Beating China by flying C-130s off American aircraft carriers?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2024
- The United States is developing numerous new technologies, weapons, aircraft, and more all aimed at deterring Chinese aggression in the Pacific... But with more than a decade between today and when these systems will be fielded in real numbers, Uncle Sam needs some deterrent tricks up his sleeve in the meantime.
One such trick could involve operating C-130s off of American aircraft carriers, equipped with Rapid Dragon palletized missile launch systems.
Let's talk about it.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollings. .
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/alexhollings52
Citations:
www.csis.org/analysis/first-b...
www.thehangardeck.com/news/20....
theaviationgeekclub.com/the-s...
www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Shee...
www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/...
www.aei.org/op-eds/chinas-rea...
www.wsj.com/articles/china-de...
www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...
missilethreat.csis.org/countr...
afresearchlab.com/technology/...
afresearchlab.com/wp-content/...
As a retired C-130 Loadmaster after 26 years of service, I am always amazed at how the Herk keeps coming back with something new to protect our Nation.
While multiprops offer better loitering times, jet engines with new wings could enhance speed, manueverabilities, and survivability. Lost space for greater fuel load might be the only tradeoff.
I read in the Air Force Times that they want retirees to come back. I read online how Minot AFB screwed the pooch and flew nukes to Barksdale awhile back. I've been out almost 30 years but they might want to bring the Best MMS in Air Force 1984 back to train these kids.
Thank you sir!!!!
Thank you for your service..total agreement
same as the buff right
The unarrested C-130 carrier landings are truly impressive.
That is because the props are variable-pitched. RATOs can also be placed to fire forwards on the C-130 to aggressively stop the plane.
Look ma, no hook
@teddyballgame4823 none of the C-130's (H or J models) built since the early 1980's have the JATO/RATO mount on the air deflector door. The last R-model Fat Albert (USMC KC-130) and the NY ANG LC-130H's were the last planes to use the JATO bottle, the inventory ran out in 2012 and the manufacturer closed down in the 1980's.
@@teddyballgame4823 Look into Operation Credible Sport, where they were trying to mod a C-130 to land in a soccer stadium in Tehran. There is video out there:
th-cam.com/video/fSFjhWw4DNo/w-d-xo.html
Sometimes it works well, sometimes not so much.
That said, with turboprops, you have a significant amount of airflow over the wings even when the bird isn't (yet) moving. Consequently, with 4 such turboprops, there's a LOT of lift before the bird starts to move. Ergo, very little airspeed is needed to take off, stay airborne and land. There's are solid reasons why still have that bird, instead of just using jet-powered C-5s and C-17s.
I honestly did not know that a C-130 could land on an aircraft carrier. I’m embarrassed.
The Herc will probably be the first manned vehicle to get to Mars. After a few modifications, of course.
Carrying Chinooks 😂
You mean like flying without air in the vacuum of space? I wish em good luck, but I'm staying on the ground. 😅
Not the B-52?
@@jtho8937 Regolith.
Add some Rockets for propulsion and steering.
There is no resistance in space, so any momentum gained in the atmosphere will carry over. @@martinoamello3017
Anyone who thinks deterrence is expensive ought to look at what an actual war costs.
We could just not stick our nose in foreign conflicts
@jakemocci3953 I think you don't know how the UN works. Countries request aid all the time, and the US almost always responds.
@@jakemocci3953 while generally I agree, Thats not something that can be said about China. China has aspirations on pretty much all of Asia much like Stalin had on Europe in the 40s. Imagine almost all of our tech being produced directly by China (intel being an exception) and placing the rest of Asia under its dictatorial regime.
Ukraine is one thing, we only have business there due to some really corrupt people in our government. Thats strictly a European energy problem with Russia, and possibly food. Now imagine China taking over SK, Japan and Malaysia. Thats alot of tech that isnt chinese now coming under direct control of China.
Also, we have vested interest in both Taiwan and Japan, and the Phillipines are a territory of the US, so no, not really a foreign conflict.
China isn't capable of taking S.K or Japan
You said it exactly right concerning Ukraine we have no interest there except for a corrupt few Senators on the Democratic side and the Republican side
Flatley, the C-130 pilot, was the son of James Flatley Jr., the man that in WWII formed VF-10, The Grim Reapers.
Flatley's son Seamus also went on to become one hell of a Naval aviator as well! At one point, he even flew some training missions with Zivi Nedivi (the Israeli pilot who landed his F-15 after losing a wing). Seamus tells me Nedivi kept a model of an F-15 with one wing on his desk even all those years later!
Duudddeeee😮
Nah bro that crazy
@@SandboxxAppCan you do a video about our current policies for maintaining an adequate number of missiles? It seems like we don't have nearly enough. I really hope the new command and control systems being developed by the Navy are successful and evolve rapidly. They'll need to be aware of the status of so many different weapon systems on a large number of platforms to support the kind of massive response that might be needed for any given situation that arises with a near-peer enemy.
