Next-Generation AirLift Aircraft (NGAL)

I'm wondering if buying used 747-8Fs could be a short term solution? Should be a few of them out there.
 
They could simply build new ones... It's time we put an end to this weird idea that what was done 50 years ago is out of reach today. We have space ships, ARN vaccines, great sciences, crazy powered cars, cheap intercontinental travels, tailored material sciences and freedom of choices. Building a Galaxy should not scare ourself.
 
If Boeing leveraged their experience with the 747-8 program to build a practical modern day replacement that doesn't reinvent the wheel we could have a C-5 sized replacement with modern engines, avionics and a composite airframe in a reasonable time frame. But if the USAF starts fantasizing about a giant BWB concept then it'll be about 20 plus years for a replacement.
 
alberchico said:
If Boeing leveraged their experience with the 747-8 program to build a practical modern day replacement that doesn't reinvent the wheel we could have a C-5 sized replacement with modern engines, avionics and a composite airframe in a reasonable time frame. But if the USAF starts fantasizing about a giant BWB concept then it'll be about 20 plus years for a replacement.
Click to expand...
So someone needs to keep a very firm hand in the project management, likely to say "No, the BWB is going to be the KC-Z, the transport is going to be tube and wing. End of discussion."
 
alberchico said:
If Boeing leveraged their experience with the 747-8 program to build a practical modern day replacement that doesn't reinvent the wheel we could have a C-5 sized replacement with modern engines, avionics and a composite airframe in a reasonable time frame. But if the USAF starts fantasizing about a giant BWB concept then it'll be about 20 plus years for a replacement.
Click to expand...
Its likely too late to restart the 747-8 line, but getting some low hour 747s and reusing as much components as possible on a new fuselage should be doable, or simply refurbishing 8Fs.
 
TomcatViP said:
They could simply build new ones...
Click to expand...
No, "they" really can't. It would take too long and there are better ways to get a better airplane.

Your best bet would be to ask Boeing, Airbus, or Embraer to make a new airplane with the general configuration of a large transport and maybe some of the unique features of the C-5. Use COTS engines, systems components, avionics; stick to TRL 9 construction methods. Use simpler landing gear, modern systems architecture, maybe even drop the "off-road" capability and leave that for a new C-17/A400 sized aircraft. Maybe even certify it under Part 25 because most of the industry is used to working with it.

And then actually cough up the money to buy the parts you need to keep the beast flying.

Oh, and cap your overhead staff (project managers, project engineers, management, contract specialists, etc) at no more than 5% of your technical staff.

And FFS figure out some way to fund it that isn't cost-plus.

(I have been working at a government contractor for 7 months and I am horrified -- I desperately want back in the civil world; this is awful and as a taxpayer I'm dismayed)

Desertfox said:
getting some low hour 747s and reusing as much components as possible on a new fuselage
Click to expand...
Outside of systems components, that doesn't make things any easier. And even then you're better off adopting COTS hardware from a recent popular airliner or something like the 767 that's in widespread government use.
 
Last edited:
Restarting C-17 production while using a newer engine is probably the prudent thing to do assuming Long Beach has the production capacity and enough of the jigging still around.

A stretched variant could essentially supplant the C-5 in many tasks. Not sure if the basic design could get to 2x Abrams level of weight capacity but if the potential is there, it’s worth a closer look. I could even see a stretched Kawasaki C-2 entering the fray getting into C-17 territory as it’s an actively produced plane with active infrastructure.

Replacing both the strategic air lifters with one design seems a bit pie in the sky.
 
NUSNA_Moebius said:
and enough of the jigging still around.
Click to expand...
Sigh...

This isn't the 1940s, where airplanes and their engines are simple affairs and production lines and costs are dominated by sheetmetal forms, forging dies, and jigs to hold the parts for Rosie to rivet, all of which can be plopped into any vacant building with enough floor space and a nearby runway. There's a lot more to restarting production than just having production fixtures and nearby floorspace. Your entire supply chain (with thousands of suppliers) for everything from major forgings down to little customized seals and special electronics will need to be restarted even though the airplane is still in service and production ended not long ago, since a substantial fraction of the suppliers are probably closed down and/or so many parts will have gone DMS and the last-time buy didn't account for new production. That is a massive engineering, procurement, and requalification effort, even assuming all the documentation and tech data is in order... and that's before we get into major stuff like new engines.

It's real easy to turn the machine off. It's really hard to get it going again, and even harder when doing so wasn't accounted for in the shutdown process.

The time to get more/stretched C-17s was before the line shut down.


