Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BwanaNdege
Actually, I think we should do away with land-based patrol planes, and build some flying boats again. Lockheed had a fairly inexpensive version of their C-130 with the props on top of the wing, P-3 style, and a boat hull on the bottom with small balancing pontoons on the wings. I think the Navy needs to go to something just like that. Not the pontoon-plane version of the C-130 that they pitched, but the real flying boat version. If it can't take off or land from a deck or from the water, the Navy shouldn't have it.




32 posted on 11/10/2010 11:26:37 AM PST by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: DesScorp
Another thread had photos of USS Forrestal landing a C-130 back in 1961. Multiple untrapped landings and multiple unassisted t/o's, all from the carrier's deck. A bit of a tight fit on a Forrestal-class, but it'd be duck soup on a Nimitz.

Build boat-bottoms on 'em and Bob's your uncle.

The Sov's loved flying boats for ASW, operated them for years. Not sure why they retired them, maybe the "May" had such long legs the Red Fleet decided they didn't need the older flying boats anymore.

The thing is, they can land ...... and just sit there for hours with their dipping sonars deployed.

With the C-130, you'd get a proven, widely-supported type with big payload, long range, and decent airspeed that you could operate off carriers. It'd be a formidable ASW platform.

35 posted on 11/10/2010 12:46:11 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson