Next-Generation AirLift Aircraft (NGAL)

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...
Tacit blue looks like it could be made to have a pretty large volume. I mean its basically a flying school bus... it would be interesting to see how the dimensions would work with something based off tacit blue.

Going through the old airlift thread though, im more inclined to agree with a non stealth airlifter or maybe a smaller STOL/VTOL tactical airlifter. @yasotay highlighted some great things to think about when it comes to problems facing airlifter

Just building a more modern C-17 looking thing for generic air lift should be enough given that the places airlifters of that size can land arent exactly easily hidden. A smaller tactical airlift solution can possibly be more stealthy, but even then - i dont see that being the most limiting factor if it cant find a place to land. Given the paucity of landing zones amenable to a conventional aircraft, that should be the first problem to solve. If its got no plans on landing then maybe a stealthy option could work well.
 
Last edited:
joshjosh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could that possibly be contained in a classified annex?

Don't know why cargo box size would be classified, but it's the USAF it doesn't have to make sense!



Reddington777 said:
Tacit blue looks like it could be made to have a pretty large volume. I mean its basically a flying school bus... it would be interesting to see how the dimensions would work with something based off tacit blue.
Click to expand...
IMO the hard part would be adjusting the shape to allow a rear ramp. IMO you'd have to bend the chine line up after the wings and raise the rear chine to roughly level with the top of the airframe. And yes that will add a new glint angle to the airframe design.

Also, adding side paratrooper doors would be weird. You'd need outer doors that are stealthy and then the inner door holding air pressure.
 
Scott Kenny said:
IMO the hard part would be adjusting the shape to allow a rear ramp. IMO you'd have to bend the chine line up after the wings and raise the rear chine to roughly level with the top of the airframe. And yes that will add a new glint angle to the airframe design.

Also, adding side paratrooper doors would be weird. You'd need outer doors that are stealthy and then the inner door holding air pressure.
Click to expand...
I also struggle to see where the engines would go. Unless something really drastic happens to engine design even only two Ultrafan types you'll still need a huge frontal area of turbofans, and the intake on Tacit blue takes a huge amount out of the fuselage volume.

Perhaps blending them into the wing roots like a wide-diameter Victor with extra s-ducting? Or if two engines is adequate you could leave the rear of the fuselage to engines and have a nose ramp, kneeling front undercarriage combination.
 
EmoBirb said:
Or maybe, just maybe, a low observable strategic airlift is just not particularly worthwhile, logical and feasible.
Click to expand...
Don't blame me, it's an American problem. If I have my way the C17s in RAF service will be replaced with heavy lift airships.
 
TorpedoJ said:
I also struggle to see where the engines would go. Unless something really drastic happens to engine design even only two Ultrafan types you'll still need a huge frontal area of turbofans, and the intake on Tacit blue takes a huge amount out of the fuselage volume.
Click to expand...
Have you seen how much "empty" volume there is above the rear ramp in most designs? That's where you stuff the engines in a Transport Tactic Blue.
 
Felocie said:
I love serious proposals
Click to expand...
Airlander 50 is supposed to enter service in the early 2030s with 50T to 2200km, while Airlander 10 with 10T to 4000km has production slots booked for 2029 delivery. That's a long time before any US aircraft could be available.
Airships have three main advantages over aeroplanes in that they can deliver directly to the required location rather than needing runways, are weight- rather than volume-limited so can take bulky items like aircraft and become more, rather than less, efficient as capacity increases.
Disadvantages are slow transits and that they aren't an established technology.
 
Airlander could replace C5 if speed isn't an issue but otherwise no.
The USAF is just fishing for any alternative work in process that might fit their needs.

What's needed is a better C17 that's more suitable for landing in the hot pacific islands. C5 needs replacement but two C17-esque can make up the load or hire civil large transports that's also being pursuite in the civil sector. Since the C5 needs large airports that are "safe" anyway there's little difference other than availability as in civil crew have set rest times.

Lets wait and see what happens in a few months/next year after the flying wing prototype has flown.
 
