FlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1754 times:
It seems like a really good idea when the sole goal is to transport cargo into permissive areas. Not all missions are to Kosovo with rough fields and not all missions involve airdropping things. Even when the Army deploys to the Gulf, there isn't much of a need to protect the engines against battle damage. I figure that if the 747F was fitted with flare dispensers, an inflight refueling nacelle, and a kneeling landing gear so that vehicles could be driven out the front, it would be a quick fix to the Air Force's transport problem. And in permissive environments, the 744F could outdo the C-17s in many ways while reserving the C-17s airframe life for operations like Kosovo or the Gulf or dropping the 82nd Airborne into Afghanistan.
Heck, why not go for the gusto and develop a quick-change tanker version to use up all the under-deck space of the 747F? Using the underdeck LD-1 capacity of the 747F, you could get 304,400 lb of fuel into that aircraft. The KC-10 carries 356,000 lb of fuel in the entire aircraft (giveaway plus wing tankage). Tha'ts spectacular.
If you take away the need to fight in all situations, the 747 becomes a superlative tanker/cargo aircraft.
And here are some more statistics:
At maximum weights, the 744F could carry four Bradley Fighting Vehicles where the C-17 can carry three. This way a full platoon can be carried by one aircraft.
Its volume allows sixteen Hummers to be carried (enough for an entire infantry company) where the C-17 can carry ten Hummers. That's kinda skimpy.
And the 744F can carry six (2 x 3) folded UH-60s. My best estimate is that the C-17 can carry two lined up.
Here are my statistics:
747Fs, according to the Boeing Aircraft price list, cost $214 million at the top end. C-17s cost $236 million (and that's an Air Force estimate) For essentially the same cost, the Air Force would get:
A third more volumetric cargo room than the C-17 (27,000 cu. ft vs. 20,000 cu.ft), with twice as many (39 vs. 18) pallet positions. Also, the 747F can carry at a maximum 43% more weight (244,000 lbs rather than 170,000 lbs) than the C-17 can carry at maximum.
Almost certainly operating costs would be lower for the 747. It could take parts at a lot of airports and would not require that the Air Force rewrite the Bible in order to put together a maintenance capability.
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1689 times:
I'm pretty sure that the USAF did seriously considered the 747 at one time. It was in competition with the C-5 Galaxy. Lockheed had a civil airliner version of the C-5 called the L-500, that was trying to win airlines' orders the same time Boeing was pushing the 747 to the military. All this happened around thirty years ago. It was win-win situation then. The Air Force got the C-5 & and the airlines got the 747. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
Globemaster From Germany, joined Sep 2001, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1676 times:
How to get all that stuff into the 747?
Maybe they like the ramps on those military airlifters.
BTW, they didn't build the C-17 to carry a world record payload, but to carry it whereever they need it.
I guess there are thousands of airfields worldwide where a C-17 can land but not a 747. Also they are able to operate a C-17 with just a crew of 3 and can unload most of the stuff without any help from outside.
Check http://www.globemaster.de/c-17/ for more details.
Anyways, of course I also thought about exactly that problem...why not use 747's for certain operations, like they use the KC-10 and KC-135?
FlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1670 times:
I figure if the 747 could have a kneeling landing gear, you could drive stuff out of the nose same way you do it with a C-5. Probably not tanks, since that would buckle the airframe, but definitely Bradleys.
You don't need most of those rough field capabilities when sending light infantry to the Gulf. You use them up if you send helicopters from CONUS to CONUS where all of the bases are good.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1668 times:
I remember reading that the USAF was considering the 744F in the mid-90's, either as an alternative to the C-17 (probably not), or to compliment the C-17, like FlyBoeing said. Obvioulsy, they chose to stick with the C-17.
I have my doubts about having a kneeling gear for the 747, but I guess its possible.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 32 Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1664 times:
how are you gonna kneel a 747? its engines would strike the ground. it just wouldnt be feasable. now as stricktly a pallet hauler the 747 would be outstanding it has much better capabilities that way then a C-17.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6049 posts, RR: 50 Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1654 times:
Even if it were feasible to fit the 747 with a kneeling gear, which it's not, the largest thing you can get through the nose of a 747 is 8 ft high. In addition the US Air Force has plenty of lift capacity for palletized freight on the KC-135 and KC-10.
I think a test for people to live in the southwest US should be no A/C in the car for a summer.
FlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1648 times:
Good points. I don't personally think that the engines would strike the ground if the 747 had a kneeling nosewheel, as most of the main gear is close to the engines; if the main gear is still extended but the nosewheel goes down, the engines would move but they wouldn't hit the ground.
I think that the biggest problems might be these two:
(1) How do you get stuff into the back of the aircraft when the nosewheel is knelt? This might be addressed with some sort of tailstand that locks into place.
(2) The 8 ft high main deck. There's no way you could fit a Blackhawk in there even if it was folded. Heck, you could barely fit a Bradley in there.
That second limitation really kills the viability of the 747F as a good strategic airlifter. Unless the nose gets larger or the floor goes down, it's not viable.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 57 Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1636 times:
Well, I hate to break it lol, technically the USAF has a 747F...
The Airborne Laser program will be mounted on a 747-400F which has already been built and flown to Wichita for mods...technically its a 747F
Greg
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
Contact_tower From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1634 times:
One thing, the 747 is maybe a good alternative when u have a lot of groundcrew ready at both ends, but that is hardly the case in most of the locations the USAF flies into around the world.
Allso I would like to see the 747 pilot willing to do approaches into Tuzla AB during the IFOR mission, diving down trough to avoid AAA!
I have allso seen the size of the ramp at Tuzla, the first 747 flight would have to make sure to bring a tug-tractor, or it would get stuck!
One other thing, if u put a Bradley into the hold of the 747, make sure to reinforce the floor, or u get one M2 on the lower deck!!!!
JohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 305 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1620 times:
The 747 would be an excellent addition to Uncle's fleet. I would think 10-15 aircraft would be enough, since it would only be suited for pallet hauling as mentioned before. The C-5 could haul the outsize stuff and the 747 could do the pallet thing. One great point if the 747 broke out in the system, there are people and parts all over the world that could fix the airplane. Not true with our current airlifters. I would imagine a single 747 could do the work of several C-17s. And remember back in the good old days when the C-5 was built to operate on short unprepared fields? Forget it, it is a very expensive airplane and the risk is not worth the benefit. The C-17 will be or is in the same boat. I volunteer Dover to give up our "A" models and get 747s to replace them. I will even take one for the team and volunteer to make the sacrifice and work 747 side of the house!
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6049 posts, RR: 50 Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
The USAF already has many 747s in the crago fleet via the CRAF. If needed, these aircraft can be requisitioned for military duty on the spot.
USAFHummer : You are correct. The AL-1A is a 747-400F. Of course, when completed, it will not be able to carry cargo.
Steve
I think a test for people to live in the southwest US should be no A/C in the car for a summer.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12359 posts, RR: 83 Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1614 times:
The 747 has figured in USAF plans for 30 years, but never really made it, for the good reasons mentioned in previous posts about the transport role.
Boeing did study a special nose jack to kneel the aircraft. The sill height would be lowered by 6 feet, to 10 feet off the ground. The jack was stowed in the nose cone during flight and could be lowered to the ground for the unloading. Then the nose gear would retract, allowing the front to be lowered down slowly on to the jack, until the loading ramp formed an angle of 13 deg. with the ground.
In 1980, a Flying Tigers 747-200F demonstrated the concept at Everett by taxing the aircraft in to a trench to simulate the lower sill height.
If you think the airborne laser version is a bit wild, and the E-4 'NEACP' command-posts are hugely expensive but very capable in their role, the USAF had even more ambitious plans in the past.
The KC-747 tanker was considered in the 1970's, the DC-10 won that one.
But in 1972, the MC-747 was studied. This version would be an airborne launch platform for Minuteman ICBM's.
Four of these usually silo-based ballistic missiles would be carried.
These would be dropped, one at a time, out of huge bomb-bay doors located in the rear fuselage in the base of aft section 46.
Various release modes were studied, the ICBM's could be dropped out facing backward, the 747 flying away from the target when launched, or they could fall out forward but rotate up and over the 747 after ignition!
Another mode would have been to launch facing forward, but ignite the ICBM well below the 747, crossing the flight-path 5000ft ahead of the aircraft.
Each Minuteman weighed 57,000 lbs.
The later Air Launched Cruise Missile was studied too. 43 ALCMs would be carried internally, after being loaded through the nose onto carriage racks, they would be shuttled aft to be launched from side-arm launchers through side plug-doors.
Alternatively, rotary launchers similar to the B-52, could drop them in a similar manner to the Minutemans.
FlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1602 times:
GDB, thanks for all the great info on military use of the 747! I didn't know that it may have been intended for use as a combat aircraft (aside from the AL-1)!
I had heard somewhere about the mod for the 747's kneeling landing gear but didn't know that the aircraft got reengineered for it.
but that eight foot cargo height is a killer. You can't load any military vehicle aside from a Hummer in that aircraft, which kinda stinks. Even though I have a lot of respect for the Hummer, it isn't a Bradley.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, 
From Germany, joined Sep 2001, 102 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12359 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
