Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 1:49 am

With what Airbus learn with the A380, when the time comes, could they design the C-5s replacement? I believe Lockheed will be busy with fighter contracts for years, and I believe Boeing will get the bid for the next generation of bombers, so this may give Airbus a chance to design an A480 down the line, to replace aging C-5s. Yes, I know a lot of C-5s just got updated, but by 2024, they would need to be replaced. Airbus is building a plant in Alabama, and I could see them adding a giant plant for the A480, so it will still be an American jet. I not talking about a Military A380, I mean a open nose and rear, high wing Military cargo plane. Airbus has built the second largest land based jet ever built, so I think Airbus America, can build a C-5 replacement.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 3:18 am

I am sure they could, but I would expect Lockheed-Martin would win the contract based on their extensive experience with large heavy lifters (C-141 and C-5).
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2531
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 4:42 am

I agree that Airbus could easily design and build a C-5 replacement.
Could it be in conjunction with an American company? Lockheed would be the most likely, but don't forget the others. I guess a joint effort with Boeing may be out of the question.
A thought: could the 747-8F be the basis of a C-5 replacement? Obviously it would not have the tactical advantages but it is the closest 'off the shelf' design available... How ironic it would be considering the 747's original development came about as a C-5 competitor.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
karadion
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:06 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 4:48 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I believe Boeing will get the bid for the next generation of bombers

Both Boeing and Lockheed are working together on the NGB project in a 60/40 split provided they win the contract in the match up against Northrop Grumman. Based on that, it's very well likely Boeing and Lockheed would work together again to produce the C-5 Replacement in a possible reverse 60/40 split in favor of Lockheed. There is a ton of cooperation between Lockheed Martin and Boeing (ULA anyone?) these days so it's hard to imagine them really going head to head aggressively on contracts. Anyone can prove me wrong? I know Boeing lost out to the F-35 in the JSF competition but ugh their JSF variant was just terrible.
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2531
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:51 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 3):
Both Boeing and Lockheed are working together on the NGB project in a 60/40 split provided they win the contract in the match up against Northrop Grumman. Based on that, it's very well likely Boeing and Lockheed would work together again to produce the C-5 Replacement in a possible reverse 60/40 split in favor of Lockheed

Hi mate,
Based on what you say then, could Airbus team up with Northrop Grumman against Boeing/Lockheed in a C-5 replacement competition?
Also, does anyone think that there would be export potential for such a beast? I could see Australia interested in a few, especially if our C-17s continue to be as heavily used in the next decade as they are now.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
Norlander
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:39 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:44 am

An Airbus - Northrop Grumman alliance was behind the KC-30 / KC-45, which managed to go through a few rounds vs. the KC-767 before finally losing, so they could very well be the team that lines up vs. Boeing / Lockheed in several competitions.

One thing I don't understand is why no one is pushing a "bomb-truck" design to replace the B-52. Yes the B-52 has plenty of design life left, but their operating costs are immense. A new "bomb-truck" could easily have 2x the payload, 2x the range, and still be significantly cheaper on fuel and other operating costs (going to a 2 man crew). Designing it shouldn't be too expensive when stealth isn't an issue.
Longtime Lurker
 
Legs
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:37 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:30 am

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 2):
747-8F be the basis of a C-5 replacement?

Any C-5 replacement, or any new military transport for that matter would be specified to be a high-wing design. A low-wing design forces too many compromises when dealing with the loads a military airlifter carries every days.

Would Boeing use some of the knowledge and technology gained in developing the 747-8 in the design of a new airlifter? Absolutely, but modifying the -8 wont happen.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 1:45 pm

Quoting Norlander (Reply 5):
One thing I don't understand is why no one is pushing a "bomb-truck" design to replace the B-52. Yes the B-52 has plenty of design life left, but their operating costs are immense. A new "bomb-truck" could easily have 2x the payload, 2x the range, and still be significantly cheaper on fuel and other operating costs (going to a 2 man crew).

Operating costs don't matter much to the military.

Also, while a new airframe will be cheaper to operate, it will be immensely expensive to procure. So the costs of designing, purchasing and initial deployment could (and if the B-1 and B-2 are any indication, would) exceed the cost savings over existing designs.

That being said, the Long-Range Strike Bomber program announced last month is supposed to replace the B-52 and much of the B-1 fleet, even though it will not be a "heavy" bomber (in theory, that class of airframe will enter service with the B-2's planned retirement around 2040).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24813
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 3:47 pm

I can't imagine the US Congress approving such a new high visibility program going forward without the vast majority of the work being done by a US company.

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 2):
I agree that Airbus could easily design and build a C-5 replacement.

I would not use the word 'easily' in such a statement. Airbus found some nasty surprises when developing the A440M (google 'a400m french senate report' for a summation). McD-D found similar nasty surprises when developing C-17 as did LM with C-5. My point is that people often look at military cargo a/c and seem to think they are simple derivatives of commercial designs, whereas the reality is almost always different.

Quoting Norlander (Reply 5):
One thing I don't understand is why no one is pushing a "bomb-truck" design to replace the B-52. Yes the B-52 has plenty of design life left, but their operating costs are immense. A new "bomb-truck" could easily have 2x the payload, 2x the range, and still be significantly cheaper on fuel and other operating costs (going to a 2 man crew). Designing it shouldn't be too expensive when stealth isn't an issue.

The US Congress is in a completely dysfunctional state. I can't imagine such a large high visibility program moving forward in the current climate.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4021
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:24 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
the Long-Range Strike Bomber program announced last month is supposed to replace the B-52 and much of the B-1 fleet, even though it will not be a "heavy" bomber (in theory, that class of airframe will enter service with the B-2's planned retirement around 2040).

  

The question for a C-5 replacement is: is it warranted? in rush operations in hostile territory, the C-17s are adequate and less vulnerable. At the rate we deploy for major offenses, lighter than air monsters would be better..

This also gets to the question of when does "Mine is bigger than yours" cease to have strategic value.
 
JohnM
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:47 pm

I'd like to see Airbus take a crack at MADARS V. I say let them take a shot.
 
flyinggoat
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:38 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 6:07 pm

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what can a C-5 do that a C-17 can't? I know the C-5 is larger with a higher payload, but is there anything that fits in a C-5 but not a C-17?

If the width or height of the C-17 bay is not an issue, perhaps Boeing could offer a stretched, re-engined, re-winged C-17 as a C-5 replacement. It would be nice to keep the Long Beach plant going.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4123
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 6:37 pm

Yes, I think a blown-up C-17 is the only feasible C-5 replacement.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:08 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):

As well as Boeing! Not sure if there would be a 747 today without the initial C-5 development program.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
cargotanker
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:33 pm

Quoting flyinggoat (Reply 11):
Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what can a C-5 do that a C-17 can't? I know the C-5 is larger with a higher payload, but is there anything that fits in a C-5 but not a C-17?

If the width or height of the C-17 bay is not an issue, perhaps Boeing could offer a stretched, re-engined, re-winged C-17 as a C-5 replacement. It would be nice to keep the Long Beach plant going.

That's a very good question. There are only very few pieces of equipment that a C-5 can transport that a C-17 cannot. This includes the Mark V seal boat, some satellites that are carried by the C-5s with the upper deck removed, and just a few others I cannot recall (galaxy 5007 might weigh in and add to this). However, the C-5 can, in many cases, double the volume of cargo that a C-17 can carry (it can carry 36 pallets vs 18 for the C-17). But the C-5 has had abysmal mission ready rates, around 50%, compared to 85% for the C-17. So, 1 C-17 can do about 85% of the work of a C-5 if you factor in historical mission ready rates. Supposedly the C-5M has improved MR rates and the C-17 MR rates are beginning to decline as it ages.

Given these factors, I think it is far cheaper for the USAF to keep 30 or so C-5s around for the next 50 years and fly them minimally instead of looking for a very expensive replacement.
 
User avatar
ish2dachoppa
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:04 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:59 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):

If that we're true, why was there such a dust up over retiring the A-10? Why were one of the Aggressor squadrons just deactivated?

It seems like the reduction of operating costs are at the forefront on DODs plans.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1424
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:18 pm

Quoting Norlander (Reply 5):
One thing I don't understand is why no one is pushing a "bomb-truck" design to replace the B-52. Yes the B-52 has plenty of design life left, but their operating costs are immense. A new "bomb-truck" could easily have 2x the payload, 2x the range, and still be significantly cheaper on fuel and other operating costs (going to a 2 man crew). Designing it shouldn't be too expensive when stealth isn't an issue.

I have wondered as well. Massive wing with hard points. Four podded engines. Wing join at the top of a long narrow fuselage with an enormous weapons bay. Minimal to nonexistent stealth. Subsonic.

Thing is, I think you and I are thinking, "it'll be as cheap as an airliner!" And yet even if you look at an apparently smooth airliner development program like the A350, it *still* adds up to a lot of billions of dollars R&D and on top of that each frame is several hundred million to procure. $100 billion for 100 frames would be optimistic... ie assuming P-8 efficiencies without reusing a production airframe.

And the Air Force inevitably wants all the bells and whistles even if the program starts out envisioned as something like a "big simple bomber."

[Edited 2014-08-17 14:19:28]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:06 pm

Quoting flyinggoat (Reply 11):
Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what can a C-5 do that a C-17 can't? I know the C-5 is larger with a higher payload, but is there anything that fits in a C-5 but not a C-17?

Main Battle Tanks and certain types of helicopters come to mind.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Operating costs don't matter much to the military.
Quoting ish2dachoppa (Reply 15):
If that we're true, why was there such a dust up over retiring the A-10? Why were one of the Aggressor squadrons just deactivated?

It seems like the reduction of operating costs are at the forefront on DODs plans.

As I understand it, the reason for retiring the A-10 is that the USAF believes it has sufficient assets in other models (F-15E / F-16) to perform the close air-support role of the A-10 and therefore the decision was driven by the desire to simplify the fleet rather than that the A-10 is too expensive to operate.
 
cargotanker
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:05 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):

Quoting flyinggoat (Reply 11):
Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what can a C-5 do that a C-17 can't? I know the C-5 is larger with a higher payload, but is there anything that fits in a C-5 but not a C-17?

The C-17 can carry every main battle tank in existence, carrying the M-1 Abrams was one of its design requirements. It can also carry every helicopter the C-5 can, to include CH-53, Ch-47, and V-22.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3519
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:33 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
As I understand it, the reason for retiring the A-10 is that the USAF believes it has sufficient assets in other models (F-15E / F-16) to perform the close air-support role of the A-10 and therefore the decision was driven by the desire to simplify the fleet rather than that the A-10 is too expensive to operate.

Pretty much. Eliminating an entire type also provides a larger cost savings compared to the alternatives, such as cutting the F-15 and F-16 numbers. I think the comparison was that eliminating the A-10 fleet as a whole was equal to cutting 300 F-16's from the USAF fleet.

Also, survivability of the A-10 has been called into question as well; look at the losses the Ukrainians are racking up with with their Su-25's, the Warsaw Pact counterpart to the A-10 at the hands of the pro-Russian rebels. If you are fighting against a near-peer or against any army with modern or reasonable Anti-Air defense, then you're just unnecessarily risking lives, equipment, etc.

Quoting ish2dachoppa (Reply 15):
Why were one of the Aggressor squadrons just deactivated?

Also due to the increase in use of virtual training to better simulate more complex environments:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140810/NEWS/308100029

Quote:
“The fifth generation brought us capabilities and lethalities that are straining my abilities at Red Flag to produce that same realistic combat environment,” Hostage said last month at an Air Force Association speech in Arlington, Virginia. “I can’t turn on every bell and whistle on my new fifth-generation platforms because, A, they’re too destructive, and B, I don’t want the bad guys to know what I’m able to do.”

Red Flag began in 1975 after it became clear in Vietnam that Air Force pilots were not trained well enough in aerial combat. A pilot was least likely to survive his first 10 missions, but after that the likelihood of survival increased with each mission, Hostage said. Red Flag was created to give a pilot that experience before facing real combat.

However, the newest generation of aircraft, such as F-22s and F-35s, cannot practice all of their capabilities at Red Flag, Hostage said.

.
.
.
.


Red Flag wouldn’t go away if virtual reality training becomes a reality, but its focus would change.

“I will still do Red Flags, I will still do live training in live platforms,” Hostage said. “But the place where I will be able to take the gloves off, the place where I can turn on all the bells and whistles and get full capability is going to be in the virtual constructive arena.”
 
FrmrKSEngr
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:05 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:32 am

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 16):
I have wondered as well. Massive wing with hard points. Four podded engines. Wing join at the top of a long narrow fuselage with an enormous weapons bay. Minimal to nonexistent stealth. Subsonic.

B-52 MAX or B-52-8. Dust off the old drawings, convert them to CATIA. Come up with some engine options and away we go. Prototype flying 60 years after the last B-52H delivered. Of course the computers will probably say it won't fly.
 
FrmrKSEngr
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:05 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:35 am

The other approach is to take a C-17 wing, nose and tail and add a bomber mid section.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1424
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:23 am

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 21):
The other approach is to take a C-17 wing, nose and tail and add a bomber mid section.

Doesn't satisfying STOL design specs kill what you'd want for range in a bomber? I'm assuming the "bomb truck" could use a lot of runway.

I also tend to think that airliners and freighters are a lot wider, proportionally, than the B-52. Bombs are denser than people. But it's surprisingly hard to google the fuselage width of the B-52.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:42 am

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 16):
Thing is, I think you and I are thinking, "it'll be as cheap as an airliner!" And yet even if you look at an apparently smooth airliner development program like the A350, it *still* adds up to a lot of billions of dollars R&D

On that note, it is really not worthwhile to design such a little-utilized product. If we need air lifters, C-17s are fine. Money-wise it is not worth researching something better. Billions of dollars, for something that is rarely used and already nearly perfected. With no civilian dual use? Not viable imo

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Yes, I know a lot of C-5s just got updated, but by 2024, they would need to be replaced.

Not really. Depends on maintenance. Current timeout is envisioned at "beyond 2040." They don't get the hours that airliners do...

Here is a really nice discussion. Notes 21st C-5M was delivered in July. I guess this means production is going smoothly now, but only 42 C-5Ms are planned now.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...axy-the-c-5-amprerp-program-03938/



[Edited 2014-08-18 00:00:36]
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3500
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:41 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 9):

The question for a C-5 replacement is: is it warranted?

The most important aspect of C-5 is the ability to deploy 3 M-1 tanks (I think) with a quick reaction force. The C-17 can only handle 1. But with current doctrine, quick-reaction forces typically field the Striker, so any future C-5 and C-17 replacement will probably be design around that.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 20):

B-52 MAX or B-52-8. Dust off the old drawings, convert them to CATIA.

Do be careful as you dust of the drawings, the dust may be the drawings  

The future airlift would be either a flying wing (Northrop Grumman/Airbus) or the blended wing (Boeing/Lockheed).

And if you want to design a bomb truck, why not the 777? Seems like that frame will be around for a while and the fuselage is aluminum (easily mod-able).

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
teme82
Posts: 1346
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:38 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:51 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
And if you want to design a bomb truck, why not the 777?

Now that would be nice. Then every one would start aiming any 777's on the air claiming they are USAF bombers :P
Flying high and low
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 3:08 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
The most important aspect of C-5 is the ability to deploy 3 M-1 tanks (I think) with a quick reaction force.

The C-5 is limited to two - which is still one more than the C-17 can lift.  
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 3:27 pm

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 20):
B-52 MAX or B-52-8. Dust off the old drawings, convert them to CATIA. Come up with some engine options and away we go. Prototype flying 60 years after the last B-52H delivered. Of course the computers will probably say it won't fly.

There was a project in the 1980s, to re-engine B-52 G and Hs, by putting 6 CFM 56-2s in place of the 8 J57 and TF33, and in the early 2000s, there was a project to replace the B-52 Hs, 8 TF33s, with 4 RR 2:11 535s. I think that if they where to do a B-52 MAX, I think 4 P&W 1000G, give more than enough power.


PW1124G
PW1127G
PW1133G 81 in (2.06 m) 12:1 24,000–35,000 lbf (110–160 kN)[17][18] -15% -20 dB -3.600 -55% 1GF-3LPC-8HPC-2HPT-3LPT
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3500
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:23 pm

Quoting teme82 (Reply 25):
Then every one would start aiming any 777's on the air claiming they are USAF bombers :P

Said it before, and worth repeating. Everyone will already be targeting 737's because they won't know that it's not a P-8 :P

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:24 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 27):
I think 4 P&W 1000G, give more than enough power.

Enjoy that idea. Wonder if we might see a C-17 RERP someday, as well. IIRC it could use extra range.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3519
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:54 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 27):
There was a project in the 1980s, to re-engine B-52 G and Hs, by putting 6 CFM 56-2s in place of the 8 J57 and TF33, and in the early 2000s, there was a project to replace the B-52 Hs, 8 TF33s, with 4 RR 2:11 535s. I think that if they where to do a B-52 MAX, I think 4 P&W 1000G, give more than enough power.


PW1124G
PW1127G
PW1133G 81 in (2.06 m) 12:1 24,000–35,000 lbf (110–160 kN)[17][18] -15% -20 dB -3.600 -55% 1GF-3LPC-8HPC-2HPT-3LPT

The B-52s are caught in a permanent stalemate over if spending 50 million per plane to re-engine them is equal to the cost savings in fuel and maintenance. Maintenance costs for the TF33 is getting outrageous and will continue to go up as they age. New engines will last 4 as long between overhauls and be cheaper to maintain due to commercial engine equivalents in active use.

And the maintenance penalty doesn't just fall on the TF33 engines. Anybody who has worked around those B-52's for a while gets used to seeing the sheetmetal workers over there behind the motors replacing the heat/vibration stressed sheetmetal over and over and over again.

There has been at least 4 different re-engining proposals regarding the B-52 since 1996. The most detailed one I remember was a proposal back in 1996, where Boeing proposed reengining the B-52 with the Rolls Royce RB211 engine through a long-term leasing agreement and provided a fixed-cost, privatized maintenance concept through a "power-by-the-hour" arrangement. Boeing initially projected reengining cost savings of about $6 billion, but later revised the projected savings to $4.7 billion to reengine 71 B-52s.

The US GAO though differently, and said that the proposal would ending up costing more money down the line. Funny how the GAO used in their calculation a fuel costs at 87 cents per gallon (the Defense Energy Support Center standard price at the time) over the remaining 40 year airframe life as their fuel constant. Well, we know they want to use the remaining B-52s longer than that, and fuel prices have surged in the last 10 years!

Here is the latest study from 2004 that I am aware of on the topic of re-engining the B-52:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428790.pdf

Basically, a number of engines were proposed, from 3 different GE engines, the Rolls Royce RB211, and the Pratt PW2040. I believe the PW2040 seemed like the best choice since it was a PW2000 derivative like the F117s on the C-17. It would have offered the most logistical and program integration to save additional life cycle cost.
 
FrmrKSEngr
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:05 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Tue Aug 19, 2014 4:24 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):
There has been at least 4 different re-engining proposals regarding the B-52 since 1996.

Going from 8 engines to 4 does create an aircraft handling problem that had to be resolved. If you lost 1 of 8 engines on take-off, you don't get a significant asymmetric thrust condition. In a 4 engine configuration, I heard that the B-52 rudder authority would be marginal to counteract an outboard engine out situation, and at full payload, chopping the opposite engine may not be an option.

On the B-52MAX that could be resolved (redesign the tail). On a B-52H re-engine, not so easy.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:16 am

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 22):
I also tend to think that airliners and freighters are a lot wider, proportionally, than the B-52. Bombs are denser than people. But it's surprisingly hard to google the fuselage width of the B-52.

9ft 10in wide, according to my hardcopy reference. 13ft 1.8in high.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13732
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:40 am

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 31):
Going from 8 engines to 4 does create an aircraft handling problem that had to be resolved. If you lost 1 of 8 engines on take-off, you don't get a significant asymmetric thrust condition. In a 4 engine configuration, I heard that the B-52 rudder authority would be marginal to counteract an outboard engine out situation, and at full payload, chopping the opposite engine may not be an option.

I would assume a re-engined B52 would have much more excess thrust available and could ramp up the remaining engine on the wing to counteract it or even retard the engines on the other wing a little bit and still have more total thrust available than 7x TF33.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3519
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:18 am

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 31):
Going from 8 engines to 4 does create an aircraft handling problem that had to be resolved. If you lost 1 of 8 engines on take-off, you don't get a significant asymmetric thrust condition. In a 4 engine configuration, I heard that the B-52 rudder authority would be marginal to counteract an outboard engine out situation, and at full payload, chopping the opposite engine may not be an option.

On the B-52MAX that could be resolved (redesign the tail). On a B-52H re-engine, not so easy.

The linked report I have deals with it:

Quote:
Replacing 8 TF33-103 engines with 4 modern high-bypass COTS engines involves more than just engine replacement. The new engines will be approximately 500 to 600 lbs heavier than the old engines, produce about 9 thousand pounds more thrust per pylon (about 36 thousand pounds total), add about 5,400 lbs to the airframe, and change the moments on the wings. These changes will affect the yaw that would be experienced in the event of an engine failure on takeoff. The solution may require installation of an auto rudder to counteract the differential thrust between wings that would result from engine failure during takeoff, and possibly an auto throttle to sense the engine failure and reduce power on the remaining 3 engines. This and a number of other technical considerations would require modifications to the aircraft such as structural changes to struts, new flight control features and wiring. The extent of the modifications is shown in Figure 12. The task force suggested in the event differential thrust becomes an issue, instituting a standard operational practice of taking off with engine throttles set at the single engine failure power setting would mitigate the problem, as well as save engine life, provide additional power for climb after gear and flap retraction, and make engine failure a non-event.
Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 33):
I would assume a re-engined B52 would have much more excess thrust available and could ramp up the remaining engine on the wing to counteract it or even retard the engines on the other wing a little bit and still have more total thrust available than 7x TF33.

best regards
Thomas

Correct. The proposal was for take-off to occur at a derated setting already set for a single engine out scenario and when an engine failure is detected, the auto-throttle will adjust the thrust as necessary across the remaining engines. After the gear and flaps have been retracted will the engines be spooled up to full power.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Tue Aug 19, 2014 11:51 am

The Antonov design bureau is located in Kiev, in the Ukrainian capital. Provided the current tiff with Russia is over and the Ukrainian government can bring the ultra rightwing (fascist) militias under control, why could Antonov not design a very modernised version of the AN-124 with western engines and avionics? E.g. as part of an association agreement with NATO.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24813
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Tue Aug 19, 2014 2:14 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 35):
why could Antonov not design a very modernised version of the AN-124 with western engines and avionics? E.g. as part of an association agreement with NATO.

Pretty much for the same reasons that EU governments chose to build A400M rather than contract with Antonov: retention of local aerospace skills, ability to steer business to politically favored companies, etc.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:15 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 23):
Here is a really nice discussion. Notes 21st C-5M was delivered in July. I guess this means production is going smoothly now, but only 42 C-5Ms are planned now.

42 is a false (most likely a typo wherever it states that) number. All 52 C-5s will be modified.

The reliability rates for the M models are in the 80% range, versus a 60% range for the C-5A's left in service, and 70% range for the B models. The stigma of that 50% reliability rating in the past is in the past. Yes, the C-5 still has its problems, but it has come a long way...especially with the AMP and RERP programs. As production of the M mod is finally smoothing out some, the AF is still working the "bugs" out that Lockheed couldn't do themselves without taking way too long and for way too much money. The AF is accepting the M models back with alot of issues, but it is faster for them to accept them and put them through an ISO and Refurbishment than it is to have them sitting at Dobbins while they bicker with the AF for money.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 23):
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Yes, I know a lot of C-5s just got updated, but by 2024, they would need to be replaced.

Not really. Depends on maintenance. Current timeout is envisioned at "beyond 2040." They don't get the hours that airliners do...

The M models will fly till around 2040. Where 2024 came from is beyond me, but pulling years out of your ears isn't kosher with many. It wouldn't surprise me if the C-5M SCM's and 69-0024 get retired earlier than that, but for the most part, the airframe has plenty of life in it.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 14):
So, 1 C-17 can do about 85% of the work of a C-5 if you factor in historical mission ready rates. Supposedly the C-5M has improved MR rates and the C-17 MR rates are beginning to decline as it ages.

