KRIC777
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 6:25 am

Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:58 am

I know they've been retrofitting some C-5s to C-5M spec, but are there any plans (or is there any need) to take a step back and decide if the USAF needs a super heavy-lifter on par with the A-124 or A-225. It must be kick in the shorts for the USAF to have to contract out certain heavy-lift jobs to Antonov (a former adversary), especially in areas of conflict like Afghanistan.

Obviously, if given a contract and a development budget, it would be a cinch for Boeing, for example, to develop a monstrous heavy-lifter with an efficient two-man cockpit and, say, 6 GEnx engines. But I guess the market would be limited to the few organizations who are moving a lot of big, heavy stuff around frequently: Namely the USA, Russia, and China, the latter two of which probably wouldn't buy such an expensive aircraft from a US firm.

But I guess at this point, and given the US federal budget situation, it's just cheaper to outsource heavy lift jobs to Antonov or Volga/Dnepr HeavyLift

Any thoughts? -- and this is not an invitation for the usual "the USA is in decline", discussion, because we all know that if there was a definite, perceived need for an AN-225-sized aircraft, Boeing or Lockheed-Martin would have several of them flying around by now.

It's just an academic question at this point.....
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:35 am

No need. There are always alternatives, and they're far cheaper.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5645
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:24 am

I don't think any government can justify the cost of developing a purpose built clean sheet design of a strategic military focused heavy lift aircraft.

As mentioned above - the capacity exists from commercial contractors today to meet existing and projected needs.

My prediction from another thread was that if there is a strong enough business market for heavy lift aircraft to be built to replace the An-124/ An-225 - commercial businesses will fund that development and build. The various militaries might purchase some of the planes, or continue the trend toward commercialization of airlift.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:37 am

I think Afghanistan is the last major airlift campaign, a land locked battle area with sometimes hostiles neighbours..

Fuel will become so exepnsive even Cheney will give up his adventures spreading democracy by the sword.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:28 pm

there were rumors that the second AN-225 was going to be completed (however i think that may be a seasonal offering of hope).. Honestly, I doubt that there is enough commercial use to justify a new purpose built jet freighter. However there may be some use for lighter than air cargo vessels, especially since they don't need runways.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:07 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 2):
I don't think any government can justify the cost of developing a purpose built clean sheet design of a strategic military focused heavy lift aircraft.

The only one I can think of is China, and even that's a stretch, IMO.



Quoting kanban (Reply 4):
However there may be some use for lighter than air cargo vessels, especially since they don't need runways.

That is what I am thinking, as well.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sat May 04, 2013 1:13 pm

There was a rumor floating about Lockheed Martin asking the USAF to buy some retired C-5A's change the MSL update the aircraft and make a commercial go of it but the USAF did not want to sell the old jets.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sat May 04, 2013 2:56 pm

If there was a need for such a behemoth, we already have one, the B-747-400LCF. The USAF could ask for a B-747-8F version of the B-744LCF and have very little development costs. It carries the same weight as the C-5M and with it's swing open tail section would be able to load put-sized items.

The 4 B-744LCfs are used to transport the completed wings of the B-787 to the two FALs.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sat May 04, 2013 6:40 pm

Would the LCFs would not be able to operate to commercial airports? Though that may not be a big deal. I actually sort of like the skunkworks model. If, in the future, we actually have a specific need to fly enormous loads around, let's just one-off some experimental frames rather than developing a long-lived airlifter that's going to have all the worries about maintainability in the long, long, long run. Much cheaper to be application specific. It's not just the LCF, but also the Shuttle Carriers, the AN-225, SOFIA, B-52s and the X-15, Orbital's L1011.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sat May 04, 2013 8:17 pm

The 747-400LCF is custom-designed to handle only the 787 parts it does.

A 747LCF designed for general outsized cargo would need to be designed for such a role.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun May 05, 2013 12:02 am

One must remember that the LCF cargo area is unpressurized and the skins no more than a shield against air buffeting.
The Beluga may be different.
 
rheite
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:36 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun May 05, 2013 2:41 am

The usage of Super Heavy lift would only be useful as a means to quickly move heavy equipment (ie tanks, large numbers of helicopters broken down, etc) inland faster than what it would take to TT via the ground.

You have the current C-5 assets that can do this now, as well as the versatile C-17 for all the in between jobs. Even the Marine Corps is renewing it's "amphibious roots" and all nations are realizing the next wars are going to be very water centric, as not only a resource and/or resource locations, but as a tool of war. Sea borne invasions are going to return in the next war/conflict that arises, and the methodology of sea based warfare will allow for the quick offload of the 4 B's from the sea and transported on established routes away from the beachhead and to the front.
-R.K. Heite Sr
 
KRIC777
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 6:25 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun May 05, 2013 6:56 pm

Quoting rheite (Reply 11):
The usage of Super Heavy lift would only be useful as a means to quickly move heavy equipment (ie tanks, large numbers of helicopters broken down, etc) inland faster than what it would take to TT via the ground.

True -- anything THAT heavy (e.g. more than one or two Abrams tanks, multiple Patriot missile batteries or MLRS units) is going to to be shipped by train to the coast, and then by ocean-going ship. If such a load needs to be in place that quickly, that's poor strategic planning or some kind of crisis. Probably not frequent enough to justify the investment in a super-heavy-lifter. Not sure how heavy the Patriot batteries / MLRS units are, but I know the Abrams are a beast to transport by air.

BTW -- I think the Dreamlifter, like the Super Guppy and Beluga, was designed to transport outsized, bulky but LIGHTWEGHT cargo....not heavy stuff like tanks, generators, and howitzers.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Mon May 06, 2013 3:08 am

Quoting rheite (Reply 11):
Even the Marine Corps is renewing it's "amphibious roots" and all nations are realizing the next wars are going to be very water centric, as not only a resource and/or resource locations, but as a tool of war. Sea borne invasions are going to return in the next war/conflict that arises, and the methodology of sea based warfare will allow for the quick offload of the 4 B's from the sea and transported on established routes away from the beachhead and to the front.

Indeed, that's why the USN, Marines, and Sealift Command are building the new Mobile Landing Platform ships, which allows vehicles onboard US prepositioning ships to be moved to shore without the need of a harbour by directly offloading them while off a coast onto a LCAC for transport ashore. The USN already has 3 Montford Point class Mobile Landing Platforms authorized and on order, with the first, USNS Montford Point due to join the fleet this month. Below is a article on the MLP's and what they mean for the future of amphibious warfare:
http://defense.aol.com/2013/03/08/80...s-montford-point-the-navy-s-new-m/

http://www.nassco.com/breaking-news/wp-content/uploads/USNS-Montford-Point_MLP-1_Undocking-at-General-Dynamics-NASSCO.jpg

The ships were based off an existing commercial tanker designed and built for BP, and through very diligent work by USN and the shipyard, they were able to manage costs effectively though extensive industrial cooperation with South Korea and Japan through technology sharing.

What the MLP's effectively do is put MORE well decks in the water for amphibious warfare at a fraction of a cost that it would require for an actual amphib.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Wed May 08, 2013 10:48 pm

Quoting kric777 (Reply 12):
BTW -- I think the Dreamlifter, like the Super Guppy and Beluga, was designed to transport outsized, bulky but LIGHTWEGHT cargo....not heavy stuff like tanks, generators, and howitzers.

The B-747-400LCF Dreamlifter is capable of lifting 104 tonnes.

The requirements for a USAF heavy-lifter are not driven by the USAF, but by the 'customers', the US Army, US Marines, and US Navy. All of them, and more government agencies, like FEMA, have used USAF C-5s, C-17s, and before they were retired C-141s. Governments other than the US Government also have requested use of these USAF assets.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Thu May 09, 2013 12:54 pm

I still think a future heavy lifter will be in the shape of a BWB, as you can put the cargo in the middle of that big thick wing structure G-forces are a non-problem. Efficiency being the main driver in this case. No problems with gate space and you can make it ramp loaded in the rear.
 
Eagleboy
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:29 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Thu May 09, 2013 9:12 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 4):

there were rumors that the second AN-225 was going to be completed (however i think that may be a seasonal offering of hope).. Honestly, I doubt that there is enough commercial use to justify a new purpose built jet freighter.

Last months 'Combat Aircraft' had an interview with the operators of the AN-225.......they admit that there is an unbuilt aircraft still in crates. But as they only use the AN-225 1-2 times a month there is not commercial demand for a 2nd AN-225.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Thu May 09, 2013 10:11 pm

I'm not sure a BWB would be the best design for a large heavy lift cargo airplane. Take a look at the only operationally (manned) BWB airplane currently in use, the B-2A. All of the major functions of the bomber, including its engines, two weapons, and crew compartment are inside the main landing gear. It would be essentially the same with any other mission airplane that uses BWB technology, except wide body tankers or cargo aircraft. For a heavy lifter that can carry outsized cargo, you would need a huge wingspan. For the B-2 Bomber, the wingspan is 172 feet. For a WB cargo aircraft, it would need a huge wingspan, on the order of 250' +.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NORTHROP_B-2.png
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 3796
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sat May 11, 2013 2:42 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):

But the LCF needs a K-loader, whereas the C5 has nose and tail ramps.
Beauty is watching a 787 bank to make a short final. Bliss is watching that 787 with a good beer. Nirvana is all of that with a beautiful woman on your side.
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun May 12, 2013 6:07 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
I'm not sure a BWB would be the best design for a large heavy lift cargo airplane. Take a look at the only operationally (manned) BWB airplane currently in use, the B-2A. All of the major functions of the bomber, including its engines, two weapons, and crew compartment are inside the main landing gear. It would be essentially the same with any other mission airplane that uses BWB technology, except wide body tankers or cargo aircraft. For a heavy lifter that can carry outsized cargo, you would need a huge wingspan. For the B-2 Bomber, the wingspan is 172 feet. For a WB cargo aircraft, it would need a huge wingspan, on the order of 250' +.

B-2 is a poor example of a BWB as it is actually a flying wing/hybrid flying wing design. A BWB design is closer to the Boeing X-48 style. A 200 ft wide BWB would have a cargo area in the range of 130ftx100ft with approximately 18-20 ft of cargo height. So for a plane slightly smaller than a C-5, you would have roughly 5x the cargo area. Also remember that for a given wingspan and engine thrust, a BWB will have significantly higher lift than a conventional tube and wing design.

Now a BWB does have some issues with wrt materials, design required, and engine placement, but it is certainly doable.

So if Boeing or Airbus does a large passenger BWB design, I would expect various government and non-government entities to be interested in a cargo variant.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3855
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:21 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
The ships were based off an existing commercial tanker designed and built for BP, and through very diligent work by USN and the shipyard, they were able to manage costs effectively though extensive industrial cooperation with South Korea and Japan through technology sharing.

.


Yes, it is based off the Alaska class tankers. The funny thing for me, is the fact that NASSCO was building the Alaska class tankers, when I was based in San Diego 32 street. Even though these ship are shorter than the tankers, they are around the same width, so it can carry a lot of stuff. NASSCO was also building the first of the T-AKEs, when I was based at 32 street.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Any Need For A Usaf Super Heavy-Lifter?

Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:00 pm

While Boeing's Super Frog looks interesting, I foresee problems scaling that up to C-5 cargo dimensions.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ozair, shamrock15 and 8 guests