Next C-130 will be a Vertical Lift Cargo plane

Orionblamblam said:
Ummm... "mag-grips" in the gloves. Cool. On the surface of what appears to be a stealthy aircraft, thus ceramics/plastics/carbon fiber skin. *Maaaaaybe* aluminum skin. But *iron* skin? Ummmm...

UMMMMM....
Click to expand...

You were fine with the guys in jetpacks matching the cruise speed and altitude of a jet aircraft, but "mag grips" is where you checked out? Okaaay...

:)
 
TomS said:
You were fine with the guys in jetpacks matching the cruise speed and altitude of a jet aircraft, but "mag grips" is where you checked out? Okaaay...

:)
Click to expand...
Jet packs are silly, but they exist, and they ave flown alongside jet aircraft. Mag-grips gripping plastic violates the laws of physics.

Jetpacks-Over-Dubai-UK-Airbus-A380-Jetpacks-A380-Airbus-Plane-A380-Jetmen-Fly-Over-Dubai-Jetpa...jpg
 
Orionblamblam said:
Ummm... "mag-grips" in the gloves. Cool. On the surface of what appears to be a stealthy aircraft, thus ceramics/plastics/carbon fiber skin. *Maaaaaybe* aluminum skin. But *iron* skin? Ummmm...
Click to expand...
ferrite materials in the skin?

Ferrites have been the known stealth coating since before Stealth was a thing...
 
Scott Kenny said:
ferrite materials in the skin?

Ferrites have been the known stealth coating since before Stealth was a thing...
Click to expand...
I forgot about ferrite stealth coatings. Perhaps this (I assume relatively cheaper solution) would be used for a cargo aircraft as a non-combat aircraft not expected to conduct deep penetration missions, but rather clandestinely complete internal operations without people tracking it... Ignoring the fact that the mission before that scene sees the main character put a tracker on the aircraft, which is hardly the fault of the aircraft's design.
 
Well it sounds great and having watched enough of Elons rockets landing, I expect not overly hard to do. But once directed energy weapons become practical it may not be as spectacular a method as we expect. Helping the locals a day after a massive natural disaster is a great idea. Resupply against a peer enemy in a major combat environment, I suspect, would be less desirable.
 
yasotay said:
Well it sounds great and having watched enough of Elons rockets landing, I expect not overly hard to do. But once directed energy weapons become practical it may not be as spectacular a method as we expect. Helping the locals a day after a massive natural disaster is a great idea. Resupply against a peer enemy in a major combat environment, I suspect, would be less desirable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I suspect that peer resupply will require a relatively LO aircraft flying down in the weeds. Yasotay's favorite flight altitude!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yeah, I suspect that peer resupply will require a relatively LO aircraft flying down in the weeds. Yasotay's favorite flight altitude!
Click to expand...
Don't forget low ceiling, rain, and slightly above freezing. Patchy fog in places other than the landing point would be nice too. Crunchies, for the most part, don't like to be out and about in that sort of weather.

I would also add to my concerns with this methods (Rocket Cargo) would need to be well back behind the lines because I would suspect a capability of this nature, well observed from launch, would attract things of a hypersonic or large and long ranged nature.
 
It will be much safer than anything else that can bring to a forward location the same mass.

You have extreem reach, speed, insertion at high supersonic speed, point landing infrastructure, offset landing point (this is not a missile that aim for a known, heavily defended point) and a very heavy payload. IMOHO, It can't be more difficult to beat that.
 
@TomcatViP - I will give you that the speed of insertion would likely not be beat until transporter beams show up. However because it would be a national resource on the same level as an aircraft carrier it would also become a high value target like a carrier. I would agree with your points, other than that the off-load and refuel time would likely necessitate a semi-prepared and well defended location as neither are likely to be faster than done today. While some of the lower elements of the flight might be out of range of most radar coverage, and UAS, the cell phone is ubiquitous now. Cellphone monitoring is too easy. With AI enabled speech recognition, Grandma's and college kids will help targeting locations triangulation complaining about rocket noise. Assuming there are still functional reconnaissance satellites they have a smaller area to look. I am taken aback at how fast everyone learns about actions in the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Landing several hundred miles from the frontlines would be more likely, but we are talking about tactical airlift. A C-130 can land on a dirt strip, offload and be back in the air in under 10 minutes. A HLVTOL could land in most any field big enough, offload and depart in the same amount of time. Not sure the rocket would have this sort of turn time. Also a heavy rocket landing in a field might make a bit of a hole under it. I mean if a Harrier would blast the earth, I think a very heavy rocket might also be challenged not to do so.
Still, I am old and can suffer the same intransigence common to old folk.
 
