A few much-needed corrections

So, what about an amphibian freighter?

Longhaul military/civil freighter lineup looks like:

Lockheed Hercules/C-130 is out of production C130J remains in production
Lockheed C-141 is out of production

Lockheed Galaxy/C-5 is out of production. It also is purely in military use

McDonnell-Douglas BC-17 is still in production Yes, the C-17 remains in production

An-22 is out of production

Il-76, IIRC, is still in production I do not believe so but am not certain, What is your source?

An-124 is available for civil use, unlike C-5

An-225 is available. The second frame is not completed. The first AN-225 is reported to have suffered an accident which may mean it is no longer available.

Airbus Beluga is out of production Airbus have said the tooling remains available and are contemplating restarting production of the Beluga to meet the growing demand for outsize lift, including inhouse for the A400M components

Boeing Dreamlifter is not certified for use by others. The certification program is underway.

All commercial freighters are built for people, not cargo, require good runways and have at most 3 m headroom (on B747).

If you want to carry something which is too big for B-747, your sole option is rent An-124. This is the only way to bail out a 777, because their engines are too big for 747F. Same goes for a 767 engine, in fact almost any high-bypass engine has a diameter too large for a standard freighter.

An-225 with 88,4 m wingspan is slightly problematic for landplane runways.

What if Russia and China launch an amphibian freighter, which is available for commercial charter to deliver outsized loads, including delivering them to softish or shortish though wide runways – as well as emergency assistance – and strategic airlift for projecting force?

That presumes that China is prepared to pony up the funds, because the Russians are not going to. In addition, neither is prepared to embark on such a deal at this time, they have other, more pressing needs for their cash.

I might also point out that Boeing is currently in discussion with FedEx and UPS regarding a blennded wing cargo aircraft with the capacity to shift far more cargo than any aircraft currently in service.

From another forum…

***Begins***

Boeing’s BWB wings way towards air cargo market
May 22, 2007

Airframer in talks with two potential customers to define commercial freighter version Boeing is working with two potential customers to define a commercial freighter variant of its blended wing body large transport aircraft as it prepares to fly a subscale model of the flying-wing design at NASA Dryden in California.

“We have been working with a couple of customers,” says George Muellner, president, advanced systems, for Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. “We have a customer, we have finalised what they want, and it is now an issue of customer funding and our desire to invest.” Boeing has been working on the BWB concept for years, but the design is still at an early stage. “The earliest it could be out there is eight to 10 years, initially as a commercial freighter and beyond that for military applications,” says Muellner.

He says two issues need to be overcome before the BWB becomes a reality. The first is an understanding of the design’s low-speed flying qualities. This will be tackled with the two X-48B unmanned subscale vehicles now at Dryden. Flight testing is expected to begin next month.

The second is manufacturability. “The basic design is not a tube, it’s a rectangular pressure vessel, so material design is an issue,” Muellner says. “The internal structure is like an array of ISO containers,” he says, which is one part of its appeal to freight operators. “It’s fuel efficient and it’s easy to load.” Boeing Commercial Airplanes has been careful to distance itself from the military division’s work on BWB because of concerns about passenger acceptance. “BCA is scared because it has no windows,” says Muellner. Our source (and this is a single source, to be sure) tells us that the two unidentified airlines in the Flight article are FedEx and UPS. Boeing did not respond to a request for comment on the Flight story.

This is potentially stunning news on several counts. First is the declarative statement that Boeing “has a customer” and has “finalized” what the customer wants. Second is that another customer has been involved as well. Third, the entry-into-service date for the BWB-F—2015—is about when the Airbus A380 freighter now is loosely forecast to enter service (2014). Waiting a year for the BWB vs. the A380 would be inconsequential for the advantages the BWB offers.

The BWB economics, as we’ve previously reported, are forecast to be at least 25% better than the A380. The A380 freighter would be immediately rendered obsolete (as would Boeing’s 747-8). And if Boeing Commercial Aircraft (BCA) would overcome its long- stated reluctance to the BWB, a passenger version would also render the A380 obsolete— a mere eight years after its entry into service. The BWB has the ability to carry as many of more passengers than the A380.

If the BWB-F is available as early as 2015, and a passenger version followed within a couple of years—by 2017—the A380 won’t have had enough time to break even, assuming sales as forecast by Airbus (and disputed by Boeing and others). We figured Airbus needs a minimum of 11 years to break even at forecasted sales, and this is probably conservative.

Our source says that BCA fears of the BWB having no windows can be overcome, in his view. On current twin-aisle aircraft, people in the center sections don’t have windows and basically can’t see out of the ones in the airplane anyway, so passengers are already used to not having windows. This is particularly so on Very Large Aircraft, such as the 747 and A380.

Furthermore, the A380 now sports exterior cameras with video feed to the passenger seat, providing a view to passengers that is more interesting than the side windows. Additional cameras on a BWB that are directionally controlled by the passenger will alleviate any concerns, our source says.

As we’ve previously reported, the BWB is hardly a new concept. It’s been around for decades and it was a major research project at McDonnell Douglas before Boeing merged with the company in 1997.

In addition to the technical issues and passenger acceptance described above, there is another major issue: government “subsidy.” As readers know, Boeing and Airbus—via their surrogates, the US Trade Representative and the European Union—are engaged in an international trade dispute over alleged “illegal” government “subsidies” for the benefit of commercial projects.

In addition to past, present and near-future airliners that are the subject of these allegations, we reported last week that Boeing’s proposed BC-17 (a commercial derivative of the C-17 military cargo airplane) would open Boeing up to new accusations of benefiting commercially with Pentagon tax dollars.

