Hot Topics

Army Developing a Star Wars-like Hoverbike to Transport Soldiers

TOPICS:

Posted By: Michael Hoffman June 26, 2015

The U.S. Army is working on a futuristic “hoverbike” that could carry one to two soldiers up to ten feet off the ground at speeds around 60 miles per hour over land and water.

The Army Research Laboratory signed a contract nine months ago with SURVICE Engineering and Malloy Aeronautics to develop a hoverbike prototype for the Army to test in three to five years. SURVICE is based in Maryland and Malloy is based in Britain.

The two companies will first develop a commercial version of the hoverbike that can carry about 250 pounds and cost about $80,000 before the companies produce a military variant, said Mark Butkiewicz, SURVICE Engineering’s manager of applied technology. He explained that the Army would like the bike to carry about 400 to 800 pounds to allow soldiers to pack their weapons and equipment on board.

The Army said the hoverbike doesn’t necessarily need a soldier on board to steer as Timothy Vong, the project coordinator for the Army Research Laboratory, explained that the service wants the companies to develop manned and unmanned capabilities.

Butkiewicz compared the commercial and the military variants of the hoverbike to the differences between the Humvee and its commercial version, the Hummer. He didn’t want to give many more details of the requirements and details of the contract signed with the Army.

Vong said in an email to Military.com that the Army’s investment remains small in the project, but it could grow quickly if Malloy and SURVICE can continue to prove the technology. The Army is still in the initial research and development phase of the contract.

The hoverbike could potentially go faster and higher but the Army wants to make sure its safe for soldiers to ride and not drifting into a helicopter’s mission set. Butkiewicz said to think of the project in someways like a horse.

“If you fall off a horse you can get up and keep going. You can’t do that with a helicopter. That’s what we’re talking about here. Keeping it at about 10 feet off the ground, which in some ways is tougher to do,” Butkiewicz said.

— Michael Hoffman can be reached at Mike.Hoffman@military.com

About the Author

Michael Hoffman
Michael Hoffman is the executive editor at Tandem NSI and a contributor to Military.com. He can be reached at mhoffman@tandemnsi.com.

Related Articles

  • BlackOwl18E

    Ummm… Is it too late to transfer over to Army?

    • Stephan

      Yea can I reinlist LoL I was lucky to get summer mre’s in summer without hot chocolate LoL. I want one

  • Edger

    No I want ATAT walker NOW!!!!! :)

  • amauyong

    Me the AT-ST!

  • amauyong

    Well…hovertanks next or hover anti material/armor vehicles next…the tactical implications and applications are there : )

    Renegade Legion here we come ; )

  • oblatt23

    And then ISIS can be the plucky rebels who beat the big noisy empire.

  • blight_adfasdf

    Hover-TOW, the latest in anti-tank platforms for the fighting infantryman…

    • nick987654

      Mmh I think they would be quite vulnerable. But the ATGM teams could move quickly with them using the terrain and vegetation for cover? They would get off their hoverbikes and quickly mount a missile attack. It could work well to enter in enemy territory to set up ambushes or to designate target for the artillery. Flying nap of the earth would be key to survive.

      • ccc40821

        As for the occupants’ vulnerability, compare it to a soldier (or two) on a motorcycle or any other non-armoured vehicle. This thing merely is less dependent on whatever surface has to be flown over.

      • Stephan

        Yes it could any number of scenarios in combat

  • Dfens

    Wow, it goes 60 mph. Speed is life. And it’s got a single reciprocating engine too. What could possibly go wrong? At least it only kills our guys one at a time.

  • Luke

    Civilian version? Please?

    • Dweight

      It can only be a civilian version. They might put some strange paint over it and call it a military version, but it’s at best a consumer item.

  • Guest

    Does anyone else remember the Hiller VZ-1 (Army designation HO-1 Pawnee) from 1957?
    Same principle. I predict the same result. But, we shall see.

  • Fatman

    This thing fits more into the cool category than the useful fighting tool category.

  • thexfile

    Tax money for the Salad Shooter Bike.

  • Groman

    The commercial version will cost $80,000. Anyone want to guess how many zeroes that we’ll need to add to that figure to get the final cost of the military version?? Of course the military version will be stuffed with extra requirements to include stealth, SATCOM, zero-visibility navigation, radiation shielding, etc.

    The Marines will demand a STOVL version, until someone tells them that the ‘base’ version already has vertical takeoff/landing, at which point they’ll think of another special feature that their version must have.

    • blight_asdfljsadf

      They’ll want it to have 30 mile range and water skim capability…grumble.

  • Brian B. Mulholland

    I thought of the Hiller platform too. It doesn’t appear that this proposal puts the mass of the crew above the fans, and flight control is a good deal more automated these days.
    If the thing has a future, it’s probably with SOCOM. Skim the earth most of the way to the objective, get off and let the thing fly itself home, and walk to the X. Call a large noisy helicopter when you need pickup with prisoners, if any.

  • Djdjd

    Why does every story say it’s for the army missing the entire commercial variant comes out first bit? This isn’t just for the army and it will cost 80k. That is HUGE. Say goodbye to tires.

    • Dfens

      Why pay for the development of the “civilian version” yourself when you can get the Army to pay for your R&D instead? Oh wait, the Army doesn’t pay for anything. Our tax dollars do.

  • Omar

    Meet the jettsons

  • 11CP5

    Always like the word Could. But will it? How loud is it going to be? Range? Cost? Why not waste more money and cut manpower from our military. Makes sense to me.

  • jffourquet

    what a waste! Another corporate welfare program that will neve produce nothing.

  • albert Mudge

    Just a waste of money. Check out all the projects they have wasted money on in the past???

  • conradswims

    I am sure the enemy will not hear that contraption coming.

  • bart ninja

    Hoverbikes and we still cannot launch satellites into space without Russian engines… so sad.

  • ron stillwell

    i remember the HO1 and even had a model of it when I was about 10 years old . I’m 66 now. wait until you get shot at riding that thing !!
    It might be ok in a non combat area ? but the dust and what ever else would cause problems. for the driver and who ever eles is around it.

  • blight_asdfljsadf

    http://www.gizmag.com/closer-look-malloy-aeronaut…

    • Dfens

      4 rotors instead of 2. Reality is starting to set in. I wonder when they’ll get around to adding wings so the thing doesn’t fall out of the sky when the engine shuts down? Of course, even wings wouldn’t stop the tipping moment when one of the rotors stops for any number of reasons. If this “designing aircraft” shit were easy, they wouldn’t pay people to do it.

      Oh, and by the way, there is nothing that stops this vehicle from going more than 10 feet in the air. Nothing but good sense, and that would be in short supply for anyone who would pilot one. More proof that the Army is run by idiots spending our money.

  • Jefff

    “It’s as easy as falling off a horse” is right. When are these geniuses going to realize that putting the center of gravity of the “driver” above the CG of the vehicle is a recipe for tipping over, no matter how much active stability control you have. Gyrocopters like James Bond’s “Little Nellie” are easy to fly, and don’t need THREE 240-HP engines to stay in the air. But something that could actually be useful is uncool. This is all about inter-forces rivalry and not interfering with the helicopter’s “mission”.

  • RegioinalHawk

    I’d like a variant with some 2.75 rockets and maybe a small gatling type gun for a backup.

    • d kellogg

      Rockets have evolved. Actually guided missiles really. Projects like C-RAM systems have created 2-inch diameter precision guided rounds that can guide into artillery shells. There was even , years ago, a Naval Warfare Center (I think it was them) program called Spike (NOT to be confused with the Israeli-built Spike missile family) which was developing a 40mm (approx…maybe it was 45mm…?) guided mini missile. BAE recently announced its ORKA project, little more than a command-guidance “fuze” capable of fitting into standard 57mm shells,… If we have precision projects like these actually proving feasible, 70mm (2.75inch) rockets could actually be seen as overkill, if I have a flyweight mini missile I can guide down a tank hatch or thru a house window. Then there’s that guided .50-cal bullet program…a hand-held “hand cannon” launcher like Gene Simmons wielded in the Tom Selleck movie “Runaway” can’t be more than 2 decades away…

  • SGTBJH

    They ought to let H-D and Indian, two AMERICAN bike companies build it. The military museums are full of vehicles meant to get the common ground pounder to fly. As I said, they’re all in museums.

  • Sqwerty

    I want one!

  • mogul264

    Seems we have been here before….the government developing individual hovercraft systems. They have NOT eliminated the possibility of arms being used to just knock these out of the air, the noise detection, nor the fact that, while operating, they are at elevated altitudes, subject to easy detection and elimination! They are also not very useful in mountainous areas. And, these unsolved problems existed even as far back in the Civil War, when balloons were used as elevated observation platforms, telegraphing info. A few well placed sniper shots could, AND DID, easily end THOSE attempts. Right now, just giving troops souped-up dune buggies, or even motorcycles, would be MUCH more cost-effective, at present!

  • CTOCS77

    Wow? Then someone is going to want to put a 50 cal on it and then more and more and then you will have a C130J.

    Total wast of money.

  • scooter_mech

    I guess my last comment was yanked. Seems like the operator would be a sitting duck. Civil operators could make use of it as an all terrain vehicle.

  • macman1138

    Looks like a death trap.

    • Dfens

      It doesn’t just look like one…

  • Mee

    Something else for the kids that are prevalent throughout the military to tear up at a cost to the tax payers………

  • SGT. Anderson, USMC

    what a disgusting, arrogant waste of taxpayers money. These people were obviously REMF’s during their service time. To suggest that this joke is of any value to front line grunts is nothing less than a criminal waste of taxpayers money. Do us all a favor and post the names of the Congressmen and Women that voted to fund this. Corporate welfare at its finest!!

  • joe balocca

    I have been thinking of this for over thirty years and am glad to see it fly . I can think of many missions that the armed forces could use this for. but it must be quiet .

  • Lars erik duryee

    would think a good exo-skeleton would be better for the soldier as you can carry more,move faster and so on.Dont mistake me…the hooverbike looks nice….for the civilians it is.For the soldiers?not as much i believe.

  • Realist

    They will gold plate the requirements to the point that it can’t be fielded. We’ll never see one in a real unit.

  • Clifford

    Why are so many readers think that they “know the future of individual flight”.
    This could develop into something of great service to Military/Civilian usage.

  • wrob

    Just bring back the P-51. Would be cheaper.

  • Robb

    One branch or high bush and its pieces on the grown, even if noiseless it would be a very expensive turkey shoot applicant.

  • Graeme

    My late father - an aeronautical engineer - worked on programs like this in the early 1960s: flying platform, flying jeep, flying mine detector and so on. Interesting to see that over 50 years later the requirements statements are almost exactly the same! Maybe this time they will perform better by throwing modern computer systems at them. Or maybe not. Time will tell.

  • Brandon

    Let’s see….
    Deliver a pizza & beer to a 30th story penthouse condo by the beach? Check.
    “Rescue” a person from a high rise building to quickly & efficiently bring them down in case of fire. Check.

    Military use to bring supplies to front lines via sat link. Check.
    Don’t see riding these except at high altitudes normally beyond the range of IR and bullets. Mostly at night dropping from C7 cargo planes. There will be no “sneaking” up on an enemy with this. But as a support or supply vehicle it’ll be awesome. Right now it’s dumb drops from a cargo plane via parachute. With this one can guide it via remote to your troops and should a threat make the drop zone move this will be able to. Good stuff.

  • dave veals

    hover bikes are vulnerable:-
    More visible and destroyable 10ft in the air by ground
    forces.

  • prem bista

    how to macanic ingen