TomcatViP said:
Rocket cargo with air drop to deliver payload:

breakingdefense.com

Rocket Cargo is go! Air Force's experimental resupply program moves closer to the launch pad - Breaking Defense

The investment in transitioning Rocket Cargo "is focused on utilizing vehicles that traverse from or through space to transport DoD materiel anywhere around the world within tactically responsive timelines," the Space Force's FY25 budget request says.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Yes or no:

Without a separate Space Force—no way the USAF funds this?

A cargo craft need not be full Starship…maybe a Biconic deal that blows apart fairing style once subsonic with a C-130 pallet descending as if dropped a bit higher and faster.
 
TomcatViP said:
It will be much safer than anything else that can bring to a forward location the same mass.

You have extreem reach, speed, insertion at high supersonic speed, point landing infrastructure, offset landing point (this is not a missile that aim for a known, heavily defended point) and a very heavy payload. IMOHO, It can't be more difficult to beat that.
Click to expand...
It's a rocket that will obviously have to stop, and do so very very carefully and at first chance (no fuel to loiter).
Sounds like a pretty obvious long-range AA target - even at extreme ranges...
 
Ainen said:
It's a rocket that will obviously have to stop, and do so very very carefully and at first chance (no fuel to loiter).
Sounds like a pretty obvious long-range AA target - even at extreme ranges...
Click to expand...
Depends on how fast it comes down, and how much thrust the engines can put out. (I'm assuming a one-way trip, much like the SpaceX Falcons)

Because if you keep enough fuel to do a 3.5gee decel burn, you can stay pretty fast until you're down below big-SAM engagement altitudes.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Depends on how fast it comes down, and how much thrust the engines can put out. (I'm assuming a one-way trip, much like the SpaceX Falcons)

Because if you keep enough fuel to do a 3.5gee decel burn, you can stay pretty fast until you're down below big-SAM engagement altitudes.
Click to expand...
The entire problem is that there is no end to the envelope.
Intercepting BM is too late when theoretical interception point goes below the surface.
But active seeker will find a transport rocket where it went below the horizon anyway. Even if you've just landed, it isn't a big problem.
 
Ainen said:
The entire problem is that there is no end to the envelope.
Intercepting BM is too late when theoretical interception point goes below the surface.
But active seeker will find a transport rocket where it went below the horizon anyway. Even if you've just landed, it isn't a big problem.
Click to expand...
If the rocket has landed and fuel/oxidizer tanks are empty, then it doesn't matter much if it gets hit by a SAM. Might suffer some damage to cargo, but the cargo is already where it's needed.
 
Empty fuel/oxidizer tanks are not" empty. There is likely to be some contingency level remaining. A fuel tank with atomized residual is far more explosive than full of liquids. Now I suppose you could quickly purge those tanks on landing, hopefully without risk to the logistics crews trying to get to the delivered goods. Without the means to refuel (quite a lot of fuel/oxidizer I would imagine) the rocket becomes a target waiting to be hit. The longer it stays in one place the higher the probability it will be targeted.

Prepared locations, well defended against SSM-LR and Kamikaze drones alike, and access to bulk fuel/oxidizer to return the the rocket to safety, seem the only way to make this survivable enough to warrant use in modern general warfare.

Meanwhile I will expect tactical airlifters to remain the most cost effective and efficient means to conduct forward logistics movement.
 
yasotay said:
Empty fuel/oxidizer tanks are not" empty. There is likely to be some contingency level remaining. A fuel tank with atomized residual is far more explosive than full of liquids. Now I suppose you could quickly purge those tanks on landing, hopefully without risk to the logistics crews trying to get to the delivered goods. Without the means to refuel (quite a lot of fuel/oxidizer I would imagine) the rocket becomes a target waiting to be hit. The longer it stays in one place the higher the probability it will be targeted.
Click to expand...
If it's using hydrogen or methane as fuel they can just vent the tank to atmospheric pressure and any flammables would just rise into the air. Keep the tank itself full of gaseous hydrogen or methane and there's no chance of boom inside the tank.

The somewhat bigger challenge is oxidizer. I'm trying to remember what it was that was a mix of LOX and ... liquid N2O?, has a storage point of about -25degC. Far higher than either one by themselves.


yasotay said:
Meanwhile I will expect tactical airlifters to remain the most cost effective and efficient means to conduct forward logistics movement.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
publiusr said:
Yes or no:

Without a separate Space Force—no way the USAF funds this?

A cargo craft need not be full Starship…maybe a Biconic deal that blows apart fairing style once subsonic with a C-130 pallet descending as if dropped a bit higher and faster.
Click to expand...
yes,
and yes it does have to be a full starship. there is nothing that will get a biconic anywhere.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom