I participated in various REFORGERS - both as a fighter pilot in Germany, and a Air Guard trash hauler...
Agree we should recover the capability.
But, we need to have our supplies in theater - at least for the first couple of months of a war. As the Russian-Ukraine war shows, we need a LOT more supplies on hand than the planning has provided for.
Most importantly, we need more heavy strategic airlift aircraft. Boeing cannot build any more C17's AFAIK, and I doubt that LockMart can build another C5....So, what to build? And given recent DoD procurement history, how much will it cost and how long will it be delayed?
Along with the heavy airlifters, we need big-wing strategic tankers....both for the US Air Force, but also the ancillary users like the Navy and even allies...
Trash haulin' and gas-passing may not be sexy but it is absolutely ESSENTIAL to warfighting. I dare say that the state of resupply for US Forces in the Pacific is in pretty poor shape too - insufficient dedicated cargo handling capabilities? And we need to update/replace the Mercy-class hospital ships, ideally with faster, smaller, ships - and more than two.
You got it right about the lifters -- no more C-17s, definitely no more C-5s (unless you want to dust off the boneyarded A-models and convert them to M's like the B's and C's). Boeing isn't even building 747s as of February. We need a strategic program where we take the old blueprints, make some quick reliability/survivability modifications, and produce the whole set again. Do you have any idea how much better and more reliable a KC-135 would be with an airframe--with no real development required now--with modern metallurgy, engines, and electronics attached? Build a hundred new tankers and lifters, and the problem set west of Wake gets a lot more breathing room. Delay the funds for a stealth tanker another 10 years; it's not gonna help us in the West Pac tomorrow.
CDR Sal, you'll have to speak for sealift community, but I can't imagine a RORO has changed that drastically in 50 years, right? Or is the problem set more about survivability of ports?
Your boneyard comment got me thinking in several directions. First, some/many of those C-5's in the desert have been stripped of parts to keep the rest of the fleet flying. There might not be enough that can be returned to fly-able condition to make a difference. A parts maker might not want to set up for a small (less than 100 units) production run. Second, there are B-767's passenger types sitting in civilian desert storage. It might be possible to convert them to freighters with reinforced floors and a cargo door. The next step would be adding a boom and extra fuel tanks. The issue of engine, radio, etc. options/commonality might force the organization of squadrons by which airline operated the planes first (Delta, United, etc).
Can any of the suggestions from this group happen? Maybe, if there is money from Congress, a mentality of silver plate good enough instead of gold plate perfection in the Pentagon, and time.
"Waste anything but time. Time is a non-renewable resource."
"It might be possible to convert them to freighters with reinforced floors and a cargo door."
Not just possible, it happens regularly at MRO companies around the world. I have a MRO right down the road from me that does 767 freighter conversions.
So, is the next step of adding extra fuel tanks, boom, and operators station easy? Difficult? Impossible? Would the FAA require a new type certificate? Or would it be covered under the existing approval for new build KC-46's?
It seems that we are past the point of wishing for perfect. The attitude needs to be 'Do the best you can with what we already have'.
The KC-767 predates the KC-46 by several years. Omega Air Refueling has several old commercial 707s and an old commercial DC-10 that they've converted to probe-and-drogue tankers. So I don't see why commercial 767 airframes couldn't be converted to tankers. It would take some surgery, but so does a freighter conversion and those are common.
There are roughly two squadrons, think it was 16, C-17s that were basically on standby status just a handful of years ago, don't think that changed, heard something similar for roughly half that of the C-5's too, like another 8 (not M-model converted yet). So right off the bat, that's 3 more squadrons. It's also in this day and age of new "3d" printing abilities to make the lessor parts (no illusion on the big stuff) to outfit more of those mothballed jets too, but they could probably take a chunk of those c-5's left as well and put them to an M status. Of course it goes without saying too that it not only helps for extreme lift but also the life expectancy of the current fleet of jets only gets better as the lifting is spread over more units. Air Force seems to not get that as they constantly kill their last f-15's and b-1's when they prematurely get rid of airframes and tax the ones they do have. And the civilian desert storage- SPOT ON. 767's and for that matter 747's, you can see enough on simple stored airports or even the rows that aviation enthusiasts show every month on say a Youtube site. Of course many are not ready to just take off again, but parts are parts, make an effort, and you can make/get them. A fleet of 747 freighters is a weapon for hauling onto itself.
Scan a C-5 or 17, we can build molds and short-term tooling is no problem for the metal and polymer. I am sure Western Reserve Port Authority would have no problem with a production line being established on their property, since that would give more work for the Youngstown Air Reserve Station.