Another good subject would be how we might need to change our production scaling capabilities so we don't start off completely flatfooted if a large conflict emerges. It seems like the military has gotten complacent with letting the industry do just enough. I guess it really comes down to the fickle and ever-changing budget that's always at most just not enough. I'm just worried that the military has left so much of the management, maintenance, logistics and even oversight up to different contractors and companies that aren't coordinated and have different motives and objectives. To an outsider with no knowledge of experience, the different systems for managing logistics seem so fragmented. I feel like the military needs to provide more training and guidance to help those in command centralize and streamline everything and design better and more coordinated contracts. I guess everything just ends up politically twisted and people are happy just to get anything done. I'm really curious how the military and government help those in charge learn about and improve procurement and logistics. The whole DoD is so massive and comlex.
….and then there’s Lord of the Dance Michael Flatley !!
The Big Herc never goes out of style!!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Legends never die!!
Gonna have to change up the PT cadence... "C-130 rolling off the deck, Rapid Dragon gonna give 'em heck."
@@jakeaurod36 missiles on a one way trip.
It merely becomes a Wolf in Sheep's clothing!
The C130 is a beast. Designed to land on a Rhode Island golf green and take off from the Scottish Highlands golf T. My group hauled a 2 +1/2 and a jeep at low altitude over hilly terrain and the runway was hidden behind a fuzzy hill. Driver Dropped 300 feet To beat the hash marks and slammed into the land strip too late. The vehicles bottomed out and broke the chains on the rebound. Driver bounced off the strip and did a hard bank right and the vehicles skidded into our seats before the load master could correct the rookie. We broke out new chains and bounced the vehicles back to center on a left bank turn before we landed. We broke all the rules. Tuff air trucks. Perfect for aircraft carriers.
I'm guessing VA gave you zero disability. LOL
@@amerigo88 This was only one of a dozen attempts by the US Army to kill me. I grew up in a Rouseauian household. We accept full responsibilities for our actions. When one volunteers for military service and seeks and desires the most challenging contingencies, should he expect compensation for any and all injury or loss? EMPHATICALLY, NO!
@@jackreacher. funny name , you are entitle to reasonable compensation for years in service and disabilities incurred while under orders .
@eflanagan1921 My Jeffersonian point of view expounded upon by Madison rejects entitlement narratives. The US Government is my servant but not my nursemaid. I longed to imitate GI Joe and he never had PTSD. I got paid to role play. Me and Joe won every battle and we came out on top. I am grateful for that opportunity. To believe that ''they'' owe me is a Marxist ideological point of view which I have found to be unadulterated thievery. Flanagan, are you a thief? Did you sell your soul to the collectivist devil?
In 74, I saw a C130 do a JATO takeoff out of Meadowlark Airport in Huntington Beach CA. It was a super small general aviation spot that is long gone. He cleared my 2nd story pad that overlooked the runway by a couple hundred feet. To see it leap off a carrier is no surprise to me. C130s, B52s, F15s and 16s are eternal machines....
At what speed does it get lift?
Here are a few more older platforms active daily: F/A E/A18, E2, P8, C-9 not mentioning rotary and several other really old training and support aircraft.
Ha! Know that field well. Used to get cheeseburgers there.
@@harsectinal great original comment, and even funnier reply.
@@DmitryKeylin Quite low, as it's specifically designed for use on VERY short fields as a STOL aircraft.
Also seriously overengined for that very reason.
Ahhh yes. The C-130. A flying B-52 in disguise
Knows as “Spooky”
as opposed to a walking B-52, naturally
BC-130 has an interesting ring to it.
@@OverTheShenanigans I like CB-130... Cargo-Bomber
After all, bomber IS the secondary role... granted, they *would* be dropping _cruise missiles,_ but meh! 😅
As opposed to a sailing B52?
Your points?
Great to see the Aussie Ghost Bat drone in the video 👍
They were officially deployed in our Air Force TODAY 9th February 2024!
Really? They are operational? What aircraft will they fly along? Super Hornets or the F-35s too?
I'm surprised USAF isn't more interested in adding the Ghost Bat to the fleet ASAP..
@@markbrisec3972 Today the US announced something that looks identical the a Ghost Bat with classified performance. looks like a joint announcement.
@@markbrisec3972P8 Poseidon and E7 Wedgetail as well as F-35
@@qbi4614 It's the Australian branch of Boeing that created it. So it probably got some US funding attached to it, and then our AF liked what they saw and wanted some.
Either way... *_Well done, Australia!_* 🤘
@@DUKE_of_RAMBLE Bowing and Australia, The doors will fall off
Love the Herc, the first perfectly good airplane I ever jumped out of. I still remember the instructors (I am in my 60's) "Our job is not to teach you how to jump out of this airplane, our job is to make sure you can do it a second time."
Love the C130. When i was in, it was a workhorse. The Marines, at the time, used it for only supplies and manpower. The platform is capable and is used for so much more today.
It could even be turned in to a 'drone-craft carrier' for deployment and recovery of drone swarms.
They also used it for in-air refueling.
The KC-130 used in the tests was a Marine bird.
have a look at the Gremlins program
C-130 + Rapid Dragon could do some damage.
Hopefully Rapid Dragon gets out of the testing phase and into service this year. It is the Year of the Dragon, after all...
And C-17 Rapid Dragons 🇺🇲🦅
Literally this is the first thing I thought when I saw the original rapid dragon video showing it get deployed out of a C130, ‘watch them propose c130’s flying these things off Nimitz/Ford carriers…it worked 60 years ago on smaller carriers..’.
No I don't think your crazy at all with utilizing C-130's, think it would definitely fill the gap until the US technology "officially" caught up👍🏻❗️
How many aircraft carriers are you going to risk landing a C-130 on a Ford Class Carrier knowing that if you make a mistake, the carrier and every it's entire air wing are going up in flames?
When they tried this, they had to get 40 knots over the deck, and you could only land 1 because there was not room to land anything on the deck once one C-130 was on the deck.
No, you'd be better off using a C-2 or an Osprey.
@@pogo1140 did you watch the video? The new Ford carriers have enough space to land/handle multiple C-130s.
@xavierwilmerng6317 I watched the full video, I also watched the video of the original test flights. It's impressive but pointless. It would be less dangerous, faster to fly the C-130 out of Guam or the Philippines.
@@pogo1140they’re expecting Guam and the Philippines to be primary first targets by Chinese ballistic missiles pulverizing the runways every few hours preventing major repairs
One interesting idea is to try to refit a LHD or similar non Nimitz type carrier, maybe with no islands to operate as an auxiliary c130 handler carrier near a CVN acting as controller and tower
And the UK sold all of its C-130s to save money - they had the audacity to say the C-17 can perform every C-130 role better. Embarrassing.
The UK also uses the Airbus A400M Atlas which can probably do most all of the roles that the C-130 performed. That was the aircraft used to replace the C-130's in UK service not the C-17.
The C-130. What a plane! Been around forever, too!
This should scare the spit out of anyone interested in messing with us. Rapid Dragon is impressive all by itself but this idea is just diabolical and I love it. ❤
Good luck, when the Pentagon already stated you will lose in the Pacific against China. They are bogging you down on multiple fronts...and all those 5th columns in Europe will activate.
good luck seeing this in motion, most likely this would be like the experiment future soldier programs which get scraped after finding a cheaper option
What if china does the same thing ?
@@jamieharmer5654 Fly like a butterfly and sting like a bee? Did you know that Sun TSu never heard of Icarus?
@jamieharmer5654 it wouldn't work because this tactic is meant to counter China's area-denial. Essebtially, it's meant to take away China's specific home-field advantage. This tactic just wouldn't have any utility against the US.
The C-130 used in the carrier test is sitting in the storage area of the naval aviation museum in Pensacola. Cool!
It was a KC-130 used in the tests 60 years or so ago.
Rapid Dragon is hands down my favorite weapons system to ever exist. So simple and yet so destructive.
I absolutely love the cargo plane idea, the US carrier part not so much. Like not at all
This is one of the reasons the US is scary as hell to take on. Always innovating and always thinking outside the box.
You: The US is scary as hell to take on Always innovating and always thinking outside the box.
My Reply : True. but sadly ALWAYS sharing /bragging about their discovery in TH-cam - where the Chinese military can SEE & COPY the SAME tactic and use them against America !! Unlike the US Pentagon and CIA Budgets which runs in the Millions of US Dollars, the Chinese Military Intelligence Budget is just a FEW hundred dollars - the monthly Internet fee to connect to US Military Channels and TH-cam !! In War SECRECY is vital. When STRONG you must appear WEAK.. and vice versa - Sun Tzu the Art of War.
Biden has fired all the fighting generals and replaced them with political hacks.
The Mighty Herc! One of the greatest planes ever. I used to work for Allison where the T56 engines were made for that aircraft (the J model uses the AE2100) and have done engineering work on both the T56 and AE2100. When I first started at Allison in 1983 as a GMI co-op student, I was digging through the engineering library and found a book about the history of the C-130. There was an entire chapter dedicated to the carrier testing done on the Forrestal. Pretty cool to read about 40 years ago. Very few people even knew about that back then.
But if you were a Navy brat back then, you knew about it. Even though that wasn't dad's line of work, it still got mentioned. In 1966 as an eleven year old, I actually got to go aboard an active duty aircraft carrier while it was in port in Japan. In 1963 the main thing where we were was the rapid buildup of missile bases surrounding us. And the paving of a road between missile bases where if war had broken out, an F-4 could land to be rearmed and refueled. And that is less than two miles from where I currently live.
I overhaul t56’s now. What did you focus on at Allison? I mainly work on FCU’s
@@HyundaiAccentFanClub I was a mechanical design engineer. I had responsibility for gears, bearings, seals, shafts, splines, housings, and anything that transmits power. I do that work independently now as a consultant for lots of different companies.
1:41 What board game is this?!?!
Alex, "Uncle Sam's Gun Clubs". OMG, that is a great line.
Rapid Dragon is such an exciting program.
Thanks for adding great context to the fascinating solutions proposed.
Even today, there is a special line on the deck of every aircraft carrier that is specifically there for the C-130. Well, at least it was on the last one i visited. You can tell, because it doesn't line up with any of the catapults, or arresting gear. That is the line you put the C-130 on, and let it lumber off to do it's thing. I know they did proof of concept, but it wasn't a regular thing to my knowledge.
