It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


AJACS carries Air Force hopes for heavylift

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:31 AM
SOURCE:Flight International
Three decades ago, the US Air Force was flight-testing two potential advanced short take-off and landing replacements for the Lockheed Martin C-130 - Boeing's YC-14 and McDonnell Douglas's YC-15.

The Advanced Medium STOL Transport programme was cancelled in 1979 when the air force shifted its focus from tactical to strategic airlift. This resulted in the Boeing C-17, and left the C-130 to soldier on.

Now, 30 years later, the USAF is again trying to develop an advanced STOL replacement for the C-130 - the Advanced Joint Air Combat System (AJACS) - and using the YC-14 versus YC-15 competition as a model for its plan to fly competitive demonstrators.

full story

pic 1
pic 2
pic 3
pic 4

General characteristics
Crew: 3
Capacity: Length 16 m, Width 4 m, Height 4 m
Payload: Max:30+ metric tons (120ton TOW) (Max:37.6 metric tons (MOTW))
Length: 43.9 m (144 ft)
Wingspan: 44.4 m (145 ft 8 in)
Height: 14.2 m (46 ft 7 in)
Empty weight: 60,800 kg (133,920 lbs)
Max takeoff weight: 141,400 kg (311,453 lbs)
Powerplant: 2× GE CF6-80C2K1F[4], 59,740lbf (266 kN) each
Maximum speed: 610? mph (980? km/h)
Cruise speed: 550 mph (890km/h)
Range: 0t/10,000km 12t/8,900km 37t/5,600km (0t/6200 miles 12t/5,530miles 37t/3,480miles)
Service ceiling 40,000 ft (12,200 m)

Another program running when the above could be perfect for US army and USAF requirements.
If properly marketed it could replace C-130s and could steal some A400m
sales as well, with a payload of 30+ tons.

And bigger than the Embraer C-390 with 19 tons of cargo
Embraer C-390

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:27 PM
The article you referenced mentions Northrop's efforts in conjunction with the AFRL towards the AJACS. Utilizing knowledge they have gleaned from their B-2 and X-47 stealth programs, Northrop has come up with an ingenious concept for a short take off or landing (STOL) transport aircraft.

This concept is an all-wing configuration with a blown flap powered-lift system, shortening take-off distance dramatically... AND it's stealthy, thus adding more protection to the troops being ferried into a trouble spot.

Source: Northrop takes tailless approach to future airlifter: Flight Global, December 12, 2007 5:41 PM

[edit on 1/15/2008 by bios]

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:03 PM
No matter how good the C-X is, I'm afraid it's going to be a hard sell when Boeing, Northrop, or Lockheed Martin want a piece of the action.

They own some Congresscritters of their own, Mitsubishi does not.

[edit on 1/15/08 by xmotex]

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:45 PM
And the US Army backs tiltrotor as future battlefield airlifter to carry bigger loads than the C-130 Hercules

Setting the stage for a budget showdown, the US Army is backing an advanced tiltrotor as the solution to its looming need for a heavylift battlefield transport


I really can't see a tiltrotor this size being cheaper than a A400M, not by the time it goes into production anyway.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by deckard83]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:42 AM
reply to post by bios

thats my point is why waste money when there are other platforms
out there.
u dont need stealth transports unless your inserting socom type
of forces.
Most transport is ass and trash haulers

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by Jezza

Although I agree your point on wasteful spending, I actually don't see the DOD forking over the $ for a Northrop built stealthy flying wing transport - but - I also don't see the DOD buying a primary transport that is built outside the US.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:23 PM

Originally posted by deckard83

I really can't see a tiltrotor this size being cheaper than a A400M, not by the time it goes into production anyway.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by deckard83]

And I can't see the USAF buying a forign aircraft in large numbers for transport of any kind as I've said before on other threads. Overlooking the fact as well that the A400 program is bordering on a year or more behind schedule on the aircraft and first flight along with testing of the power plant etc. Don't get me wrong I like the plane but Airbus greatly underestimated their time frame needed for the aircraft and the logistics and spec issues of building a Military transport aircraft.

For A400 updated info this thread is more or less current.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by Canada_EH

Yeah I can't see that happening either.

top topics


log in