Our friends at Popular Mechanics are reporting that “DARPA has selected two companies to proceed with the next stage of its Transformer, 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.”
The gee-whizzery is undeniable here, and the article points out that DARPA has $40 million to spend on developing a’TX,’ as the project is known. But having spent a few years around military procurement and several weeks in Afghanistan recently, I have doubts about the craft’s ability to make it to the front lines — literally and figuratively.
Who’s going to fly/drive it? Do we specially train Joes or do infantry units add dozens of pilots? What kind of RW gear will it have? (The threat immediately jumps from IEDs to RPGs and SAMs once you get airborne.) Who’s going to work on it around the FOBs and COPs? And what’s the cost per copy?
Read the entire PopMech story here.
(Gouge: KOH)
(Photo: DARPA)
– Ward
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
To hell with RPG's and SAM's.. Just use small arms to take the thing down and save the good stuff for helicopters.
The whole point of IEDs is that the trucks don't know they're there until they go off. This is just a huge waste of money.
Surely it is easier to build an IED than obtain a SAM or RPG, and far easier to locate the shooter in the later cases.
true, but the extra training would suck. if they just gave it a xbox remote it would cut costs down and training time in half =)
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/tx/index.html
"The Transformer (TX) vehicle program will examine the feasibility and approaches for developing vertical take-off and landing….and can be operated by a typical soldier"
I think the whole point of the craft is that the flying aspect of it is fully automated – meaning everything flying related is computer controlled, and whoever's inside doesn't need to know anything about flying at all.
I just think its a very good way to make a substandard ground vehicle that can moonlight as a substandard air vehicle. Might be unusually effective though. If i were the Taliban i would laugh myself to death.
It's a flying target. To light for heavy combat, to heavy to fly fast enough. It's a dog that needs to be put to sleep.
I don't see how this is practical. If it's light enough to fly, it's light enough to be shredded by gunfire. Having that rotor setup also looks like a maintenance and reliability nightmare.
Assuming that this is not a 40 million dollar gift to somebody that won't produce anything useful at all, what makes us so sure it should be RW? Rotors are notoriously vulnerable and drive systems for them tend to be complex. Also, helicopters tend to require lots of power and go through a large amount of fuel very quickly. No, if we're seriously considering such a vehicle, RW is less than an ideal solution. Tack on the issue of vehicle operators as mentioned above and we begin to see this idea can't be supported with RW, it will cost us much more than we'll ever benefit. Using it in Astan? No way it could be practical at this point, this thing has got to be in the conceptual stage right now. More likely that this is a move to stimulate growth of related technology that will be useful later…or just a slush for some old guy to make another 40 million without providing anything in return.
Sounds like this came from an engineering brainstorm session. Essentially trying to tackle a problem by using an unlikely approach. How can you conquer an IED threat? Armor or mobility, this is an examination of mobility, as armor is being throughly exhausted.
I highly doubt the program manager sees this become a production program, but the funding should help establish if there is any merit in the concept. With all the money being put into HEAVIER and HEAVIER vehicles exploring a complete alternative (light and mobile) seems prudent risk mitigation
A gyroplane is precisely what the AAI/Textron proposal is. AAI licensed the technology from Carter Aviation Technologies (http://www.cartercopters.com)
I'll take one. Where is the dealer?
Pound for pound the Osprey is the most efficient system to date. A ten passenger flying Humvee with four enclosed fans would be a boon as it could hug the ground when needed, cover a lot of distance and hold some weight need for both weapons and cargo. It would also be a great EVAC and more stealthy than a copter.
Unfortunately we need better fuel cells, better composites and software designed for the soldier. So we see LCS, troop carriers and now these machines floundering between what will be possible and what we can build now. Perhaps we should put a better effort in other things like an answer to Klub, 1000kw lasers and JSF drones. We can't have everything.
I think the Israelis are making a flying care for police and EVAC. Synergy people, synergy…..
http://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?ID=90
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ch…
I am trying to wrap my head around how the military can utilize the "TX" as a combat vehicle. By the time this vehicle was made combat ready, chances are that it will not be going airborne. The addition of armor alone would be enough to keep it earth bound. Where is the room for fuel, munitions, rations, etc? I will say that the concept of the TX is very interesting, however, the feasibility of good use with today’s combat operations is highly unlikely. To me, the "TX" seems more suitable as a VIP cruiser.
Again, RW is not going to solve this. I don't see a gyrocopter concept getting it done, either. Something along the lines of a true combat hovercraft might be more realistic, why not do that instead? The technology is already proven.
Hovercraft don't fly out of ground effect, so you would be limited to ground travel, where such vehicles are actually far more vulnerable to fire than a standard Humvee. And I don't want to think about how dust would interact with a hovercraft in someplace like Afghanistan, nor how one would do in such rugged terrain.
I think it is a mistake to think of this as a jeep that flies — it is more like a light helicopter that is roadable.
Interesting take, and I'll grant you a hovercraft in it's current form is indeed more vulnerable to fire than an armored Humvee, but then so is a helicopter. I'm talking about a combat hovercraft along the lines of a light IFV, not a transport for ferrying trucks or tourists across a lake. While helicopters do fly OGE, asking a pack of grunts to get in and fly without a pilot is not going to go over well. As far as the terrain goes, a combat hovercraft would have pretty good utility across quite a bit of it so long as its size was comparable to current vehicles in the inventory. If it's going to carry 4 guys, it's not going to be all that huge. Back to helicopters, where are those rotors going to be turning on the road? Again, not quite feasible. You can't believe how many wires and trees and houses are right on the road, to say nothing of the terrain.
This article completely misrepresents DARPA's mission. DARPA enables basic, conceptual research that promotes technological advancement. Individual experiments rarely result in direct development of deployable systems, nor are the supposed to. GET IT STRAIGHT.
I think somebody on the Capitol Hill loves transformers a little to much.
This puts the air back in air assault. Even if it's no better armored than a blackhawk (small arms only) and carried only a machine gun or two it could prove amazingly useful. I would have loved to have that mobility constantly at the ready instead of praying the choppers would make the LZ when and where they were supposed to.
The flying car idea isn't new. Maybe in the Pentagon but people have already thrown a lot of money at these ideas. There is a ton of existing research. I think money would be better spent on coming up with new and creative ways of mitigating blast effects on the ground.
Something that might be doable and useful would be a drone type vehicle. Something designed to primarily drive on the ground, but have the ability to go airborne for ISR or integrated CAS with a convoy.
Coming soon… to a Hummer Dealership near you!
This is nothing more that Air Mobility 21st Century style. Innovation is good. Back in the 1950s they said air mobility and the heliochopter would never work. They were wrong. some military are so conservative that if they had their way we would still be arming our troops with single shot rifles in order to conserve on ammo costs.
Seems like a pretty silly solution to the IED problem if you ask me (which you didn't, but still).
DARPA isn't a weapons manufacturer. Their job is to do proof of concept work just like this. Even if 95% of their research doesn't pan out, the ones that do will give us tremendous advantages in the future. They are, after all, the ones who made the scramjet work.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37377401/ns/technolog…
Scramjets were science fiction until DARPA made them science fact. This helicopter humvee? Probably won't work. But at $40 million, that's 13 cents for every man, woman and child in the US. If the research leads to some advantage on the battlefield, over the long run it will save much more than its cost.
Darpa, I think the Aussies would object. And the concept has been around for decades. Next some might say Darpa invented hyper velocity weapons, but I think that goes to David with his sling shot. It is a question of priorities. Supersonic torpedoes and cruise missiles are clear and present dangers. Cyber security is as well. I think many here are talking about money v goals. As the lead article today points out, as the numerical advantage slips from our Navy, we must find some technological advantage to off-set that imbalance.
No 40 million is not alot, but there are numerous areas where basic proof of concept must be found…
Yes rotors and fans can blow up a lot of dust. Their noise is much louder than trucks. They can't carry as much per gallon and can't sustain the fire as well. Hover crafts are even worse. If we can dampen the sound, provide portable anti-dust mat landing and launch pads, design better light weight armor and revolutionize fuel cells (all electric motors), we could add a great leg to Air mobility. My point was that technology is still a decade away. Crude versions could provide EVAC and emergency transport.
Maybe one day cloaked shuttles could swarm troops and cargo ashore from assault ships under fire, flanking bullets and obstructions. In the meantime, aren't there more important grails? Hell, flying back packs and robotic skeleton suits seem more important and at hand. Yes, IEDs are a bitch. convey leading munition zapper and RPG flanking zappers are probably more in reach than durable flying humvees. Omega has a point.
And the question burning in every private's mind – "Would I be eligible for an Aviator Badge and flight pay?" ;-)
Lol hoaah
Never mind all this talk, when can i have one to go to the PX with???. I wouldn't have to worry about red light cameras anymore.
It seems this vehicle must rely on an IED detection capability which would have to preceed it. Why don't we spend the money there first?
My only issue is that you're losing more and more shooters as drivers. The old infantry squad was transported in a vehicle with one commander and one driver. Now we split the squad between Bradleys and take more vehicles to transport that same squad. When we switched to Humvees, a Humvee has a driver/gunner and two passengers free to dismount. One day we'll have vehicles with too many crew and not enough dismounts, then what?
That and flying by air is probably of some limited utility…so now we can bypass IEDs and replace them with a blast of AK-47 aimed skyward.
One of the dumbest ideas ever. These people love to burn money to justify their jobs.
100% correct!
$40 MILLION…why not use this money for Soldier's care…another black eye for the Pentagon!
Considering that they can make just as much doing SLEPs and new builds without the R&D whinefest of new designs and cost over-runs, why try?
Then startups are unable to penetrate because they don't pay in the bribe-money. So we keep old designs, re-engine them, throw in a glass cockpit, digital this and digital that…
If we knew when to fly over the IED's then why wouldn't we just take care of them on the spot? I think finding the IED's are the problem not driving/flying over them…
If flying was the solution to reducing IED related injuries/deaths then why not just use nothing but helos…..this idea has to be one of the dumbest solutions to a problem I have ever seen.
Wow…. it looks like a 10 year old thought this up. I'm in awe. "AND AND when it wants to fly, the dude just pushes this button, right, and NYEEEOWWWW! and it will have like.. .machine guns.. and umm.. it will have metal wheels and be awesome. and ice cream."
someone needs to shoot down the idea fairy. Use 40 mil to up armor
very stable machines gyrocopters dirt cheap compared to helos and as somebody said worked in nam not armour either (air mobile )Used in northern ireland in the military op role back in the toubles and
are easy to fly check out the inventer ken wallis of james bond little nellie fame .as a program pointed out tonight on tv more armour = bigger ied back to squire one .Harder to get your hands on surface to air missile then home made ied explosive .Have to admit wouldnt want to be in one when a 50 cal is pointed at you