Comments on: Airlift Gap Looms For Last Mile

By: JCitizen

JCitizen — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 04:44:10 +0000

Although I’m sure the Germans developed a flying glider tank which was a very good design; they did have something about as good:

http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/10450...

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 04:44:26 +0000

Actually,it was tried in WW2: http://www.weaponsblog.org/entry/antonov-kt-40-fl...

By: RalphMalph

RalphMalph — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:51:19 +0000

Simple solution — Flying Tanks.

By: Dick

Dick — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:33:57 +0000

Jason,
The V-22 does use less fuel per nautical mile than the CH-53E. The V-22 generally carries less payload, but can carry it much farther than the helicopter due to its more efficient forward flight configuration.
Cheers,
Dick

By: JCitizen

JCitizen — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:30:00 +0000

COOL!!!! Awesom video by the way!

By: JCitizen

JCitizen — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:21:47 +0000

Thanks Jim;

Very interesting!

By: Jim Roberts

Jim Roberts — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:24:39 +0000

See Carter Copters (http://www.cartercopters.com)

It’s proven technology.

It can be scaled to carry tanks by using existing PWC jet engines, and it’s runway independent

Its patents are available for license by a prime contractor.

By: Jim Roberts

Jim Roberts — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:19:55 +0000

Wrong. See http://www.cartercopters.com

There is a problem, however, but it’s not the lack of technology or engines. Both exist; both are readily at hand.

It’s a service culture that is geared only to evolutionary not revolutionary solutions.

Bell Helicopter is well aware of Carter’s achievement (they are 60 miles apart), but Bell suffers from NIH big time (Not Invented Here).

The Chinese will probably make use of the technology for Heavy Lift. They are committed to building an indigenous aviation industry

By: Jose J Clavell

Jose J Clavell — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:36:40 +0000

The noted V-44 may be the answer.

By: ath

ath — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:08:43 +0000

53k is in development. Lighter,faster, glass cockpit,more lift etc…

By: Bronco46

Bronco46 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:14:32 +0000

Money needs to be put into this for something to replace the CH-53 for heavy lift, with improved survivability. But keep the bells and whistles to a minimum so it isn’t cost prohibitive.

By: ath

ath — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:45:12 +0000

X-2 is coming..Sikorsky had done a lot with little R&D money. It’s flying and technology is scalable/viable.

By: Rupert Fiennes

Rupert Fiennes — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:08:06 +0000

Hmm…come up with a dumb requirement, get no practical solution! DOD seems keen on making the similar mistakes they did with FCS. There is *no way* we can afford to produce enough of a vertical lift transport to carry a significant number 40 ton vehicles around the battlefield, and even if we could, we couldn’t transport the fuel they would need. Technology won’t solve this one, even if you go for less purist VTOL solutions like rotodynes.

Air-Mech is only reasonably practical when the vehicles are reasonably lightweight (around 10 tonnes), and anything large scale will have to be delivered by fixed wing aircraft (eg parachute). FCS failed because they insisted on combining the roles of two different vehicles; a Bradley/Abrams and a vehicle similar to a UK CVR(T). Don’t make the same mistake twice!

By: Jason Bourne

Jason Bourne — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:15:15 +0000

Newer power or engine technology needs to be found. Rotor has hit the ceiling unless more rotors and push fans are added (X-49 Sikorsky). Tilt is awesome, but try and tell me that the V-22 consumes less fuel than a CH-53. Quicker yes, more efficient.… I don’t know. Fixed is the best option, but lifting off vertically and leaving the battle zone quickly like a helicopter is a price worth paying.

So, every option has a negative. So be like a Swiss army blade and build a mixture. Will it cost more? Yes. Will you be able to operate anywhere? Yes. Figure out the future operations, add a little crazy, and build something.

(also, build it the right way, and don’t add a bunch of other things after its started. Leave all that for version 2 and beyond. Companies love sequels and you get a better product with each new version)