Boeing E-4B Replacement News and Discussion Thread

HowardDGA · Wed Jun 08, 2022 8:15 pm

So...why not look at restarting the 747 line again?

Given the volume of dollars to be spent, it seems a lot more feasible than some of the options. Defense Production Act could be used to...persuade lower level suppliers. And with the change in the air cargo market since the decision was made to close the 747 line, there might be enough demand outside the Pentagon to make a re-started line profitable.

Or, since the need for a new strategic transport is becoming more apparent, maybe LockMart could launch a new C-5? We will be throwing billions of dollars at this project anyway...

Stitch · Wed Jun 08, 2022 8:57 pm

HowardDGA wrote:
So...why not look at restarting the 747 line again?

Because the supply chain has delivered their last parts and closed up and sold off everything. So it is not possible to build the parts to make more 747.

Phosphorus · Wed Jun 08, 2022 9:17 pm

HowardDGA wrote:
So...why not look at restarting the 747 line again?

Given the volume of dollars to be spent, it seems a lot more feasible than some of the options. Defense Production Act could be used to...persuade lower level suppliers. And with the change in the air cargo market since the decision was made to close the 747 line, there might be enough demand outside the Pentagon to make a re-started line profitable.

Or, since the need for a new strategic transport is becoming more apparent, maybe LockMart could launch a new C-5? We will be throwing billions of dollars at this project anyway...

Persuade...
If you have time to spare, browse to read and/or listen to the transcripts, and look through the presentations of these fellas:
https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/TGI/ear ... ranscripts
They actually make what becomes the airplane body.

Tl;Dr version: equipment auctioned off, site is being shut down and sold off, losses are still being booked, but end of the tunnel is in sight, a huge sigh of relief that's this bleeding is about to be over.
They have moved on, and no longer have the capabilty to return anymore

UA444 · Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:32 am

If the US government wants new 747s, you’re deluded if you think Boeing won’t make it happen.

Phosphorus · Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:20 am

UA444 wrote:
If the US government wants new 747s, you’re deluded if you think Boeing won’t make it happen.

Impossible is nothing. But the production of many of components is officially shut down.
Vendors often no longer exist, as in "running production isn't there", and sometimes "nothing is there".

If US government ruminates on this another 6 months, the assembly line will also officially shut down.

So yes, all will be possible, but at a defense procurement sort of price. "Cost plus" to rebuild supply chain for (apparently) short production run. Those parts could end up with a cost like they were cast of gold...

In the meantime, someone will be there, reminding that commercial market is ready to give up some, as capable, frames, at radically lower prices.
And "Boeing gravy train" will rumble all over the place.

trijetsonly · Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:28 am

Stitch wrote:
par13del wrote:
Where I am lost on the size issue, they are/were looking at replacing 707 E3's with Learjets, totally bypass the 767 which is being built for them....now the E-4 must be replaced not just in like size but in an engine configuration that is no longer being manufactured in and for the civilian market.

I can honestly understand why the USAF wants a "like for like" replacement for the E-4B in terms of general size and engine configuration. The stated purpose of this platform is to stay airborne for days in an environment where major infrastructure centers have been subjected to direct nuclear attack.

You need a plane with lots of engines so it can stay aloft if one or even two of them fail and where you have enough space to carry plenty of provisions and staffers to prosecute a multi-day strategic nuclear engagement against (likely) multiple antagonists.

Maybe they should rather go with a blimp instead... Or any other kind of airship. They won't be able to cover distances in the same time as in the E-4B but it's much easier to stay airborne and provide a command post. And they are far less dependent from ground infrastructure - which is a valid point if a situations is ongoing for that E-4Bs exist in the first place.

bikerthai · Thu Jun 09, 2022 11:00 am

trijetsonly wrote:
Maybe they should rather go with a blimp instead...

I was thinking the same thing. But then some one mentioned international travel

UA444 wrote:
If the US government wants new 747s, you’re deluded if you think Boeing won’t make it happen.

The principle of commercial derivative is use existing commercial of the shelf frames as a basis of militarization to reduce cost.

Restarting a line for just 2 frames isn't cost effective, neither for Boeing nor the US government.

Boeing kept the 767 line open because of potential for hundreds of KC-46 and a few 767F along the way.

Boeing will will not keep the line open for 2 or 3 E-4 and a potential of handful of 8Fs. They made a last call for the frames and anyone who wanted one ordered one.

The decision on the 4 engine was probably predicated on the Air Force believing they can get some used frames. At worst, if they know they could not get 4 engines used frames, they would figure out a way to make it work on a twin, or maybe two twins flying together.

bt

HowardDGA · Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:10 pm

@bikerthai:

Regarding “Boeing will will not keep the line open for 2 or 3 E-4 and a potential of handful of 8Fs. They made a last call for the frames and anyone who wanted one ordered one.”

The air cargo market has changed a little bit since that last call.

I am sure that there will be difficulties. But, as I believe someone has said, if the design is in Catia, recreating the tooling is not impossible. And who is not to say that the USAF or DARPA might fund development of really large-scale 3D printing for more economical large part fabrication? The B-52 and C-5 programs might also benefit.

This is all speculation, of course. It just seems that people are saying “impossible” maybe too quickly.

bikerthai · Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:36 pm

HowardDGA wrote:
The air cargo market has changed a little bit since that last call.

What hasn't change is the 777-XF would still beat the heck out of the -8F in terms of operational metrics.

The only thing the -8F has going for it is the nose door.

HowardDGA wrote:
if the design is in Catia, recreating the tooling is not impossible. And who is not to say that the USAF or DARPA might fund development of really large-scale 3D printing for more economical large part fabrication?

True with the tooling if they can be made in India for cheap.

Now if 3D printing aircraft is feasible then I'd say forget the 747-8 and go directly to BWB.

bt

Stitch · Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:33 pm

UA444 wrote:
If the US government wants new 747s, you’re deluded if you think Boeing won’t make it happen.

Anything is possible with enough money. So the USAF could certainly commission new production of all the specialized tooling needed to make the parts for a 747-8 and then build new factories to make those parts and then buy all the assembly tooling from Boeing and build a dedicated 747-8 line at an Air Force Base somewhere and hire the 747-8 machinists (probably get the ones close to retirement so you can let them retire once you are done) to assemble the planes.

I mean each frame will likely have the unit cost of a Ford class nuclear carrier, but it can be done.

UA444 · Fri Jun 10, 2022 7:36 pm

Stitch wrote:
UA444 wrote:
If the US government wants new 747s, you’re deluded if you think Boeing won’t make it happen.

Anything is possible with enough money. So the USAF could certainly commission new production of all the specialized tooling needed to make the parts for a 747-8 and then build new factories to make those parts and then buy all the assembly tooling from Boeing and build a dedicated 747-8 line at an Air Force Base somewhere and hire the 747-8 machinists (probably get the ones close to retirement so you can let them retire once you are done) to assemble the planes.

I mean each frame will likely have the unit cost of a Ford class nuclear carrier, but it can be done.

I’m not arguing it would cost a ton of money and require a lot of man power and reconstruction of certain parts or vendor assembly lines.

Saying “it’s impossible” or that it can’t happen is just silly though. If they require 4 engines, and they’ve said numerous times they do, then it’s their only option and they’ll eat the cost. Plus, the E4 is vital to national security and most tax payers would scoff but get over it. Not like the government has ever cared about $$ anyway.

744SPX · Fri Jun 10, 2022 7:47 pm

bikerthai wrote:
HowardDGA wrote:
The air cargo market has changed a little bit since that last call.

What hasn't change is the 777-XF would still beat the heck out of the -8F in terms of operational metrics.

The only thing the -8F has going for it is the nose door.

HowardDGA wrote:
if the design is in Catia, recreating the tooling is not impossible. And who is not to say that the USAF or DARPA might fund development of really large-scale 3D printing for more economical large part fabrication?

