Stealth transports

[RussC]

Here they are, whiffs in the wind tunnel.
 
Do we really need low-observable to carry cargo?
 
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/images-lockheeds-stealth-c-130.html

[PR19_Kit]

Some of the comments make a lot of sense. Those engines are IMMENSE and will surely prevent any hope of it being 'stealthy' from the frontal view. And there's little point in a stealth para-dropper because as soon as the rear door opens and the load is deployed any stealth goes out the window.

I wonder what it's REALLY for?

[rickshaw]

I suspect its being driven by the Special Forces mob.  They seem to like sneaking in and out of places where they aren't wanted.  This merely means they can do it in larger numbers.

[scooter]

Here they are, whiffs in the wind tunnel.
 
Do we really need low-observable to carry cargo?

Screw stealth.  Unless we're going to war with the Soviet Union anytime soon, nothing needs to be stealthy anymore.  It needs to be mission survivable.  The AF is going the same route it did in the 50s and 60s developing PNPGs and not enough on CAS aircraft.

[Weaver]

Need to read the article carefully folks. It's described as a model of a FOUR engined configuration that incorporates two Williams FJ44 engines : in other words, the wind tunnel model has REAL jet engines in it and for whatever reason, that's more important than it being a perfect model of the real thing.

The only reaon I can think of for that is that it incorporates one hell of a lot of wing blowing and/or vectored thrust; too much for them to just pipe pressurised air into it. Look at the wierd shape of the back of the nozzles for confirmation: they taper upwards, so IMHO, they're either taking a lot of air up into the wing, or the back end of them includes a diagonal array of cascade vanes to vector the thrust downwards. Vertical thrust might explain why they're tucked in close to the body like that: they're keeping the thrust line as close to the centreline as possible.

[rickshaw]

Here they are, whiffs in the wind tunnel.
 
Do we really need low-observable to carry cargo?

Screw stealth.  Unless we're going to war with the Soviet Union anytime soon, nothing needs to be stealthy anymore.  It needs to be mission survivable.  The AF is going the same route it did in the 50s and 60s developing PNPGs and not enough on CAS aircraft.

Rather a short-sighted view, methinks.  There are other threats than the fUSSR which the West needs to be concerned about and which are rapidly approaching ADGEs as sophisticated as the fUSSR's were (hint, PRC).  Stealth is the game changer, they're spending a lot on developing it, so they obviously must think its worthwhile.

Anyway, traditional CAS is pretty much gone the way of the horse-drawn buggy.  Those smart weapons are more accurate and cheaper, in both manpower costs overall and effectiveness than hanging dumb bombs on a plane that can be shot down before it can get close enough to use them.   If you want that sort of CAS (on the battlefield for first world nations) then spend your money on helicopters.  If you want advanced CAS, against the Fedayeen/Mujihadeen/Taliban/etc., spend your money on converting a C-130/A400 to carry LOTS of smart weapons.  If you want advanced CAS against first world enemies, then spend your money on something like the F-35.

[scooter]

Here they are, whiffs in the wind tunnel.
 
Do we really need low-observable to carry cargo?

Screw stealth.  Unless we're going to war with the Soviet Union anytime soon, nothing needs to be stealthy anymore.  It needs to be mission survivable.  The AF is going the same route it did in the 50s and 60s developing PNPGs and not enough on CAS aircraft.

Rather a short-sighted view, methinks.  There are other threats than the fUSSR which the West needs to be concerned about and which are rapidly approaching ADGEs as sophisticated as the fUSSR's were (hint, PRC).  Stealth is the game changer, they're spending a lot on developing it, so they obviously must think its worthwhile.

I like my shortsighted view.  I agree that stealth is a game changer, but for a tactical transport?  As Kit pointed out, as soon as the jumpers are out the back, the radar signature blows way up, unless they're going to use radar transparent composites for the doors, blast deflectors and ramps.  Stealth also is a big issue when it comes to the maintenance aspect of the aircraft.  Every time a panel is opened, the plane, generally, needs to go back into paint shop to be repainted.  And transports are more maintenance intensive than fighters, flying longer hours, and especially if they've been bouncing down unimproved runways and sucking all sorts of crud into the intakes.

Anyway, traditional CAS is pretty much gone the way of the horse-drawn buggy.  Those smart weapons are more accurate and cheaper, in both manpower costs overall and effectiveness than hanging dumb bombs on a plane that can be shot down before it can get close enough to use them.   If you want that sort of CAS (on the battlefield for first world nations) then spend your money on helicopters.  If you want advanced CAS, against the Fedayeen/Mujihadeen/Taliban/etc., spend your money on converting a C-130/A400 to carry LOTS of smart weapons.  If you want advanced CAS against first world enemies, then spend your money on something like the F-35.

I work in an ANG ASOS, and you still need someone on the ground to talk to the aircraft, deconflict the airspace between fast jets, helos and artillery, and tell the pilots exactly *where* to put their ordinance.  You can only do so much from the air, even as a Fast FAC.  And you can't carry enough ordinance or gas to make long loiters/multiple strike packages without hanging external ordinance on the wings.  Sure you can suck on a tanker at your loiter point, but they just replace gas not bombs and bullets.  That's where something as ugly as the A-10 comes into play.  Sure, it ain't stealthy, and it *may* not survive a Sino-Soviet layered defense, but that's what jammers/SEAD and air supremacy airframes are for- secure the airspace over the battlefield so the Army and the attack pukes can have a MiG free time raining death on the bad guys.

[RussC]

Here they are, whiffs in the wind tunnel.
 
Do we really need low-observable to carry cargo?

Screw stealth.  Unless we're going to war with the Soviet Union anytime soon, nothing needs to be stealthy anymore.  It needs to be mission survivable.  The AF is going the same route it did in the 50s and 60s developing PNPGs and not enough on CAS aircraft.

Rather a short-sighted view, methinks.  There are other threats than the fUSSR which the West needs to be concerned about and which are rapidly approaching ADGEs as sophisticated as the fUSSR's were (hint, PRC).  Stealth is the game changer, they're spending a lot on developing it, so they obviously must think its worthwhile.

I like my shortsighted view.  I agree that stealth is a game changer, but for a tactical transport?  As Kit pointed out, as soon as the jumpers are out the back, the radar signature blows way up, unless they're going to use radar transparent composites for the doors, blast deflectors and ramps.  Stealth also is a big issue when it comes to the maintenance aspect of the aircraft.  Every time a panel is opened, the plane, generally, needs to go back into paint shop to be repainted.  And transports are more maintenance intensive than fighters, flying longer hours, and especially if they've been bouncing down unimproved runways and sucking all sorts of crud into the intakes.

Anyway, traditional CAS is pretty much gone the way of the horse-drawn buggy.  Those smart weapons are more accurate and cheaper, in both manpower costs overall and effectiveness than hanging dumb bombs on a plane that can be shot down before it can get close enough to use them.   If you want that sort of CAS (on the battlefield for first world nations) then spend your money on helicopters.  If you want advanced CAS, against the Fedayeen/Mujihadeen/Taliban/etc., spend your money on converting a C-130/A400 to carry LOTS of smart weapons.  If you want advanced CAS against first world enemies, then spend your money on something like the F-35.

I work in an ANG ASOS, and you still need someone on the ground to talk to the aircraft, deconflict the airspace between fast jets, helos and artillery, and tell the pilots exactly *where* to put their ordinance.  You can only do so much from the air, even as a Fast FAC.  And you can't carry enough ordinance or gas to make long loiters/multiple strike packages without hanging external ordinance on the wings.  Sure you can suck on a tanker at your loiter point, but they just replace gas not bombs and bullets.  That's where something as ugly as the A-10 comes into play.  Sure, it ain't stealthy, and it *may* not survive a Sino-Soviet layered defense, but that's what jammers/SEAD and air supremacy airframes are for- secure the airspace over the battlefield so the Army and the attack pukes can have a MiG free time raining death on the bad guys.

  Well said.
 
  That's also what drones are supposed to be for, although we have become used to having them be the party crashers at terrorist meetings, the real thing for them is ironhand/wild weasel/ sam suppression like the Israeli's proved. Send in the clones and drones, then when you need loiter and exploiter bring in the Warthogs, choppers and Puff the Magic Dragon or Spooky.
   
   I guess stealthy refueling tankers are the next thing.

[rickshaw]

I like my shortsighted view.  I agree that stealth is a game changer, but for a tactical transport? 

Your comments weren't directed to the supposed need for a tactical transport but to CAS.  My comment was in reply to that.

As Kit pointed out, as soon as the jumpers are out the back, the radar signature blows way up, unless they're going to use radar transparent composites for the doors, blast deflectors and ramps.  Stealth also is a big issue when it comes to the maintenance aspect of the aircraft.  Every time a panel is opened, the plane, generally, needs to go back into paint shop to be repainted.  And transports are more maintenance intensive than fighters, flying longer hours, and especially if they've been bouncing down unimproved runways and sucking all sorts of crud into the intakes.

I agree that for a tactical transport, stealth is questionable, except perhaps for a small number utilised by special forces for those missions that need them.

I work in an ANG ASOS, and you still need someone on the ground to talk to the aircraft, deconflict the airspace between fast jets, helos and artillery, and tell the pilots exactly *where* to put their ordinance. 

Yes, but that really is only a support service to enable CAS occur, it is not CAS itself.

The ASOS controllers will still be needed without a doubt.

You can only do so much from the air, even as a Fast FAC.  And you can't carry enough ordinance or gas to make long loiters/multiple strike packages without hanging external ordinance on the wings.  Sure you can suck on a tanker at your loiter point, but they just replace gas not bombs and bullets.  That's where something as ugly as the A-10 comes into play.  Sure, it ain't stealthy, and it *may* not survive a Sino-Soviet layered defense, but that's what jammers/SEAD and air supremacy airframes are for- secure the airspace over the battlefield so the Army and the attack pukes can have a MiG free time raining death on the bad guys.

Your statement has several assumptions.

The first is that CAS can only be accomplished one way.  That isn't necessarily true and even the method you've suggested isn't necessary perhaps the best way of accomplishing it.  You are assuming that you need large quantities of ordnance.  Smart weapons ensure greater effectiveness through greater accuracy.  In the past, large quantities of ordnance were required to achieve the same effect.   Anyway, helicopters are cheaper, carry nearly as much as an A-10 and can loiter longer and have faster turn around times.  They are what should be used on/over the battlefield.  Aircraft can/should support them but they fly higher and faster, to avoid the enemy defensive systems.

The second is that your forces will always have air dominance.   Thats a dangerous assumption to make and ignores the period when you're either achieving it or perhaps even worse, losing it.   That is when stealth comes into its own.  It allows you to be sneaky and defeat your enemy by attacking unexpectedly.  You're also assuming th that enemy air defences need to be layed to be effective.  As was shown in the first Gulf War, they don't.  If your aircraft are going to have to come down low and fly comparatively slowly to make their strikes they are vulnerable to light and medium AAA - as several Tonka crews found out to their cost on the first days of the war.   

That, more than anything has forced air attacks to now routinely use smart weapons from high/medium altitude.  Without stealth that means you must make a heavy investment in SEAD assets to defeat the outer layers of that air defence.  Stealth relieves your forces of that burden to a large extent (not completely, just a lot).

So, we have several reasons for stealth.

1) The need to fly at medium/high altitudes to deliver strikes because massive low-level AAA defences have no made it nearly suicidal to fly such a mission profile which the use of dumb bombs require.
2) To decrease the need for massive quantities of SEAD assets to achieve air dominance against enemy AD environments.
3) To provide advantage in air dominance missions.
.

[ChernayaAkula]

Stealthy transport! Now with more "spooky" for your Spooky!   

I suspect its being driven by the Special Forces mob.  They seem to like sneaking in and out of places where they aren't wanted.  This merely means they can do it in larger numbers.

"Screw going after bin Laden's hide-out in a couple of choppers. We're takin' the whole darn town!"

[Weaver]

The next thing will be a stealthy MOAB to stealthily push out of the back of it......

[Taiidantomcat]

The next thing will be a stealthy MOAB to stealthily push out of the back of it......

I like the way you think!    

It won't be RPGs and IEDs forever, Proliferation of SAMs and other dangers, along with the political issues of losing a ton of expensively special forces is a bad thing. Remember stealth gives you versatility, You can do different things without having to call out a whole air armada to cover you. Didn't we just use Stealth in Pakistan to get Public Enemy Number 1? Notice how we didn't have to go to war with an entire country and destabilize a shaky yet friendly Nuclear armed regime to get what who wanted? Thats worth a lot of money to me. I also doubt that this thing will be a simple trash hauler. Throw cameras on it and it can orbit and wait, C&C, SIGINT, and all kinds of other secret stuff you would like to do without worrying about being shot at.

Also (and really think about this) the Post Vietnam US military has gone to war several times to get ONE MAN, the exception with this is the 1991 gulf war, and of course we just went after that one man 12 years later. Would be nice to get a team of men in there without committing a whole massive force. No matter how expensive this thing is, its still cheaper to get your Qaddaffi, Noriega, Milosivic, Adid, Hussein, and Bin Laden, without committing conventional forces to years of conflicts/rebuilding.

There is a niche for it. Have some imagination.  




Here is a pic of a Herky bird taking off a forward airfield. Special Ops prefer to land and offload equipment, rather than dropping it. That means landing on a bad guys home turf, best he not know you are there.

[Hobbes]

As it has always been, stealth is not a matter of total invisibility: it's about reducing the radar/IR detection range. Any reduction can be useful since it lowers the chance of the enemy shooting down the transport. At the current price for an aircraft, you can't afford a high attrition rate, so it wouldn't surprise me if stealth features would become ubiquitous.

The fact that the aircraft's radar signature will increase with the door open is rarely a problem. If an aircraft is detected when the door opens, you have some time (depending on how ready the enemy air defences are) before the first missile arrives. As long as you close the door before the missile has a good lock, you still profit from stealth.

[Weaver]

Also, if you're using it for a stealthy paradrop, the signature compromise of the open door might not be that significant. You fly through the gaps in their radar screen created by the fact that their detection range against you is reduced by the steath, then drop your guys when you're out of range behind that screen....

Anyway, who says you have to open a big unstealthy door to do a paradrop? You could easily have a man-size hatch in the floor, or the ramp, for just that purpose, with signature-reducing features around it. You might almost imagine an airlock-style arrangement, with an inner "room" around the hatch lined with RAM, so that any waves that did get in never got out again.

[Rheged]

You could easily have a man-size hatch in the floor, or the ramp, for just that purpose, with signature-reducing features around it.

Ask any Second World War parachutist about the famous "Whiteley Kiss"  It happened as you donged your head on the hatch side as you went out. An elderly acquaintance of mine was extremely eloquent about it!