Is the USAF F%$#ing Nuts?

Click for full size

---

Lockheed's Concept


Lockheed's "Secret Sauce", an ejector/blown flap lift augmentation system


Boeing's concept uses the Coanda effect in upper surface blowing like its YC-14


A tailless design for a transport, what the f%$# are they smoking


How stealthy will anything be with debris regularly cutting grooves in the skin?

If they are serious about their proposal for a stealthy transport roughly the size of a C-130, the answer is yes.

It's entirely possible to design a STOL aircraft of C-130 or A-400M size that can cruise at conventional jet transport speeds, i.e. more than Mach 0.7 and take off or land in less then 200 feet.

In fact, the A400M comes awfully close to meeting those requirements right now cruising at almost Mach 0.7 with a takeoff and landing distance of about 2500 feet.

That being said, the idea that you want to do all of this, and then triple (at least) the lifetime costs of the airframe by making it stealthy is simply deluded.

While reducing the vulnerability of cargo aircraft to shoulder launched MANPADS is a good idea, experience has shown that the threats are primarily that and small arms fire, the idea that you need to create a reduced radar cross section, as appears to be the case with all (the tailless design is a Northrop-Grumman concept) is really bizarre.

If the enemy has air-superiority in the region, you are simply f%$#ed, and if they are in a position to have radar guided SAMs near your bases, you are, again, simply f%$#ed.

I'm with what Bill Sweetman wrote in the comments:

Everyone, but everyone, writing future airlift requirements for the USAF and US Army is secretly working for Airbus Military. Other than the massive abuse of chemicals there is no alternative explanation for this malarkey.