C-130 replacement planned with fling winger

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

Quote:

Air Force Seen Ready To Accept Army Tiltrotor Vision For New Joint Cargo Plane
Defense Daily 01/12/2009
Author: Marina Malenic

The Air Force is on the verge of signing on to the Army's concept for a new inter-service cargo aircraft capable of vertical take-offs from aircraft carriers and difficult terrain, an Army official said last week.

"I know that there's been a lot of talk that the Air Force is not interested in this," said Bruce Tenney, the associate director for technology at the Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate. "That attitude is changing."

The Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL) program was born a year ago when Army and Air Force chiefs agreed to combine their respective development programs for a new intratheater cargo plane, after it had become clear that development costs alone for such a system could exceed $2.5 billion. JFTL is expected to replace the Air Force's C-130 and to become the primary cargo hauler for the Army's Future Combat Systems vehicles.

The Army had been focusing its efforts on a vertical take-off/landing aircraft, dubbed Joint Heavy Left (JHL), while the Air Force was wedded to the idea of a fixed-wing, short-takeoff/landing approach.

The services are putting the finishing touches on an initial capabilities document (ICD) that combines their requirements for the plane. Tenney said "all outstanding issues" between the services have been resolved, and officials are ready to sign on to a common solution.

One of the major drivers in leading the Air Force to accept the Army's vision for a vertical take-off aircraft, according to Tenney, is the need for sea-basing, which "drives you to a vertical solution." Tenney was speaking at the Institute for Land Warfare's annual aviation conference on Jan. 9.

"I haven't run into too many people that think we're going to land a 250,000-pound fixed-wing aircraft on any of the ships that we've got," he said.

"There have been barriers, principally from the Air Force, in agreeing to that as a requirement," he added. "I think we're past that now."

Tenney said the sea-basing requirement will be included in the ICD, which he said is expected to be released one more time to the Army next week for "review and comment" before it goes to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

"The problem we've had getting the ICD to the JROC has largely been a cultural issue and has to do with the nature of how we see the use of the airplane," Tenney explained. "The land components--the Army, the Marines and the [Special Operations] community--see this as part of the maneuver forces. And so that's different than how the traditional airlift community has seen their role."

He explained that the Air Force has in the past envisioned its airlift effort as one of a "point to point delivery system, where those points are very well defined, very well controlled locations."

Tenney attributes the shift in the air service's attitude to the leadership of its new chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz. In his previous position as head of Air Force Transportation Command, Schwartz "talked about delivering that 'last tactical mile' for the ground forces," Tenney explained.

"So he's brought that leadership and perspective to the Air Force--delivery to the point of need and maneuver to austere, unimproved locations," he said. "And it's beginning to resonate from the top down."

Approximately $40 million in FY '08 and '09 was budgeted for technology investigation and requirements definition for JFTL. The top five efforts include 11 contracts, some of which fund JHL concept refinement studies by Bell Helicopter Textron [TXT] Boeing [BA], a Karem Aircraft- Lockheed Martin [LMT] team and United Technologies [UTX] Sikorsky Aircraft.

Tenney said the inter-service differences on the project have now been resolved, and the Air Force is committed to the effort.

"They want to support the land component. This is just a different method of transport than they've done before," he said. "I think the official position is...the Air Force is open to the solution set, and we're going to go through a legitimate analysis and let the chips fall where the analysis says they should."

Ztex · **Posted:** Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:18 pm

The V-44 Quad Rotor!

Looks like fun to me.

Robbie Roberts · **Posted:** Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:53 am

Sure, the Osprey worked so well right off the board. I still hate the concept...

Robbie

Neal Nurmi · **Posted:** Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:02 am

Looks to me like spending a very large pile of taxpayer money to buy a very expensive, very complex airplane to do everything -- but will likely do none of its jobs especially well...

Haven't we been down this path before?

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:17 am

Not sure what you're talking about Neal. Seems like a fairly well defined role. I think the thing you have to get your head around (took me a while too after first reading some of the Amry "wish list" for the original specs) is that they want to change Tactical Airlift altogether from a "Point-to-Point" to a "Point-to-Battlespace" whereby Strategic Airlift or Sealift gets the equipment from "Point-to-Point" and Tactical Airlift then takes the equipment and instead of delivering it to an airfield, it delivers the equipment to the front line units or second echelon either via airdrop or direct unload by landing (vertically) at a (relatively) small landing zone that doesn't require the kinds of security and infrastructure currently required, nor does it need the same kind of space (~3000 feet of unobstructed, flat land) needed for a current tactical airstrip.

To me, that's a pretty specific requirement, just like the C-130 - deliver the most equipment into the smallest space possible in direct support of the troops. If the aircraft can land vertically on the battlespace to deliver the equipment, then it can obviously land vertically on a ship or other platform large enough to handle its weight and space requirements, making the aircraft useful to not only the Army and Air Force, but also to the Navy and Marine Corps without having to have a bunch of extraneous requirements.

Also, if you're referring to the V-22 with your previous comment, the V-22's mission is very straightforward as well. The technology required to execute that mission was what has caused the delays. Since the aircraft has now deployed with both the Marine Corps and AFSOC, it's done quite well for itself and displayed a more than adequate 90% mission availability rate, exceeding that of the C-130s by a fair margin and doing jobs that were difficult for Blackhawks and Sea Knights to do as they don't have the same ability to clear the dust after landing that the V-22 has.

The only systems recently acquired that you can even draw any "jack of all trades" comparisons to are the Super Bug (F/A-18E/F/EA-18G) and the F-35A/B/C, but even then, it's nothing like the "multi-role fighter" disasters of the 1970s that resulted in the F-111 (an aircraft that never fully lived up to its potential), the B-1A over-reaching technical capabilities of its time, and the F-14D Super Tomcat that ended up being less maneuverable and much slower than its predecessors all for a marginal increase in capability that was added to the F-14B without loosing as much performance.

Neal Nurmi · **Posted:** Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:41 am

Maybe -- but I just worry a bit as this stuff keeps getting more and more complex and more and more expensive. I even still have doubts about something like the F-22. I know it's a great airplane, but in a real major war situation I think we might find ourselves wishing we had a thousand F-15s instead of 180 Raptors...

Problem with me is I'm old enough to remember when we had to resurrect Skyraiders and B-26s and L-19s to do what the gee whiz fast movers couldn't do, and Crusaders had guns and were shooting down MIGs while gunless Phantoms were shooting Sparrows into empty skies where a MIG was. I remember the TFX and F-111B and McNamara's ideas of what war should be (same for Rummy more recently as far as that goes). I remember when grunts were dying because their fancy high tech plastic M-16s wouldn't work in the swamps, when they would have lived if they had had an M-14 (or a Kalashnikoff).

I'm just not totally convinced that gee whiz high tech will ever really trump simplicity, maintainability, and numbers. I'm not even sure lots of fancy air power will ever totally replace simple boots on the ground -- hence the Rumsfeld comment.

I also tend to regard anybody above a full Bird in this modern military as more of a politician than a soldier and so tend to distrust all these fancy "concepts" raining down from above. But remember also that I was just an E-5 when I served, and so tend to have a rather jaundiced view of officer types in general...

I know none of this is as simple as I'd like it to be and I have no desire to start a big debate here -- I'm just another old fart spouting off and muttering about the old days...

muddyboots · **Posted:** Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:25 am

Neal, I've worried about the same sorts of things. I am concerned like you about that F22. Obviously it's a sweet airplane. But quality can and has been swamped by numbers in the past. The small number of F22's are going to have a hard time handling the calls our present FB force is getting, I'd imagine. I'm concerned the AF is dumping it's desperately important role of ground support in favor of the same pie in the sky dreams it's always pursued. How many times have we had to fend off their attempts to abandon the grunts? Getting them to do ground to air in WWII was literally done with them kicking and screaming and grabbing at the doorframe, and I think there is still on some level the idea that they can fly around at 30 grand and drop rocks on the other guys cities and that'll do the trick. It didn't do it in WWII and it didn't do it in Afghanistan, and it won't do it in the next kerfluffle.

I can say the same for any number of Army systems. They're putting expensive toys in front of the mission, and neglecting their most important weapons platform: a dirty stinky kid with muddy boots. They should be putting top priority on taking care of those kids, and making them feel appreciated, and wanted, and needed, and more importantly be putting every penny they can into keeping them alive. There is a limit to what force multipliers can do, when the guys on the ground are driving around in the same HUMVEES we were bringing back looking like Swiss cheese in Mogadishu. I mean, that one took TEN YEARS for them to figure out? WTF?

Now, this bird is pretty cool, I admit. But how many are there goig to be, and will they really be able to slip into a forward area, drop a bunch of panties and fishnet stocking off, and get away before the cops show up? I think it'll have a niche and it may do it well. But there are other issues I think we need to be looking at before we start pumping money into new wizzbangs.

noizeedave · **Posted:** Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:45 am

Like the Dakota saying goes....

Nothing Replaces a C-130, but another C-130!

Sorry, no replacement available. I have the newer J model now, and it doesnt replace the E model, so I doubt the Quad Crapper will replace anything but the Stimulus Check we would have gotten from the government if the Army didnt try to buy this thing!

The Inspector · **Posted:** Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:55 am

Nightmare visions of the Curtiss-Wright X-19!!
How come I have to submit to whiz quizes to keep my A&P and these morons all act like they're smokin' crack? And on my tax money!!

Ken · **Posted:** Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:00 am

Neal and Muddy - you guys hit the nail(s) on the head. Great post(s). Polish 'em up and send 'em to your Senators to boot.

Ken

Ztex · **Posted:** Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:20 am

Remember I'm just a younger fart spouting off... :lol:

I agree that things are getting way too complex and expensive.
Everything seems to be going that way.
Look at cars. In the US they all have a computer and fuel injection. Most have anitlock brakes and many other bells and whistles. There are reasons for a lot of this...fuel economy, cleaner burning, lower (overall) maintenance and safety.
BUT...it is way too complex...TV? iPod? heck even my toaster has some sort of electro-logic built in so it wont burn a bagel...

It is scary to think that some sort of digital bug or a good old EMP might turn off all the lights.

On the other hand...the modern battlefield has been made much more precise and lethal for the bad guy by all the technology at our disposal. The F-22 and it's pilot can cover much more ground and fight many more targets at one time than anything before. The three F-35 variants are gonna be like junior F-22's...a bit cheaper and simpler but still very effective. All this with commonality built into the system from the get go for better production and ease of maintenance. (Supposedly)

New tech like the V-22 is very interesting to me. This is a 50 year old dream of a combination of vertical lift and high speed that has finally made it beyond the prototype. It is working.
To say that it is useless because of teething pains is turning a bit of a blind eye to history. How well did the first jet engines work? The Me-262 was a wicked machine...with engines that could kill you...eight hours TBO...if you were lucky. If you apply the V-22 is junk type of standard to that...we should never have invested in the turbine engine...

(Disclaimer...I am a home team fan...the V-22 and the F-22/F-35 were developed by people that live in my town, that I know....I think they are way cool and you'll not be convincing me otherwise...
:wink:

)

paul smith · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:26 pm

I don't know guys, that seems like an awful lot of money to develop an aircraft that will only carry 5 pallets. That's not a lot of cargo. And if you take a hit in one of those engines, things are going to get really exciting really quick. Autorotation is not an option and you have 4 times as many chances of losing one. In a 130, it's no big deal if you lose an engine. This whole concept is just so we can develop an aircraft that will work for all the services. They tried it before and McNamara forced the Air Force to take a Navy Fighter that was too heavy and smoked like your first car. They called it the F-4.

It's the same mentality that gave us the General Purpose Machine Gun. The M-60. Otherwise known as the Pig. We spent the next 30 years trying to get it to work. The same idea in putting a coffee grinder in the buttstock of a Sharp's rifle. It didn't shoot worth a darn and your coffee tasted like gun oil and rotten eggs.

marine air · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:25 pm

IF I remember correctly when my Guard unit transitioned from C-130A's to C-130H's there were a few notable changes . I believe the H model is about 40K lbs heavier at empty weight than the A model. The A model was more maneuverable and this had something to do with rudder boost. The H model had much more powerful engines. The A model when it had three bladed props had better performance than the later 4 bladed props .
So I'm in the camp that the only way to beat a C-130 is with another C-130!
A redesign would include; Try to do a major weight reducing program.
2)redesign the engines so that they are located above the wing and the exhaust goes above the wing to reduce their heat signature.
3) Leading edge slats to increase takeoff performance, gross payload, and shorten landing distances , more aggresive flaps, with the exhaust dispersed along the wing for more STOL capability.
I would like to see winglets added , and ventral fins added on the tail and similar to the Raisbeck designs on the King Air and Learjet upgrades.
My friends that flew C-130's tell me they never went above 25,000 feet.
King Air's have evolved so that they can cruise on up to 35,000 feet. So I would like to see the pressurization system improved, and airplane designed so that at certain weights and air temps it can climb up to the thinner air. Fuel savings is dramatic above 28k so this would mean more range available, or more cargo allowed with less fuel needed. ALso means better tailwinds available at those altitudes and faster cruise speeds.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:27 pm

Paul,

First, the F-4 wasn't a failure. It was probably one of the few real successes of McNamara's idiocy. The thing was - the plane was fine once the services were allowed to make the needed modifications to it. That happened once McNamara left office and it became one of the widest serving aircraft in the Western Alliance. If you want to highlight the failures of his policies, point to the F-111. Worked great in its intended role (low level nuclear interdictor), but couldn't do all the other stuff and other service duties he wanted it to.

Also, be careful with using the term "General Purpose Machine Gun" and M-60 in the same sentence. The GPMG is a production weapon that's served the UK and other Western forces quite well for the last 30+ years. Now it's serving the US well - it's called the M240G. It's got a little brother - the M249, aka the "Minimi" for everyone else. The M249 is great at laying down a lot of fire, but doesn't do it accurately. Conversely, the M240 and the M60 do a good job of laying down accurate cover fire, especially the M60E3, such a good weapon, it's still in use by the USSOCOM forces.

paul smith · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:46 pm

Well that is pretty much what I said. The M60E3. It took 30 years to get to the E3. I'm talking about the A Model that I used back in the 70's. It was a piece of crap that they tried to rework from an MG-42 with the roller lock system. It was too heavy, it broke all the time, it didn't jam so often, but the damned barrels overheated too easily and there were 6 parts you could put in backwards and you didn't know it until you pulled the trigger and it went Clunk. It was held together with safety wire. It wasn't light enough to use in a tactical role and it wasn't accurate enough to use over 300 yards in a defensive role. If it didn't spray hot oil all over you, you didn't have enough oil on it. And when we got them they were called General Purpose Machine Guns. You found them everywhere. They were on vehicles, they were on Tanks, they were on APC's they were on helicopters. They were even in the Sponsons of OV-10s. They tried to get it to do too many things and it did none of them well.

The F-4 was not designed as a fighter aircraft. It was designed to fly straight and level very fast and intercept Bear Bombers over the ice caps and launch missles from far away. It had no guns and no reliable missles to launch. The reason we had to use it was because the whiz kids told us we would never again fight a conventional war. (See, it says right here on page 42 , paragraph 9 of the appreciation you should have read before you came to the briefing Major. Now go back to your squadron and do your homework and stop telling me you want guns.) The reason the Air Force had to use it was because the whiz kids said if it's good enough for the Navy it's good enough for the Air Force. (It's a fighter. It says F doesn't it? That means it's a fighter. You're an officer. You should know this by now,)It didn't maneuver as well as everybody else's fighters did, it used far too much fuel and the engines smoked so badly it was like contrails. It required too many maintenance hours to keep it in the air and it had too many electronic systems that were not mission essential for a fighter or fighter/bomber.

And besides, what else did we have? F-101's? F-102's?

Warbird Information Exchange

C-130 replacement planned with fling winger

Who is online