True with the tooling if they can be made in India for cheap.

Now if 3D printing aircraft is feasible then I'd say forget the 747-8 and go directly to BWB.

bt

Lockheed's Hybrid Wing Body would be a good starting point,

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/lock ... -airlifter

Tugger · Fri Jun 10, 2022 7:57 pm

UA444 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Anything is possible with enough money. So the USAF could certainly commission new production of all the specialized tooling needed to make the parts for a 747-8 and then build new factories to make those parts and then buy all the assembly tooling from Boeing and build a dedicated 747-8 line at an Air Force Base somewhere and hire the 747-8 machinists (probably get the ones close to retirement so you can let them retire once you are done) to assemble the planes.

I mean each frame will likely have the unit cost of a Ford class nuclear carrier, but it can be done.

I’m not arguing it would cost a ton of money and require a lot of man power and reconstruction of certain parts or vendor assembly lines.

Saying “it’s impossible” or that it can’t happen is just silly though. If they require 4 engines, and they’ve said numerous times they do, then it’s their only option and they’ll eat the cost. Plus, the E4 is vital to national security and most tax payers would scoff but get over it. Not like the government has ever cared about $$ anyway.

Wouldn't it be simpler (not simple, just simpler) to just create a dual-engine pod (àla the B52) for the 777 (or any twin jet)? I mean it's nuts and all but still, if you gotta have four engines...

(Wasn't there a movie not long ago that had one like that? :spin:

Edited to add: found it! "Skyfleet S570" in James Bond - Casino Royale)

Tugg

JayinKitsap · Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:02 pm

744SPX wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
HowardDGA wrote:
The air cargo market has changed a little bit since that last call.

What hasn't change is the 777-XF would still beat the heck out of the -8F in terms of operational metrics.

The only thing the -8F has going for it is the nose door.

HowardDGA wrote:
if the design is in Catia, recreating the tooling is not impossible. And who is not to say that the USAF or DARPA might fund development of really large-scale 3D printing for more economical large part fabrication?

True with the tooling if they can be made in India for cheap.

Now if 3D printing aircraft is feasible then I'd say forget the 747-8 and go directly to BWB.

bt

Lockheed's Hybrid Wing Body would be a good starting point,

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/lock ... -airlifter

Yes better to design a clean sheet adopting the best of current technology. Or if it is only 4 engines needed take the 777X and adopt it for 4 of the 787 engines. Use the design for a new series of tankers, cargo planes to standard runways, the next AF1, a drone swarm carrier, bomber truck, and the like. Only problem is the costs make the B-21 look cheap.

UA444 · Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:15 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
744SPX wrote:
bikerthai wrote:

What hasn't change is the 777-XF would still beat the heck out of the -8F in terms of operational metrics.

The only thing the -8F has going for it is the nose door.

True with the tooling if they can be made in India for cheap.

Now if 3D printing aircraft is feasible then I'd say forget the 747-8 and go directly to BWB.

bt

Lockheed's Hybrid Wing Body would be a good starting point,

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/lock ... -airlifter

Yes better to design a clean sheet adopting the best of current technology. Or if it is only 4 engines needed take the 777X and adopt it for 4 of the 787 engines. Use the design for a new series of tankers, cargo planes to standard runways, the next AF1, a drone swarm carrier, bomber truck, and the like. Only problem is the costs make the B-21 look cheap.

Take a 787 and slap two JT8Ds outboard of the other engines.

bikerthai · Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:25 pm

Tugger wrote:
Wouldn't it be simpler (not simple, just simpler) to just create a dual-engine pod (àla the B52) for the 777 (or any twin jet)? I mean it's nuts and all but still, if you gotta have four engines...

Now that is some out of the box thinking!

Unfortunately the inboard engine would blast the flaperon. But while you are at it, I guess you re-design the wing of a 777 with 4 engines and call it good.

UA444 wrote:
Take a 787 and slap two JT8Ds outboard of the other engines.

What he said, except use a 777-9. With digital digital design and manufacturing, they may we able to do it in a reasonable amount of time. Flight test would be a b*tch though.

bt

744SPX · Sat Jun 11, 2022 5:40 am

A 4 engine 777-9 would be killer

aristoenigma · Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:09 am

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/2 ... e-00034686

The current situation with Vlad makes me wonder if USAF will decide soon on the replacement avenue. That sends a message.

Stitch · Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:30 pm

aristoenigma wrote:
The current situation with Vlad makes me wonder if USAF will decide soon on the replacement avenue. That sends a message.

If we engage in a theater or strategic nuclear war with Russia, the timeline will be months, not years, so it will be prosecuted with the current E-4B fleet.

LightningZ71 · Tue Oct 04, 2022 6:08 pm

I mean, if we're really getting into pie in the sky thinking, why don't we kill two birds with one stone? Let's just build a 767-400 with 4 x PW1000G GTF engines for the KC-Y AND the E4-B replacement?!?! It'll meet the new engine emission standards, give ample space for cargo and fuel, and have modern, long lived power plants too boot without having to be as obnoxiously large as the 777!

Phosphorus · Wed Oct 05, 2022 10:04 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
I mean, if we're really getting into pie in the sky thinking, why don't we kill two birds with one stone? Let's just build a 767-400 with 4 x PW1000G GTF engines for the KC-Y AND the E4-B replacement?!?! It'll meet the new engine emission standards, give ample space for cargo and fuel, and have modern, long lived power plants too boot without having to be as obnoxiously large as the 777!

How would you fit those four engines under the wings? Those are built to carry one engine each; would you redesign them to carry two apiece? Clean-sheet, or a root plug?

744SPX · Thu Oct 06, 2022 1:48 am

Phosphorus wrote:
LightningZ71 wrote:
I mean, if we're really getting into pie in the sky thinking, why don't we kill two birds with one stone? Let's just build a 767-400 with 4 x PW1000G GTF engines for the KC-Y AND the E4-B replacement?!?! It'll meet the new engine emission standards, give ample space for cargo and fuel, and have modern, long lived power plants too boot without having to be as obnoxiously large as the 777!

How would you fit those four engines under the wings? Those are built to carry one engine each; would you redesign them to carry two apiece? Clean-sheet, or a root plug?

It would be easier just to re-wing it

aumaverick · Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:12 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
LightningZ71 wrote:
I mean, if we're really getting into pie in the sky thinking, why don't we kill two birds with one stone? Let's just build a 767-400 with 4 x PW1000G GTF engines for the KC-Y AND the E4-B replacement?!?! It'll meet the new engine emission standards, give ample space for cargo and fuel, and have modern, long lived power plants too boot without having to be as obnoxiously large as the 777!

How would you fit those four engines under the wings? Those are built to carry one engine each; would you redesign them to carry two apiece? Clean-sheet, or a root plug?

Let's get really crazy and just use the same new engines and engine pods for the engine replacements on the B-52! 4 engines, one pod on each wing. I might just change my name to Howard Hughes with this genius idea! :twisted:

bikerthai · Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:25 pm

aumaverick wrote:
Let's get really crazy and just use the same new engines and engine pods for the engine replacements on the B-52! 4 engines, one pod on each wing.

I'd meet you half way with 2X 737 MAX engines on each wing. Does the thrust and weight come close to the current 767 engines?

bt

stratable · Thu Oct 06, 2022 3:22 pm

744SPX wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
LightningZ71 wrote:
I mean, if we're really getting into pie in the sky thinking, why don't we kill two birds with one stone? Let's just build a 767-400 with 4 x PW1000G GTF engines for the KC-Y AND the E4-B replacement?!?! It'll meet the new engine emission standards, give ample space for cargo and fuel, and have modern, long lived power plants too boot without having to be as obnoxiously large as the 777!

How would you fit those four engines under the wings? Those are built to carry one engine each; would you redesign them to carry two apiece? Clean-sheet, or a root plug?

It would be easier just to re-wing it

Hey why not. Get a new wing design for the tube, one version with four engines, and a second one with two. Then we can also strap the GEnx under it and keep building the freighters 8-)

744SPX · Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:50 am

Considering the weight of the 767-400 and the additional weight of four higher BPR engines, I'd think you would want 4 of the new 34k PW1000G.

RJMAZ · Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:47 am

744SPX wrote:
Considering the weight of the 767-400 and the additional weight of four higher BPR engines, I'd think you would want 4 of the new 34k PW1000G.

Remember that twin engine aircraft require extra thrust for single engine out.

An A340 has four 34k engines and it has a MTOW of 275t.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340

So the lower thrust versions of the LEAP or GTF with 27k of thrust would be ideal for a four engined evolved 767.

Buckeyetech · Mon Feb 06, 2023 3:25 pm

Any news, now that the 747 line is done? How many frames are in storage?

ZaphodHarkonnen · Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:43 pm

None? There are the two being turned into VC-25B and that's it from memory.

Stitch · Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:00 pm

Considering the USAF is taking delivery of new flight simulators for the E-4B, my guess is the actual need to replace the plane is not that great and therefore the replacement studies will be just that - studies - and that the fleet will likely continue to service into the 2030s.

LyleLanley · Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:23 pm

The SR-71 simulator got an upgrade contract from Singer-Link almost a year before cancellation. It was delivered to NASA because USAF ops had already shut down.

Plenty of brand new BX’s and commissary’s at closed bases all over the globe, too. Never say never.

Phosphorus · Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:13 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
None? There are the two being turned into VC-25B and that's it from memory.

yes, plus there's SU-EGY (former Lufthansa NTU), already painted into Egypt government colours -- in Germany now; progressing through conversion into VIP bird.

And probably the shell of that Saudi royal frame, recently pulled for parts in the US, after a decade in Basel.

GalaxyFlyer · Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:22 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
The SR-71 simulator got an upgrade contract from Singer-Link almost a year before cancellation. It was delivered to NASA because USAF ops had already shut down.

Plenty of brand new BX’s and commissary’s at closed bases all over the globe, too. Never say never.

Mere bagatelle, Clinton-Sherman AFB was opened and closed on 10 years. The B-58 did likewise. Governmrnt waste is a thing.

More recently, C-5 A models were given new avionics and mothballed in 3 years.

JayinKitsap · Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:50 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
The SR-71 simulator got an upgrade contract from Singer-Link almost a year before cancellation. It was delivered to NASA because USAF ops had already shut down.

Plenty of brand new BX’s and commissary’s at closed bases all over the globe, too. Never say never.

Mere bagatelle, Clinton-Sherman AFB was opened and closed on 10 years. The B-58 did likewise. Governmrnt waste is a thing.

More recently, C-5 A models were given new avionics and mothballed in 3 years.

That was fast for a base to go under, but programs often change to follow the needed trends. In the Reagan years the Strategic Homeport produced a number of short lived bases.

Every so often our government does needed house cleaning, The whole BRAC cut some important things but also a lot of scurrying around to save everybody's own base. I've probably done a cumulative 200 man days of work updating reports that greatly portrayed building needing serious repairs and upgrades. In the Reagan years there was lots of DOD money, not long after it's base closure season where that stuff was black marks. Make us look good, PLEASE!

The US Navy opened seven new bases in the 1987 time frame. NS Everett, WA was one that stayed open, but the NDAA 87 authorized NS Ingelside, opened 1990 closed 2010; NS Galveston closed 3 years after authorization, having spent like $30M in 2 years. NS Mobile made it 6 years from authorization, and NS New York made it to 94.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Homeport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Real ... nd_Closure

SteelChair · Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:41 pm

Is there any chance USAF leadership will ever relent on the archaic 4 engine requirement?.

Stitch · Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:20 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Is there any chance USAF leadership will ever relent on the archaic 4 engine requirement?.

When there are no four-engine options available to them?

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:58 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Is there any chance USAF leadership will ever relent on the archaic 4 engine requirement?.

Not archaic, military sometimes needs to continue even with an engine shutdown. Nuclear war on the horizon, E-4 mission flown on a B777, engines fails; you’re not putting the NCA on the ground in East Podunk, Foreign Country. I’ve completed legs on three a number of times. A squadron mate refueled and continued on three in a 141, mission did not allow a divert, period. Nuclear transport missions not only can’t divert, they can overfly many countries. Herks practice three-engine departures as common training event.

LyleLanley · Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:03 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Is there any chance USAF leadership will ever relent on the archaic 4 engine requirement?.

Archaic for when? For peacetime when everything is easy and you reject if you have an engine fire before V1? Or for wartime when you have the same situation but you must continue because your base is about to get nuked and you have to stay airborne for 24+ hours to provide C2 for a nation in tatters?

Honest question.

(edit) GF beat me to it.

747classic · Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:15 pm

AFAIK there are a few 747-8I redundant with Korean Airlines (HL7633 and 7630 are stored since March 2020). Another two KAL 747-8I's could be replaced by widebody twins.
And it's an ally (so no hidden electronics!)

fsnuffer · Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:28 am

SteelChair wrote:
Is there any chance USAF leadership will ever relent on the archaic 4 engine requirement?.

If you look at the requirements of enough space for a battle staff, large power requirements for all the equipment, ability to stay airborne with degraded systems the 747 meets these. If you have a two engine solution you need to start making tradeoffs. On a side note, the E-4B is also the personal ride for SECDEF when he travels overseas. This may not be an "official" requirement but it does come into play.

kanban · Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:24 pm

Face it you diehards, a new 747 concept is dead, repurposing a commercial 747 might be do-able. However like the congress, the military needs to trim the pork and define what is essential, what is nice, and what is pure waste. Having the SECDEF use an E-8B as a personal plane is a waste especially if he flies in a squadron of backup aircraft.

I think the E-4B mission as originally designed is wanting serious revision... it's stuck in the cold war era with equally dated purpose and equipment. Too many military consultants got into the feeding frenzy when congress opened the doors.

Phosphorus · Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:31 pm

kanban wrote:
Face it you diehards, a new 747 concept is dead, repurposing a commercial 747 might be do-able. However like the congress, the military needs to trim the pork and define what is essential, what is nice, and what is pure waste. Having the SECDEF use an E-8B as a personal plane is a waste especially if he flies in a squadron of backup aircraft.

I think the E-4B mission as originally designed is wanting serious revision... it's stuck in the cold war era with equally dated purpose and equipment. Too many military consultants got into the feeding frenzy when congress opened the doors.

Flying Pentagon amidst nuclear exchange is the mission, AFAIR. What type of revision would you have in mind? Staying airborne for not as long? Or having less goodies and personnel crammed on board? Or both?

ZaphodHarkonnen · Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:24 am

Or just not flying. Comms equipment has improved a lot since the early/mid cold war. Is it a total replacement? Nope. But is it worth the cost? That's the question. This is not a requirement that exists in a vacuum. It has to be balanced across all other requirements and budgets. Including requirements for stuff like education, health, and infrastructure.

Phosphorus · Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:36 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Or just not flying. Comms equipment has improved a lot since the early/mid cold war. Is it a total replacement? Nope. But is it worth the cost? That's the question. This is not a requirement that exists in a vacuum. It has to be balanced across all other requirements and budgets. Including requirements for stuff like education, health, and infrastructure.

It's a legitimate hypothesis, but it challenges status quo on doctrinal level, rather than operational.

Having all C2 infrastructure in fixed locations, where the adversary has years to prepare targeting of his platforms and systems to hit'em -- I guess that's the scenario, to avoid which, they developed flying command posts.

If getting C2 from a harm's way is no longer a thing, and staying put and prosecuting war from the ground, come hell or high water, is the plan -- fine.
But these sort of policy decisions need to be taken, or at least accepted (if the capability is just no longer exists, for example), rather than sleepwalked into, no?

LyleLanley · Thu Feb 09, 2023 4:31 am

With the accuracy of modern ICBMs and SLBMs all but assuring a direct hit on fixed installations by bringing the CEP from hundreds or thousands of meters to a handful, the usefulness of an airborne C2 is probably higher now than during the first Cold War.

bikerthai · Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:26 pm

Well, is the question really of fixed C2 or mobile C2?

They say they need a 747 for the battle management space. But in general, the Airforce is promoting distributed, smaller assets. At least that's what they said for the JSTAR recap program.

So lacking a 4 engine replacement, why can they not have a 767 for the Sec Def. Another for the back up and a few more for any additional floor space needed. All can independent operate and are networked so losing one you don't lose the whole shebang.

3 years of Covid remote work has shown that it could be done.

bt

Phosphorus · Thu Feb 09, 2023 2:00 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Well, is the question really of fixed C2 or mobile C2?

They say they need a 747 for the battle management space. But in general, the Airforce is promoting distributed, smaller assets. At least that's what they said for the JSTAR recap program.

So lacking a 4 engine replacement, why can they not have a 767 for the Sec Def. Another for the back up and a few more for any additional floor space needed. All can independent operate and are networked so losing one you don't lose the whole shebang.

3 years of Covid remote work has shown that it could be done.

bt

Isn't decentralization basically the anathema of decision-taking principles, as established by SAC, and carried on by AFGSC? Meaning everyone has to be prepared all the time, but there's only one vertical chain of command, and only one centre, at any specific moment, given "The Power to Decide"? When prosecuting a nuclear war (or, hopefully, and even more critically, just brinkmanship thereof), you surely don't want a decentralized decision-taking -- to launch or not to launch?

bikerthai · Thu Feb 09, 2023 2:22 pm

We are talking about distributes assets not centralizing control.

The computing and communication power can be divided up to multiple aircrafts. However the chain of command is still maintained with the Sec Def in one plane with the primary operation team.

The second plane can have a back up team in case the first plane is in-op. And so on.

You pay for the additional redundancy but if you have no choice of a new 4 engine wide body, then you have to make twin engines work.

bt

Phosphorus · Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:06 pm

bikerthai wrote:
We are talking about distributes assets not centralizing control.

The computing and communication power can be divided up to multiple aircrafts. However the chain of command is still maintained with the Sec Def in one plane with the primary operation team.

The second plane can have a back up team in case the first plane is in-op. And so on.

You pay for the additional redundancy but if you have no choice of a new 4 engine wide body, then you have to make twin engines work.

bt

Oh, but 4-engine planes are available. Not fresh off the assembly line, but fresh enough.
With cargo markets cooling, likes of UPS or Atlas can be asked to do their patriotic duty, and sell a few of their 747-8f's to dear customer USAF. Seven frames were picked up by these two within last 14 months, right? Should be enough frames to choose from. Also, on them not being brand-new, it's not like E-4B feedstock was brand new, before conversion, correct?

If it's not THAT urgent, seven years from now, Korean Air will be actively looking for new hands for (nine? of) their 747-8I's.
Of course, A380's are plentiful already, if USAF and Congress can agree on an Airbus in C2 role.

747classic · Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:07 pm

bikerthai wrote:
We are talking about distributes assets not centralizing control.

The computing and communication power can be divided up to multiple aircrafts. However the chain of command is still maintained with the Sec Def in one plane with the primary operation team.

The second plane can have a back up team in case the first plane is in-op. And so on.

You pay for the additional redundancy but if you have no choice of a new 4 engine wide body, then you have to make twin engines work.

bt

There was still a choice, but the politics (and the USAF) let the relative cheap opportunity pass, to go for the last four 747-8's in January 2021.
Now they have to search for secondhand 747-8's or you have go for the second best option (twins), without the required engine redundancy. (I always thought : only the best is good enough for POTUS !)

But remember this :
On a twin, if you are over the ocean and/or in a wordwide emergency/nuclear war, you're always one engine failure from your own created emergency.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net