From my experience in civil and now mil aerospace, your best bet for a C-5 replacement is a clean sheet design that leverages good concepts off the C-5 and C-17, but sticks to COTS components wherever possible, and using proven methods on a tube-and-wing airframe. No innovations, no R&D. Skip the rough field capability and maybe even skip all the kneeling configurations, just do foreard kneel only. I'd almost say stick to hydromechanical flight controls but industry may have largely forgotten how to do those from scratch by this point.

Keep it simple and ruthlessly trim administrative overhead. Fixed-price contract with good incentives for early delivery, resist the temptation to make changes.
 
I wonder what's up with the mindset of proposing several times over and over again reopening production lines of decades old, long gone, obsolete aircraft recently.

C-17, C-5, B-52....

As if engineers today couldn't create vastly superior, vastly more efficient and vastly more maintenance friendly aircraft. As if spending billions of producing cold war era gear would be an investment that's reasonable. While the whole world moves forward people propose the US moves backwards, lol.
 
We may possibly be moving into the blended-wing-body era? Will be interesting when Jet Zero/NG fly and flight test the full-scale BWB demonstrator. Aircraft moving along the manufacturing process at Scaled's facility in Mojave.
 
EmoBirb said:
I wonder what's up with the mindset of proposing several times over and over again reopening production lines of decades old, long gone, obsolete aircraft recently.
Click to expand...
It's the belief that as long as we have The Tooling!! it'll be cheap, fast, and easy to just crank the line back up again.
 
Hydroman said:
We may possibly be moving into the blended-wing-body era? Will be interesting when Jet Zero/NG fly and flight test the full-scale BWB demonstrator. Aircraft moving along the manufacturing process at Scaled's facility in Mojave.
Click to expand...
I think the tanker can be a fully BWB, but a dedicated transport is likely best served by LockMart's HWB design.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think the tanker can be a fully BWB, but a dedicated transport is likely best served by LockMart's HWB design.
Click to expand...
BWB tanker, definitely. Cargo, possibly but could be a HWB/Speed Agile platform as well. BWB and HWB may begin to pickup traction,we need to and its time to evolve into new tech.
 
All we need now is AEW and EW versions and we can get the Macnatransport.

I think they pretty much guaranteed this thing won't fly for 30 years, if ever...
 
I think shared tanker and transport in the same airframe is a bad call.

IMO transport is best served by a HWB, the BWB-with-conventional-tube-tail design. And yes, that is not as stealthy as the BWB version.
 
I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of a low-observability heavy lift transport.

If you could give a C-5 the RCS signature of a Cessna, would that be a serious strategic benefit? Would this be combined with, for instance, transponder spoofing--since you might not actually be able to get the signature small enough to hide from radar, but maybe small enough to blend in with civilian traffic?

Or is it just a matter of basic L/O shaping and materials having become so relatively affordable to implement that you may as well throw it in there for whatever benefit it can get you?
 
Such big money for Startup that hasn't build anything to this day is a weird choice of investment. What about LM Skunkworks ? Aren't they anymore in the phone book?
 
I find it rather odd that there seems to be the perception that BWB is inherently "more stealthy", when it really won't be unless distinct measures are taken to achieve a low signature to various sensors. Something like winglets or large turbofans sticking out from the fuselage. The entire airframe and the engines would have to be designed specifically with signature reduction in mind. And even if you don't want to go very far into optimizing for low observability, every adaptation to the airfram will compromise on the core mission of being an airlift. And it should not be disregarded that stealth aircraft tend to be rather heavy, as thermal management is a bigger concern, RAM treatment and coatings add weight and geometric choices have to be made to achieve a lower signature (be it radar or IR) that may impact aerodynamic efficiency and hurt the thrust/weight ratio.

And generally speaking, you want an airlift to be as light as possible and carry as much payload as possible. Something that's structurally sound and doesn't burden it's own airframe and engines with it's own excessive weight.

Also, why would an airlift need to be stealthy? You're not going to load off stuff at the frontline anyway, parachute into nowhere? These times are long gone, the circumstance that you can find MANPADS virtually anywhere these days ensures that, or even mobile SAM systems really. Protection against missiles launched from other aircraft? Active countermeasures like DIRCM and the future possibility of hard-kill solutions seems more promising and less compromising than a stealth airlifter because everything needs to be stealthy and modern and cool and sharp looking. Stealth airlifters, stealth aircraft carriers, stealth shovels, stealth soldiers, stealth chairs, yeah.
 
TomcatViP said:
Such big money for Startup that hasn't build anything to this day is a weird choice of investment. What about LM Skunkworks ? Aren't they anymore in the phone book?
Click to expand...
If you don't get new and unproven players into the business and give them a shot you're stuck with the same three leeches contractors that rip you off get government contracts. It's counterproductive and kills industry diversity, it's thus actually good that the US starts to hand more contracts to new companies.
 
Stealth transport/tanker aircraft are crucial for the future, right?

(You certainly don't want your transport/tanker aircraft to be shot down by a missile mid-flight, right? )
 
TomcatViP said:
Such big money for Startup that hasn't build anything to this day is a weird choice of investment. What about LM Skunkworks ? Aren't they anymore in the phone book?
Click to expand...
You're referring to the JetZero BWB demonstrator (first flight in 2027), right? If you hand the demonstrator project over to Lockheed Martin, they'll drag their feet.
 
wtna7 said:
You're referring to the JetZero BWB demonstrator (first flight in 2027), right? If you hand the demonstrator project over to Lockheed Martin, they'll drag their feet.
Click to expand...
Hard to blame them when the next administration could cancel the whole thing, leaving LM holding the bag.
 
Sferrin said:
Hard to blame them when the next administration could cancel the whole thing, leaving LM holding the bag.
Click to expand...
If this project is canceled, the C-17/C-5 program will face another lengthy delay in its retirement. 1780251293740.png
 
NUSNA_Moebius said:
Restarting C-17 production while using a newer engine is probably the prudent thing to do assuming Long Beach has the production capacity and enough of the jigging still around.
Click to expand...

Boeing sold Long Beach years ago (2018/19, IIRC) Don't know if they kept any unique tooling, but it hardly matters given the lack of a viable place to build new ones.

Boeing has said (on 2025) it has interested customers for a restart, but it's a huge up-front expense. Many billions before a single plane is even made. And I can't imagine anyone is in a hurry to be the first customer in line.
 
JS23 said:
Or is it just a matter of basic L/O shaping and materials having become so relatively affordable to implement that you may as well throw it in there for whatever benefit it can get you?
Click to expand...
I believe that shaping has gotten cheap enough that adding it to a design intended for the military is a trivial cost, yes.

RAM may or may not be cheap.



EmoBirb said:
Also, why would an airlift need to be stealthy? You're not going to load off stuff at the frontline anyway, parachute into nowhere? These times are long gone, the circumstance that you can find MANPADS virtually anywhere these days ensures that, or even mobile SAM systems really. Protection against missiles launched from other aircraft? Active countermeasures like DIRCM and the future possibility of hard-kill solutions seems more promising and less compromising than a stealth airlifter because everything needs to be stealthy and modern and cool and sharp looking. Stealth airlifters, stealth aircraft carriers, stealth shovels, stealth soldiers, stealth chairs, yeah.
Click to expand...
It's an extremely high value thing, flying where people are going to shoot at it.

So protecting the thing is kinda important.
 
TomcatViP said:
Such big money for Startup that hasn't build anything to this day is a weird choice of investment. What about LM Skunkworks ? Aren't they anymore in the phone book?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, in recent times, I don't think LM ADP functions like they used to (lower cost and highly efficient), probably due to new management structure. This is one reason NG had kept their 49% stake in Scaled Composites many years then finally they own Scaled outright, Scaled is efficient and very program cost effective. Hopefully, ADP is moving back towards the way they used to execute programs.
 
I think you can live (cost-wise) with some amount of reduced observeability but for a cargo jet you need capacity and range, the BWB may have an advantage in this area over the HWB but in the end, you have to build and flight test.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's an extremely high value thing, flying where people are going to shoot at it.

So protecting the thing is kinda important.
Click to expand...
If that's your concern, flying directly at or over the line of contact (because otherwise no, it's unlikely your airlift will be shot at as it's firmly in your rearward positions to load off), then you need B-21 levels of stealth, good luck funding a stealth airlifter of that size and low observable quality.

Trains are also important, so are trucks, depots, shelters, ferries and many other things. Should these be stealthy too? No. Should an airlifter be? Not really. It should haul a lot of stuff very far very efficiently while being cheap, mechanically reliable (and thus have high readiness) and be compatible with the majority of your infrastructure.
 
EmoBirb said:
If that's your concern, flying directly at or over the line of contact (because otherwise no, it's unlikely your airlift will be shot at as it's firmly in your rearward positions to load off), then you need B-21 levels of stealth, good luck funding a stealth airlifter of that size and low observable quality.
Click to expand...
Remember that this is supposed to be a combo transport/tanker.

And tankers are within VLRAAM range of the front lines.
 
I'm a bit late to the party here but must say that I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tacit Blue, which is what I'd imagine a LO tube and wing NGAL aircraft would look like.

The benefits of BWB aircraft have been touted for longer than I've been alive at this point and have only really resulted in the B-2 and B-21, which are the tip of the US nuclear spear and require the maximum signature reduction possible.

I don't think the trade-offs of being less suited for existing infrastructure, pressurization, or scalability despite the higher efficiency and reduced signature of BWB aircraft would be worth making for NGAL, in the same way they haven't been worth making for commercial aircraft for the last few decades.

As matter of fact, Tacit Blue supposedly already had very good broadband stealth characteristics and scaling up the general layout into a NGAL aircraft with even longer leading edges, in addition to 4 decades of advancements in stealth technology, would probably be more than stealthy enough to meet the program requirements.

Point being, I wouldn't be surprised if NGAL just looks like a bigger Tacit Blue, similar to how NGAD is shaping up to look like a bigger X-36 in a lot of ways. Regardless, any excuse to post more Tacit Blue content is valid in my books so here's a good interview with the Tacit Blue program director, Denny Jarvi:
View: https://youtu.be/Fw2YzngO6eM?si=sWktBGJBIVO2DX_J
 
novabus_lfx said:
I'm a bit late to the party here but must say that I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tacit Blue, which is what I'd imagine a LO tube and wing NGAL aircraft would look like.
Click to expand...
Points for a very interesting idea!

I hadn't considered that. At all. Dang it, overscan, where's the embarrassed emoji on this forum?!?
 
Felocie said:
Not sure I agree. AMC-X or MACK is probably a better baseline for an LO airlifter
Click to expand...
Those are certainly possible configurations as well but both of those designs seem to have issues, at least to my untrained eyes, although I'd happily defer to the authority of the actual aerospace engineers on here.

For AMC-X, there doesn't seem to be sufficient S-ducting to hide the face of a high BPR turbofan, which have become the standard in commercial aircraft since the initial AMC-X concepts were proposed. Some AMC-X illustrations have intake doors that can intake air from the top of the engines, presumably to minimize FOD ingestion during takeoffs/landings on rougher runways (similar to the MiG-29), but those would still be big radio reflectors.

Implementing sufficient S-ducting seems like it would significantly increase the aircraft's frontal area and decrease its efficiency, although some of that might be offset by the hybrid BWB design. This is less of a concern on Tacit Blue since the fuselage itself is used to hide the face of the turbofans, although that probably makes it a lot more complicated to implement a "drive-through" fuselage like on most transport planes.

For MACK, the design seems very credible but might be an uphill sell for LM specifically. NG has established itself as the flying wing company and can probably trick Congress into thinking they can simply upscale the B-21 (same engines but 4 of them, same cockpit configuration, "same" training pipeline, etc.) into an effective BWB transport. Similarly, Boeing made the C-17, KC-46, and can pull from its entire commercial aircraft portfolio.

I really don't see how LM could compete here, unless they partner up with another company like Airbus/Jet-Zero/Embraer, or get themselves out of the doghouse by delivering the remaining F-35s on budget and on schedule, at which point hell will probably freeze over anyways.

Scott Kenny said:
Points for a very interesting idea!

I hadn't considered that. At all. Dang it, overscan, where's the embarrassed emoji on this forum?!?
Click to expand...
I have a very unhealthy obsession with the white whales of military procurement, Tacit Blue and the Zumwalt class in particular, so it's probably better for your health that it didn't come to mind lol
 
novabus_lfx said:
I have a very unhealthy obsession with the white whales of military procurement, Tacit Blue and the Zumwalt class in particular, so it's probably better for your health that it didn't come to mind lol
Click to expand...
We probably shouldn't discuss my fascination with the Future Combat Systems - Manned Ground Vehicles for most of a decade, then. :D

Reminds me, I need to pull that disk image out and at least load it into a 1tb external. So I can look at all those files again.

We also may want to consider my current near-obsession with getting a drone version of the TACIT Blue set up to replace the Predator and Grey Eagle drones for the army. With serious STOL/ESTOL equipment fitted and retractable gear. The USAF also get a version with a bigger wing without all the STOL bits, but like the Reaper to the Predator.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/2065534051440558189
View: https://x.com/beverstine/status/2065534051440558189


NGAL RFI:

https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/493381ae4a6647c1ac74c02ab5363afe/view

As critical design constraints for the next-generation airlift platform, the USAF stipulates that all proposed aircraft must possess a wingspan of strictly less than 223 feet and demonstrate the capability to carry a minimum payload of 160,000 pounds over a distance of at least 2,500 nautical miles unrefueled. The absolute dimensional limitation is dictated by the physical constraints of existing global airfield infrastructure—including taxiways, hangars, and parking ramps—ensuring seamless integration into current mobility CUCUI operations. Concurrently, the specified payload and range parameters are baseline mission imperatives for effective power projection and logistics support.
Click to expand...
 
It's interesting that the RFI doesn't specify cargo bay dimensions in any way. I doubt the air force would accept a submission that can't fit a PATRIOT launcher inside, but they seem to be leaving industry to guess at the minimum dimensions.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom