA gun threat. At night they will often, but not always, operate when those threats are present.

Modern USAF C-130s generally have a DIRCM system installed. What they do not have is any kind of signature reduction system. That would make the DIRCM and IR jamming much, much more effective. There are several commercial IR signature reduction upgrades available for the C-130 family. The USAF has not purchased or fielded any of these.


C-130 Aircraft Modifications

SNC specializes in world-class post-production, large aircraft modification with platforms including the C-130, MC-130J and AC-130J.
www.sncorp.com www.sncorp.com

US5699662A - Infrared suppression exhaust duct system for a turboprop propulsion system for an aircraft - Google Patents

The invention is an exhaust duct system for an aircraft, the aircraft having at least one turboprop propulsion system mounted on the wing within a nacelle, the propulsion system having a circular shaped exhaust port generally aligned with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. In detail, the...
patents.google.com

Nor has the USAF applied the visual signature reduction systems in use on some UAVs to the C-130. Implementing contrast-matching lights would make the AC-130 much more difficult for AAA guns to hit.

Maybe they are replacing their CAS aircraft with some stealth wonder weapon and do not want to do anything that might but that program at risk.
 
Also National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA have ordered pair of WC-130J Hurricane Hunters to replace their legacy WP-3D

www.noaa.gov

NOAA awards contract for next-generation hurricane hunter aircraft

‘Flying laboratories’ will bolster atmospheric research and severe weather prediction
www.noaa.gov www.noaa.gov

1728145010199.png

Speaking of WC-130J great to see reserve air force from Keesler AFB at last years Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT 2023) at RAF FAirford so here are my photos

1728145131746.png

1728145173897.png

cheers
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom