82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC

THE NEXT HERCULES: THE ATT?

Paratroopers jumping from the next Hercules

Super C-130 Aviation expert, pilot, historian Sam McGowanSamC130@aol.com writes:

"XXXXX just sent me a brochure advertizing Boeing's concept of an Advanced Theater Transport (ATT). Guess what - it has no tail! For those who have never seen an artist's concept, the Boeing ATT is a wide-body four-engine turboprop aircraft with only one plane - a tiltable wing attached to the midpoint of the fuselage.

The next Hercules?

The overall dimensions of the aircraft are less than that of a C-130, though the wider fuselage - which evidently is also a lift-producing device - allows larger payloads. Boeing is advertizing 11 standard 463L pallets with 40 troops seated on the side, for a total payload of 100,000 pounds. They claim it will be able to operate into airstrips as short as 600 feet, thanks to the tilt-wing technology. The props are linked together (though just what this is supposed to accomplish in the event of an engine failure is beyond me. Loss of power is loss of power. The only advantage to linked propellers is that there is no 'critical' engine.)

Now, such a concept definitely has applications for the future battlefield, though I have my doubts about its use in close proximity to enemy positions. Even though the Boeing ATT is an airplane, it will function very much like a helicopter while it is based on a complex system that increases the likelihood of damage from ground fire and/or increased maintenance. In their brochure, Boeing does not make a proper comparison between their ATT and the C-130J.

Near VTOL from the ATT

They use a 3,500 foot runway length for the C-130 without taking into consideration that this is FAR Part 25 runway requirements, not a military requirement. A chart shows that the ATT could land on 120 landing sites in the state of South Dakota while only two are useable by C-130s. While this may be true of existing runways in the state (using 3,500 feet as a minimum,) it does not take into consideration the C-130's off runway capabilities. Nor does it take into consideration that the minimum runway for a C-130 in the Vietnam War was 2,500 feet, and that included an extra 500 feet to allow a margin for error.

Assuming the design will live up to expectations - and few designs do - and the price is reasonable (Come on, we are talking about the modern defense industry!) I can see where the concept might be valid."

OVER-VIEW

The best over-view of the USAF's future airlifter to replace the C-130 Hercules fleet as it retires is Col Harry Shine's Theater Airlift 2010 paper:

http://www.cdsar.af.mil/apj/apj88/shine.html

In it, he asks if a "technological breakthrough" could enable an aircraft to lift large loads V/STOL without resorting to a tilt-rotor on "steroids". This would be a "stealthy" compound heavy-lift helicopter to replace the CH-47D Chinook: a CH-53X or "MH-2000X"

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/nextchinook.htm

This would enable the U.S. Army to move all its equipment quickly and undetected forward into enemy lines up to light/medium armored fighting vehicles using Air Assault techniques. The MH-2000X would self-deploy itself across oceans eliminating the need for USAF airlifters to fly them to the battlefield via contested airfields.

"Since the Airborne and Light infantry forces heavily depend on helicopters for tactical mobility and firepower, the Airborne will continue to be tied to airfields until modernized. Airdroppable tactical mobility and firepower are needed to wean the Airborne forces from their absolute dependence on airfields."

Major Michael Kazmierski, USCGS Master's Thesis

The MH-2000Xs would fly directly to where the Airborne troops and Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FAARP) supplies were airdropped by USAF airlifters.

I do believe we need an USAF ATT to replace C-130s when they cannot fly anymore and supplement the C-17s because the "next Chinook" (MH-2000X) will be used for tactical/operational Air Assault mobility as part of the AIRlandbattle. While the MH-2000X could airdrop Paratroopers out the side jump doors, it couldn't airdrop supplies/light AFVs like a Strategic C-17 Globemaster III or a Tactical C-130 Hercules can to execute Airborne warfare. We need a near VTOL long-range fixed wing aircraft to execute AIRmechanized warfare for the Airborne as well as a V/STOL aircraft for the 101st Air Assault Division. The problem then is what is wrong with the C-130 now in use?

The C-130 is one of the greatest airplanes ever to fly--only the C-47 can rival it--but only in longevity. It may be the greatest airplane to ever fly. Period. However it could be improved, or it will be replaced since even it will grow old and wear out. We could replace it with a new aircraft starting from scratch like Boeing proposes or improve its design and build new Hercules II models. Here are some of the C-130's problems and what the Next Hercules should solve.

For its 4 engines the Herk only gives us 64 Paratroopers due to its landing gear bulging into the fuselage. Its side jump doors are too narrow which Paratroopers can snag on. The Herk cannot land on water or soft soils due to wheels used as the main landing gear. The Herk moves by its props on the ground, creating dust storms. The Herk cannot back up on its own. The Herk can only carry 42,000 pounds of payload and is too narrow a body to carry wider Army vehicles like the Bradley IFV and ramp clearance too low to airdrop them. Material Handling Equipment must be flown in to move supplies offloaded, resulting in more payload loss/complications. The Herk is not radar invisible.

Thus, in my opinion the Next Hercules should be:

1. Able to lift/airdrop 50 tons--a Bradley IFV or 3 M113A3 AFVs so U.S. Army Airborne forces can be airdropped with complete secondary mobility on the ground via armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) for offensive missions not just "seize and hold" defensive airfield seizures..

2. Be "stealthy" low-observable in radar and FLIR so it can execute Airborne operations without being detected by the enemy at either high/medium altitudes or terrain contour low-level flight profiles under 250 feet.

3. Able to land anywhere--including water--uneven terrains---under 1,000 feet using tracked landing gear and/or air cushions

4. Powered ground wheels/tracks for dust-free movement in the assault zone and backing up.

HEMMT truck offloading a PLS flat rack

5. Able to airdrop and load/offload U.S. Army PLS flat racks as Col Shine suggested in his superb article. Army FMTV and HEMMT PLS variant trucks can pick up these PLS flat racks and move them after the Next Hercules offloads them. This eliminates re-packing and recovering fragile 463L type pallets. Special PLS flat racks should be developed that can be airdropped from the ATT and existing USAF airlift aircraft.

6. Have a rear ramp that is adjustable so cargo can slide directly onto the back of Army trucks, HMMWVs etc without needing MHE/forklifts

7. 400+ mph/indefinite range via air-to-air refuelling

8. Provision for JATO rockets for V/TOL take-offs when required

If we made the payload 35 tons, I believe a "L" model Hercules could be the next ATT by re-designing the fuselage primarily into a wider, "stealthy" form. But clearly, a brand-new aircraft would insure we obtained all the revolutionary features needed.

The "Next Hercules" would be automatically a SOF insertion/extraction platform (Combat Talon IV) by its land anywhere capability to include as a seaplane---NAVSPECWAR and CSAR missions. It would be able to act as a tanker aircraft and operate from unimproved areas away from runways/airfields likely to be targeted by the enemy. Thus, the Next Hercules would also be the "Next Combat Talon" and the "Next Tanker" and a host of special mission variants.

What about a Burnelli type lifting body for the ATT?

The Vincent Burnelli lifting body design could be applied to a seaplane....British designer H. Roxbee Cox proposed this 6-engined flying wing seaplane just before WWII...with an unlimited take-off run and the 100% lift efficiency of a flying wing, the SEAPLANE deserves another examination with modern technologies....

Also imagine if a Burnelli-type Extremely Short take-Off and Landing (ESTOL) aircraft had air cushion landing gear?

[Artwork courtesy of Mr. Ernest Zavala who is writing a book on the history of Burnelli aircraft]

It would become a defacto seaplane, able to land in oceans, rivers and lakes...and it would be able to land almost anywhere on land without actually needing hard surfaces for wheels to roll on....the russians have already put into production such a combination airplane/hovercraft even though it was Bel Aircraft in the 1960s/70s that first conceived of flying prototyle aircraft with this revolutionary landing/take-off system.....who needs costly, unsafe V/TOL hybrids if you can land almost anywhere in an extremely short distance irrespective of the terrain type?

Imagine setting up our troops anywhere around the world in less than 12 hours after leaving their U.S. home base and deploying them to surround the enemy in all terrain? Ride on a cushion of air and set them down without having to "daisy" bomb an area for landing an aircraft. Talk about them not knowing where we will strike!

For more info on the fascinating Burnelli type aircraft and how its THE solution to future fixed wing air transport:

Goodbye FTR, Hello AFMA!


FEEDBACK!

itsg@hotmail.com

RETURN TO U.S. ARMY AIRBORNE EQUIPMENT SHOP

1 1 1 1