The Future of Outsized Cargo Airlift

[TomS]

So, the likely destruction of the An-225 Mryia and possible limitations on access to Russian operated An-124 freighters is making me wonder about other options for carrying heavy and outsized cargoes, both for the US/Western militaries and for civilian users.

1. The Boeing C-17 line is long gone, so it's unlikely that new military C-17s or commercial BC-17 freighters could be made. I think there might be a few retired C-17s that could be reactivated but not many, and not likely for civilian use.
2. There are about 57 C-5 Galaxies in AMARC, some of which could possibly be reactivated and updated to C-5M standard. But that's a lot of work (they've been there for a long time) and would presumably be for the US military only.
3. There are four Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighters (aka Dreamlifters), which were rebuilt from some retired 747-400s. LCF has more volume than either An-225 or An-124, but I can't find the actual cargo bay dimensions and there may still be cargoes that won't fit it. Plus, it's not configured for actual drive-on loading like the Antonovs and requires a dedicated loader. Boeing's fleet is pretty much spoken for, but possibly more could be made if there was demand (there certainly are 747-400s to be had).
4. There are a handful (less than 10?) Airbus Beluga/Beluga XL. The later especially are quite large (dramatically more volume than either the LCF or the An-225) but they also require loaders and the cargo deck seems even higher that the Dreamlifter (I haven't taken out a ruler to measure it, though). And they are weight-limited well short of the Antonovs or LCF. They also seem to be relatively short-ranged because Airbus doesn't need to fly parts around the world like Boeing. Like the Boeing, the current Airbus Belugas are pretty well spoken for in Airbus internal logistics, but again perhaps more could be made.

Longer-term, I think the USAF is probably already thinking about a C-5M and C-17 replacement, but that's got to be very long term right now. And I don't see many other users having the wherewithal to order a bespoke design, especially for the very small civilian outsized cargo market.

So, what is the long-term prognosis? Do we just accept that the current supply of outsized cargo airlifters is an anomaly due to the Cold War, or do we think that someone might actually develop a new airlifter in the class of the C-5/An-124 and make it available for commercial sales?

 

[Desertfox]

Is the 747-8F still in production? Can A380's be converted/given a nose door? There's a bunch of A380s that are being retired with plenty of life left.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Is the 747-8F still in production? Can A380's be converted/given a nose door? There's a bunch of A380s that are being retired with plenty of life left.

The -8F is at the end of its production run - 155 ordered and 149 delivered. Long lead items for a production extension may be an issue. Add to that it is a side loader so drive in loads are presently not an option. The A380 being a double decker - would think the upper floor is an integral part of the aircraft structure so cutting it out of the way may not be possible.

Any guesses on what the actual aircraft count would be for this class of cargo carriers?

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Desertfox]

It appears that the 747-8F does have a cargo door. Keeping the 747 production line open seems like the best and most viable option at the moment.

www.cargolux.com/Our-Expertise/cargo-equipment/aircraft/747-8F-Specifications

 

[TomS]

It appears that the 747-8F does have a cargo door. Keeping the 747 production line open seems like the best and most viable option at the moment.

www.cargolux.com/Our-Expertise/cargo-equipment/aircraft/747-8F-Specifications

That door isn't nearly as large as the loading ramps on planes like the An-124. That's the difference between normal freighters and oversize cargo aircraft.

 

[Hobbes]

There are 5 Airbus Beluga, which have just been spun off into a new company 'Airbus Beluga Transport' and are available for charters, with 10-20 years of service life left.
The 6 Beluga XL are used by Airbus themselves. Given how recently these were built, my guess is that Airbus could crank out a few more for charter services if there's demand.

They are weight-limited: Beluga payload is 40 t, Beluga XL is 46 t. So it's suited for voluminous payloads, not so much for very heavy payloads.

 

[Hobbes]

Is the 747-8F still in production? Can A380's be converted/given a nose door? There's a bunch of A380s that are being retired with plenty of life left.

You'd have to remove the floor, and make a hinged nose (as on the old Guppies, where the entire nose section swivels to one side). The cockpit gets in the way, so you can't do a visor nose as on the An-124.

 

[FighterJock]

I am surprised that Airbus did not design and build a transport derivative of the A-380 when the production line was still open, I think that it was an opportunity missed on the part of Airbus to have the same capability as the An-124/An-225.

 

[Archibald]

I am surprised that Airbus did not design and build a transport derivative of the A-380 when the production line was still open, I think that it was an opportunity missed on the part of Airbus to have the same capability as the An-124/An-225.

They did: the A380-800F was scrapped with too few customers. Could have carried 158 mt, twice more than a C-17 and a bit more than any 747, C-5 or An-124. Of course still too few compared to the defunct An-225: 253 mt record.

 

[Hobbes]

The A380-800F was limited to carrying standard containers: it retained its 3 decks.

 

[Archibald]

I have to say: a 4*GE90, cargo optimized A380F would have been something. Wonder how much it could have carried, 200 mt ?

 

[FighterJock]

I have to say: a 4*GE90, cargo optimized A380F would have been something. Wonder how much it could have carried, 200 mt ?

I would have to agree with you on that point Archibald about the cargo optimised A-280F. I would have liked to have seen it.

 

[TomS]

I have to say: a 4*GE90, cargo optimized A380F would have been something. Wonder how much it could have carried, 200 mt ?

I would have to agree with you on that point Archibald about the cargo optimised A-280F. I would have liked to have seen it.

You'd have to do a new fuselage to use the A380 for outsisize cargo.

For clarity, I'm not just talking about large volumes of standard containerized or bulk cargo, I'm talking about moving exceptionally large pieces of equipment or rolling stock, especially. This sort of cargo:

https://new.abb.com/news/detail/45868/heavyweight-champions

View: https://youtu.be/7tioIZkpoLA

https://www.concreteconstruction.net/business/locally-based-concrete-pump-arrives-in-japan_o

Antonov Airlines moves two trains from Germany to China - Air Cargo News

Ukrainian carrier Antonov Airlines recently teamed up with KN Airlift to transport two Max Bögl TSB trains from Munich, Germany to Chengdu, China. The

www.aircargonews.net

 

[Trident]

There are 3 Volga-Dnepr An-124s stranded in Germany and another in Canada, maybe seize those and hang some Trent 500s on them? Not sure what the legalities and practicalities of such a move are, but that would be a third of the Russian-owned, commercially available An-124 fleet.

 

[Desertfox]

It wouldn't be all that hard to build a new fuselage and slap some 747 or A380 wings on them, that's how the Belugas came about.

 

[TomcatViP]

There are 3 Volga-Dnepr An-124s stranded in Germany and another in Canada, maybe seize those and hang some Trent 500s on them? Not sure what the legalities and practicalities of such a move are, but that would be a third of the Russian-owned, commercially available An-124 fleet.

They are Russian registered. They belong to their owner. Sanctions does not involve sizing the ownership of others just because they are at hands reach.

What can eventually happen is Ukraine claiming them as war reparations in the future and the assets be meanwhile confiscated.

 

[TomS]

It wouldn't be all that hard to build a new fuselage and slap some 747 or A380 wings on them, that's how the Belugas came about.

That's essentially what they did with the Boeing LCF as well. It's a 747-400 nose and wings with new fuselage plugged in and a new tail added. IT's pretty crude, all things considered -- for example, I read that they don't have APUs because the designers didn't wont to worry about how to run a fuel line to an APU in the tail when the whole tail swings off to one side for loading.



But you can see it's still a high-loader, not a true drive-on/drive-off arrangement. Drive-on/drive-off is harder to arrange, because you have to redo the landing gear, reposition the wing structure, etc.

 

[Hobbes]

That's essentially what they did with the Boeing LCF as well. It's a 747-400 nose and wings with new fuselage plugged in and a new tail added.

Like on the Belugas, the bottom end of the original fuselage (everything up to the main floor) is still there. This reduces the amount of effort by a lot, compared to having to design an all-new fuselage.

 

[Hobbes]

The An-124 can carry 150t, the An-225 even more. This capacity has been used in practice.

The Dreamlifter has a payload of 113 tons, and the Beluga XL can carry 46 tons. So neither can fulfill all use cases of the An-124.
And both require specialized handling systems for loading, whereas the An-124 is self-supporting: with ramps on both ends, cargo can be driven into the hold. If that's not feasible, the An-124 has cranes and ramp extensions on board.

 

[TomS]

That's essentially what they did with the Boeing LCF as well. It's a 747-400 nose and wings with new fuselage plugged in and a new tail added.

Like on the Belugas, the bottom end of the original fuselage (everything up to the main floor) is still there. This reduces the amount of effort by a lot, compared to having to design an all-new fuselage.

You're right, of course. I glossed over that. Keeping the lower fuselage and center wing structures are key to making these conversions so affordable. And as you note, it really limits them.

 

[kitnut617]

In an Air-Britain Aviation World issue, I read that a freighter A380 like a guppy wasn't possible because of the way the fuselage is/was built. It would have needed a complete re-engineered fuselage.

 

[alberchico]

Is there a chance that at some point down the line the USAF might commision a new design to replace the C-5 ? But I wonder how big of a priority that would be for them with the sixth generation fighter in the pipeline.

 

[TomcatViP]

It's an urgent priority for many nations now. On the Military and civilian side. Who would reach the prototype phase first would grab the bulk of orders.

 

[Moose]

China, France, Russia, or the USA are the most likely, with Brazil and Japan (quite) long shots.

China has the money and resources in theory, but their engine development has been very slow and unimpressive. There's little chance Western engines would be available for such an aircraft, so they'd need Russia's PD-14 to be available in the near term. Longer-term, we'll see.

France has the resources but not the money (alone). If they could pitch it as another pan-European project like A400M they might get it together but I'll believe it when I see the money.

PAK TA has not been seen in anything other than internet coolguy concept form, its engines aren't near ready, and the sanctions regime probably makes finishing it very unlikely in the near term.

The USA could refurb more C-5s, but USAF Galaxies aren't as easily available as the big Antonovs have been to non-Mil missions . If some of the boneyard airframes could be transferred to a commercial or quasi-commercial entity for rebuild as for-hire aircraft, that could probably do well until the Next Big Plane comes along.

Outside of government programs, if someone threw enough money at Scaled or Boeing we might see something interesting. Problem is the for-hire market isn't likely to pool that much money together to make it workable, and neither is likely to self-fund such an aircraft.

 

[alberchico]

Is it possible that Russia could on its own put the AN-124 back in production with updated avionics and more fuel efficient PD-35 engines, or did they need Ukrainian cooperation to launch such an ambitious project ?

If that avenue is not open they seem to be considering two options, one is a clean sheet replacement that will be horrendously expensive to develop, and the other is something a bit smaller and less capable but within Russia's ability to build with the technology they will have in the near future.

An-124 Ruslan Replacement Takes Shape | AIN

Russia's TsAGI has revealed more details of the Slon, a program to provide a potential successor to the An-124 heavy airlifter.

www.ainonline.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1192968377628651520

View: https://twitter.com/cyberspec1/status/1192968377628651520

Russia Wants To Replace Its Giant An-124 Airlifters With Updated Decades-Old Design

Ilyushin began working on the IL-106 decades ago, but an updated version is in the works that aims to replace the An-124 and possibly other aircraft.

www.thedrive.com

Russian aviation. Aviation of Russia Military transport aircraft IL 106

 

[kaiserd]

And who would be willing to buy them from Russia, and /or afford to buy them?
Maybe China but likely they’ll want to go their own way (maybe junior-partner/ consultancy role re: Russian aviation industry on Chinese program?).

 

[uk 75]

It there is a need for such a big plane maybe Musk or someone like him will put one together from various donor aircraft.

 

[Moose]

Musk doesn't build planes, we're still waiting on his "Electric Jet." The only other person like him who's actually in Aviation is Rutan, who is a possibility but is also fairly busy already.

 

[sferrin]

Something I've wondered about for years is if we'll EVER see another purpose-built heavy cargo aircraft along the lines of the C-5/An-124/-225 in the West. I would be surprised if China doesn't have one in development, that seems to be a missing piece in their air force.

 

[alberchico]

Something I've wondered about for years is if we'll EVER see another purpose-built heavy cargo aircraft along the lines of the C-5/An-124/-225 in the West. I would be surprised if China doesn't have one in development, that seems to be a missing piece in their air force.

At one point China wanted to fund the completion of the second airframe in exchange for design data and technology transfers so they could eventually produce it locally. I have no idea if they ever did acquire the intellectual property of the AN-225.

Why China Wants to Put the Gargantuan Antonov An-225 Mriya Back Into Production

The genesis of the world’s largest jet may give clues as to why Beijing wants it.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Nik]

Must wonder if Airbus is quietly reaching out to remaining Antonov staff...

How much CAD-stuff did they keep / put into 'cloud', accessible 'Sans Frontières' ??

 

[CV12Hornet]

China has the money and resources in theory, but their engine development has been very slow and unimpressive. There's little chance Western engines would be available for such an aircraft, so they'd need Russia's PD-14 to be available in the near term. Longer-term, we'll see.

I do think China is the most likely candidate - mostly because they have a need for such an airplane for their own military use, as the Y-20 is more a C-17 equivalent. Spinning off a model for the civilian heavy-lift market from a necessary military program would be the most economical way to do this.

As far as the engine problem, China has multiple avenues being worked for engines in the right thrust class for the CR929 airliner project. There's the aforementioned PD-14 derivative, the PD-35; a PD-30 derived from the Tu-160's NK-32 has been proposed; and of course the Chinese are working on their own engine. Hell, there's apparently also been joint development work between the Chinese and Ukrainians on a D-18T variant. Though of course with the current political situation who knows how viable that avenue is.

Certainly nothing quick, though; this is at best a medium-term solution.

 

[Sherman Tank]

Is it possible that Russia could on its own put the AN-124 back in production with updated avionics and more fuel efficient PD-35 engines, or did they need Ukrainian cooperation to launch such an ambitious project ?

Between Antonov being a Ukrainian company and the economic sanctions I doubt they can even if they want to.

 

[TomS]

Musk doesn't build planes, we're still waiting on his "Electric Jet." The only other person like him who's actually in Aviation is Rutan, who is a possibility but is also fairly busy already.

Isn't Rutan retired these days?

 

[_Del_]

There are 3 Volga-Dnepr An-124s stranded in Germany and another in Canada, maybe seize those and hang some Trent 500s on them? Not sure what the legalities and practicalities of such a move are, but that would be a third of the Russian-owned, commercially available An-124 fleet.

They are Russian registered. They belong to their owner. Sanctions does not involve sizing the ownership of others just because they are at hands reach.

What can eventually happen is Ukraine claiming them as war reparations in the future and the assets be meanwhile confiscated.

What could just as easily happen is that Russia seizes/nationalizes the assets of Western companies in Russia in tit for tat moves.

The A380 being a double decker - would think the upper floor is an integral part of the aircraft structure so cutting it out of the way may not be possible.

Anything is possible. It sounds like a nightmare redesign for the structural team meaning lots of time and money. But one could conceivably transfer those loads else wise through more structure.
Probably better off looking at clean sheet designs, though it might be worth looking at building around a wing box and wings already in production.

 

[mkellytx]

Musk doesn't build planes, we're still waiting on his "Electric Jet." The only other person like him who's actually in Aviation is Rutan, who is a possibility but is also fairly busy already.

Isn't Rutan retired these days?

Rutan sold Scaled to NG years ago, doubt that he's been much involved since then.

 

[Sundog]

Make multiple cargo pods for this. It can fly in, release one pod, taxi forward and pick up the next preloaded pod, refuel and be on it's way.

Stratolaunch Carrier

 

[Moose]

Musk doesn't build planes, we're still waiting on his "Electric Jet." The only other person like him who's actually in Aviation is Rutan, who is a possibility but is also fairly busy already.

Isn't Rutan retired these days?

He retired from running Scaled, but he's not sitting on a beach. He was involved with Roc and a couple years ago was talking about working on an eVTOL. That said, I mainly just threw him out there because I couldn't think of anyone else currently around that could launch such a project.

 

[_Del_]

Last I heard, he was still chasing the seaplane dream.

 

[Archibald]

Make multiple cargo pods for this. It can fly in, release one pod, taxi forward and pick up the next preloaded pod, refuel and be on it's way.

Stratolaunch Carrier

Main problem is that only Mojave and too few other airstrips can handle that beast wingspan. Range also seems a bit limited.

Otherwise I readily agree one could bolt a giganormous cargo pod under that aircraft central wing. I often wonder how large could it be: diameter*length.