Still, that big an aircraft launching off of a Nimitz class carrier without catapult assistance is amazing.
The line that the C-130 landed on was a dash line that went from the bow to the stern, and it isn't present on Kitty Hawk and Nimitz carriers.
@@quokka7555 I'm sure they could requisition a few cans of paint.
@@quokka7555 Correct. On a nimitz class it isn't a dashed white line. And it's at an odd angle. I want to say it's a solid red line, but i may be mis-remembering.
Wasn't even a Nimitz, as they didn't exist at the time of the trials.
I'm not sure if ENTERPRISE was in service yet at that time (I think she was still being built).
@@bricefleckenstein9666 it was a forrestal-class aircraft carrier. Followed by kitty-hawk class and then USS Enterprise.
For the "Wet Blankets"...suck it up. 😉
Have been a fan of "Rapid Dragon" for some time. The "Herc" is beyond reproach & having it as a "Missile Slinger" is too hysterically perfect! The boat deal? It's in the books 👍👍.
Many thanx Alex!
Thanks Alex, now i know what makes the c130 Hercules so special! I mean those carrier antics are priceless in a very precious way in my heart! And when i say antics, please think of my air combat mentor: John Boyd. Thank you for your work and thank you for your service Alex! my best regards to you and your family!
As a percentage of GDP, US military spending was 9% in 1963
Today, about 3.5%.
And we wouldn't be worried about gaps in US airpower if 749 Raptors could be surged into Japan and the Philippines
Ah yes, back when our currency was backed by ACTUAL gold bars, not the bullshit petrodollar it is now.
The government will be literally broken since the debt is so high today.
Russia went into hibernation and the USA thought it could woo China. Now the USA is in a revamp phase.
@thomashawaii The 1960s are generally considered boom times for the US economy, even with 9% of GDP military spending.
The main difference is that entitlement programs were in their infancy in the 1960s.
And today they are the overwhelming drivers of debt, not military spending
@Chuck_Hooks the debt is driven by the trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the billionaires who have hijacked the country and are driving it into the ground. They know we will cushion the fall for them. Just like the banks did to the working ppl in 2008. Non of those fackers went to jail even though they committed fraud on a global scale. If not for the trump and Bush tax cuts we wouldn't have the trillions of dollars in debt we acquired throughout those years. Don't believe the bullshit pushed out by either side. They are bought and paid for.
Not just Hercules, Xena Warrior Princess too! ^-^ LOL!
Oh, and whatever character Bruce Campbell plays.... That guy is a national treasure for B movies and TV shows. Plus, he is a hoot in person.
How can you not be? (Crazy.)
Good stuff, keep it coming.
so you are saying, C-130 should be turned into a carrier based rocket bomber? Ok you got me, sign me up lol
A video about the X65 and active flow control would be cool.
Active flow control just seems crazy to me. It's damm near sci Fi to see something maneuvering without control surfaces. Would love to see a video on this.
Ah, the Doolittle Raid, Part II.
As an old timer, I know that we could also attach JATO bosters to the C-130s to ensure sufficient takeoff velocity. You just have to think outside of the box.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video. It's always fun to see things used differently than originally planned.
I've been a Rapid Dragon's fan ever since its reveal. Alex's idea makes it possible to deliver this firepower to China's shores.
About time that we (the USA) developed something with asymmetrical cost advantages. Any and every C-130 could be carrying 12 missiles while each C-17 could be carrying 45 missiles. Mix that in with plenty of cheaper decoys and an aerial attack at the same time, mixing 4th Gen's in with F-35's and B-2's (or B-21's) and more decoys, really forcing China to waste SAM resources and pick better targets to defend against while being hunted down.
My Reply: Rapid Dragon is a Great Idea. True. but sadly, USA is ALWAYS sharing /bragging about their discovery in TH-cam ! - where the Chinese Military can SEE & COPY the SAME tactic and use them against America !! Unlike the US Pentagon and CIA Budgets which runs in the Millions of US Dollars, the Chinese Military Intelligence Budget is just a FEW hundred dollars - the monthly Internet fee to connect to US Military Channels and TH-cam to COPY your tactics !! In War SECRECY is vital. When STRONG you must appear WEAK.. and vice versa - Sun Tzu the Art of War.
Alex "Jimmy Doolittle" Hollings
Only the B-25's couldn't actually land on the carrier. The C-130 can.
What a fascinating video and concept! A C-130 landing and taking off a carrier is amazing!
I read the article last week! Cool to now see the vid. After seeing Alex's "Son of BlackBird" vid I have immense respect for him & his knowledge. TY ALEX! You bring a much needed, well educated voice to aviation + defense & Military.
"Uncle Sam's gun clubs...." LOL!
I vote Alex for Secretary of Defense.
I'm onboard. This is actually a fantastic idea, and a great way to use what we already have in new roles without having to reinvent the wheel.
Back in the old Wing Commander game series, they had a handy booklet that gave the stats and maneuverability of each plane. Hercules: Maneuverability of a pregnant yak.
Chinese radar operator: Look at that. A squadron of C-130s.
Supervisor: Ehh. Just keep an eye on them. What can they do?
A few moments later….
