Future USAF Transport Projects (MACK, ATT, NGT, AMC-X, AJACS, HAWSTOL, Speed Agile)

I am always impressed that the USAF wants to buy a C-130 replacement that cost as much as a C-17 while scoffing at the Army VTOL concepts as being too costly. One of the reasons that the Army cancelled the RAH-66 was because it did not live well in the field environment and yet here is the USAF alleged C-130 replacement that they have agreed will routinely operate in much harder environments than they have traditionally operated cargo aircraft.

Lockheed does know that the USAF likes sexy. A lesson learned at Boeings exspence during JSF.
 
By the time this thing is realized, I think stealth tech will advance to the point where it can withstand harsh operational environment. Lockheed revealed its break through with the stealth coating of the f-35, in which they claim that the RCS of the aircraft will not suffer due to scratch, chipping, or crack of the coating. And putting stealth into a transport aircraft is not as complex as when you try it on a fighter, bomber, or recon aircraft, because the most challenging aspect in making an aircraft stealthy is embedding sensors.

However, my concern is about weight. Stealth will definitely add weight and take up space (embedded engines, exhaust shielding, serpentine inlets, stealth coating) something you do not want in an STOL transporter. More take-off weight means more thrust; more thrust means more exhaust shielding and larger volume for fuel, and that means the aircraft has to grow larger still and add more weight.
 
How important is stealth and/or S-STOL capability in a theater transport? Is this capability an extravagance in the current climate of military budgets?

Also wasn't the Advanced Medium STOL Transport (AMST) program, that created the YC-14 and the YC-15, and the original consortium that was formed to create the Future International Military-Civil Airlifter (FIMA) in 1982 intend to create a transport aircraft that would replace the Lockheed C-130 Hercules?

Will these projects remain projects on paper or do you think that one of these projects will be built? Is it possible that the Airbus A400M might be purchased by the USAF as a C-130 replacement or to provide an aircraft between the C-130J-30 and the C-17A? Perhaps the aircraft produced in North America by EADS or under license by a US manufacturer?
 
By the time this thing is realized, I think stealth tech will advance to the point where it can withstand harsh operational environment. Lockheed revealed its break through with the stealth coating of the f-35, in which they claim that the RCS of the aircraft will not suffer due to scratch, chipping, or crack of the coating

Sounds like an infomercial. Where's Billy Mayes when you need him?
Anyway, I only glanced through all 100+ replies only briefly, so I don't know if this was covered in depth. The US military is a superpower, and I am sure they know such a stealth transport would come in handy. However, unless there is a near-magical change in stealth cost in terms of money, weight, maintenance, shape, etc it would be extravagant to build this into the hundreds of KC-135 and C-130 replacements needed. I could see a dozen or so refuelers, maybe something like a tanker version of the B-2? However, the stealth transport would as pointed out, need real STOL ability to be useful.
THe large battlefield transport seems to be one of those dreams that never are really practical when you look at it. Look at all the ads over the years showing C-130s, C-5s, etc unloading tanks, soldiers, and equipment at the front lines. Has this EVER been done?
 
royabulgaf said:
By the time this thing is realized, I think stealth tech will advance to the point where it can withstand harsh operational environment. Lockheed revealed its break through with the stealth coating of the f-35, in which they claim that the RCS of the aircraft will not suffer due to scratch, chipping, or crack of the coating

Sounds like an infomercial. Where's Billy Mayes when you need him?
Anyway, I only glanced through all 100+ replies only briefly, so I don't know if this was covered in depth. The US military is a superpower, and I am sure they know such a stealth transport would come in handy. However, unless there is a near-magical change in stealth cost in terms of money, weight, maintenance, shape, etc it would be extravagant to build this into the hundreds of KC-135 and C-130 replacements needed. I could see a dozen or so refuelers, maybe something like a tanker version of the B-2? However, the stealth transport would as pointed out, need real STOL ability to be useful.
THe large battlefield transport seems to be one of those dreams that never are really practical when you look at it. Look at all the ads over the years showing C-130s, C-5s, etc unloading tanks, soldiers, and equipment at the front lines. Has this EVER been done?
Click to expand...

Part of the reason that the US has begun to look at STOL transport is that anti-access is becoming easier for even non-state groups to realize. Imagine the fun of having to use Beriut International (I know there is plenty of coastline as well, but I am making an argument) with Hezbollah sitting in the city and the hills around it not feeling it in there interest for you to use the airport. Recall that Russia had significant difficulty in their Afghan misadventure and, I believe, lost several transports to appraoch and departure ambushes. Recall that Coalition forces have had several transports damaged (DHL especially) in Iraq. With .50 cal sniper rifles with extrordinary range, ATGM, precision mortars, etc. finding there way into the hands of small nations and non-state groups, landing at the most predictable places in any country could be hazardous and with Western culture, game changers (Dien Bien Phu anyone?). VTOL/STOL are not the panicia of all problems, but being able to use roads, fields etc. make it harder for the folks who don't want you to land their to figure out where you are going to show up.

see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao_LcvJv7io
 
48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition
4 - 7 January 2010, Orlando, Florida
AIAA 2010-349

Enabling Speed Agility for the Air Force
Cale H. Zeune*
Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433
 

Attachments

  • speed agile14.jpg
    speed agile14.jpg
    15.9 KB · Views: 1,261
  • speed agile13.jpg
    speed agile13.jpg
    53.7 KB · Views: 811
  • speed agile12.jpg
    speed agile12.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 1,837
  • speed agile.jpg
    speed agile.jpg
    440.7 KB · Views: 910
  • speed agile1.jpg
    speed agile1.jpg
    25.5 KB · Views: 879
May I ask where you get these? If yo don't mind of course.
 
Not sure if this fits into this tread nor what wt-model this is :eek: ... but anyway interesting !

Deino
 

Attachments

  • MACK maybe wt.jpg
    MACK maybe wt.jpg
    103.3 KB · Views: 286
Makes shielding the fan on the PAK-FA or X-32 look easy, doesn't it? Never thought I'd say that ;)
 
My guess is it would receive fan blockers. Just as the X-32's fan was readily visible, but Boeing had a design for a fan blocker for it. IIRC, it was VG wasn't it?

It looks like this design is a super STOL or possibly STOVL design? As it looks like the engines are that far forward for the exhaust to be vectored down at or near the center of mass.
 
Deino said:
Not sure if this fits into this tread nor what wt-model this is :eek: ... but anyway interesting !
Deino
Click to expand...
Hi folks,
just tried out the new similar picture search function at google.
Here the original source at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee
Picture Caption:
Caption for 110715-F-UU070-014: From left, AFMC commander Gen. Donald Hoffman and AEDC’s National Full-scale Aerodynamic Complex (NFAC) Test Director Patrick Goulding II get a close look at a 23-percent scale model of the Speed Agile technology demonstrator that recently underwent aerodynamic testing in the world’s largest wind tunnel at NFAC in Mountain View, Calif.
Click to expand...
Link: http://www.arnold.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?id=-1&page=1&count=24
Edit:
Damm, Machdiamond bet me! :mad: ;) :)
 
if you type 110601-F-2310J-001 into Wright-Patterson AFB web page search function it'll show the hi resolution rear shot.

Beautiful, apologise cannot do it from this phone or else i'd link.
 

Attachments

  • 110601-F-2310J-001.jpg
    110601-F-2310J-001.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 139
  • 110715-F-UU070-014.jpg
    110715-F-UU070-014.jpg
    671.1 KB · Views: 147
http://www.arnold.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123268882
AFRL tests Speed Agile transport vehicle concept at NFAC
Posted 8/19/2011 Updated 8/19/2011

by Philip Lorenz III
AEDC/PA


8/19/2011 - ARNOLD AIR FORCE BASE, Tenn. -- Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) researchers have embarked upon a critical set of experiments designed to test a new Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) transport vehicle concept.


During this set of experiments, a 23-percent scale model is being tested in the Arnold Engineering and Development Center's (AEDC) National Full Scale Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC), the world's largest wind tunnel. This testing will validate the low speed aerodynamic performance of the hybrid powered lift system. Powered testing at this scale with Williams FJ-44 engines achieves realistic conditions and allows researchers to obtain crucial data on lateral directional stability, ground effects, aircraft performance, engine performance, and engine operability.


Data gathered from the testing will be analyzed to determine the technology's applicability toward future vehicles. This technology could potentially benefit transport aircraft in both the civil and military realms. Air Force applications could include future transport aircraft operated by Air Mobility Command and the Air Force Special Operations Command.


The Speed Agile Concept Demonstrator (SACD) concept is a four-engine, multi-mission aircraft that offers speed agility; operates routinely from short, improvised airfields; carries larger and heavier payloads; and employs precise and simple flight controls.


The SACD's high-efficiency STOL design incorporates a hybrid-powered lift system. This lift system features a simplified mechanical design and low-drag integration. Together, these features greatly reduce both the vehicle weight and overall drag on the vehicle, resulting in greater efficiency and payload capacity than conventional powered lift systems.


An aircraft employing Speed Agile technology could potentially operate from short, unprepared airfields. These benefits, coupled with the overall vehicle efficiency, could result in an extremely versatile aircraft capable of quickly and safely transporting equipment, supplies, and troops to remote areas.


Future plans for this technology development may include a large-scale demonstration to validate performance at representative vehicle scale and payloads.


The Speed Agile program is a combined effort of AFRL and Lockheed Martin Corporation, with testing facilities provided by AEDC and NASA, and models and associated equipment supplied by Advanced Technologies Incorporated and Williams International.


PHOTO:Caption for 110715-F-UU070-014: From left, AFMC commander Gen. Donald Hoffman and AEDC’s National Full-scale Aerodynamic Complex (NFAC) Test Director Patrick Goulding II get a close look at a 23-percent scale model of the Speed Agile technology demonstrator that recently underwent aerodynamic testing in the world’s largest wind tunnel at NFAC in Mountain View, Calif. (Photo provided)


-----------------------------------------------

Air Vehicles News and Accomplishments
July 2011


AFRL to test new Speed Agile transport vehicle concept


AFRL researchers are embarking upon a critical set of experiments designed to test a new Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) transport vehicle concept.
The Speed Agile Concept Demonstrator (SACD) concept is a four-engine, multi-mission aircraft that offers speed agility; operates routinely from short, improvised airfields; carries larger and heavier payloads; and employs precise and simple flight controls.
The SACD’s high-efficiency STOL design incorporates a hybrid powered lift system. This lift system features a simplified mechanical design and low-drag integration. Together, these features greatly reduce both the vehicle weight and overall drag on the vehicle, resulting in greater efficiency and payload capacity than conventional powered lift systems.
An aircraft employing Speed Agile technology could potentially operate from short, unprepared airfields. These benefits, coupled with the overall vehicle efficiency, could result in an extremely versatile aircraft capable of quickly and safely transporting equipment, supplies, and troops to remote areas.
During this set of experiments, a 23 percent scale model vehicle is being tested in the Arnold Engineering and Development Center’s (AEDC) National Full Scale Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC), the world’s largest wind tunnel. This testing will validate the low speed aerodynamic performance of the hybrid powered lift system. Powered testing at this scale with Williams FJ-44 engines achieves realistic conditions and allows researchers to obtain crucial data on lateral directional stability, ground effects, aircraft performance, engine performance, and engine operability.
Data gathered from the testing will be analyzed to determine the technology’s applicability toward future vehicles. This technology could potentially benefit transport aircraft in both the civil and military realms. Air Force applications could include future transport aircraft operated by Air Mobility Command and the Air Force Special Operations Command.
Future plans for this technology development may include a large-scale demonstration to validate performance at representative vehicle scale and payloads.
The Speed Agile program is a combined effort of AFRL and Lockheed Martin Corporation, with testing facilities provided by AEDC and NASA, and models and associated equipment supplied by Advanced Technologies Incorporated and Williams International.
(88ABW-2011-3604)


PHOTO:A 23 percent scale model Speed Agile vehicle is prepared for upcoming tests in the Arnold Engineering and Development Center’s (AEDC) National Full Scale Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC), the world’s largest wind tunnel. (AEDC/NFAC)


https://newafpims.afnews.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110804-011.pdf
 
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=0606fae1291fee2af60ab981e0284908&tab=core&_cview=1
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=60e8409be07eee410f480085005e2c1f
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=e18228e91b32aa16338d20ad1dd2311d
 
AeroFranz said:
What the hell? stealthy fuselage/wing and underslung round engine nacelles with exposed fan blades? curious...
Click to expand...


Shaping and materials are a function of the threat frequency, amplitude (f(range)) and aspect (location w.r.t target). Perhaps the inlets are buried and covered from the threat receivers from the front aspect for a period of the flight profile and open/exposed otherwise? Or, perhaps the threat is from above (i.e. AGM-129 ACM) such as J-STARS or AWACS equivalent?
 
still I'm not convenient in need of stealth airlifter...
 
Maybe It has all to do with aviation design. Edges and curves like on the B-2 or F-22 look cool, s**y and saleable.
Reminds me a lot about the automobile company Ford and its New Edge Design and Kinetic Design.
 
This would be a demonstrator for this Lockheed design posted earlier in the thread:
index.php
index.php
 
flateric said:
still I'm not convenient in need of stealth airlifter...
Click to expand...

I have to agree Flateric!
The fact that the likes of the C-17 Globemaster III is so prohibitive in purchase cost, negates a lot of the fact that this new transport is just that - a 'transporter'. Hasn't the USAF learnt the lessons of such extravagant aircraft programs? They are making almost all components of its fleet inaccessible, overly complicated and in the current trend of U.S military weapons acquisition the reason behind the death of their own so-called much need programs/aircraft!

Regards
Pioneer
 
It's one of those things where it would be handy to have five or six of them. No one else would be able to afford them, and they have absolutely no civilian use. By the time all is said and done, the program cost would be close to the B-2, and it would be divided five or six ways, creating a billion-dollar aircraft. Why would you even THINK of sending something like that in harm's way?
 
Look at it from AMC's perspective, it might make them less back seat. ;D
 
I can say that I personally designed many of the items in that very model that is pictured. It was a unique project, though, not without its challenges. I also think that Pat decided that it was best to grow a beard to look a little older.

Adam
 
Well, it's definitely cooler to have honest to God engines in the model, but it's usually possible to pipe the appropriate massflow from an external gas generator, and leave the outer moldline as true to the real thing as possible. Any reason in particular why this wasn't done?
 
Aeroengineer1 said:
I can say that I personally designed many of the items in that very model that is pictured. It was a unique project, though, not without its challenges. I also think that Pat decided that it was best to grow a beard to look a little older.

Adam
Click to expand...

Though I guess there is a degree of confidentiality to be preserved here, could you possibly tell us the logic behind testing a highly stealthy shape with such protruding airliner jet nacelles underneath?
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Though I guess there is a degree of confidentiality to be preserved here, could you possibly tell us the logic behind testing a highly stealthy shape with such protruding airliner jet nacelles underneath?
Click to expand...

From the article, "This testing will validate the low speed aerodynamic performance of the hybrid powered lift system. Powered testing at this scale with Williams FJ-44 engines achieves realistic conditions and allows researchers to obtain crucial data on lateral directional stability, ground effects, aircraft performance, engine performance, and engine operability." ;)
 
royabulgaf said:
It's one of those things where it would be handy to have five or six of them. No one else would be able to afford them, and they have absolutely no civilian use. By the time all is said and done, the program cost would be close to the B-2, and it would be divided five or six ways, creating a billion-dollar aircraft. Why would you even THINK of sending something like that in harm's way?
Click to expand...

Well if the program got momentum, it would probably end up replacing the AFSOC COMBAT TALON, COMBAT SHADOW, and possibly Spectre. And if that happened, it could also replace the USMC KC-130s as well. Some of the technologies developed for the JSF program would also help drive down the costs.
 
"Some of the technologies developed for the JSF program would also help drive down the costs." ::)
 
Sundog said:
From the article, "This testing will validate the low speed aerodynamic performance of the hybrid powered lift system. Powered testing at this scale with Williams FJ-44 engines achieves realistic conditions and allows researchers to obtain crucial data on lateral directional stability, ground effects, aircraft performance, engine performance, and engine operability." ;)
Click to expand...

thanks, Sundog, but I am still a little bit puzzled... The FJ44 is rated at what? 1,900/2,300 lbs? unless you are shooting for distributed propulsion (pretty popular these days, at least at NASA), that's not the engine that will go in a design that needs engines in the high end of the CFM56/low end of CF6 class. So what are you learning by having FJ44 engines in there? Definitely not the "engine performance, and engine operability" of the real thing. I am not saying there isn't a good reason for it, but as stated in the article, i still see none.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom