US Joint Heavy Lift

[Sundog]

Although, I should have clarified, I only meant it as an airdrop, whether it's the whole pod, or just a door they skydive out of, possibly at higher alt.

I don't know. If you talking about airdrop, then there arises the question of whether the b-2 is areodynamically suitable in term of altitude, speed, maneuverability, for airdrop. And if it does meet these requirements, then the next question would be whether its stealth will remain effective within such mission, since its stealth was designed for a different set of flights.

I agree completely. I was just thinking, if we need to insert some troops stealthily, well, do we really have to build an entire aircraft to do that? Of course, there were so few B-2's built, they probably wouldn't want to risk them on such a mission.

 

[Stargazer]

Air drop and retrieval of individuals... wasn't that part of what Senior Citizen was supposed to be about?

 

[quellish]

But back to the SOF "cargo" stealth plane, what the hell are SOF inserting that they need a "Cargo" plane that large? It almost seems like an oxymoron to me. If you're inserting that much equipment and troops, how stealthy can it really be? I guess they need one of those "stealth blimps?"

The need may be more for range and VLO than for cargo. It's difficult to make a rotorcraft that can penetrate deeply, so the thinking may be that something other than a rotorcraft is the answer. The mission requirement may be a lot like EAGLE CLAW with double digit SAMs. Doing that with AF SOF or Night Stalkers would be..... ill advised.

 

[donnage99]

I agree completely. Hell, by the same token,the way a bomber program always ends up as the "Red Headed Step Child" of the USAF, I would ask Boeing to develop a B-52 replacement based on using the wings and empennage of either a 767, probably the wings from the long range -400, or the 777, but make a new fuselage to make a bomber. I don't mean as a B-2 replacement, I mean to do what the B-52's do, stand off weapons launch, and they could also make the ECM version the USAF wants, but we need something newer and more efficient than the B-52s.

BAE did a study for vertical launch tubes in a civilian aircraft. As for replacing b-52 itself, is it really cost efficient to do so when u add up the cost of the program (though it uses a civilian model to start off, it still gonna cost a hell lot. Just look at kc-x or poseidon), and the unit cost of each aircraft bought?

 

[yasotay]

But back to the SOF "cargo" stealth plane, what the hell are SOF inserting that they need a "Cargo" plane that large? It almost seems like an oxymoron to me. If you're inserting that much equipment and troops, how stealthy can it really be? I guess they need one of those "stealth blimps?"

The need may be more for range and VLO than for cargo. It's difficult to make a rotorcraft that can penetrate deeply, so the thinking may be that something other than a rotorcraft is the answer. The mission requirement may be a lot like EAGLE CLAW with double digit SAMs. Doing that with AF SOF or Night Stalkers would be..... ill advised.

Countries that you would need significant stealth for have enough capability to make it exceedingly expensive.

 

[blackstar]

At times I wonder if they TRY to come up with the most needlessly expensive way to do a thing. We need a stealthy, one-off (i.e. expensive) cargo plane (or tanker) like we need another hole in the head. A BWB tanker, sure, a stealthy one? Why? We can't even buy the cheap, non-stealthy stuff without blowing holes in budgets, who in their right mind thinks a stealth cargo plane would be anything other than an unmitigated cluster----?

Exactly. You start to imagine the niche that this is going to fill, and the small number of aircraft that would be required, and you have a hard time figuring out how they could ever afford something like this. Keep in mind that the F-35 program is currently spinning out of control, currently 50% more expensive than predicted in 2002:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/11/jsf-costs-rocket-50-percent/

And that's for a large production-run of aircraft. Do you want to apply exotic requirements for a small production-run aircraft? The costs could spiral way out of control compared to the actual need.

 

[yasotay]

By the time you go through all of the development and fielding of the stealthy system there will no doubt be a solutions for it. I think that in the age of Moore's Law we are going to have to count on electronic and cyber warfare to clear the way aircraft. As for IR and laser guided weapons I think IR countermeasures are going to have to get "offensive" toward the weapons in flight.

 

[blackstar]

Well, RAND says that a low-observable transport aircraft is necessary:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/04/05/af-needs-coin-plane-rand/#axzz0kHuNjtZQ

"The Air Force should also develop and deploy a next-generation, low observable gun ship to support special operators. It could be either manned or unmanned and should have a large magazine and long loiter time. A new “low observable mobility platform” is also needed for insertion, extraction and resupply of SOF. The new AFSOC gunship and mobility platform would be small buys, around 24 aircraft for each."

Mostly the article is about the need for a fleet of cheap, counter-insurgency aircraft, something that I think is a no-brainer. But if you start to add up all the other things they call for, this is an expensive shopping list.

 

[yasotay]

Well, RAND says that a low-observable transport aircraft is necessary:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/04/05/af-needs-coin-plane-rand/#axzz0kHuNjtZQ

"The Air Force should also develop and deploy a next-generation, low observable gun ship to support special operators. It could be either manned or unmanned and should have a large magazine and long loiter time. A new “low observable mobility platform” is also needed for insertion, extraction and resupply of SOF. The new AFSOC gunship and mobility platform would be small buys, around 24 aircraft for each."

Mostly the article is about the need for a fleet of cheap, counter-insurgency aircraft, something that I think is a no-brainer. But if you start to add up all the other things they call for, this is an expensive shopping list.

That would be RAND funded by the US Air Force. I enjoy the RAND folks mobility platform ideas like stealthy platforms that have to land at the most predictable and documented locations in any country; an airfield. Anyone with google earth and a cell phone can direct artillery to any point on an airfield. They sorta blink at you for asking questions. :

 

[F-14D]

Well, RAND says that a low-observable transport aircraft is necessary:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/04/05/af-needs-coin-plane-rand/#axzz0kHuNjtZQ

"The Air Force should also develop and deploy a next-generation, low observable gun ship to support special operators. It could be either manned or unmanned and should have a large magazine and long loiter time. A new “low observable mobility platform” is also needed for insertion, extraction and resupply of SOF. The new AFSOC gunship and mobility platform would be small buys, around 24 aircraft for each."

Mostly the article is about the need for a fleet of cheap, counter-insurgency aircraft, something that I think is a no-brainer. But if you start to add up all the other things they call for, this is an expensive shopping list.

That would be RAND funded by the US Air Force. I enjoy the RAND folks mobility platform ideas like stealthy platforms that have to land at the most predictable and documented locations in any country; an airfield. Anyone with google earth and a cell phone can direct artillery to any point on an airfield. They sorta blink at you for asking questions. :

Clearly you're missing the big picture. As I've pointed out elsewhere, if they didn't land at those locations, where would they put or how would they get to the golf course?

 

[donnage99]

Every dictator has a personal golf course, which provides landing for our stealthy transport aircraft. We take the fight to the enemy leader's home, saving time and reduce collateral damage. The only drawback is that it might destroy the beautiful grass, though.

 

[F-14D]

Every dictator has a personal golf course, which provides landing for our stealthy transport aircraft. We take the fight to the enemy leader's home, saving time and reduce collateral damage. The only drawback is that it might destroy the beautiful grass, though.

Doesn't meet the need; the golf course is required as part of the essential equipment to make it a complete air base.

 

[Vpanoptes]

Every dictator has a personal golf course, which provides landing for our stealthy transport aircraft. We take the fight to the enemy leader's home, saving time and reduce collateral damage. The only drawback is that it might destroy the beautiful grass, though.

Why not just add grass re-seeding with initial watering & fertilizer application as part of the mission requirement for the aircraft? Would make as much sense as some of the other requirements that seem to get tacked on. After all, John Q. Taxpayer will foot the bill, right? :

 

[F-14D]

Every dictator has a personal golf course, which provides landing for our stealthy transport aircraft. We take the fight to the enemy leader's home, saving time and reduce collateral damage. The only drawback is that it might destroy the beautiful grass, though.

Why not just add grass re-seeding with initial watering & fertilizer application as part of the mission requirement for the aircraft? Would make as much sense as some of the other requirements that seem to get tacked on. After all, John Q. Taxpayer will foot the bill, right? :

Again with the people who don't understand the program... A USAF aircraft can't bring the golf course, that's part of the required in-place minimum bare base infrastructure! Besides, the aircraft will already be equipped to self deploy an O club.

 

[donnage99]

While your quote from the article is accurate, aren't there some BWB designs meant to carry 800+ passengers? Is this not enough volume? I would like to see a BWB tanker, air to ground mother ship loaded with Rattlers and Hyflys and X-51s (or about 500, 250lbs GPS guided bombs) and a BWB counter missile, counter air mother ship loaded with NCADEs, Patriots, AMRAAMs and a couple of HELLADS turrets. All protected by F-22s and getting targeting information from super stealthy UCAVs operating deep inside enemy airspace. Oh to dream

pic1: a BWB with a shitload of cruise missiles
pic2: a BWB with a shitload of bombs
pic3: a BWB with a shitload of bombs + a UCAV
pic4: a BWB with a shitload of bombs + a jammer pod the size of a C-130

Research of Air Force lab on configurable air transport (CAT)

 

[bobbymike]

donnage99 - Awesome pictures thanks ;D

 

[blackstar]

While that's some funky stuff, I can't see how it makes any kind of sense. Aircraft almost never fly with those kinds of loadouts anymore. PGMs don't require it, and there's no point in carrying dozens of dumb bombs when a few JDAMs will do a better job. Why would you want to carry several dozen cruise missiles? It doesn't help with drag, or with stealthiness either. And there's always the risk that if you lose the aircraft to enemy action or a simple accident, you lose a large number of weapons as well. Better to spread them out on several aircraft.

 

[quellish]

While that's some funky stuff, I can't see how it makes any kind of sense. Aircraft almost never fly with those kinds of loadouts anymore. PGMs don't require it, and there's no point in carrying dozens of dumb bombs when a few JDAMs will do a better job. Why would you want to carry several dozen cruise missiles? It doesn't help with drag, or with stealthiness either. And there's always the risk that if you lose the aircraft to enemy action or a simple accident, you lose a large number of weapons as well. Better to spread them out on several aircraft.

There are a couple of factions within AF pushing BWB as a bomb truck. During the first months in Afghanistan USAF combat controllers worked with SF teams on the ground - and there was never enough ordinance on station above them, they always wanted more. The idea here is to leverage the capabilities of a BWB to have a very large magazine available for a very long period of time. It also potentially gives ground personnel a wider menu to pick from - a platform like this could carry a mix of SDB, 1000lb JDAM, etc.
The same people are saying that this platform does not need to be manned.

 

[sferrin]

While that's some funky stuff, I can't see how it makes any kind of sense. Aircraft almost never fly with those kinds of loadouts anymore. PGMs don't require it, and there's no point in carrying dozens of dumb bombs when a few JDAMs will do a better job. Why would you want to carry several dozen cruise missiles? It doesn't help with drag, or with stealthiness either. And there's always the risk that if you lose the aircraft to enemy action or a simple accident, you lose a large number of weapons as well. Better to spread them out on several aircraft.

There are a couple of factions within AF pushing BWB as a bomb truck. During the first months in Afghanistan USAF combat controllers worked with SF teams on the ground - and there was never enough ordinance on station above them, they always wanted more. The idea here is to leverage the capabilities of a BWB to have a very large magazine available for a very long period of time. It also potentially gives ground personnel a wider menu to pick from - a platform like this could carry a mix of SDB, 1000lb JDAM, etc.
The same people are saying that this platform does not need to be manned.

It would also make a good tanker aircraft down the road. Not sure of it's commercial possiblities.

 

[ouroboros]

Taking the B-52 bomb/missile truck concept to the next obvious level. It's like a flying arsenal ship/convenience store, being able to call down the weapons mix of your choice at a whim. But like a B-52, unless it's orbiting close by, it will take a while for the truck to do the delivery.

Though considering the size/shape of a BWB and other issues, I'm a little surprised someone hasn't trotted out a single turret firing 105/120mm precision guided ammo. A pancake shaped turret is much more feasible on a BWB. When you start doing the (KJ on target)/($ x mile) cost calculations, I would imagine it would start gravitating towards that or directed energy weapons. There was a nice AIAA student competition paper by CalPoly called the Firefox gunship which shows a 105mm CTA gun having desirable characteristics, especially with a precision round.

 

[fightingirish]

[...]
Research of Air Force lab on configurable air transport (CAT)

donnage99, great pictures! B)
Just crosslinking the videos, which you posted in another thread.

Video for what Hesham posted of reconfigurable transport concept:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deDlDmTRT74&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk2LsKsud_s&feature=channel

 

[donnage99]

It would also make a good tanker aircraft down the road. Not sure of it's commercial possiblities.

If everything that said is true in the 2 videos fightingirish helped me cross linking, it would transform airlift in general. So I'm guessing there is possibility commercially. There are alot of new capabilities in CAT concept. It's just that I'm not sure the USAF wants to build 2 different platform designs.

For the tanker version: (each of those module/container in the first pic is literally the size of a C-130, so we are not talking hours on station)

 

[bobbymike]

Fascinating videos. It appears they are trying to duplicate the massive global containerized shipping infrastructure for the military. The military obviously has mostly unique capabilities/missions that do not translate to commercial comparisons but IMHO logistics can learn a lot from commercial good transportation across a globalized economic system. We take for granted that everyday we go to a Walmart (any one of the thousands around the globe) they will - and rarely do they not - have the exact goods we are looking for no matter how eclectic our shopping list happens to be that day.

Walmart (I have no affiliation or even own shares in Walmart) also has state of the art inventory controls that can determine to the minute how much of what was sold, where and put replacement orders out practically instantaneously. Imagine a military system where a combat brigade goes out on patrol gets into a firefight and when they return to base the exact number of rounds of ordinance used is already being supplied AND the factories that produce the rounds are producing replacements in almost real time. The military does have similar systems in general but they are considered fairly rudimentary compared to large private sector firms.

 

[LowObservable]

Better yet, it could be nuclear-powered...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/DTI081209.xml&headline=USAF%20Plots%20Needs%20for%20a%20Fantastic%20Future

 

[yasotay]

Not a bad idea... to bad you have to have an airfield available to operate it from for the deployment piece. The US Army has been looking at this for some time. What do you do when the locals decide they don't want you to use their airports? You need a five kilometer security zone (good luck with that if the airport has urban build up around it... which is very common in most less well developed countries) just to keep the MANPADS threat down. This does not stop mortars, artillery, ATGM and other kinetic means from getting to the airfield. Large caliber sniper rifles with trained snipers do bad things to large turbofan engines, especially on approach and take off which of course have to be done in a straight line. Airports are single nodal points of failure for expeditionary forces. Worse, most competent military planners know this. I have listened to retired Rangers (US Army special operators) talk in excruciating detail at how easy it is to make an airfield unusable for conventional aircraft from day one. Then they ask you if a theater commander is going to risk precious strategic lift aircraft to land at very easily targeted airfields.

This is why the Army continues to require SSTOL or VTOL capability that can go to places away from populations and likely targeted areas. "The American's are landing in farmer Smiths field!" "Ah... which farmer Smith?" versus "The American's are dropping paratroopers on the Anystan national airfield." "Ah... just like they always do." If you were in the back of one of the cargo planes, which scenario would you prefer the enemy to have to deal with?

In the information age, airfields like fixed fortifications in the age of mechanization, are a dangerous folly to have to bet strategic mission success on.

 

[mz]

[Nuclear aircraft can stay airborne for years. But the problem has been crew transfer. But you can skip that if you make it a UAV! Add some advanced AI so it can fly safely.
Give it a big laser too while you're at it! ]

Okay, seriously, this craft seems too large to be practical. Also, the whole idea of a BWB is the huge internal volume, it'd be quite bad to use external tanks with it...

 

[donnage99]

I think some of us miss the point of CAT. the video only talks about AIRLIFT prospect of the concept. Another concept behind this aircraft is that u will have a common platform for various role. We have dedicated platforms ranging from AWACS, tankers, airlift, EW, bomb truck. What if we only build specific modules/containers for each of these roles, and use a common platform to carry it. The concept is the same way as having different types of bombs, missiles, sensor and jammer pods, carried by a same strike fighter. that's the reason behind carrying external loading instead of internally.

The idea behind CAT is NOT about BWB technology. CAT also has a conventional platform and tiltrotor platform as additional platforms for smaller airfields (which is its weak point, as it simply is too ambitious with the way our military structures).

 

[bobbymike]

donnage99 - 100% correct CAT is about logistics. Listen to the narrator talk about General "Jumpin" Jim Gavin and the idea to supply airborne divisions. CAT takes this concept light years beyond. It would be such a monumental effort and very costly you would be replacing thousands of aircraft and the existing containerized logistical technology.

Will we ever see BWB's in large numbers? I don't know the "tube with wings" design is so ubiquitous. I still like the tanker, bomb truck and possibly an anti-air/anti-missile carrier as more feasible use of BWB technology. But I'm just an enthusiast not a strategist or technologist.

 

[donnage99]

CAT using tiltrotor platform

 

[yasotay]

A couple of pictures from the AHS 2010 Forum of the Karem Aircraft TR 75 JHL/JFTL concept and the Sky Train concept that is being worked as a seperate effort.

 

[yasotay]

... and some photos of the Boeing Joint Common Air Lift System (JCALS) that looks to allow a level of commonality between VTOL and STOL aircraft.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

Here's another heavy lift design which looks like a love child between a Chinook and a C-130. Drawing was posted over on the LetLetLet-Warplanes website.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Orionblamblam]

Greetings All -

Here's another heavy lift design which looks like a love child between a Chinook and a C-130.

Note: that's *old.* Early sixties, I believe.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Back when the drawings were art and not computer generations

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[RanulfC]

From what I've been reading commercial BWB seems "held-up" mostly due to the needed changed in international airport layouts to accommodate such aircraft. Apparently they won't be able to interface with standard passenger egress-ways without significant upgrades. There is also a LOT of concern with the airlines of people not being anywhere near a window as this is apparently of significant concern according to passenger surveys.

Militarily I've seen the concepts being applied to the BWB before, something (IIRC) called an Airspace Battle Control Aircraft though the last one recall was based on a 747 airframe. I wish I could find something on the idea again because the article I had at one time showed a 747 launching cruise-missiles, missiles (vertically launched from an extended "hump" actually) and launching, recovering, and refueling UCAVs. I'd actually always thought that the idea of recovering and reconfiguring UCAVs was bogus until I found the "Aircraft Carrier Aircraft" thread on this site ;D

Randy

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Strategic-Configurable Air Transports (S-CAT) strategic tanker-airlifter-air power concept by Air Force Research Laboratory.

Source: http://mikesnead.net/resources/cat/configurable_air_transport_cat_presentation_2006_airlift_tanker_assoc_conference.pdf

 

[Triton]

Sklar, Mark "Diversity in Numbers: Boeing offers 2 of 5 development options in rotorcraft program" Boeing Frontiers December 2006/January 2006
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2006/december/i_ids03.pdf

 

[Triton]

Comparison drawing of Karem TR75 Tactical Transport to Airbus Military A400M, Lockheed Martin C-130J-30, Bell/Boeing V-22, and Boeing Vertol MH-47E.

Source:
http://karemaircraft.com/index-1.html

 

[Triton]

Model of Karem TR75 JHL on display at the AHS International forum in Montreal 2008.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogscript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A75e2b273-ba06-4608-902b-9bd73993a5a1

 

[hesham]

Hi,

here is a heavy transport project powered by four
push-pull engines.