Chinese radar operator: Well, there is good news and there is bad news boss. The good news is the radar still exists. The bad news is we now know how Wagner felt at Khasham
Try the other version:
"Looks like a lone c-17 is wandering this way"
"Who cares?"
"Wait what were those 45 blips?"
"Don't know, they're gone now though, probably nothing to worry about"
Excellent, as usual excellent. thank you
I wouldn't say that you're crazy, but definitely thinking outside of the box which is needed when planning/training/war gaming these types of scenarios. Great program! Keep up the good work!
The Jahre Viking is the largest ship; if decked over with deck overhangs comparable to a Nimitz class carrier, two C-130 can sit across the deck side by side with enough safety clearance that one side can be used as a full length runway
Doolittle Raid 2: Electric Boogaloo
A C-130 on an aircraft carrier ? Not likely to be the answer as opposed to just refueling C-130s in flight . It would shut down /carrier operations until they could be flown the deck again . Two pallets vs six as well.
Aye. C-130 from a carrier is just as bad an idea now as it was back then.
Absolutely! No one else is pointing this out in comments (Chair Force). You halt the 24+ Fighters of rearm/refueling just to refuel 1 C-130?! Dumb idea.
Yeah, turns the carrier into a launch platform for 1 plane. Better to just use fighters to deploy the missiles
I guess it's good to have backups ready. Being honest I was thinking they'd fly empty c-130s to the carrier, load rapid dragon on it, and then taking off for target.
While LT. Flatley's C-130 was landing on the Forrestal in 1963, I was at South Pole Station, about to depart on a ski-equipped Hercules. During my duty in Antarctica that year, I had flown on most of the 4 Hercs operated by the Navy's VX-6 squadron and had come to love those birds. As the years have rolled by, I have kept up with the further refinements of this incredible machine. Rapid Dragon seems so appropriate for the C-130!
The Herc just won’t quit. It has proven how adaptable it is throughout its extensive service life.
I hadn’t realized the Herc was carrier capable, even though I knew its short field capabilities. Wow. This could be interesting.
They did a C130 landing/take off on the USS Forrestal back in early 60s
They did it as a test for a long range critical parts/ engines delivery to the carrier at long distances. No need nowdays and although the rapid dragon is brilliant the carrier part is not realistic or needed
I knew they did land a C130 on a carrier, but I assumed they had a tailhook.
i was 7 years usaf flightline and thought all usaf planes had tailhook for emergency landings. we just don't use them.
@@skip123davis only the two prototype YMC-130H had tail hooks, all other C-130's have never had a tail hook.
there is no way a c130 can land with jassm
An older variant landed on a smaller carrier with over 80000lb payload and took off again. Given a larger surface area (carrier deck) improved performance, and I would argue against this comment. But I'm just speculating until they test the hypothesise.
They were partially designed to land on undeveloped small ‘runways’ turn around on a dime then take back off. Maybe only certain models, idk.
My understanding is that the reason for the C-130 landing on the carrier back in '63 was to support U-2 carrier operations. If a U-2 needed a new engine, they needed a way to get one to sea quickly, and the existing carrier-operated cargo planes didn't have the capacity. When U-2 carrier operations were deemed unnecessary or impractical, there was no longer a need to operate C-130s from carriers, so the program was scuttled.
The program was about the possibility of making the C-130 the new "COD" aircraft in general.
It was deemed impractical, and we ended up with the C2 instead.
WOW. America is a country not to be messed with!! So glad my country Britain is it's ALLIES!!!
Spot on Alex!!
There is a lot to be said for having a wide variety of ways to wreak havoc on an enemy. In systems engineering, it is referred to as being resilient.
My Reply: Rapid Dragon is a Great Idea. True. but sadly, USA is ALWAYS sharing /bragging about their discovery in TH-cam ! - where the Chinese Military can SEE & COPY the SAME tactic and use them against America !! Unlike the US Pentagon and CIA Budgets which runs in the Millions of US Dollars, the Chinese Military Intelligence Budget is just a FEW hundred dollars - the monthly Internet fee to connect to US Military Channels and TH-cam to copy your tactics !! In War SECRECY is vital. When STRONG you must appear WEAK.. and vice versa - Sun Tzu the Art of War.
The problem with a c130 on a carrier is you need an almost empty deck
Yep....and you have to keep them on deck, exposing them to the elements. Not to mention, the C-130s that did those triails were empty. More weight equals more speed equals longer decks to take off of from.
And how many C-130s will they be able to support on one carrier? One, two, 3 tops?
Huge waste of resources, time, money, and just an idiotic publicity stunt gone wrong.
There are other platforms and options better suited for such missions as well as flying C-130s from bases that already exist in that region, and are more than capable of supporting those C-130s.
Plus the opening premise and statements are so full of bullshit holes, assumptions, and misinformation.
Not to mention that tge military budget dies not need more money thrown at it when they cannot account for trillions of dollars of assets they should have and at one time did possess. That is not just simple accounting errors either. It is budgets being shifted and clandestine ops from other afencies veing funded inappropriately. Plus the many contractor scams such as when blackwater stole billions in cash during the 2nd gulf war. That was disgusting how they were given unrestricted access and stuffed their pockets with our money, then blamed the military for their theivery and incompetence. Funding must have accountability.