EmoBirb said:
Or maybe, just maybe, a low observable strategic airlift is just not particularly worthwhile, logical and feasible.
Click to expand...
Agreed. they just need a better C-17.
Scott Kenny said:
IMO the hard part would be adjusting the shape to allow a rear ramp. IMO you'd have to bend the chine line up after the wings and raise the rear chine to roughly level with the top of the airframe. And yes that will add a new glint angle to the airframe design.

Also, adding side paratrooper doors would be weird. You'd need outer doors that are stealthy and then the inner door holding air pressure.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a fun weekend project to work on. Ill play around with something and make another thread for it.

C-17s to me only makes sense landing at major bases especially in the pacific. A decent medium sized seaplane airlifter could possibly make more sense than a C-130 or a stealth aircraft. It can land almost anywhere with the right sea state. Theres also plenty of lagoons in the pacific.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...


Wider body than Tacit Blue with separate wings, along the line of the Myasishchev M-60GP (small airlifter)

m-60gp-jpg.4049


06p_arp5aym-jpg.587194



and M-60VT (An-22 replacement)

myasishchev-m-60vt-jpg.189951

Or the somewhat similar Aurora D8
1280px-mit_and_aurora_d8_wide_body_passenger_aircraft_concept_2010_-cropped-jpg.812912

You'd obviously need reshape the fuselage to a more stealth friendly, Tacit Blue style cross-section, and rear mounted engines are preferable.
 
If it will have a reduced RCS, is it plausible to assume that BSC2 and SIGINT variants will be built to officially replace E-8 and RC-135 ie ISR aircraft that is more survivable. Yes I know E-8 is retired but the 24/7/365 space gmti replacement is not going anywhere and there are advantages to having your gmti + c2 in the same platform
 
Seragina said:
Better efficiency, less drag, less noise if on top and covered by fuselage toward bottom.
New interest because this can ingest boundary layer and could have larger fan that is sunk into the body.
Click to expand...
In that case I await the short-haul airliner with a single Trent 1000 sunk into the rear fuselage. Make clean wing lines great again!
 
raptor82 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2065534051440558189
View: https://x.com/beverstine/status/2065534051440558189


NGAL RFI:

https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/493381ae4a6647c1ac74c02ab5363afe/view
Click to expand...
The payload and payload-range requirements are basically exact matches for the C-17. The NGAL is supposed to replace the C-17, but the fact that no increase is required does mean that a C-17 restart could meet these requirements. The 223 foot wingspan matches the C-15, so that indicates to me that this is also going to replace the C-5 in the AMC ORBAT even if it doesn't have the same capability as a C-5.
 
Reddington777 said:
This sounds like a fun weekend project to work on. Ill play around with something and make another thread for it.
Click to expand...
Sweet!


Reddington777 said:
A decent medium sized seaplane airlifter could possibly make more sense than a C-130 or a stealth aircraft. It can land almost anywhere with the right sea state. Theres also plenty of lagoons in the pacific.
Click to expand...
I dunno, seaplanes need to be kinda narrow. Compare the ShinMaywa US-1/US-2 to a C-130.
 
I have to wonder how long it would take to actually restart the C-17 line. First you have to remanufacture all of the jigs and tools just assuming no change to the structure. I seriously doubt that just starting everything "as is" is even viable. New techniques, new technologies across the spectrum of aircraft development, etc.

I think even if the decision is to "restart" the line it would take as long as a new start.
 
yasotay said:
I have to wonder how long it would take to actually restart the C-17 line. First you have to remanufacture all of the jigs and tools just assuming no change to the structure. I seriously doubt that just starting everything "as is" is even viable. New techniques, new technologies across the spectrum of aircraft development, etc.

I think even if the decision is to "restart" the line it would take as long as a new start.
Click to expand...
Not to mention redesigning/recertifying all the parts that are no longer produced.
 
Spending billions re-opening the C-17 production line shows how bad the long term planning is. The ideal solution is sustained production runs like we see with the C-130.

The problem with a 100+ ton payload airlifer is the USAF and allies will only order 200 or so aircraft and the production line will then close. Then there is a 10+ year gap before a new aircraft is needed.

