Air Force Wants to Move Fast on Boat Plane for Special Operators

[Sherman A1]

The Air Force is moving forward with an amphibious, pontoon-equipped version of the MC-130J Commando II used by its special operators -- and hopes to be able to fly a prototype of the aircraft in less than a year and a half.

A U.S. Special Operations Command official said at a conference in May that the military was considering developing an amphibious MC-130, but that concerns about feasibility meant that the Air Force would take a hard look at the idea before proceeding.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/09/15/air-force-wants-move-fast-boat-plane-special-operators.html

[Irish_Dem]

1. Doesn't the navy probably already have this kind of plane?

[Sherman A1]

2. Not of which I'm aware

They were long ago retired.

[Irish_Dem]

3. So the AF is building new planes the Navy retired a long time ago?

[Auggie]

4. Situations have changed (apparently), according to the link:

The military in recent years has, for example, become concerned about China's increasing activity in the South China Sea, and its creation of man-made islands there on which it has built military installations.

But a Commando that could land on water would be able to do a lot more to infiltrate troops, get them out, and recover trapped or wounded personnel, Lt. Col. Josh Trantham, AFSOC's deputy division chief for science, systems, technology and innovation, said in the release.

That will be even more important in a future war, which might result in situations where land forces, bases or equipment are endangered by the enemy, AFSOC said.

"Seaborne operations offer nearly unlimited water landing zones, providing significant flexibility for the joint force," Trantham said.

The MC-130J is used to fly secret missions, often at night and at low altitudes, to insert special operations forces into sensitive or hostile areas, get them out, or resupply them. It also can conduct aerial refueling operations.

[Irish_Dem]

9. I'm surprised this info is not classified.

I assume you know what a recon/air refueler is going to be used for and where it is going to go. They are coming right out and saying it in this article. Obviously they want certain countries to know what we are going to do?

(I am an AF brat, grew up on military bases located in the South China Sea during the VN war. My father and friends flew cargo, air refuel, recon, fighter, bomber planes. We knew what they were doing and where they were going despite it being classified. We were not stupid. )

This plane they are building is extremely flexible, can do the job of more than one plane. It can do many specialized missions and go a far distance with other planes to refuel it. Night flights and low altitude also gives a picture of what they are going to do.
Jebus, all spelled out in black and white.

[Auggie]

31. Better in some instances than helicopters, I guess ...

Other countries would find out about it soon enough.

Could also be a pork project of a corrupt politician

[Irish_Dem]

32. Much much better than helicopters for the missions they are describing.

Others have described it better than I can.

Yes foreign intelligence services will already know what the US military is doing with this plane. The public announcement makes me think it is a warning to China.
We can over take all your South China Sea military bases any time we want.

Yes of course, could be MIC pork.

[Auggie]

34. A warning -- excellent thought!

An ounce of prevention, as they say ...

[Irish_Dem]

37. Special ops stuff should be classified. So why the public announcement.

Even here on DU, many of us are agog over this announcement for many reasons.

The announcement had a lot of detail in it.
I wonder what China thinks.

[hack89]

21. Different missions

the Navy used seaplanes for anti-submarine warfare and reconnaissance. Those missions were taken over by land base aircraft. The AF wants these planes for special operations. That is a mission the navy never use seaplanes for.

[Irish_Dem]

33. The Navy doesn't use seaplanes for special ops?

That is interesting. Then I guess the AF does need this plane.

[hack89]

35. The US military has no seaplanes at all

The USN last flew seaplanes in 1967

[Irish_Dem]

38. Jebus. Had no idea.

The navy movies I watch are WWII.
Seaplanes back then.

Well I guess the AF is doing the right thing.

China is building sea bases on islands in the South China Sea.
We are going to need seaplanes to fight there if it comes to that.

And if North Korea gets out of hand, large sea planes will come in handy.

[Irish_Dem]

39. The AF is doing the right thing then.

We will need these planes if it comes to combat in the South China Sea.

[Eugene]

6. Aren't amphibious operations the job of the Navy and it's Marine Corps?

[Irish_Dem]

10. Right that is the shocker.

AF brat here. We saw airplanes our entire childhood.

If we had seen this airplane we would have jumped out of our skins with excitement.

Looks like the AF is going to take over traditional Naval ops.

[hack89]

23. This is for spec ops - the AF operates all spec op fixed winged planes

while both the army and AF operate spec op helos. The Navy has no dedicated spec op aircraft.

[haele]

7. Ummm, the Navy had Seaplanes up through the 60's. And Hydrofoils even now.

It's not just putting pontoons on an airplane. The size and carrying capacity of a C-130 (which by the designation, I assume this is) for sea- based launching and landing needs specific engineering of the wings and fusilage to handle operating in just moderate sea states, let alone heavy seas.
Also, do you want this thing to be able to onboard supplies, etc. to ships - or deliver to a shore deployment like a Ro-Ro would? Do you want the plane to be stealth? Do you want it to be able to operate as a quick-deployment off-shore ballistic weapons platform, like SAC?

Nice Idea, Air Force. Maybe the Navy already thought about something like that for quick reaction and littoral combat operations, and then scrapped it for reasons, like there is no such thing as vibranium or anti-grav stabilizers for wing support that will possibly allow such a large aircraft to launch to and land from just 10k ft altitude in ocean conditions without significantly cracking the pontoon supports, fusilage, or wings after one or two times.

Haele

[Irish_Dem]

11. The C-130 is one hell of a big plane. Don't see how it can land on water?

Or something similar in size I mean.

And the AF doesn't have carriers, so it must be meant to be housed in hangers.
But take off and land on water.

I don't understand how it is going to all work out here.

Jebus.

[haele]

13. Sounds like they got sold the idea of a disposable pontoon platform attachment.

Not re-usable, but disposable. Supposedly for large lake or beach landings (hmm, ever heard of surf and tides?)
The AF did land bombers on Navy Carriers a couple times in the past, but I don't think they ever launched off a carrier flight deck, maybe a B-1 did, but I don't remember the details.
Navy deploys Marine Spec-Ops via helicopter or MCAC (a hydro-foil landing craft). Follow - on support (like Tanks or vother vehicles) and supplies are then onshored after via small boats or RO-ROs (Supply ships).
And SEALs get the added fun-sized unit insertion process via Submarine Torpedo Tubes.

So, again, why does the Air Force need this? This doesn't seem to have any economic benefit to any DoD service, unless there was a galactic breakthrough in metallurgy or mechanical physics technology that I haven't heard of yet. I can believe DARPA might look into it for shits and giggles, but this sounds more like Raytheon or some other MIC pulling a 4-star's leg for extra Uncle Sugar funding.

Haele

[Irish_Dem]

14. You are blowing my mind.

How would a disposable plane work in practice? If you land, dispose of the plane, how the heck do you get back home? What is the point of the disposable plane? Do you mean the pontoon is disposable?

Growing up in the Air Force during the Korean and VN war era, stationed in the South China Sea, we never heard or knew anyone who landed planes on Carriers. Once we were stationed right next to a Navy base but never knew or heard of our dads going over there. They all took off from AF bases, we saw them. The housing was right next to the flight line back in those days.

And then they landed on Air Force land runways. Unless perhaps it was top secret and even the kid rumor mill didn't pick it up if indeed AF planes landed on Navy ships.
The kids would have gone crazy with excitement at the thought of this.

I agree this sounds like a big boondoggle for the MIC.

But if you read between the lines, it looks like the AF wants long distance recon and supply/solider drops with water capability. If you catch my drift here. This should be classified info.

But I have no idea why the Navy doesn't handle these missions.

[haele]

16. 20 years in the Navy, 20 years supporting.

This is not a new idea, heck, it's been explored in comic books and military adventure fiction.
The article claims the Air Force wants a way to deploy their combat and support units (supposedly for special operations?) within 24 hours to anywhere in the South China Sea.
Not counting the various Air Force and Navy bases in Japan, Guam, Korea, and probably other bases in the area, there are a number of US territories in the region where there were military flight lines that can be refurbished or upgraded to provide pre-staging or jump points from the US for a C-130 to get to a drop-point and parachute their Spec-Ops units with enough supplies/support in inflatables to get them through the 24/48 hours it would take for supply ships to re-enforce them.
Navy can still provide carrier based air support during that period, if their own air support is too far away. Or their own drones.