This would also be true of the commercial BWB, which has been funded in past by NASA money (another target of Airbus/EU complaints) and presumably at least some military research and development funds. (The Air Force is interested in the BWB as a tanker.) Be that as it may, successful development of the BWB will render the A380 and 747 obsolete and give Boeing a major leg up in future rounds of the aerial tanker replacement program. (Recall that following the current KC-X competition, the Air Force has already announced plans for KC-Y and KC-Z programs.)

These are follow-on programs to replace the balance of the more than 500 KC-135s and 59 KC-10s. The KC-30 is perfectly matched, in our view, to replace the KC-10—but would a KC-BWB become the favorite, thus frustrating Northrop and EADS/Airbus? If Boeing proceeds as outlined by Flight, Airbus stands being relegated to a distant second place well beyond the next decade predicted by former Airbus CEO Christian Streiff, as a result of the A380 problems and multiple A350 redesigns.

***Ends***

Unicorn

Once again a wonderful piece of analysis, your work is outstanding.

Well done!

Unicorn

Hi Mconrads, great to see more of your work here.

I check your site regularly as well.

Cheers

Uncorn

If we go with the rough estimates for how the cost for modern naval warships break down we would have 1/3 building the hull, and 2/3 outfitting, systems, sensors, armaments etc. I don’t think BAE/VT would be entirely satisfied with this, even with 3 hulls. And that again completely ignores the fact that expertise, capacity and opportunities to reduce cost exist abroad in the hull construction segment. I fear this whole debate is going to roll around before too long when MARS gets under way, somebody is bound to propose building some of those in a yard in the far east, for outfitting in the UK.

Funny you should say that….

From Janes

UK’s DESO examines potential for warship-building in Southeast Asia
Senior officials from the UK’s Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) are exploring options for building hulls for future UK Royal Navy (RN) warships in Southeast Asia.Representatives of the UK government’s military sales arm are attending the International Maritime Defence Exhibition in Singapore (15-18 May 2007) to seek export opportunities for UK defence companies.
[Jane’s Navy International – first posted to http://jni.janes.com – 16 May 2007]

Unicorn

Firstly I must state that I was always for the Lynx – I am ashamed to say, I do not know what makes the Australian Defense Force ADF tick at times!
They have had the uncanny ability to take a good idea (and already working weapons platform and through a spanner into it, to turn it into an over cost lemon – i.e. – Collins Class sub, Seasprite, Jindalee OHR

Secondly – I think we have made a big mistake in failing to go on with the Australian / Malaysian Joint OPV purchase, or an all Australian OPV. For although the new Armadale Class patrol boats are an improvement over the Fremantle Class PB`s, they are still lacking in endurance and combat capability.

Regards
Pioneer

You have to look at the requirements, thats what drives the projects.

The RAN needed a large and capable SSK that could transit 5,000 miles, maintain station for an extended period then transit back. No one was making a conventional sub that could do that, so the requirement needed some development work. Kockums stepped up and said we can do this. Turned out they were almost right. The almost part is what delayed the boats initial IOC. The software issues were another matter and common to navies the world over.

The Seasprite was a mistake, one which should have never have been ordered. The preferred model was additional Sea Hawks with an ASUW tasking, to match the surveillance and ASW tasked S70B2 already in service.

Jindalee is pretty much the world standard when it comes to OTHB radars, it can track aircraft landing in Hong Kong when conditions are good. The delay was not in the technical engineering side, it was in the software integration for what was an immensely difficult task. Once again not unique to Australia.

The Joint OPV was dead in the water, except for the fantasies of a few politicians and Tenix. The Malaysian’s simply did not have the money for the number of OPVs required, as can be seen by the long and painful gestation period of their chosen solution.

The Tenix design, of which I have a small image and for which I am seeking a decent plan to build a 1/72 scale R/C model, was interesting but was not marketed well by Tenix, despite the RAN’s reluctant endorsement.

The only area that the Armidale’s could be said to be lacking capability is in their inability to operate a UAV or helicopter. Apart from that they are perfect for what they are designed to do, intercept people smugglers, illegal fisherman and drug smugglers. The armament is sufficiant for the role and is apparently turning out to be extremely accurate, just what is required for well placed warning shots or for knocking out rudders and screws.

What else do they need to do their job? Harpoon? Barak? Brahmos?

Keep the requirement in mind, a vast array of coastline facing a low tech threat. That does not need a few large and capable vessels, it needs a large number of low level capability vessels, rather than a few major warfighting platforms that will spend their life burdoned with capability and systems that will not be required for their role.

Tenix is trying to interest the RAN or Fisheries in a small number of OPVs almost identical to the Project Protector OPVs for the RNZN, for operations in the Great Southern Ocean, that is a project that may happen, with Fisheries chosen as the relevant authority.

Of course, if there is a change of Government then an Australian Coast Guard is a Labour policy, in which the Armidales will probably be hived off from the Navy into the Coast Guard.

Unicorn

The MPA aircraft can detect the enemy search radars well before they enetr the detection range of the enemy radar, something which they practice regularly.

The very fact that they can do so allows them to fix the enemy position, or forces the enemy force to run under EMCON.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Unicorn

ad 2) That’s a human error that could have occurred in any ship.

My point exactly, the finest military systems ever designed are subject to human error.

Unicorn

Love how they compare apples to oranges, giving the range for one, but not the other, and the tankage on one, but not the other.

Unicorn