And don't try to bullshit anyone. I managed annual ammunition accounts and Commanders woukd make sweeping plans on expenditures that they woukd reign in when I pointed out the cost of each round, excess ammo, wasted ammo, etc, and the Commanders wallet tied directly to those accounts. His PERSONAL Wallet. Hold Commanders accountable, and much will resolve itself.
Yea. And an empty deck would mean that carrier would have to rely on another carrier or land based air interceptors to keep its defenses up.
But I think the biggest two weaknesses America has that China can exploit is our political system and that China has been working on using ballistic missiles to take out an aircraft carrier. The hypersonic missiles are a threat but if China can use its satellites to accurately hit a super-carrier with a ballistic missile from space then there would be nothing the US could do to deter that threat.
As for the political system, look at Vietnam and Afghanistan and how different administrations changed foreign policies based on public opinion. The leader of China has been in power for over twenty years, he doesn't need to worry about getting reelected. The US Commander In Chief does. To be perfectly blunt the only reason we're interested in Taiwan are the conducters it produces. Without those our military and society is crippled and China knows this. We are trying to build our own conductor industry here in the US buts its still years behind what Taiwan has.
With that in mind the US really needs to unfortunately look to its own survival and abandon its duties elsewhere in the world. The American public largely doesn't understand the importance of Taiwan's conductors. We use them for everything from every single ship, vehicle, and plane in the US military to every car, smartphone, computer as well as our vital energy industry.
If China takes Taiwan there won't be any Javelins or other guided munitions to protect us (let alone places like Ukraine). China sinks a few carriers, takes out our land bases, and the US public's opinion on protecting Taiwan would shift overnight. And betting the future of the US as a superpower on the logistical capabilities of one airplane (no matter how impressive) is a gamble I for one believe we can't afford to make.
The sooner we shift to a wartime economy the better. Once we can make do without Taiwan we can get out of this mess. Shift our focus to countering things like ballistic missiles and becoming self-reliant when it comes to things like guidance chips necessary for our military and society to function.
@@gbonkers666 MAJOR error.
Some of the trials were at FULL RATED LOAD CAPACITY of the KC-130 in question.
@@bricefleckenstein9666That is what I understood too. Plus they would not reside there longer then the unload/reload takes.
I once got a C-4 for christmas once. It came with little army guys to put in it and a detachable wing. A big ol toy. One of my favorites.
Brilliant idea. If deterrence in the goal, we need to act now.
If drones are a force multiplier, we need more of them and thousands of drone operators.
If we have to fight tomorrow, we must adapt, improvise and overcome today.
The Doolittle Raiders ride again!
The C-130… Willis Hawkins’ gift to the US armed forces.
Nice video and report. Well done, sir!
My father was a C-130 Load master during the Vietnam War. Earned the Distinguished Flying Cross for flying in ammunition and supplies multiple times at Khe Sahn. Barely making it back to base for more cargo due to fuselage penetrations. He always spoke so highly of this aircrafts capabilities.
just make a air craft carrier with NO Control tower ... that will make a lot better landing strip for large planes liek C-130's
I don't know what impressed me more the landing or the take off from the carrier. I wouldn't believe this is possible if I didn't see the video. I wonder what speed is needed to get lift
To help with the launch the carrier like doing normal flight ops would be goin g into the wind at full speed
Gotta say this was a great video. Some crazy stuff and unbelievable events. Nice 👌
aA
A really good and insightful video, totally on point.
Just an unrelated aside, but the intros to your videos always get me so pumped. "This, is AIRPOWER!!!"
A video about the AAS / FARA (armed scout helicopter) program would be cool. Sikorsky has the S-97 Raider compete with the Bell+Textron 360 Invictus.
The Raider has troop capacity while the Invictus does not, but that gives the Invictus better stealth properties, just like the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche had. Not sure why Sikorsky abandoned that design, as they first came up with it. Just to push a common scout and transport design when they already lost the Blackhawk transport replacement to the Bell V280 Valor?
Wasnt this program just cancelled this week?
The Army canceled the FARA program a couple of days ago. They said that they’re going to use unmanned scout/reconnaissance UAS.
I'm so sad that FARA is canceled.
It makes sense to cancel it and use the money elsewhere, but helicopters are always so damn sexy...
@@teddy.d174the Army thinks it’s cancelling FARA. Congress will probably put a stop to their nonsense. I hope so.
First the C-130 Spooky.. now the C-130 Rapid Dragon... Just awesome
My late brother-in-law served on the USS Coral Sea. At that time, Marine Corps KC-130's provided the mid-air refueling capabilities. These KC-130's had tandem tail hooks so they could catch two arresting wires and they were catapulted. There was s special bridle that hooked to both forward catapults. The plane started from a position near the first arresting wire and got a boost for the length of the catapults, then used the rest of the flight deck to continue the takeoff. While the system worked, they were often launched just so other planes could be re-parked. It was parking awkwardness on the flight deck that killed the program.
Can't a B-52 carry more missiles than the C-130 and C-17 and doesn't have issues with their combat range like the cargo planes in that the B-52 doesn't need to land and refuel from a carrier.
There are 72 B-52s total in service today. There are just shy of 500 C-130s.
@@danielbeshers1689 True, but those C-130's and C-17's do not have the range and capacities of the B-52H models.
@@RTSchramm Yeah, this wouldn't be a case of choosing one over the other, but how to make best use of everything available.
The c17 has about twice the payload by weight of the b52.
But for the JASSM ERs, it looks like the b52 is space limited at 12 external and 8 internal =20. The c17 can carry 45, and probably at a much lower cost per flight hour.
When the JASSM xr shows up with twice the range of the er, but also twice the weight, I think the b52 ends up weight limited to around 14 and the c17 drops to 30 I think.
I will give the b52 credit for being able to loiter and launch one at a time as targets get found.
But really, if you're launching missiles from 500-1000 miles away, what does it matter which plane they come out of? You better be so far behind the front lines you could launch then from a balloon
@@dudeinanofficechair7662 Thanks for answering my question. I found that the B-52H could carry a total of 20 and the B1 could carry 24., but the video didn't state how many the C-17 could carry.
That C-130 that did carrier landings was stripped of the interior, absolute min fuel with no payload. C-130s of today are more powerful but, no way to STOL another 80k in fuel and cargo.
It wasn't strip, only the external fuel tanks were removed. The current J-models come from the factory without the external tanks since the more powerful and modern AE2100 engines extend the C-130 range by 15% while holding almost 20k lbs less fuel than the old T-56 powered C-130's.
By the way the heaviest weight landing during the test was 121k lbs.
@@willracer1jz Which was right at the load limit for the KC-130 used in the tests.
First off, it was a KC-130
Second off, your information is BADLY wrong - it was tested at several weights, up to right about the max limit of the aircraft used.
Amen - never make it a fair fight. Biggest issue will always be tooth to tail and training as we fight. Good reporting!
Great episode!!!!
How about a pallet with 4 LSRMs deployed from CMV-22, using 2 of the CMV-22 to augment numbers of outgoing weapons (8) may be an alternative. Mini-Rapid Dragon. I believe 3 CMV-22 are part of a carrier's air complement.
All grounded indefinitely now
The Osprey doesn't have the PROVEN reliability of the Hercules.
Been LOTS of issues with that over the years.
You got one of the best channels on the web thanks
And the trophy to prove it.
And I think it behooves us to look at other options as well. We're going to need to build more air strips in the Philippines and islands in the Pacific. We might consider actually having new versions of the AGM 158 that have boosters to be launched from the Mark 41 VLS and have a longer range. Give them a 1200 mi range. Consider putting a bunch of these on a modified cargo ship
Alex you are on base as usual. Great work my friend.
I want to see them landing C-130s on aircraft carriers. But then again, I want to see UPS race the TRUCK at NASCAR!
UPS, FedEx, DHL, and Amazon. All competitors in pre/post race festivities.
A race! Load your truck, do five deliveries, and reach the finish line.
Ever see any truck and trailer races? That's messed up. And I'm a truck driver!
@@xsiunnu Do the packages have to survive undamaged ? 🤣
@@tarmaque th-cam.com/video/lnHWL-J-3KE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=JCpZ1678hev4XNCS. No trailer but yea, Europe does race them
The US Army just chose General Dynamics and Rheinmetall as finalists for the 4000 Bradley replacement IFVs.
Could you do a Firepower series video about this program, the two finalists and the other three that dropped out. Or more generally the current state of IFVs (Bradley, CV90, Puma, Lynx) and their most likely future. Maybe even including anti air IFVs like some CV90 variants and SkyRanger.
50 mm
Wow! That was amazing!
C-130 oh oh what a Bird. My first ride was in a combat load in Vietnam where we sat on pallets and held onto straps on those pallets. Silly things that makes one fall in love with such a machine. And when I got to inspect a C-130 gunship . . . OH MY! That bird was unmarked and was flown and crewed by Air America types. Too cool to ever forget. That bird is a forever asset.
The B-21 Raider wingspan (140') is small enough to fit on a 2017-present Ford-class flight deck (1,092' × 252') if the C-130 wingspan (132') was able to fit on a 1954 Forrestal-class flight deck (1,069' × 252')
Don't think it would be able to do STOL ops.
@@burddog0792The B-21 is pure lift - there's no fuselage
The question is how wide apart are the landing gear … fit those on the deck laterally … basically add up centerline to right wing tip to centerline you left landing gear plus some wiggle room on either side
Rapid dragon in C-130, in C-17. Bet restart of C-17 would be cheaper than a pure bomber plus get more air lift.
Problem for a lot of these military cargo aircraft is that they're no longer in production. Any you lose are lost forever and not replaceable soon except at extreme cost (probably new design and factory tooling).
Apparently there is a proposal to restart the C-17 program.
There's a need for 4 engine jets to replace several 707 based applications.
I hope it comes about instead of trying to refurbish worn out airliners. Modification of old airframes seems harder, more expensive, less capable, less reliable than new built.
@@tonysu8860 arent there 1000s in boneyards, just like russias tanks which they took from the yards fixed them for cheap and sent them on their way
@@bigt6665 C141 and C5 in Davis Monthan, yes. C17 is currently operating. Apparently Boeing still have the jigs available for restarting the production line if enough C17 are ordered.
@@bigt6665 There are very few IF ANY C-17 in boneyards - and there were never 1000 built in the first place, only a little over 200.
I'd be shocked if more than a very few C-5 have ever been retired, they ALSO are currently active aircraft - and ALSO rather small numbers (which turned into an issue before Desert Storm, never fully fixed).
" Look Ma, No Hook ! " . . . bring it on. 😎
In-f'ingCREDIBLE! These are some SERIOUSLY excellent C-130 pilots! They are landing these enormous aircraft with NO arresting cables, on an Aircraft Carrier - with plenty of room left over. It looks impossible.
The problem is where do you put the plane once it lands? C-130 don't have folding wings... I think it might make the jets a bit that they can't take off
Rocket assisted takeoff
I think it's meant for resupply of the carrier or refueling/restock of the plane
They can’t stay there, it’s too disruptive. The whole premise is that the Herc would deliver 6 cruise missiles to the carrier and then leave. You could conceivably fly three or four of them out to the boat timed about 30 minutes apart. Just enough time to land, unload, and maybe take on a little fuel before departure until the next one comes in. The rest of the planes are either down on the hangar deck of flying CAP with a tanker and a Hawkeye up so they don’t get caught with their pants down during the resupply operation.
@@wnosethat was the purpose of the test, long range critical parts and engines. To use it as part of rapid dragon is silly the planes have long range as well as air to refueling capabilities plus the missile itself has a very long range
Hahahaaa... C-130s off carriers. Already proven. Been holding it in our pocket for a long time.
I believe rapid dragon is just the beginning of what we need until we get to the level of technology that we need in future aircraft. I agree with your assessment and feel that if they're not already working on this and refining it they should be doing it
First time listener here, love the work! Ive subscribed and will begin to binge yoyr content! Thank you
Sounds like a great idea to me. I am a US Citizen living in The Philippines. The Chinese aggression in the West Philippine Sea is getting worse. We need to step up our efforts and our spending.
Marcos has been a lot friendlier than previous governments to the U.S. in terms of allowing us to expand military facilities there. And other allies are providing weapons to the Philippines. As China gets more erratic and desperate, the Quad Alliance could get more active. Japan has already been stepping up, and Australia is reliable. I don't think it would take much for India to participate. Even Vietnam has old grudges against China, And Malaysia has some competing territorial claims. But we need to get rid of the current evil-clown administration at home and clear out the woke morons in high positions in the military.
I’m retired US military and I’m in Talagang now…..going to Cortez tomorrow….i agree.
Some of the PH forces have M-16A1’s from 1965..!!
Aerial refueling bridge solves the distance problem
shhh too Credible
Most C-130 don't have aerial refueling capabilities, only the MC-130's, AC-130's and KC-130's can refuel in flight. All slick (trash hauling/normal) C-130's have to land to refuel.
@willracer1jz in times of war, necessity governs.
We have limits on how many refuelling birds we have.
And they're going to be wanted a lot for other aircraft.
@bricefleckenstein9666 luckily, these can use the same flight plans more or less
That is some IMPRESSIVE POWER !! 💪😎
My Reply: Rapid Dragon is a Great Idea. True. but sadly, USA is ALWAYS sharing /bragging about their discovery in TH-cam ! - where the Chinese Military can SEE & COPY the SAME tactic and use them against America !! Unlike the US Pentagon and CIA Budgets which runs in the Millions of US Dollars, the Chinese Military Intelligence Budget is just a FEW hundred dollars - the monthly Internet fee to connect to US Military Channels and TH-cam to copy your tactics !! In War SECRECY is vital. When STRONG you must appear WEAK.. and vice versa - Sun Tzu the Art of War.
4:23; I was an actual Combat Developer, I fundamentally disagree that our military is “designed to fight the last war.” The issue is this: “Congress FUNDS us at the levels of the last war.” How do I back this up? In 1998-99 I initiated a program called the low power personnel beacon. This project was soon classified higher than my top secret and “went away”. Guess what? I essentially invented the Apple air tag a decade prior to Apple, and believe me, there were/are people way smarter than I working in those jobs. It isn’t that we are not forward thinking, we are backward funded. Feel free to hit me up.
It's cool no doubt.
But I'm not sure what carrier refueling offers over mid-air refueling.
C-130s can be configured to be areal refueling platform. So you can have 1 refuel C-130 per squadron of rapid dragon C-130s to extend the range, without having to land on aircraft carrier, whose aviation fuel is a limited resource.
Good question. Perhaps its because it's not possible to air-to-air rearm?
It's not possible to load the back of a C-130 while flying. The carrier is there to facilitate re-arming with missiles.
I think the whole rapid dragon idea is brilliant. But the carrier part of any of it is silly
Basically the modern Doolittle Raid.
You know that the manual cranks for tank. Turrets are basically directly below and right next to the powered one. And you don't have to switch anything. You just have to grab the manual one start turning it...
And the closer the better for manual engagement.
And that model of t ninety has a electrically driven traverse motor...
Great idea Alex 👍