Is Boeing still accepting new orders for the 748F? I know that production will end in 2022, but could the USAF order up to 50 747-8Fs to keep production going for several more years? I can see the USAF basing the 747-8F out of Travis and Dover AFBs and use them as an augment to the C-5 and C-17 fleet for palletized cargo. The 747-8F can also be fitted with a detachable built-in ramp or on-board loader that can allow loading and offloading at austere locations.

Triumph made the last fuselage sections two years ago, shut down the line and sold off the equipment. There won't be any more 747s.

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.

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

Would a USAF 747F have more range than a CRAF 747F?

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.

A single KC-777 doesn't offer much that a pair of KC-46 can't do.

The 747-8F nose door was extremely unique at carrying oversized cargo with the optional inbuilt ramp.

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?

Now that they plan to put communication nodes on the KC-46, it is more logical to have more KC-46 frames in the air so they can get more distributed band width.


bt

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.

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.

You might see it, but AMC won’t.

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.

It would seem there’s a disconnect about just how high off the ground a 748 main deck is. An internal loading system would be massively heavy and restrict space and weight in a very impactful way. Not to mention most likely very time consuming to set up and operates vs open the doors and drive up with a loader

Galaxyflyer has it right. K loaders are the way.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

UA857 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

You might see it, but AMC won’t.

Ding!

But yeah, the non-mobility USAF is going to miss the KC-10 when its gone.

The savings of it are somewhat illusionary, and some of the capability boutique.

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

Boeing has a surplus of factory space at Everett , after shutting down the Everett 787 Final Assembly Line (FAL) in April 2021.
Only the 777F / 777X FAL and the 767 / KC-46A FAL remain active, after the shutdown of the 747 FAL end of 2022.

747classic wrote:

Boeing has a surplus of factory space at Everett , after shutting down the Everett 787 Final Assembly Line (FAL) in April 2021.

Does that mean Everett will have plenty of room for the next airplane model? Or more consolidation from off-site buildings?

bt

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.

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.

The C-5M will never be replaced and the USAF will never have another airlift that can carry over 100,000kg of cargo. The C-5M will be kept flying beyond 2050 with a smaller fleet size for rare oversized or long range cargo flights.

The USAF has decided that it doesn't need to carry cargo beyond 4m X 4m. That is the size of the Kawasaki C-2. The USAF has specified that vertical landing is the highest priority as it allows the strategic, tactical and helicopter airlifters to be replaced with one aircraft.

Expect a huge tilt rotor or tilt wing shortly after 2030 with 40-50t payload and a cargo bay the size of the Kawasaki C-2. It will replace the C-17 and C-130J in one hit. Any large loads that can fit in the C-17 can simply get split into two of these tilt rotors. The USAF will require hundreds of these STOVL aircraft.

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.

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"

What’s the point of vertical lifting an MRAP?

acecrackshot wrote:

What’s the point of vertical lifting an MRAP?

Saves the Taliban the trip from picking up the junk we left there?

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.

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?

Ouch. Too soon.

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.

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.”

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.”

Did you read the PDF? You must be thinking that they will use light wheeled vehicles like the Oshkosh L-ATV or Humvee which weighs under 5,000kg. That's definitely not it.

When I say light tracked and heavy wheeled I mean the Bradley IFV and Boxer armoured fighting vehicles. Both are medium weight platforms. These have great survivability. These are not road bound.

JMR-heavy will ultimately carry one Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle. These are 8,000kg to 15,000kg. Think the Oshkosh M-ATV as the max size. Bushmaster and ASLAV are other examples.

JMR-ultra will carry a single light tracked or heavy wheel vehicle between 20,000kg up to 50,000kg. Think Bradley, Boxer, Puma IFV. These are highly survivable platforms and inserted behind enemy lines would cause huge damage to the enemy. JMR-ultra will be able to fit two of the vehicles that are carried in the JMR-heavy.

As the PDF mentions the vehicles would get dropped off during the night with the US having full air dominance. 100 JMR-ultra and 200 JMR-heavies tilt rotors could deliver say 100 Bradley and 200 Oshkosh M-ATV vehicles 400nm behind enemy lines. The lighter vehicles are not as survivable but are more agile so the strengths of each platform would get used accordingly.

Not all wars will be like Gulf War one where the US has months to build up their forces.

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:

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

Low intensity conflicts have a way of becoming more intense, needing armor. See Mogadishu

The armor was denied politically, as was the AC-130. Had a USMC MEU been available, the task force would have had access to all sorts of armor.

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

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

The strategic plan in such cases is the US' Joint Forced Entry Doctrine. There is good reason to suggest that JEFO is yesterday's news, and reasons to think its enduring. Likely, its a bit of both. However, while we probably CAN build the ability to do JEFO against any and all comers, a question can be made if we SHOULD.

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.

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.

It’s interesting to note that not being able to deploy everything quickly does indeed come up as an issue, when (like you said) for pretty much every potential adversary, even the American style buildup is virtually impossible.

During the run up to Iraq, I recall having a professor who made note of that fact to all of us. I believe he had served in some sort of logistical role, so it was his realm. But he loved pointing out to his classes that there was no other military in the world that could assemble thousands of miles from home, then completely overwhelm a defensive force in less than a month.


But back on topic...748 for USAF bad.

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. The total disc area (source: Wikipedia) of the two rotors is a bit larger than that of four CH-53K rotors, so here is our quadcopter.

Then, to turn it into a tilt-rotor, one needs to just add a nacelle/wing tilting mechanism. A wing and rotor folding mechanism would make it suitable for naval 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.

Yes big VTOL is nothing new. The JMR-Ultra will be like the Mil V-12 and JMR-heavy will be like Mil-26 in payload.

It will be relatively straight forward. Tilt rotors also have a much higher disc loading. For instance the V-22 lifts 21,546 kg with only 210m2 total rotor area. A Sea Stallion lifts 19,051 kg but requires 380m2 of rotor area. A Tilt rotor requires 40-50% more engine power to compensate for the smaller rotor area.

I'd estimate the JMR-heavy will have 2 times the V-22 weights or 2.5 times the V-280 weights. JMR-ultra will have 5 times the V-22 weights. So Medium, Heavy and Ultra the weights increase by 2.5.

JMR-heavy
OEW: 30t
Max payload STOL: 18t
Max payload VTOL: 11t
Max vertical takeoff: 43t
Max STOL takeoff: 55t
Two 8,000kw engines

JMR-ultra
OEW: 75t
Max payload STOL: 45t
Max payload VTOL: 27t
Max vertical takeoff: 107t
Max STOL takeoff: 135t
Four 10,000kw engines (twice the power of the V-12)

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"

"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?"

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?"

I'm afraid I'm not really understanding the point you're trying to make.

Re: your first line, there's no requirement to "move 290,000 lbs in one plane load" in any Oplan or contingency response, and a 748 would only be good for palletized cargo or otherwise long, low-density stuff that has to fit through the nose, but isn't so heavy to overload the support structure. I.e. it's not a replacement for a C-5 or a C-17.

Re: your second line, I seriously doubt the powers that be are adherents to the "4 engines 4 war zones" mantra, considering the KC-46, P-8, and others are two engine jets. Do you really think their thought process is "send a two engine civilian airliner into a hostile area? My god man, are you mad???!!! Oh, it's got 4 engines? Well, that's totally fine, then!"?

Which is the more insane idea...the fleet of MOG eating 747-8is bringing in an OPLAN worth of stuff packed in lunchboxes or 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?

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.

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!!!!

Every time I’ve unloaded a 747F I’ve always thought the only thing missing was gunfire and hostilities. Thankfully as a 4 engine aircraft, it would be up to the task.

I understand a combat zone isn’t necessarily under direct fire, but I wouldn’t want to be the guy standing up on the loader in that sort of environment

Personally I think I’d give up the fight if the sun was suddenly blocked out by the fleet of massive tilt rotors coming.

At least the tilt rotors would make a better movie. Just need blue natives, a white savior with a sordid past, and a female lead to make it happen. But the 748 would enable the ubiquitous "I love the smell of per diem in the morning" line to continue.

Ahh, buildings 68-213 and 68-218. Just the sort of blight every deployed ramp needs!

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!!!!

Very old joke, I think It goes back to 1970.

C-5 Rodeo: Pilots compete for best 1801, engineers on pre-flighting and loads have a bake-off.

If you don’t believe in life after death, you haven’t told five loads that we’re going back crew rest. The slumber ends and it’s a race to the bus. Unfortunately, driver has a shift change, so you have to hang at the motor pool before billeting.

RJMAZ wrote:

[...]
It will be relatively straight forward.
[...]

We need to agree on the meaning of "relatively".

About 15 years ago, NASA carried out a feasibility study for a heavy lift civil rotorcraft. The requirements included: 120 passengers, 1200nm range, cruise at 350 kts and 30k ft. Not an impossible task, but it required a massive improvement in the US tech base, and a very extensive risk reduction program.

The final report can be found here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20060023335.

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.

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?

Fuel trucks? All the armoured vehicles will be electric and charged off a portable nuclear power plant.

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

No need to transport millions of litres of fuel to the front line through a giant supply line that the enemy can target.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/mobil ... -the-army/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just because they’ve run tests and laid out designs doesn’t mean a paper airplane is any closer to flying.

The only reasonable example we have to go on is the v22. Designed in the early 80s, first flew in the late 80s, and entered service in......2007. And it was derived from the xv15, which started flying in 1977.

Aircraft development isn’t exactly linear. Just because you built a v22 doesn’t mean you can simply gauge that up into a similar aircraft that will now lift 27 tons.

Again, 10 years...not likely

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.

It has nothing to do with the complexity of the T-X or the MQ-25 for that matter.

The principle of power and aerodynamics and controls are predictable with the modern day computers. In the past much of the development gets bogged down by the iterative process of building prototypes, test, improve the design, re-build, and test again.

What we are seeing with digital design, digital modeling, and digital manufacturing, the iterative process can accelerate. It doesn't guarantee success, but if the problem is unsolvable, then you can come to such conclusion faster.

by

https://youtu.be/EXErTR2-ck0

Here is an example of what digital engineering and manufacturing in real world situation.

bt

It's fascinating to see how in the forum upstairs, if one proposes to change even just the seat color of an airliner everybody screams CLEAN SHEET!!! CLEAN SHEET!!! $10 BILLION!!! $20 BILLION!!! and here, where one would need at least 10 years of heavy duty R&D to just beef up the tech base, let alone build a prototype, what? a couple of weeks of CFD and finite element codes? a couple of months? will do the job.

This is not a forum discussion on NMA/NSA/322 where some imaginative spreadsheet calculations might even by chance be accurate because those are all tube-with-wings-plus-two-engine configurations, so it's all some form of interpolation. Any VTOL-based rotorcraft of a 747 or even a C-17 size would be a massive extrapolation from anything known today, with similarly massive risk and required money.

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!

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!

Y'all just won the internet for today.