The reality is the C-17A rates are starting to decline as the older aircraft are starting to show their age. That isn't to say they are lower than the C-5, but they are in a good comparison now. The C-5M's at Dover (the last update I got) were around 83%, where the pre-2002 model C-17 rates are at 87%. Obviously you factor in the newer jets and the overall C-17 reliability rate is about 91%.
It is a bit hard to swallow the pill that a C-17 doesn 85% of the work...it can carry about 85% of the items, sure, but it can only handle half the pallets, and would take 2 C-17s to do the job of 1 C-5. The C-5 definitely has the advantage when it comes to oversized and outsized cargo. The capability of being loaded in both ends of the cargo compartment, and the longer range the M model has beats the C-17 hands down. The argument that the C-17 is more reliable is a moot point because the C-17 was simply a better design. Lockheed really should have did more in fixing the reliability issues when they produced the B models (which they did a substantial amount of improvements, but they could have done more). However, the M model has shown some bright points for the C-5, and with the fleet being shrunk to 52, I think the fleet will do better than most expect. With the smaller fleet, more time is being spent during scheduled inspections on each jet to get things fixed and modified as time goes on. When we had the 111 in late 2006, inspections were being rushed, minor write ups were being postponed time after time, and it all piles up till it finally reaches a breaking point. Then you get these rashes of bad luck where one big thing breaks, then another, and another. As complex as the C-5 is, I think (and I know I am biased toward it) it does a pretty good job at handling things.

As far as the original question of Airbus designing a replacement; I think anyone can design a replacement. They can learn from their mistakes on the A-380 and A400M and come up with a decent design. Someone mentioned Lockheed has an advantage...yet, Lockheed produced FRED...so I would think Boeing would have a better advantage, especially having the McDonnell-Douglass technology from the C-17. I see Boeing ending the C-17 next year and moving on to something else. If the demand for a cargo plane comes out, a C-XXA will be designed and proposed and the bidding wars will begin once again. Needless to say, I think the replacement, when it does come time to really talk about it in the 2030's, will be another high wing design with a similar functionality that the C-5 has (ie, fwd and aft cargo doors, kneeling capability, etc).
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1424
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:58 am

Quoting rwessel (Reply 32):


Quote:
it's surprisingly hard to google the fuselage width of the B-52.

9ft 10in wide, according to my hardcopy reference. 13ft 1.8in high.

So a squished 757-200 (narrower and taller, about the same length) with a wing the size of Texas on top.

[Edited 2014-08-19 20:59:06]
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13732
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 6:30 am

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 37):
The C-5M's at Dover (the last update I got) were around 83%, where the pre-2002 model C-17 rates are at 87%. Obviously you factor in the newer jets and the overall C-17 reliability rate is about 91%.

How is availability defined in the US forces? Is it planes technically capable to take off at short notice or is it aircrafts available for operations use aka includes aircraft unavailable due to mx, flying training missions and other non-operational uses? They seem petty high anyways, for comparison the German Airforce Jan 2008:


BB= frames on the books
VB= allocated for operation usage
KS= available for operation usage
KS%: percentage of the above.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:36 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 39):
How is availability defined in the US forces?

Availability and Reliability are two different things in the AF. Availability is usually set by AMC HQ in available tails that are on station, and not in scheduled maintenance. The reliability rate is based on the on time departure rate for missions. Delays or cancellations caused by mx issues is what drags the reliability rate down.
 
FrmrKSEngr
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:05 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:35 am

How about new C-5s. The line was reopened once.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7101
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:03 am

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 35):
...why could Antonov not design a very modernised version of the AN-124 with western engines and avionics?

I would think that it is more realistic that Lockheed makes a modernised version of the C-5. Like they did when they made the C-130J.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3500
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:12 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 35):
The Antonov design bureau is located in Kiev, in the Ukrainian capital. Provided the current tiff with Russia is over and the Ukrainian government can bring the ultra rightwing (fascist) militias under control, why could Antonov not design a very modernised version of the AN-124 with western engines and avionics?

Didn't know that  Does Ukraine have significant deposits of Titanium? If they do then wouldn't be surprised to have Boeing knocking on the door to get some sort of co-design/development center right there in Kiev.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5092
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: Could Airbus Design The C-5 Replacement?

Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:53 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 27):

There was a project in the 1980s, to re-engine B-52 G and Hs, by putting 6 CFM 56-2s in place of the 8 J57 and TF33, and in the early 2000s, there was a project to replace the B-52 Hs, 8 TF33s, with 4 RR 2:11 535s. I think that if they where to do a B-52 MAX, I think 4 P&W 1000G, give more than enough power.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************There was also a proposal to remove the B52's TF33's and replace them with JT8D-219's with a single side opening reverser on each pod engine, , the E3 sentry was also proposed to get the JT8D-219 as well

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: David L, GDB, Kiwirob, SQ22 and 17 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos