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.


need for US SOF Stealthy mobility + support aircraft pdf

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:11 PM

Now you have to admit that this is nice. Look at that stealthiness, those sweeping curves... I really really would love to see if any one has any more art work of SOF mobility airframes.

Stealth need only apply.

here is the full slide show / read up on SOF wants and needs for the future.

CSBA online

Thats what i call a beautiful aircraft.

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:29 PM
A little bit from Janes about what the USAF is looking for..

The M-X is envisaged from 2018 as a vertical- or ultra-short- take-off and landing platform for clandestine transport of troops and supplies into and out of heavily defended hostile territory in all terrains and environmental conditions. The aircraft will augment, but not replace, AFSOC's fleet of MC-130 Combat Talon and CV-22 aircraft. Its agility and hard-to-detect infra-red, radar and acoustic signatures and low- probability-of-intercept communications signals will allow it to overcome sophisticated enemy sensors and surface-to-air missiles that might doom even upgraded MC-130s and CV-22s, the air force says.

Col Shelikoff told JDW that an analysis of alternatives completed in September 2004 points to an "advanced low-observable manned aircraft" as the most promising option.

From a 2005 article from JanesJanes defence

So...Guess its time to hit those Pdfs' again and have a look at whats hidden in them.

Stealth VTOL / STOL transport / SOF insertion airframe. Sweet way to ride into work.

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 12:32 AM

Lockheeds AMC-X is butt ugly ! man, at least the A-10 is ugly AND effective.

This looks like a spawn child of a Hadley Page Victor and a crash test airframe.

(and for those too young to know what a hadley page Victor looks like...)

here it is.

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 01:33 AM
thanks dan for the post, the A2A re-fueler featured at the end of the CSBA article also looked impressive -although its re-fueling capabilities would most likely be hindered by size- over all i totally agree that America needs to have a stealth aircraft with the capabilities to insert special operations forces in a short time period and in hostile conditions and something along the lines of what is being proposed looks like it could be the answer... i think the price tag to such a product would be a major hinderance to the project - in the "10-15" billion range is an incredible investment- and although i think it's worth it, i am sure there are plenty of politicians who would disagree with me... but yeah thanks again for the post


posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:44 AM
The price is steep, but the warnings on the wall about the SOF community only having short legged non-stealthy ingress is worrying.

Its not just an American problem. The UK is looking hard at how they can get a stealthy SF platform for small team insertions into denied territory.

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:49 AM
Well my bet would be they already have something of some sorts for this role. Maybe not fielded in large numbers but this sorta of role is much less intense then the B-2 or F-117 and 22 development so it would make sense that they would have already done it in my mind. But on the other hand lost of time this stuff just gets missed etc so I wouldn't be surprised if it is still a gap like you mention Dan. In honesty no real hard way to say either way. Neat image though Dan.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:17 PM
As one of my favorite subjects, I have previously written posts regarding
the need for high-performance and stealthy gunship/atttack aircraft that
would combine the survivability of the A10 Warthog, with the 80,000 lbs
lift capacity of the C-130 Hercules.

I have suggested we combine attack and recon missions into one single
aircraft platform that has the following capabilities:

1) Using a combination of advanced multiple Infra-red, Starlight and
gyroscopically stabilized optical cameras (i.e. six cameras - one for each
directional axis i.e. front, rear, left, right, top, bottom) that have at
LEAST HDTV resolutions of 1920 by 1080 pixels at 60 frames per second
progressive frame (i.e. non-interlaced) and the ability to automatically
use built-in vision recognition software that can track and recognize
1000+ objects in real-time on an any camera in starlight, IR and
optical modes in closeup (wide-screen fish-eye view 200 meters or less)
and in long-distance (greater than 5000 meters) viewpoints.

2) The engines need to be field replaceable in under 2 hours
and be sand & bird ingestion resistant JET engines for high-subsonic
(with supersonic supercruise capability) operations along with a
high-pressure fuel system for 12 to 18 hour loiter times
and special software for automatic ground-hugging,
follow-the-terrain flying at near mach speeds. (550 mph+)
i.e. press the joystick to the ground and set your ceiling
to just above tree-top and let the flight software
do the flying and object/terrain avoidance
at low-levels at less than 200 feet.

3) We need to be able to have multi-modal weapons
that deliver combinations of weapons including JDAMS,
dumb bombs of 250lbs to 2000 lbs, cruise missiles
and Hellfires to be targetted and dispatched at the
press of a button and at any ceiling from 100 feet to
50,000+ feet.

4) The weapons bays need to be field removable and re-installable
using a common lift and attach mechanism to allow re-arming
of 80,000 lbs of munitions within 30 minutes or less.
Weapons bays need to be ALL internal with an in-flight deployment
system that will not overly degrade the stealthy nature of the craft,
yet still be fast-deploy and survivable from small-arms fire.

5) The landing gear should use high-performance TWEEL technology
with active suspension (special computer-controlled auto-levelling
gas shocks) to allow use on dirt, gravel and semi-muddy runways
or roadways of less than 2500 feet in length.

6) Low-radar, accoustic and visual observability, ECM, and
built-in jamming gear is obligatory plus high-survivability using
ceramic and carbon-fibre composite construction and armouring
on the outer skin and surrounding the cockpit/critical systems areas.

7) For low-level attack missions, TWO .50 cal Gatling guns
mounted on retractable gyroscopically-stabilized gunmounts
located at the front and rear underside of the craft to allow
independent multi-directional targetting and attack at low
levels from 100 feet to 10,000 feet.

8) On each the side of the craft, a gyro-stabilized anti-tank
howizter needs to be mounted for low-level tank-busting and
building-destroy missions.

THEN YOU TRULY have a worthy recon/attack craft....and
may I suggest the name of:


(as in Attack/Recon Craft that comes quietly and stings hard)

Any comments?

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:44 PM
stargateSG7 that'd be an amazing aircraft, but how would you include all of those things... you're talking about basically combining an AC-130 spectre with a C-130, with a B-2 (not literally a B-2, but it's stealth and bombing characteristics) what would that thing look like, it'd have to be big, any idea's?


posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

ARC 'Miss Piggy' would be better.

Theres no need for twin sided cannons. look at the race track an AC-130 flies. Its all down one side and deadly effective. However, putting an AC-130 load on a stealth platform defeates the object a bit. It may be stealthy but all those 40 mm / 0.50 shells rattling outs really going to ruin the signature reduction efforts..

UNLESS...... you had optical stealth so at 5,000 feet you couldn't be seen or heard.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:59 PM
Most SF insertions are made via helicopter - the AH-6 is their favorite. The thing is, for all intents and purposes, a "stealth" aircraft since they clip the tops of trees. They also operate with versions of the V-22 - though those are quite a bit more rare.

The best special-forces insertion proposition I've seen is something like a glider (or Ram-jet assisted - to extend range) released from wing pylons (or even the munitions bay) of a much larger aircraft from a high altitude. Most of the critical components can be engineered to self-destruct after landing, and a rather sizable payload of supplies, ammunition, weapons, etc can be carried by a small group (assuming each vehicle carries no more than 2 individuals).

Though if you want something that can drop them off and provide some form of air support.... you start running into problems. Special Forces are designed to operate in small teams, move fast - hit hard, and get the hell out before the enemy can organize a counter-response. The only aircraft that would be suitable for supporting SOF would be UCAVs (at least when they are operating deep within enemy territory).

You would station the UCAVs in an orbit about the combat area (outside of radar detection thresholds), and have the Spec.Ops be capable of calling them in on targets - they return to an orbit after the target has been destroyed.

Beyond that, any standard (or non-standard) aircraft designed to provide any form of extended ground support (which lasts about 30 seconds, if you're lucky - those things run dry pretty quick) is simply not going to be something you can "stealth", at least not to the ability where it will be able to both provide the necessary support and be able to evade shoulder-fired missiles.

You want a system to complement the behavior of Special Forces teams - and the UCAV idea would do just that. Better, still, it could hang around for much longer than standard air support (either because they depleted their ammunition or because of hostile fire) while remaining difficult for the enemy to counter (it enters the combat zone from random directions, at high speed, blows something up, exits, and goes into an unseen orbit).

Furthermore, UCAVs can easily be fitted with long-range imaging equipment that can feed into modern situational awareness systems (combat networks) and give the team(s) a wide coverage of the area from multiple angles. They can do this immediately upon request from the team - as if the guys on the ground were in the plane, as well.

Wouldn't surprise me if we were already using systems like that. They were (and still are) looking for a bunch of people from my rate to operate UAVs in support of the SEALs as part of their combat support unit. One of the things they mentioned was taking stock, off-the-shelf stuff and modifying the living hell out of it to make it do what they needed it to do. Wouldn't surprise me if they were operating more than a few 'prototype' aircraft that have been significantly modified (internally - all the cosmetics are likely the same).

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:32 AM
Aim64C, i was doin a little reading on the AH-6 and came across this link:

on global securities website, it's basically an unmanned version of the AH-6, of designated as the A/MH-6X Unmanned Little Bird (ULB)... it sounds similar to what you were discussing with an unmanned ucav, or uav type platform that could potentially perform autonomous missions, extractions, support, etc. that would work well with SF type missions. it also uses software to fly as close to the ground as possible... i don't know your thoughts on this or if you have heard of something more advanced but just thought i'd post it


posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:39 AM
reply to post by raptor1

I've heard of that - though I was thinking more of a jet (modified flying wing) UCAV simply for remote combat support (could be deployed from a variety of platforms, from bombers to carriers, to cruisers and some combat support units).

But that would work - though it's a bit risky, in my opinion, to use the same horse you are planning to ride out on as your cavalry piece.....

But if Congress keeps cutting the purse strings... wouldn't surprise me if the special forces (and military, in general) are forced to adopt some very strategically unsound methods....

And it's a self-devouring cycle.... you lose several million dollars of man and machine to something rather silly because a lack of funding forced you to over-extend something to an obviously fatal level.... then Congress starts asking you what they are paying for.... then decide to cut the strings because they are not getting their money's worth....

Anyway - I'm more of a fan of building stuff from the ground up - or completely overhauling something if you are going to modify it - to perform a task. But that's not the most cost-effective way of doing things.... or so it appears on paper.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 06:03 PM
i agree completely with what your saying haha... still if its what we have for now i guess its better than nothing at all... congress posting the money to advance a completely new and more effective system would be better but knowing congress they either a) aren't going to do it period, or b) it will take them 10 years of standing around bickering about it before it would happen, both are incredibly unfortunate.


new topics

top topics


log in