I think the largest sustainable airlifter would only have a payload around 50 ton. The market is much larger and the aircraft could stay in production permanently with older aircraft being replaced with newer ones. Plenty of C-130 customers couldn't justify buying the larger C-17 but they might have purchased an efficient 50 ton strategic airlifter.

This is why the Kawasaki C-2 makes the best medium term solution for the USAF. Boeing has a strong partnership with Kawasaki. The C-2 would be an excellent foundation. Add a slight fuselage stretch, increase the MTOW and swap the GE engines from CF6 to GenX. It would have a very flat payload range curve with approximately two thirds of the payload of the C-17.

The existing C-17 fleet could then halve its utilisation rate allowing it to stay in service beyond 2050.
 
They are on some tentative partnership with United and the USAF. United apparently is interested enough to invest and have a path for an order of 100 jets.

That said... im gonna avoid flying on one of I possibly can at least for the first 5 years of service so I can avoid potentially falling out of the sky
 
yasotay said:
I have to wonder how long it would take to actually restart the C-17 line. First you have to remanufacture all of the jigs and tools just assuming no change to the structure. I seriously doubt that just starting everything "as is" is even viable. New techniques, new technologies across the spectrum of aircraft development, etc.

I think even if the decision is to "restart" the line it would take as long as a new start.
Click to expand...

Effectively, it would be a new aircraft that happens to look like the old one. I wonder if anything from the original line is even usable. Maybe they have some part drawings in an ancient format but tooling and jigs? Good luck. And, as you point out, they'd want to take the opportunity to update everything (cha-ching), and it's Boeing not McDD (cha-f--king-CHING). Look at the KC-46 fiasco, and that was just converting an already existing aircraft.
 

Next-Gen Airlifter Could Land and Take Off from Austere Airstrips​

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-next-gen-airlifter-austere-airstrips/
The NGAL program is looking for an aircraft design with mature technologies that “offers significant advancements in capacity, range, efficiency, connectivity, survivability, and operational flexibility over current systems,” according to the notice from the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s Mobility Aircraft Directorate.
Click to expand...
All proposed aircraft must have a wingspan of less than 223 feet to be compatible with current Air Force infrastructure such as hangers and taxiways, the solicitation states. Designs will also have to be capable of a carrying a minimum payload of 160,000 pounds over a distance of at least 2,500 nautical miles unrefueled.
Click to expand...
Beyond range and cargo capacity, the Air Force is particularly interested in takeoff and landing distances and whether proposed NGAL designs are capable of operating from semi-prepared or austere runways, the notice states.
Click to expand...
 
Sferrin said:
And, as you point out, they'd want to take the opportunity to update everything
Click to expand...
Just as much "have to" as "want to". A lot of the systems components simply won't be available any more. The supplers closed up or got bought out; subcomponents (especially small electronics parts, chips, etc) went obsolete.

Restarting production will probably be nearly as expensive and take almost as long as a new design, assuming the requirements are set and you have a competent prime contractor. Though today, those stipulations are probably invalid...
 
gtg947h said:
Just as much "have to" as "want to". A lot of the systems components simply won't be available any more. The supplers closed up or got bought out; subcomponents (especially small electronics parts, chips, etc) went obsolete.

Restarting production will probably be nearly as expensive and take almost as long as a new design, assuming the requirements are set and you have a competent prime contractor. Though today, those stipulations are probably invalid...
Click to expand...
For sure. Definitely wouldn't be like cranking out 50 more C-5s was.
 
Those that gauge a production restart as expensive should look in the direction of where just went 250 Million dollars...
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Those that gauge a production restart expensive should look in the direction of where just went 250 Million dollars...
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that restarting a production line is expensive, I'm saying that it's not likely to be any cheaper or faster than developing a whole new plane!
 
Jet Zero currently building a full-scale BWB demonstrator. Need at least maybe a 3/4 scale demonstrator for NGAL. An NGAL demonstrator can be funded, built and flown in quick order if the hands are not tied, Skunk Works style baby! Let LM ADP and Boeing PW build low-cost demonstrators (possibly HWB) just like the YC-14 and YC-15 programs, got to bring back the good 'ole days!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom