Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Selects Companies To Build Flying Humvees
longacre sends in a quote from Popular Mechanics:
"The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has selected two companies to proceed with the next stage of its Transformer, known as TX — a fully automated four-person vehicle that can drive like a car and then take off and fly like an aircraft to avoid roadside bombs. Lockheed Martin and AAI Corp., a unit of Textron Systems, are currently in negotiations with DARPA for the first stage of the Transformer project, several industry sources told Popular Mechanics at a robotics conference here in Denver."
The picture included with the linked article says it all, really.
Coming from a guy that designs military combat vehicles for a living, this is another disaster in the works. If you need some reference material look at the Osprey program or the AAAV program. Both are massive failures with colossal budget overruns and they are similar in scope to this flying humvee idea.
This design looks like a militarized gyrocopter.
Ruggedness, anyone? Now we have big flying targets well over the horizon to be seen by snipers and guys with RPGs.
Turn into a jet (like a boss)
Bomb the Russians (like a boss)
Crash into the sun (like a boss)
Now I'm dead (like a boss)
Uh huh. So that's an average day for you then?
No doubt
You chop your balls off and die?
Hell yeah.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
I can tell you right now this will fail and I can tell you why - it will cost less to run a heavily armoured vehicle than it would to fly even a lightly armoured one.
When attacking a ground vehicle, an adversary can set off an explosive almost directly underneath a vehicle, and can aim a blast at specific parts of the vehicle; this is how EFP's work. (EFP's are fundamentally different from IEDs in the manner they're deployed.) All the adversary needs to aim it is a reference point like a tree or a telephone pole.
Most ground movement will always be on roads because off-road travel is slow, dangerous and requires a tremendous amount of maintenance. You never see in movies what it's like to recover a stuck vehicle, or recover a tank that's thrown track. So ground vehicles have to carry large amounts of armor because they're going to get hit, and they're going to be right next to the explosion when they do. It is a good idea to simply get off the ground and not get blown up.
Having driven MRAPs for a while, I think they're useful in places like Baghdad where there's a significant threat of harassment from IEDs, and where you've got reasonably good roads. But I'm doubtful that you can take the v-shaped hull concept and apply it to a purely tactical vehicle, as v-shaped means a high profile and high center of gravity. And in a place like Afghanistan, where roads are mountainous, narrow or non-existent, you're probably stuck flying anyway.
Apaches don't go down that often.
1 out of 277 in Desert Storm, 1 shot down in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and 11 others lost in Iraq with 10 lost in Afghanistan. Those losses include weather and mechanical failure.
Thats 1.7 lost a year in Iraq, 1.11 lost a year in Afghanistan.
They don't get shot down that easily.
While Humvees are indeed heavier than this (5200-5900 pounds,
When I left Afghanistan about six months ago, Humvees were well over 10,000 pounds. Come to think of it, they weighed about the same in Iraq in 2006.
12 lost in Iraq with 10 lost in Afghanistan. Those losses include weather and mechanical failure.
Thats 1.7 lost a year in Iraq, 1.11 lost a year in Afghanistan.
They don't get shot down that easily.
You mean, other than, say, intercepting a couple of Russian Bear bombers over the Arctic last week?
You may not be aware of it, but Canada has an air force, and is a member of NORAD.
We're buying some Joint Strike Fighters too.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.