It just seems too much like them trying to pull one over on the Navy, instead of being Joint Operational partnership.
Hey, my spouse was both an Air Force brat and enlisted Air Force for a few years. And he agrees with me.

Haele

[Irish_Dem]

24. Yes this is special ops.

That is why I cannot understand why it is not classified.

I know nothing about the Navy but for some reason have been watching WWII navy movies. Much more exciting than AF movies.

Growing up next to Naval bases, we loved the Navy. Better BXs, better uniforms, more interesting personalities than the AF. At least as kids that is what we thought.
We were stuck on small bases with not much to do.

Right no idea why the AF is doing this. And why this is not Navy or joint ops.

Another puzzlement is that we already can reach most places in the South China Sea within 24 hours. Heck, we could do that 60 years ago.

There are US AF bases in Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, Guam, Korea, Philippines, etc.
I think from bases in Japan that we can even get to Beijing, Shanghai, and North Korea.

But it sounds like they want planes that will land on water.
Carry troops and equipment. And the AF is making it all public.

Maybe it is a threat to China, we can get to Beijing and Shanghai (the financial hub of China). We can land in the Yellow Sea and do recon work and drop off troops etc.

But we know the Navy has subs in the Yellow Sea, Trump let that cat out of the bag, the idiot. Has carriers and air power.

Right it sounds like some sort of internal political situation between Navy and AF.
Or some sort of US propaganda sending a message to Beijing.

[hack89]

18. It would be a perfect special operations plane for use in the South China sea

where you have long distances and a lot of islands. The ranges involved make helicopter operations complex as they require multiple airborne refueling - a sea plane means using one or two aircraft instead of 10 or 20 to do the same mission.

[Irish_Dem]

25. Yes it is going to be a very flexible and multi purpose aircraft.

Quite a few airplanes rolled into one.

[hack89]

17. There were large four engine seaplanes in widespread use in WWII

the Short Sunderland is a very good example.

[Irish_Dem]

26. Wow never saw this before. Cool.

Never saw them used during the VN war.
But maybe they were housed somewhere else, not on AF bases.

[DarwinsRetriever]

8. What about helicopters

They can insert teams near water, in water, in jungles, on mountains ... And they aren't a big target. I am sure the stealth ones used to get OBL are better now that they were then in Pakistan.

[Irish_Dem]

12. For the jobs this is going to do, helicopters won't work at all.

These are going to be long flight capable. And carry cargo, equipment, personnel, etc.
And have sophisticated recon equipment I assume.

Helicopters are high risk as we know from the VN war.
Hi shoot down rate.

[hack89]

19. The distances involved in the South China sea are large

and helicopters are short ranged. Most large helicopter ops require forward refueling bases - can't do that in the middle of the ocean.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. I say go big or go home!

https://pin.it/1Bnsscd

[hack89]

30. I would pay money to see that. nt

[Irish_Dem]

36. Can you do air refueling with helicopters?

I don't think you can?
That limits their range for sure.

[Abnredleg]

20. Not enough range

War in the Pacific involves huge distances and helicopters won't cut it. Yes, you can use aerial refueling but that just adds complexity and puts your tankers are risk.

[pecosbob]

15. RYFKM...a C-130 retrofitted as a seaplane?

The design is older than I am. Let's just give Lockheed the keys to the Treasury.

[Irish_Dem]

28. I know, it boggles the mind. Means no landing strips where they are going.

My Dad flew C-130s among other planes during the VN war.
These are big mother airplanes.

This means the AF wants to move huge amounts of personnel and equipment, but land in the water. That means where they are going, no landing strips.

I think it is a threat to the Chinese. We can take over your bases in the South China Sea.

[Takket]

22. how can we afford this when we are too broke to even offer a child tax credit?

[Irish_Dem]

29. Money is no object when it comes to military boondoggles.