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.
How long... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious to know how it will get around in urban warfare setting with narrow streets with that wing-span.
Re:So in essence... (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to know how they expect this to help in any way, shape or form. The idea behind road-side bombs (IED's) is to remain as stealth as possible and then detonate as the vehicle or convoy is passing. I have two friends who served in Iraq: one who lucky survived an IED blast with only cuts and partial hearing loss (the gunner died from shrapnel and the passenger had severe injuries) and the other had the Humvee in front of his hit but thankfully no deaths. One even told me a story that they walked over an IED after they went to investigate suspicious movement in a building and it detonated but it was a 155mm shell buried upside down so the blast dissipated into the ground. They were lucky.
Most of the IED's are disguised as broken down cars, carts or buried in the road itself. Some are poorly disguised, an example was one of my friends was in a convoy that stopped when a very out of place pile of rocks was spotted up the road. That IED was detonated by M2 machine gun fire. So some can be avoided but others are almost impossible to spot. Detonation was an area of interest and Army EOD (explosive ordinance division) was called in to disarm and study the methods of detonation used. Some were set off by a guy hiding near by with a wired detonator (my friend always said he pictured Wile E. Coyote hiding behind a rock with a plunger type detonator.) Others are set off using cell phones and in one case, timed by a washing machine timer (that one failed to detonate).
So I really want to know if this is a ridiculous idea someone came up with or some form of pay out as a favor. It makes absolutely no sense. Besides this is the same military that sent Humvee with no doors or armor. Their only defense was to cover the floor with sand bags and pray they didn't take fire through the doors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before I read the article I was thinking in terms of an advanced ground effect vehicle. Maybe with four small turbine engines. Enough to get you over a road block, and set fire to it as a bonus.
Another thought was the hybrid APC in Aliens. The top half is basically a helicopter. It drops on to the road and releases an armoured vehicle. The helicopter alone is very light so it can loiter above the field of operations providing a high view of the area. When the APC wants to be picked up they find an open area
Re: (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 techno
Re: (Score:2)
If this finally gets us flying cars ... who cares? What could possibly go wrong?? :-P
(And, yes, I am aware that we may not actually want most people navigating in three dimensions)
Re:How long... (Score:4, Funny)
Navigating 3D space just requires its own sort of "Drivers test".
I nominate Descent [wikipedia.org] as the best candidate to virtually test if a person is capable of navigating 3D space.
If they Die - they fail.
3 Bumps - they fail.
If they don't make it out before the level blows up - hmmm 1 demerit.
Airborn, huh? (Score:4, Funny)
That's not a Transformer (Score:5, Funny)
That is clearly a M.A.S.K. vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The autobots couldn't fly in the original cartoon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Here is a 15 second clip of the most recent prototype [youtube.com]. From the looks of it, it just seems they're about halfway done. A billion dollars in R&D should easily get them higher clearances.
Re: (Score:2)
If they make a motorbike that transforms into a helicopter then my life will be complete.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, not lame enough [adultswim.com].
Weird... (Score:2, Funny)
At this rate we'll have flying school buses before flying cars.
Well I'm glad (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just, ummm, use helicopters instead of humvees? Is there any reason they have to do all that driving? Where are they going to/from?
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, recorded history [wikipedia.org].
they already have this ... helicopters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:they already have this ... helicopters (Score:5, Insightful)
Helicopters can not be driven on the ground and can not be flown by 18 year old combat infantry.
Re:they already have this ... helicopters (Score:5, Insightful)
Helicopters don't need to be driven on the ground - BECAUSE THEY CAN FLY - and nor could any flying vehicle be operated by 18 year old combat infantry.
So really, is the cost in fuel savings for being able to temporarily drive on the ground, or temporarily lift off, really worth the money being dumped into the engineering, design and production of this vehicle, not to mention the increased target profile...
Is it really worth it when we have vehicles that already fit this niche pretty well? You need to avoid the ground, go by air. We have air. You're going to need a qualified flight operator whether you only need to fly 50m or 5000m, so its not like you're saving on personel training by implementing this.
Re:they already have this ... helicopters (Score:4, Funny)
Say this out loud:
"FLYING HUMVEES."
Check your pants, do you have an erection after saying that? If not then there is something wrong with you. Yes, even if you're female. Really that's FLYING HUMVEES!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd vote for modified helicopters.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:they already have this ... helicopters (Score:5, Insightful)
Helicopters are very expensive, and it's enormously expensive to train the pilots to fly them (about $600 per hour for flight training in a turbine helicopter, just for operating/fuel/maintenance costs, instructor costs and overhead are extra). Helicopters are not very fuel efficient. And that's for a trainer helicopter; something armored like an Apache costs way more per flight-hour.
This "flying jeep" is just ridiculous. It's basically a form of helicopter with wings for better fuel efficiency once under-way. But with wings on the side (plus big long rotor blades on top), there's no way it can drive on normal roads. The current Humvee is already almost too wide for standard roads. Plus, helicopters are already vulnerable to small-arms fire, unless they have tons of armor (like the Apache, which is big, expensive, and a fuel hog); this thing obviously doesn't have much armor.
This project just looks like a way to give someone a bunch of taxpayer money for some stupid drawings and pointless meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
The flying jeep will be more expensive than helicopters...
Re:they already have this ... helicopters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is wrong. Very, very wrong. You now need both flight and drive systems, a pilot instead of a driver and you will have to trade armor for the ability to fly.
Re:they already have this ... helicopters (Score:4, Insightful)
"I think the idea is that driving 95 miles and flying 5 is cheaper than flying 100 miles."
It's a stupid idea. If you want airpower, buy aircraft.
Driving anything that is light enough to fly 95 miles will beat the shit out of it, and it will remain far too light to be protective.
It's a fit project for DARPA to EXPLORE tech that could get closer, but the goal is a benchmark, obviously not intended to be practical for decades if ever.
ROBOTECH its about time! (Score:2)
... what. (Score:4, Insightful)
What. To avoid roadside bombs, we're making Humvees that can fly automatically.
Tomorrow's news: in order to prevent heat stroke in our soldiers, the Pentagon has begun selecting companies to build a satellite that will block out the sun.
Belt and Suspenders. . . (Score:2)
Is it just me, or does it seem kind of redundant to have a rotary wing (helicopter style rotor), and fixed wing with rear-thrust device (can't tell if it's a jet or what it is, but the picture seems to have something at the rear of the car which looks like it's to produce thrust). I suppose sometimes redundancy is good, but in this case, wouldn't those two different types of flight systems interfere with each other (that is, either one is making you fly and the other is creating unnecessary drag/weight, or
Re: (Score:2)
Gyrocopter style lift?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By definition, a flying vehicle must have less armor than a ground-based one.
Not necessarily. The Apache is well-armored, and uses depleted uranium for armor I believe. However, it's big, really expensive, and a serious fuel-guzzler.
But you're right, there's no way this thing won't suck balls. There's no way it can even drive on normal roads with the wings.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet cheap RPGs still kill Apaches.
Re: (Score:2)
The artist's rendering is a picture of a flying car with a guy shooting out the door with a kind of "pchew, pchew" visual effect.
I wouldn't read anything about any actual technology from this. It's popular mechanics filling in a visual, I doubt very much that it's rooted in anything meaningful.
Heck, I doubt they'll be able to build a flying HMMV. Nobody has managed to create a flying car yet -- at least,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure either a rotary wing or fixed wing is going to react/get you airborne fast enough to avoid the IED. I'd almost think you'd need something like rockets pointed toward the ground that you could fire almost instantly and 'launch' the vehicle some height in the air. . . then you need to figure out how to get it safely down again.
Where am I? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did I accidentally get redirected to The Onion?
One word: (Score:5, Insightful)
Armor.
What kind of armor can a flying Humvee really have? Military-spec Humvees are already heavier than a fat chick at an all you can eat buffet with a bag of holding...how do they expect to make them take off quickly at any given time?
Re: (Score:2)
You put a couple of fuel-hungry jet engines on them, driving rotor blades on top. They already have such a vehicle, called the "Apache helicopter".
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, cheap RPGs kill those. The apache is also a fighting air vehicle not a troop transport.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They can't, and therein lies the big problem. Things that work well on the ground don't tend to work well in the air, and vice versa.
The military already had a vehicle that worked fairly well in VTOL and could still fly at acceptable speeds, while not being a jet-based fuel gobbler. It was called the "Osprey". And that was eventually grounded because even a vehicle built to do those two jobs (slow flight and efficiency) turned out to be not particularly great at either and complex enough to be a tad on t
Re:One word: (Score:5, Funny)
Bags of holding are not as heavy as their contents; ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bag_of_holding [wikipedia.org] ) depending on the edition and type of bag, she's only going to be about another 15-60 pounds on top of her regular 300. While Humvees are indeed heavier than this (5200-5900 pounds, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee [wikipedia.org]), fat chicks with bags of holding are not an appropriate standard of weight class for military vehicles. I suggest using Huge ( http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Huge_Animated_Object [dandwiki.com] ) or Gargantuan ( http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Gargantuan_Animated_Object [dandwiki.com] ) animated objects.
/pedant
Re: (Score:2)
I think the implication was that the bag of holding would allow her to sneak ridiculous amounts of food out of the all you can eat buffet for later consumption.
Nonetheless, that's one of the most glorious unnecessary responses to a post I've ever seen. My hat is genuinely off to you, sir.
Re:One word: (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the F-4 pretty much proved you can make bricks fly if you put big enough engines on them.
They have too much money... (Score:5, Insightful)
But apart from all of those blindly obvious holes, this is a grant plan.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Logic Fail.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you know an *area*/stretch of road, is likely to have IEDs, but you don't know exactly where they are? But, in that case, wouldn't a simpler solution to be a chopper that can pickup a humvee, fly over the dangerous area, deliver it to a known safe drop point, and drop the hummer? Then, when it's time to go, pick up the hummer again and carry it out?
Re: (Score:2)
If they can "take off" to avoid a road-side bomb then that implies they know where it is so they could also, you know....stop? Or turn around?
My thoughts exactly.. or they could stop taking the frickin roads..
Paul Moller has been working on this FOREVER (Score:2)
Of course, when you say you want an armor-plated flying humvee, he might just drop dead of a heart attack, so break it to him gently, please?
Re: (Score:2)
Dukes of Hazard(The Afghan special) (Score:3, Funny)
Them Duke boys will now be asked to make those supply runs for the military. I just hope that there are enough dirt ramps in the middle east for them to succeed!
Re: (Score:2)
Well in this case after the freeze frame at the apex of the jump they just keep going (can a "yeeee haaaaaaaaw" be sustained for longer than a few minutes?? When does it become awkward or correct to stop?? So many questions!)
Re: (Score:2)
I am so glad (Score:4, Funny)
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
That those smart military people have decided that bomb blasts are only 2 dimensional.
Why would you want to make an armored vehicle that flies? There already is such a thing - it's called a HELICOPTER. But I guess when you have access to virtually infinite defense funding, I guess you're allowed to re-invent the wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, in this case, the rotary wing. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, OK... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the controversial part of the osprey was that it killed 30 marines on 3 separate test and demonstration flights? Making it the most deadly test vehicle ever?
Re:Yeah, OK... (Score:4, Insightful)
$40 million bucks is not a lot for a military project. That's more "do some research and build a proof of concept and maybe we'll consider funding you to build them for real" money.
Also, that was one of the most obnoxious webpages I've seen in awhile for having popups appear all over the article.
Re: (Score:2)
$40 million bucks is not a lot for a military project.
You're absolutely right. Horrifyingly so.
But.... (Score:4, Funny)
Autobots can't transform into flying things. Only Decepticons do.
This can't be allowed. We can't let the US Military get infiltrated by Decepticons!
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Aerialbots [wikipedia.org]??
Re: (Score:2)
Autobots can't transform into flying things. Only Decepticons do.
Omega Supreme would like a word with you.
DARPA (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong car (Score:3, Interesting)
Old News (Score:4, Funny)
I drew pictures like that way back in third grade. This is very old news, and I'm sad it's taken military officials so long to catch up.
When do we get walkers? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm waiting for the AT-AT...seriously people, these have been in the concept stage for a long time. If we can walk dozens of men in a huge machine all over the place, we wont have to get on the roads.
ok. stay with me here. (Score:4, Funny)
Imagine the meeting. Sitting round the table and the next item on the agenda is insurgency and road side bombs.
How do we avoid the casualties?
The best answer?
"I know! We make the humvees fly!"
Rampant corruption: the only growth industry today (Score:2)
Defense Industry rep: "We're running out of gimmicks and excuses. How can we spend more money on really expensive idiotic military equipment?"
General: "Put rotors and wings on everything! You know, humvees, 55 gallon drums, propane tanks, latrines. Hell, let's make backpacks with rotors and make all our troops fly! Or jetpacks! That would be fucking cool!"
Oil Industry rep: "Yeah! Think of all the fuel they would use! In a war zone! Imagine the premium per gallon!"
Other Defense Industry rep: "
Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
For the past few centuries, the biggest technological developments were driven by the military. Mass production started with guns. Aircraft were first made into actual tools by the military. Jet engines. Nuclear power. I don't have to tell you guys how much of modern computing is derived from the military, from ARPANet to microchips. Whatever your thoughts on the ethics of it, the military drives technology.
Now we're just co-opting that process to get me my flying car.
Flying cars... (Score:2)
A modest proposal (Score:2)
How about not replacing [wikipedia.org] democratic [wikipedia.org] governments [wikipedia.org] with dictators, fixing our excessive consumption of hydrocarbons, and eliminating the need to fight wars to keep the hydrocarbons flowing? Might be a better investment than concocting stupid toys like this. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with this picture? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
if it can or will detect roadside bombs, then it's (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't get how this could be justified and if anything, they should be running around with corded tiny copters out infront of the convoys carrying sensors to ID the buried bombs. Cabled or corded so it can have lots of power and be pulled in quickly for evasive moves. Not something without enough protection from the bombs or other fire power just so it can fly over a threat. my $.02
LoB
Transforming flying military vehicles make sense (Score:2)
man... (Score:2, Interesting)
...is that stupid looking. Government sure does come up with some harebrained excuses to drop tons of cash on fatcats all the time...
Hey, here's a thought....don't invade other nations where the locals don't like you and resort to any weapon they can come up with to stop you. Of course I know this doesn't make the fatcats any *more* money, but really....
Look at those pics....geez....the "insurgents" will enjoy their skeet shooting. And the oil companies will enjoy their profits, after first having to transi
AfterDark Flying Toasters (Score:2)
That headline made me immediately think of that old screensaver for the Mac with flying toasters - a bunch of humvee's with flapping wings all flying in formation across my screen...
Sigh.. this is all about recruitment, isn't it? (Score:3, Interesting)
- Yeah, I been thinking about what you told me last week, but I've been looking into some of the associate programs down at the community college, like automotive repair, or maybe nursing, and, like, I could be making like forty grand a year in about two years? Plus I've been talking to my brother's buddy Dan, who just got back from two tours in Afghanistan, and he's really having a tough time readjusting to civilian life. Like, his back is all screwed up from this one non-com accident so he can't work, so he's just been sitting on the couch playing X-BOX all day and he's gained like fifty pounds, and he smashed up this one guy's car with a tire iron just caused he honked at him after the light turned green, y'know? And I heard his fiance took the baby and moved back in with her parents after he punched her out in his sleep for God's sake. So I mean it sound like a great opportunity and all, but I talked it over with my folks, and after weighing the pros and cons I'm gonna hafta say....
- Has anyone talked to you yet about our new flying humvee program? (hands him a picture of the concept vehicle)
- (studies the picture for about ten seconds, then looks up) Go on...
.
I'm confused (Score:3, Interesting)
If the driver doesn't know there is a bomb (like in most every IED attack) the ability to fly doesn't do you a bit of good because you have already been turned into applesauce.
Budget priorities (Score:3, Interesting)
So now the Army has money for flying robotic humvees just in case we have to occupy another country after we get out of the already grotesquely expensive occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan... and the Republicans are still trying to rob the Social Security trust fund.
Goodbye, USA. It was nice while it lasted.
Oh come on. All I want is a couple of extra express busses on the route I take to work in the morning so I don't get left standing on the curb as a full bus pulls away. Do you suppose my federal, state, and local governments could scrounge up some funds for that after they're done funding the military, some new sports stadiums, and tax cuts for billionaires? Pretty please?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even safer- get our young men and women out of the country. It's pretty clear that the picture is suggesting Afghanistan.
Re:Why so long? (Score:4, Funny)
But then how will the military contractors afford to make political contributions?
Just think of what a shame it would be if a politician wasn't able to run a television campaign ad because his military contractor buddies couldn't afford to take advantage of their status as a corporate/person/fetus/citizen and donate a few million dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
We Canadians had this problem licked ages ago with the hugely successful AvroCar!
Ok, so not so successful, BUT STILL!!
Re: (Score:2)
We would have been better off with the Avro Arrow [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, mind you the decision making powers at the time were too busy buying missiles with sand warheads... I love my country.
I maintain to this day that had we continued AvroCar and giant cannon development we'd rule this earth, with lasers, robots and polite letters of fury!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmm ... I think without some stabilizing technology, the giant cannon would send the AvroCar whooshing backwards -- which, would of course be hilarious.
And, we wouldn't start with polite letters of fury -- we'd start with polite letters suggesting that it might merely be a misunderstand and we'd be happy to try to resolve it, but that we're not fully sure,
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, FLYING CARS!
Isn't Popular Mechanics art what started the whole flying car thing in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Only problem: it would end the massive gravy train that drives the whole process.