Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
HowardDGA wrote:So...why not look at restarting the 747 line again?
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...
UA444 wrote:If the US government wants new 747s, you’re deluded if you think Boeing won’t make it happen.
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.
trijetsonly wrote:Maybe they should rather go with a blimp instead...
UA444 wrote:If the US government wants new 747s, you’re deluded if you think Boeing won’t make it happen.
HowardDGA wrote:The air cargo market has changed a little bit since that last call.
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?
UA444 wrote:If the US government wants new 747s, you’re deluded if you think Boeing won’t make it happen.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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...
UA444 wrote:Take a 787 and slap two JT8Ds outboard of the other engines.
aristoenigma wrote:The current situation with Vlad makes me wonder if USAF will decide soon on the replacement avenue. That sends a message.
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!
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:None? There are the two being turned into VC-25B and that's it from memory.
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.
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.
SteelChair wrote:Is there any chance USAF leadership will ever relent on the archaic 4 engine requirement?.
SteelChair wrote:Is there any chance USAF leadership will ever relent on the archaic 4 engine requirement?.
SteelChair wrote:Is there any chance USAF leadership will ever relent on the archaic 4 engine requirement?.
SteelChair wrote:Is there any chance USAF leadership will ever relent on the archaic 4 engine requirement?.
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.
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.
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
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
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