Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RJMAZ wrote:I have no idea why Boeing didn't campaign for such an idea.
bikerthai wrote:RJMAZ wrote:I have no idea why Boeing didn't campaign for such an idea.
Because Boeing does not want to tie up factory space for a few 747 frames.
If the Air Force need a future conventional airlifted, Boeing would gladly offer the 777F.
bt
UA857 wrote:KC-777 anyone? I can see the USAF order up to 60 KC-777 (777-200LRF) as a KC-10 replacement and basing them out of Travis and McGuire AFB?
RJMAZ wrote:The USAF already uses 747 freighters through private companies. For some freight companies the USAF is their biggest customer and dozens of 747 freighters have already been purchased to satisfy the USAF demand. The private freight companies are much cheaper than using the C-17 and C-5M.
The problem I see is when the current 747 freighters retire there will no longer be cheap private oversized capability. I have mentioned over the years that the USAF should have purchased the 747-8F and then had the maintenance and pilots contracted out to the lowest bidder. This would have further reduced the flight hours on the C-17 and C-5M fleet saving money and pushing their replacement another decade down the road.
This would have kept the 747-8F line trickling along and I'm sure it would have secured other orders as well.
The USAF could have fitted these 747-8 freighters with improved cargo handling systems to allow them to unload at airports that might not have the right equipment. They could also have been fitted with suitable USAF communication equipment which may come in handy for special missions.
I have no idea why Boeing didn't campaign for such an idea.
UA857 wrote:bikerthai wrote:RJMAZ wrote:I have no idea why Boeing didn't campaign for such an idea.
Because Boeing does not want to tie up factory space for a few 747 frames.
If the Air Force need a future conventional airlifted, Boeing would gladly offer the 777F.
bt
KC-777 anyone? I can see the USAF order up to 60 KC-777 (777-200LRF) as a KC-10 replacement and basing them out of Travis and McGuire AFB? After all the KC-777 could fly up to 8,000 nm with a full load of cargo and transfer fuel.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:RJMAZ wrote:The USAF already uses 747 freighters through private companies. For some freight companies the USAF is their biggest customer and dozens of 747 freighters have already been purchased to satisfy the USAF demand. The private freight companies are much cheaper than using the C-17 and C-5M.
The problem I see is when the current 747 freighters retire there will no longer be cheap private oversized capability. I have mentioned over the years that the USAF should have purchased the 747-8F and then had the maintenance and pilots contracted out to the lowest bidder. This would have further reduced the flight hours on the C-17 and C-5M fleet saving money and pushing their replacement another decade down the road.
This would have kept the 747-8F line trickling along and I'm sure it would have secured other orders as well.
The USAF could have fitted these 747-8 freighters with improved cargo handling systems to allow them to unload at airports that might not have the right equipment. They could also have been fitted with suitable USAF communication equipment which may come in handy for special missions.
I have no idea why Boeing didn't campaign for such an idea.
The USAF just doesn’t want to own large civilian based freighters—CRAF is cheaper. As to MHE, the Tunner and Halvorsen K-loaders solved that problem—they can handle any load in any plane.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:UA857 wrote:bikerthai wrote:
You might see it, but AMC won’t.
bikerthai wrote:RJMAZ wrote:I have no idea why Boeing didn't campaign for such an idea.
Because Boeing does not want to tie up factory space for a few 747 frames.
If the Air Force need a future conventional airlifted, Boeing would gladly offer the 777F.
bt
747classic wrote:Boeing has a surplus of factory space at Everett , after shutting down the Everett 787 Final Assembly Line (FAL) in April 2021.
alberchico wrote:At some point in the next decade the USAF will have to start working on a replacement for the C-5. And we still have a long way to go before the current 747 cargo fleet runs out of service life. Continuing to lease cargo capacity from the commercial industry is the way to go until Boeing once again builds a 747 sized transport.
SteelChair wrote:USAF and the civilian cargo carriers will regret the day they let the 748 go out of production imho. It will cost them 3x when they need a large airlifter in the future.
Very short sighted thinking seems to predominant in leadership positions right now. "Sweat the assets," is unfortunately a common refrain. Very few people are looking 10-20 years down the road.
acecrackshot wrote:What’s the point of vertical lifting an MRAP?
acecrackshot wrote:What’s the point of vertical lifting an MRAP?
LyleLanley wrote:acecrackshot wrote:What’s the point of vertical lifting an MRAP?
Saves the Taliban the trip from picking up the junk we left there?
RJMAZ wrote:acecrackshot wrote:What’s the point of vertical lifting an MRAP?
Mounted vertical maneuver has been the plan for more than a decade. Heavy armour is designed to attack the enemy head on against other heavy armour. MVM concept is about inserting lighter vehicles deep behind enemy lines where there is no need for heavy armour and allowing them to destroy and capture targets. Any future enemy would have to then spread out forces instead of putting them against the border.
The V-22 and now V-280 are just the first models. This PDF file explains everything perfectly
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals ... art009.pdf
When this STOVL aircraft is not moving armour around they will be doing traditional cargo work.
The USAF was planning for a C-X airlifter but recently it seems JMR-ultra and C-X will be the same aircraft.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/07 ... t-program/
The juicy question is: Does the USAF fly JMR-Ultra and the army flies JMR-Heavy? This is the biggest hurdle as the USAF will not want to give the role of the C-130 over to the army. The USAF will then refuse to retire the C-130 and the superior JMR-ultra will go into a death spiral with not enough orders.
acecrackshot wrote:So the plan is to put light armored road bound vehicles behind the line of fires-heavy heavy armor formations with interior lines?
Yeah “not it.”
RJMAZ wrote:Not all wars will be like Gulf War one where the US has months to build up their forces.
bikerthai wrote:RJMAZ wrote:Not all wars will be like Gulf War one where the US has months to build up their forces.
Any "war" by definition will necessitate a build up of forces to give the politicians one last chance to avoid it.
The need to quickly deploy light/medium armor vehicles more aligns with "policing" actions or low intensity conflicts where mass heavy armor is not desirable.
bt
bikerthai wrote:The question for future conflict is what kind of air lift, and how much is needed, to bring the armor to the field. For situation like Mogadishu, you should only need medium armor, and not necessarily a lot of it.
For opponents where mass heavy armor is needed, then you better have your strategic plan ready before starting an offensive campaign. Thus, there should be sufficient time to ship the armor by boat.
bt
acecrackshot wrote:
The issue is that policy makers hate hearing that we can't deploy everything immediately all over the planet. Honestly, I'd tend to agree with the detractors of JEFO, in the sense that its our adversaries that have the ultimate A2AD challenges, not us. So, its hard to come up with logical contingencies were a brigade of armor can be airlifted into a place, and logistically supported for even defensive operations.
IADFCO wrote:Just to get an idea of what sizes we are talking about:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34042755/largest-helicopter-ever-soviet-v12-homer/
and this is for a 40k kg/88k lbs payload.
LyleLanley wrote:SteelChair wrote:USAF and the civilian cargo carriers will regret the day they let the 748 go out of production imho. It will cost them 3x when they need a large airlifter in the future.
Very short sighted thinking seems to predominant in leadership positions right now. "Sweat the assets," is unfortunately a common refrain. Very few people are looking 10-20 years down the road.
I'm pretty sure they'll be good. "748? Never heard of her"
SteelChair wrote:"What do you mean we have no way to move 290,000 lbs in one plane load?
"Two engines? 2 fricking engines? You want me to send important combat assets into a war zone on a 2 engine airplane?"
GalaxyFlyer wrote:At least, the MOG eating 747-8s will leave while the MOG eating C-5s just keep filling the ramp, broke.
If you were at EDDF or LETO in August ‘90, you’d know what MOG really meant.
VMCA787 wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:At least, the MOG eating 747-8s will leave while the MOG eating C-5s just keep filling the ramp, broke.
If you were at EDDF or LETO in August ‘90, you’d know what MOG really meant.
What does it mean when you get to a base and you find 3 C-5s are there and two of them are up on jacks?
Only two sets of jacks available!!!!
RJMAZ wrote:[...]
It will be relatively straight forward.
[...]
FGITD wrote:Personally I think I’d give up the fight if the sun was suddenly blocked out by the fleet of massive tilt rotors coming.
acecrackshot wrote:everyone flying in from CONUS on air refueled C-17 sized tilt rotors with Flight of the Valkyries playing on every VHF frequency and their armor and fuel trucks slung loaded?
From 2001 until 2010, over half of the American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 18,000 men and women, were from convoy operations
RJMAZ wrote:FGITD wrote:Personally I think I’d give up the fight if the sun was suddenly blocked out by the fleet of massive tilt rotors coming.
Reminds me of this scene
https://youtu.be/ETtVr0LExEY
Probably only 10 years away until JMR-ultra is flying or even in service.
FGITD wrote:Funny. The US military could announce today that they are developing a new toilet seat, and it still wouldn’t be ready in 10 years. Let alone a massive heavy lift tilt rotor.
RJMAZ wrote:FGITD wrote:The USAF suddenly announced the T-X trainer program in 2015 and Boeing developed and flew a cleansheet prototype in 2016. Boeing was selected as the winner in 2018 and we are now in production in 2021 a year before the original schedule. Now that is fast.
Now the JMR-Ultra sizes were announced in 2009. Billions of dollars has already been sent to competitors to fund digital design work.
The Bell and Boeing team has already wind tunnel tested the quad tilt rotor design back in 2006. The largest and most recent design fits 9 463L pallets the same as the A400M or one Stryker vehicle. It has four 17m rotors. The V-22 has two 12m rotors so this quad design has 4 times the rotor area of the V-22. The V-22 has a Slow takeoff weight of 27,442 kg. Multiply this by 4 and we have a 109,768kg.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Bo ... _TiltRotor
Most of the design work is done. So once the JMR-ultra prototype funding is announced the prototypes will fly within a few years.
FGITD wrote:The T-X program was child’s play compared to what you’re proposing. A new jet trainer is reasonably simple. The quad tilt rotor is a fundamental change to damn near everything about heavy air lift. Hardly comparable.
IADFCO wrote:Words...
LyleLanley wrote:IADFCO wrote:Words...
You, sir, can take your well-reasoned, cogent argument someplace else. Like to one of those uppity threads where people think and what not. This is a thread about the USAF ordering 748 freighters even though there’s no shortage of airlift, the 747 is going (gone?) out of production, and it’d serve a role that can be done wayyyyyy cheaper by literally anyone else: thinking, logic, and reasonable arguments have no place, here!