On the subject of carting 30t of armoured fighting vehicle around the battlefield, the US Air Force's approach to airlifting the Army's weight-challenged FCS vehicles has become clearer with release of details of the planned Speed Agile concept demonstration.
The cool name reflects the Air Force's desire for "speed agility": high lift at low speeds for short take-off and landing from improvised airstrips combined with efficient cruise at speeds beyond Mach 0.8 - something traditional STOL aircraft are not good at.
The baseline specs for Speed Agile are revealing: at least 500nm radius carrying a nominal 29.5t payload at speeds above Mach 0.8, with a mid-mission hot-and-high landing and take-off in under 2,000ft - 1,500ft is desired.
And the cargo box looks familiar - it has the same 4m loading width as the Airbus A400M, which is fast becoming the standard for intra-theatre transport as payloads outgrow the C-130.
No-one gets to build a demonstrator for Speed Agile - the 34-month programme will involve concept design and windtunnel validation of low-speed and transonic performance. But it is one of a raft of Air Force Research Laboratory projects paving the way for AJACS - the Advanced Joint Air Combat System - planned as a replacement for the C-130.
STOL, speed, stealth - and sex appeal
As this AFRL chart shows, View image technology demonstrations are under way or planned for the advanced composite airframe; integrated propulsion, high-lift and flight control; and embedded high-bypass engine with efficient inlet.
And it's no accident the Boeing YC-14 and McDonnell Douglas YC-15 are used illustrate eventual AJACS flight demonstrators, because that is where this is all heading: back to the STOL tactical transport mission that was conceived during the Vietnam War - and abandoned once it was over. Could history repeat itself?
YC-14, updated (From new DSB VTOL/STOL report)
Comments (3)
The real bottom line may be: Does it meet the customer's requirements?
Posted by yasotay | October 11, 2007 8:17 PM
Posted on October 11, 2007 20:17
The US Army is the customer with most clout at the moment, followed by the Marines and Special Forces. The US Air Force is way down the pecking order. So the Army may call the shots this time round. That is why Boeing its trying to get Army backing for the C-17B as a near-term FCS transporter. If the Army backs it, the Air Force will have to consider it.
Posted by The Woracle | October 11, 2007 8:26 PM
Posted on October 11, 2007 20:26
The challenge for the USAF is that their primary customer does not want to do "business as usual". After a decade of analysis their prime customer believes that there is technological and political viability to change the way it conducts operations.
There is a very big difference between what the Air Force does (exceedingly well I might add) which is movement, and what their prime customer, the Army, wants to do which is maneuver. What the Army wants to do is more akin to air assault than air movement. This is not a mission that corporate Air Force has been asked to do in the past.
At the risk of throwing some parochialism into the discussion your comment at the bottom of the picture "...and sexy!" is a part of the equation. The Air Force does not want any more aircraft with propellers, regardless. The Army may be slow and ponderous, like an elephant, but like the elephant it does remember very well. The C-17 was sold as a great lifter that would land on unprepared locations as needed. Pictures of C-17 landing in fields with tanks rolling on to battle were shown. Funds were allocated and a great aircraft was built, and only on exceedingly rare occasions does it land on semi-prepared surveyed sites. C-17 pilots shown Army FCS video of C-17 landing on a contested airfield laughed and intoned "not in a million years".
You are right that this will become a very tangled web in the next few years. Who is right; the vendor (USAF) or the customer (USA)?
Posted by yasotay | October 11, 2007 11:27 PM
Posted on October 11, 2007 23:27