Pentagon Selects Companies To Build Flying Humvees 302
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.
Yeah, OK... (Score:3, Informative)
So in essence... (Score:3, Informative)
Ruggedness, anyone? Now we have big flying targets well over the horizon to be seen by snipers and guys with RPGs.
close, but wrong meme. (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:They have too much money... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Belt and Suspenders. . . (Score:1, Informative)
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.
Re:One word: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:One word: (Score:1, Informative)
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.
Re:Why so long? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:So in essence... (Score:3, Informative)
The military has been trying to develop a "flying jeep" since the late 1940s. In the '50s there was the Avrocar project which was a flying saucer with a jet engine in the middle and two seats. It had a few tethered test flights but was never stable.
Their motivation was the ability to cross terrain where a jeep could not normally go, e.g. a forest or very steep incline with loose earth. Damaged roads and bridges were also a concern, as well a land mines.
I imagine those reasons still exist, but now the technology is more practical. Computer aided flight in particular can make a very unstable aircraft flyable (e.g. the early stealth bombers) and even allow non-pilots to learn to fly them with only basic training.