No need. If it's a C-5 restart, then the line could go back in the plant the built the originals - the LockMart plant in Marietta, Georgia. Currently building C-130s, but the C-5 line could share the space or the C-130s could move to a smaller place. Or something. But the Marietta plant has the roof height required for C-5s.
Oh if they really brought back C-5 production there's no doubt they'd do it at the Marietta plant. They still do depot-level maintenance there, did all the M conversions there, and I've even picked up tails there myself.
Nothing says we can't make wider use of commercial air cargo options, but for the big heavy gear, we have a solid 50 years of growth in the world. Their are 400 commercial airfields that an A380 could land on. Use the existing commercial airline box with a new airframe and we might get a tank platoon on board if we ever get some of the weight off the tank. Example attached. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16ak8YXjNFZyDc_RwXxmV00gXiuGV7cDa_TVpHpL3-R8/edit?usp=sharing
A380's published cargo capacity is 185klbs, but strip out the seating and luggage bins under the floor and I bet you could lift 350k realistically (MGTOW of 1.27Mlbs - empty weight of .63Mlbs - 300k of gas to get across Atlantic or West Coast to Hawaii ≈ 340klbs cargo). Regardless, as you said, no freighter models and not in production anymore. The other problem is Freddies (C-5s) and Barneys (C-17s) are built wide to accommodate double rows of pallets or vehicles, and even the 747F wasn't built to do that (they can lift the weight but not the cubes). Mil cargo is always gonna need custom lift.
The A380 freighter that didn't get built would have had a 150,000kg capacity. My paper airplane above basically uses the A380 wingspan and fuselage width, but assume a military transport configuration with the 777X engines and a little more wing and the 777X length. It wouldn't hold what the Mirya held in weight, but it would have more volume and should be able to use more airfields.
More easily than some things they are already working on which will come to nothing. Look how much containerships grew in the timeline from C-5 until now. It will happen. Rather it be us than the other guy.
The problem with an A380 cargo aircraft is that the airplane would max out on weight long before the volume was used up. Unlike the 747, the A380 was specifically designed for hauling a butt-ton of passengers, not for cargo service. So it could be done with an A380, but it wouldn't be very efficient. Lots of unnecessary fuselage being hauled around for no gain, with the unnecessary fuel burn to go along with that. That is why Airbus never went with a cargo version of the A380.
USAF is looking at fairly stealthy tankers to avoid them all getting shot down by super long range missiles day 1. And there is a totally bonkers DARPA aircraft program called SPRINT out there. So there is some potential.
We have not the sea lift ships, nor the escorts to do anything after a war starts. The Bush administration cancelled the TOMCAT 21, so we don't have a fleet defense fighter either.
We better get cracking, hauling stuff back to Europe, and building fast cargo ships, and real escorts for them, like making NANSEN class DEGs under license from Norway, as JOHN C BUTLER Class DEGs, for our Navy.
Those ships are Spanish built. You want to be looking at Korea's FFX Batch III. Box girder construction. 360 degree fixed air search and EO/IR mast. Quiet shaft mounted electric drive. Nansens are old and sink.
This is the partisan bullshit which is destroying the nation.
There are millions of us on "the Left," who fully understand that a strong and vital United States Navy is essential to the survival of our nation. Nonsense like "the left won't stand for that" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's the coward's way out. I'm not going to bother to try and convince my brothers and sisters of the need for a strong naval force, because, "they won't stand for that," so I won't even try and make the argument.
It is not the right verses the left, it is the extremes versus the middle.
The drooling MAGA hat morons, and the dirty barefoot progressives are birds of a feather. We need to ignore the extremes and figure out things we can agree on. For example, liberal, free-trading globalists like me see a strong and vital Navy is needed to insure the flow of goods across the oceans of the world. Cf. "I, Pencil: My Family Tree as Told to Leonard E. Read." A conservative nationalist sees China as an enemy whose Navy must be challenged. It does not matter who is correct because both ideologies wind up in the same place: a strong and powerful United States Navy is essential to the strength of the nation.
“Partisan bullshit”. Right. From a guy who belongs to the party of AOC, “The Squad”, DE&I, and drag queen story hour. And you call us partisan for challenging your plans.
Your comment shows a startling lack of understanding about political parties. First, the Democratic Party is not at all like the Republican. Republicans are tight -- focused. They have a set of notions that one has to subscribe to, or you are not a Republican. Hence, "the RINO." Democrats are just folks who aren't Republicans.
We have a two-party system. To participate, you have to be in one or the other. If you don't fit in R, you fall into that vast, disorganized mass which is D.
If you study conservative thought, you'll find a deep vein of analysis that say that multiple political parties, two in our system, and many in the parliamentary republics, are the bulwark against totalitarianism. Among the many sins of communism is the same one-party rule that is so au courant with the current crop of Republicans.
As an 'insider' with a tiny, insignificant job in the GOP, I can assure you that the party is not at all tight nor focused.
Also, the far left is trying to push Dem centrists and center-leftists toward the GOP as hard as they can, by supporting unlimited power for both government and favored corporations, and eliminating parents' rights to protect their children. The GOP doesn't know how to welcome these libertarian-ish leftist folks into the party.
Oh for fucks sake, this isn’t an Introduction to Political Science class circa 1980. Stick around here on Thursdays (because I notice you always seem to be quiet on Diversity Thursday) to see what your party is all about. Today’s Democrat Party is composed of gay men, lesbians, militant lesbians, DE&I hustlers, the chronic welfare class, trannies, “minor attracted persons”, drag queens, groomers, university professors, and rich assholes who live in gated communities and send their children to boarding schools so they don’t have to sit in classrooms that are, as Joe Biden called them, “racial jungles”.
Left, Right hard middle or soft it is all one Uni Party now, it's like a wrestling entertainment show, "They" (D), (R), (L) talks the talk posture and drama but "They" are all on the same team, we are not on their team.
And "They" are in it for the power trip and the $$$$$.
Seriously it appears maybe the US is going to do with any incursion to anywhere by simply funneling money and equipment to the areas and hope they fight back and win.
I don't think they actually have a plan for a war outside Nuclear threats and going to the UN with Sanctions.
If they want to bulk up in convoy escorts, then the frigate derivative of the Bertholf-class cutters would be the way. Ingalls already has three options to choose from and the the line is already hot, but not for much longer. The National Security Cutter program is almost complete.
How is it that in 2023 there is a belief that America has to be the dominant contributor to Europe's defense? Help Europe? Sure, we can help, but not as the primary contributor. If at this point in history Europe doesn't have the will and the resources to protect itself, with some limited help from us, then why does it deserve to exist? This is not 1945, or even 1960. Europe has a GDP of ~$17 Trillion. Russia has a GDP of ~$1.8 Trillion. WTF? Europe, put on your big boy pants or learn to speak Russian. We must stop allowing Europe to behave like a 21 year old that doesn't want to leave his parents house and make his own way in the world.
And Russia can't even get across the Dnepr (lol, lmao) so it should be pretty easy for even the useless Europeans to defend themselves from such inept expansionism and lethargic invasions.
A. Logistics infrastructure….at EUCOM, USAREUR and whatever is left at 21st TAACOM…..planners, host nation coordination, ground transport clearances, z.b.
B. Fort to Port..in CONUS and at arrival port and onward movement.
C. A Reserve Component HQs and trained organization to execute the RSOI.
Back in the day, REFORGER 89, our TAACOM up north used 2 ARNG Log Commands to form the RSOI infrastructure from Dutch and Belgian ports, to the POMCUS sites near MGB, then linked up with arrival flights into Köln Bonn Flughafen.
Then the fun began …synchronization of troops, CEGE/POMCUS , then road and rail haul down to the maneuver box.
It was damn difficult then. And we did it every year. I’d speculate there isn’t a greenie on active duty that has ever tasted this…most of us have long moved on.
From 1989 - 1993 I was in the REFORGER Planning Group at USAREUR HQs in Heidelberg, GE. More specifically, I worked closely with FORSCOM to develop the TPFDDs to bring troops to Germany and then send them home. It was a great help when it came time to send VII Corps to Saudi for Desert Storm. The actual ODCSOP planners were familiar with developing TPFDDs for bring troops over, but not sending them out, so all of us Exercise TPFDDers had to build it for them.
Navy is finally, FINALLY, recently looking into airships for logistics; albeit looking at the wrong craft (that double-bubble-butt-blimp monstrosity called "Airlander") But at least I'll give the Navy a plus fer tryin.... Prior to this, the (ahem) Army was heading that way too; and once again, looking at the same wretched piece of....uhm.. nonsense. At that time...the "LEMV"; the precursor to "Airlander"
NO blimps! No BLIMPS! No bloody bloomin BLIMPS! no chinese-lantern-like zeppelins or dirigibles.
stop trying to make glorified balloons do any real work.
and yet, DARPA was on the right track with the "WALRUS" idea. Airships capable of carrying up to 500 tons, able to deliver anywhere on the globe within 72 hours. Anywhere.
No ports needed. No runways needed.
Load em up in Nebraska, fly em over oceans, ice, shores, mountains, anywhere. deliver cargo exactly where it is needed.
AIRSHIPS..................it's a traditional NAVY thing. Needs to be again. Big time.
The Navy explored this idea in the 1980s--again, after trying and abandoning it in the 1930s. There was even a proposal for a nuclear-powered airship that would have had effectively infinite endurance and significantly higher velocity than a warship...though obviously not as great as an actual aircraft.
Also there were proposals for airships tethered to CVNs and possibly smaller surface combatants that would have supplemented--possibly even replaced--the E-2C AEW systems. Sadly, none of it ever went beyond the planning stage: I'm fairly sure they never even built prototypes.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try again...just that--based on two separate, unsuccessful attempts--the airship concept does not seem to fit well into the Navy's operations.
I appreciate your nod to the idea of a nuclear powered airship, and the "sadly" note about not using lighter-than-air craft as supplement AEW. (although, "tethered" would have failed miserably) As you write, those of the past have been less than stellar. That is only because all past "airship" efforts have been based solely on either blimps, or dirigibles; which are absolutely archaic in fact, and severely limited in capabilities.
A new type of airship is needed. Designed as amphibious craft, and constructed robustly, "weatherproof", with thick hulls of aluminum and carbon foam, not the fragile membrane envelopes of the past. Large enough to carry substantial power, even nuclear (ALL past airships have been vastly underpowered )
The Navy should abandon any 19th Century "airship" concepts and their ilk, and move on to the 21st Century. It can be done. It should be done. and, NOW
As a reference, the Hindenburg managed 84mph on about 4,500 hp from four (4) 1930's era diesel engines. One (1) engine of a C-130 supplies about the same power. A primary reason why blimps (ugh) and zeppelins (bleagh) travel slowly is not simply because they are universally underpowered, but because the fragility of their membrane hulls doesn't allow them to push against wind....they will collapse, as an umbrella in a storm.
So....build modern airships robustly, of aluminum and carbon foam. Build them large enough to carry multiple powerful engines. Increase speeds, increase stability in weather.
True, but the days when we could pull off a PacEx'89 and Kangaroo'89 back-to-back are long past. Hell! The Navy doesn't have enough hulls available on both coasts to pull off a PacEx'89. West of Wake is going to be a series of smoking chum balls.
I live in a town with a Port (RO/RO and other), Fort, and Air Force base with strategic and theater lift. And I recall the hullabaloo back in the 70s and 80s when REFORGER would go down. The population in town dwindled bigtime for the duration. The skies filled with departing airlifters. The rails to the port having been busy before that.
Yes. We need to practice up and conduct more REFOREURs. And let us not forget that these facilities I mention also include the the roundout and primary support for Korea and those troops. Another area that needs some practice and AAR/Troubleshooting. REFORKOR?
I'd like to think that we have smart people that have already done the planning and basics on how we would accomplish either/both. That there are packages of missions predrawn and units designated. That we can do better than a repeat of the grabasstic start of Desert Shield.
Yessir, REFORGER was a big deal here in Tacoma. Always. And in between, each soldier had a closet full of gear for no notice recalls. I am sure that many such skills have long atrophied, but we are in a new age; beyond the rotational deployments to the Sandbox. It's time we figured out the new reality and practice.
Stuttgart planners need to shift exercises. Also, bring in the EPU's from the Navy Reserve. We're going to need liaison personnel in those EUCOM ports. Hopefully, the intact railhead starts on the continent, as well.
Some thoughts. First, directly from the mouth of Biden. First, we are in for a win in Ukraine. Loud and plain. Second: 600 ship navy.
While 747's are being retired, many are not that old that they could be refurbished for military cargo. Heck, the plane was designed, originally to be a cargo plan since the SST was to be the future of passenger travel.
A 747 is a suboptimal cargo aircraft - even if it had the swing nose option. The body is not wide enough for large vehicles, and having to lift them 20+ feet into the air to load is slow... They can be used to move palletized cargo, as long as the receiving field has a suitable runway, sufficient apron space, and the loaders (or the loaders have to come in on a real transport). Also, the floor strength is about half of the C17, IIRC
War, at least in the first year, is come dressed as you are. And, what we have in the inventory, if WWII is any guide a mere shadow of what will be needed. We're getting an object lesson in that with the production of artillery shells.
Whether it's reopening a C5 or C17 production line or placing into production a new design that gives us C5 or C17 capability is something that will not be available at the onset of a war. So you use what you got and, imperfect it may be, we use the 747 and 777 that are around. And the capabilities for loading and unloading those planes exist with UPS and FedEx.
We have dangerously allow our industrial base to erode, I hope Putin and Xi are providing the necessary wake up call to get these capabilities back on line. We need to act like we're at war
It should also be pointed out that only the purpose built 747Fs have the swing nose. Backfitting that to existing freighter conversions would require such extensive surgery that it's not considered feasible. 747 freighter conversions only get a side door.
No new large cargo aircraft, the C-5 and C-17 lines are long gone. Better make that tank fit into a C-130. Do we have enough C-130's?
If we decided to build enough sealift, do we have the sailors to man them? Do we have enough escorts to get them across a semi-contested ocean? Do we have enough mine sweepers to clear a lane for them to get into ports?
So we decide by some miracle to fix all of this today and find the cash to do it, money no object, how long will it take?
We have some LCS capacity, not how do we make them a decent ASW escort quickly, the Independence class seem to have a nice flight deck?
Can we buy something off the shelf to make into minesweepers? But that does not solve manning. Do we even have the dock and maintenance capacity for a surge like this?
If the waterjet noise really is an issue for ASW, they could still put a MAD sensor and the MH-60 dipping sonar on the CUSV and launch them. The minesweeping module uses 2 but I think LCS-2 ought to be able to carry 4. That and 2 MH-60 is a solid start.
when I was a social work officer at MEDDAC FT Campbell, I envied my 101st fellow officers went to Germany for Reforger and finally got my chance to go to Germany for Reforger 85. It was amazing in just 2 wk the US airlifted 100,000 American troops to Germany combat ready to meet the Russians and warsaw Pact troops. It was amazing seeing thousands of US tankers airlifted to crew prepositioned tanks. A combination of USAF, commercial US aviation and MAC charter aircraft transporting US troops to and from Germany fully equipped for combat. we gave away one of the most valuable tools that the US had for NATO alliance support. Now with Russia actively threatening western Europe and the massive logistical challenge of supplying Ukraine defense we need the ability to carry out major movement of manpower and materiel
I participated in various REFORGERS - both as a fighter pilot in Germany, and a Air Guard trash hauler...
Agree we should recover the capability.
But, we need to have our supplies in theater - at least for the first couple of months of a war. As the Russian-Ukraine war shows, we need a LOT more supplies on hand than the planning has provided for.
Most importantly, we need more heavy strategic airlift aircraft. Boeing cannot build any more C17's AFAIK, and I doubt that LockMart can build another C5....So, what to build? And given recent DoD procurement history, how much will it cost and how long will it be delayed?
Along with the heavy airlifters, we need big-wing strategic tankers....both for the US Air Force, but also the ancillary users like the Navy and even allies...
Trash haulin' and gas-passing may not be sexy but it is absolutely ESSENTIAL to warfighting. I dare say that the state of resupply for US Forces in the Pacific is in pretty poor shape too - insufficient dedicated cargo handling capabilities? And we need to update/replace the Mercy-class hospital ships, ideally with faster, smaller, ships - and more than two.
Flight Doc,
You got it right about the lifters -- no more C-17s, definitely no more C-5s (unless you want to dust off the boneyarded A-models and convert them to M's like the B's and C's). Boeing isn't even building 747s as of February. We need a strategic program where we take the old blueprints, make some quick reliability/survivability modifications, and produce the whole set again. Do you have any idea how much better and more reliable a KC-135 would be with an airframe--with no real development required now--with modern metallurgy, engines, and electronics attached? Build a hundred new tankers and lifters, and the problem set west of Wake gets a lot more breathing room. Delay the funds for a stealth tanker another 10 years; it's not gonna help us in the West Pac tomorrow.
CDR Sal, you'll have to speak for sealift community, but I can't imagine a RORO has changed that drastically in 50 years, right? Or is the problem set more about survivability of ports?
https://cimsec.org/sealift-forces-for-the-future-operating-environment-an-airlifters-perspective/
Your boneyard comment got me thinking in several directions. First, some/many of those C-5's in the desert have been stripped of parts to keep the rest of the fleet flying. There might not be enough that can be returned to fly-able condition to make a difference. A parts maker might not want to set up for a small (less than 100 units) production run. Second, there are B-767's passenger types sitting in civilian desert storage. It might be possible to convert them to freighters with reinforced floors and a cargo door. The next step would be adding a boom and extra fuel tanks. The issue of engine, radio, etc. options/commonality might force the organization of squadrons by which airline operated the planes first (Delta, United, etc).
Can any of the suggestions from this group happen? Maybe, if there is money from Congress, a mentality of silver plate good enough instead of gold plate perfection in the Pentagon, and time.
"Waste anything but time. Time is a non-renewable resource."
"It might be possible to convert them to freighters with reinforced floors and a cargo door."
Not just possible, it happens regularly at MRO companies around the world. I have a MRO right down the road from me that does 767 freighter conversions.
So, is the next step of adding extra fuel tanks, boom, and operators station easy? Difficult? Impossible? Would the FAA require a new type certificate? Or would it be covered under the existing approval for new build KC-46's?
It seems that we are past the point of wishing for perfect. The attitude needs to be 'Do the best you can with what we already have'.
The KC-767 predates the KC-46 by several years. Omega Air Refueling has several old commercial 707s and an old commercial DC-10 that they've converted to probe-and-drogue tankers. So I don't see why commercial 767 airframes couldn't be converted to tankers. It would take some surgery, but so does a freighter conversion and those are common.
There are roughly two squadrons, think it was 16, C-17s that were basically on standby status just a handful of years ago, don't think that changed, heard something similar for roughly half that of the C-5's too, like another 8 (not M-model converted yet). So right off the bat, that's 3 more squadrons. It's also in this day and age of new "3d" printing abilities to make the lessor parts (no illusion on the big stuff) to outfit more of those mothballed jets too, but they could probably take a chunk of those c-5's left as well and put them to an M status. Of course it goes without saying too that it not only helps for extreme lift but also the life expectancy of the current fleet of jets only gets better as the lifting is spread over more units. Air Force seems to not get that as they constantly kill their last f-15's and b-1's when they prematurely get rid of airframes and tax the ones they do have. And the civilian desert storage- SPOT ON. 767's and for that matter 747's, you can see enough on simple stored airports or even the rows that aviation enthusiasts show every month on say a Youtube site. Of course many are not ready to just take off again, but parts are parts, make an effort, and you can make/get them. A fleet of 747 freighters is a weapon for hauling onto itself.
Scan a C-5 or 17, we can build molds and short-term tooling is no problem for the metal and polymer. I am sure Western Reserve Port Authority would have no problem with a production line being established on their property, since that would give more work for the Youngstown Air Reserve Station.
You build them in NE Ohio and I'll come back to the old home state and give them their test checkout coming off the line!
No need. If it's a C-5 restart, then the line could go back in the plant the built the originals - the LockMart plant in Marietta, Georgia. Currently building C-130s, but the C-5 line could share the space or the C-130s could move to a smaller place. Or something. But the Marietta plant has the roof height required for C-5s.
Oh if they really brought back C-5 production there's no doubt they'd do it at the Marietta plant. They still do depot-level maintenance there, did all the M conversions there, and I've even picked up tails there myself.
Nothing says we can't make wider use of commercial air cargo options, but for the big heavy gear, we have a solid 50 years of growth in the world. Their are 400 commercial airfields that an A380 could land on. Use the existing commercial airline box with a new airframe and we might get a tank platoon on board if we ever get some of the weight off the tank. Example attached. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16ak8YXjNFZyDc_RwXxmV00gXiuGV7cDa_TVpHpL3-R8/edit?usp=sharing
Is there an air-cargo A380 model? Reinforced cargo floor, etc? There was an -F mod proposed, but never made - and not with a ramp to load heavy cargo.
Aside from the whole 'made in America' thing.
A tank platoon is what, 4 tanks? So, 280 tons of capacity per airplane? An A380 has about 85 tons capacity...
A380's published cargo capacity is 185klbs, but strip out the seating and luggage bins under the floor and I bet you could lift 350k realistically (MGTOW of 1.27Mlbs - empty weight of .63Mlbs - 300k of gas to get across Atlantic or West Coast to Hawaii ≈ 340klbs cargo). Regardless, as you said, no freighter models and not in production anymore. The other problem is Freddies (C-5s) and Barneys (C-17s) are built wide to accommodate double rows of pallets or vehicles, and even the 747F wasn't built to do that (they can lift the weight but not the cubes). Mil cargo is always gonna need custom lift.
The A380 freighter that didn't get built would have had a 150,000kg capacity. My paper airplane above basically uses the A380 wingspan and fuselage width, but assume a military transport configuration with the 777X engines and a little more wing and the 777X length. It wouldn't hold what the Mirya held in weight, but it would have more volume and should be able to use more airfields.
If replacements for 80 year old B-52's can't get built, how would this thing become reality?
Motivation, skill and guts. As well as money. Take some from the Ukraine budget and build some.
More easily than some things they are already working on which will come to nothing. Look how much containerships grew in the timeline from C-5 until now. It will happen. Rather it be us than the other guy.
Can a Loading dock be built that extends upward to a cargo ramp installed and the Aircraft backed into it or it brought to the Jet?
The problem with an A380 cargo aircraft is that the airplane would max out on weight long before the volume was used up. Unlike the 747, the A380 was specifically designed for hauling a butt-ton of passengers, not for cargo service. So it could be done with an A380, but it wouldn't be very efficient. Lots of unnecessary fuselage being hauled around for no gain, with the unnecessary fuel burn to go along with that. That is why Airbus never went with a cargo version of the A380.
You get it!
There's been a lot written about it.
"Nothing says we can't make wider use of commercial air cargo options,"
That inventory is stretched tight as it is....
And oversized heavy equipment haulers are quite rare.
And designed to move aircraft parts, not tanks.
There are a couple heavy lift carriers out there...
But DoD may have some trouble getting a charter with them:
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/sanctions-squeeze-russian-carrier-volga-dnepr-air-cargo-capacity
USAF is looking at fairly stealthy tankers to avoid them all getting shot down by super long range missiles day 1. And there is a totally bonkers DARPA aircraft program called SPRINT out there. So there is some potential.
KC-Y is gonna look a lot like KC-X, but I bet KC-Z looks like a B-21 and is optionally-manned.
We have not the sea lift ships, nor the escorts to do anything after a war starts. The Bush administration cancelled the TOMCAT 21, so we don't have a fleet defense fighter either.
We better get cracking, hauling stuff back to Europe, and building fast cargo ships, and real escorts for them, like making NANSEN class DEGs under license from Norway, as JOHN C BUTLER Class DEGs, for our Navy.
But the Left won't stand for that.
I'm surprised they're buying those Italian frigates, tbh
It used to be that a carrier went to war with 2 attack subs, an Aegis cruiser or two, a half-dozen destroyers, a couple of fast tankers.....
These days? Just enough noise-makers to attract attention.
Navy F-15EXs? East Coast, Greenland, Azores, and Great Britain.
Iceland.
And we'd need about 200 of them just for the North Atlantic....
Why? Shore based fighters are an Air Force mission.
Those ships are Spanish built. You want to be looking at Korea's FFX Batch III. Box girder construction. 360 degree fixed air search and EO/IR mast. Quiet shaft mounted electric drive. Nansens are old and sink.
This is the partisan bullshit which is destroying the nation.
There are millions of us on "the Left," who fully understand that a strong and vital United States Navy is essential to the survival of our nation. Nonsense like "the left won't stand for that" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's the coward's way out. I'm not going to bother to try and convince my brothers and sisters of the need for a strong naval force, because, "they won't stand for that," so I won't even try and make the argument.
Too bad almost without exception none of them control the levers of power.
"the Left" has been usurped by "the Far Left." - You're a dinosaur Tom.
Good thing we have a dinosaur for POTUS too then. Democrat In Name Only, DINO. I'm marketing it and will now see myself out.
Dinosaur? I think the term you’re looking for is “useful idiot”.
I'd drink a beer with both of you.
It is not the right verses the left, it is the extremes versus the middle.
The drooling MAGA hat morons, and the dirty barefoot progressives are birds of a feather. We need to ignore the extremes and figure out things we can agree on. For example, liberal, free-trading globalists like me see a strong and vital Navy is needed to insure the flow of goods across the oceans of the world. Cf. "I, Pencil: My Family Tree as Told to Leonard E. Read." A conservative nationalist sees China as an enemy whose Navy must be challenged. It does not matter who is correct because both ideologies wind up in the same place: a strong and powerful United States Navy is essential to the strength of the nation.
“Partisan bullshit”. Right. From a guy who belongs to the party of AOC, “The Squad”, DE&I, and drag queen story hour. And you call us partisan for challenging your plans.
Your comment shows a startling lack of understanding about political parties. First, the Democratic Party is not at all like the Republican. Republicans are tight -- focused. They have a set of notions that one has to subscribe to, or you are not a Republican. Hence, "the RINO." Democrats are just folks who aren't Republicans.
We have a two-party system. To participate, you have to be in one or the other. If you don't fit in R, you fall into that vast, disorganized mass which is D.
If you study conservative thought, you'll find a deep vein of analysis that say that multiple political parties, two in our system, and many in the parliamentary republics, are the bulwark against totalitarianism. Among the many sins of communism is the same one-party rule that is so au courant with the current crop of Republicans.
Dude, that's the funniest thing you've ever written. Did you miss the vote for Speaker earlier this year?
As an 'insider' with a tiny, insignificant job in the GOP, I can assure you that the party is not at all tight nor focused.
Also, the far left is trying to push Dem centrists and center-leftists toward the GOP as hard as they can, by supporting unlimited power for both government and favored corporations, and eliminating parents' rights to protect their children. The GOP doesn't know how to welcome these libertarian-ish leftist folks into the party.
Oh for fucks sake, this isn’t an Introduction to Political Science class circa 1980. Stick around here on Thursdays (because I notice you always seem to be quiet on Diversity Thursday) to see what your party is all about. Today’s Democrat Party is composed of gay men, lesbians, militant lesbians, DE&I hustlers, the chronic welfare class, trannies, “minor attracted persons”, drag queens, groomers, university professors, and rich assholes who live in gated communities and send their children to boarding schools so they don’t have to sit in classrooms that are, as Joe Biden called them, “racial jungles”.
You tell the Porch moved over here. The flame wars have begun.
Left, Right hard middle or soft it is all one Uni Party now, it's like a wrestling entertainment show, "They" (D), (R), (L) talks the talk posture and drama but "They" are all on the same team, we are not on their team.
And "They" are in it for the power trip and the $$$$$.
So, what are you doing, personally, to fix the problem? Because lining up with the people you admit are wrong isn't doing it.
Seriously it appears maybe the US is going to do with any incursion to anywhere by simply funneling money and equipment to the areas and hope they fight back and win.
I don't think they actually have a plan for a war outside Nuclear threats and going to the UN with Sanctions.
If they want to bulk up in convoy escorts, then the frigate derivative of the Bertholf-class cutters would be the way. Ingalls already has three options to choose from and the the line is already hot, but not for much longer. The National Security Cutter program is almost complete.
Such exercises do irreparable harm to the Climate!
We should not conduct them until ships are built which can transit the Pacific with zero emissions.
And operated with a gender-fluid crew.
It's a Strategic Priority!!!!
Climate? Pish-tosh.
It is ...THE ... exigent threat donchyaknow!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/naval-secretary-climate-change-top-priority
Secretary of the Navy touts climate as a 'top priority' despite growing threat from China
Once upon a time I heard we had these destroyers and cruisers that could transit the Pacific without emissions.
I don't think we had emission free destroyers, but we had cruisers and Merchant ships too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
Here is a picture of the mythical sea beasts from Operation Sea Orbit. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/explore/photography/ships-us/ships-usn-e/uss-enterprise-cvn-65/330-psa-211-64-kn-29719.html
Old timey "The Desert Tortoises of Twenty Nine Palms" combat training area must be protected.
Save the whales and turn off SONAR.
Use wind turbines and kill birds is fine though.
Not off Martha's Vineyard though...ruins the view!
Mos Def LOL
How is it that in 2023 there is a belief that America has to be the dominant contributor to Europe's defense? Help Europe? Sure, we can help, but not as the primary contributor. If at this point in history Europe doesn't have the will and the resources to protect itself, with some limited help from us, then why does it deserve to exist? This is not 1945, or even 1960. Europe has a GDP of ~$17 Trillion. Russia has a GDP of ~$1.8 Trillion. WTF? Europe, put on your big boy pants or learn to speak Russian. We must stop allowing Europe to behave like a 21 year old that doesn't want to leave his parents house and make his own way in the world.
Why does Europe need to defend itself from, Russia? Who is busting up Europe's infrastructure? Who's dumping toxic financial instruments on Europe?
GDP? Comment after you've read this : https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-russias-economic
Once you view the US-Europe relationship through the frame of a protection racket, many things will make sense.
Why does Europe need to defend itself from Russia?
Because Russia is a hostile, expansionist, empire run by a dictator bent on invading Europe.
Why is that Americas problem if Europe wont defend itself they deserve to be conquered
Fight them in Europe or fight them in the US?
In what world do you see the Rooskies coming to the U.S.? Red Dawn? LOL
The world in which they swallow Ukraine, move onto Poland and rebuild the Warsaw Pact. The one we are funding the Ukrainians to stop.
In neither version (the original, Nicaragua v. US) or crappy (China (whoops, CGI'd to N. Korea v. US) was Russia a direct opponent.
So no.
But Putin is not a rational actor...
You keep repeating this falsehood, more likely that Europe trades one protection racket for another.
More likely that a US collapse leaves a vacuum Russia fills.
Keep an eye on Hungary. If the color revolution fails there, it may mark the turning point.
And Russia can't even get across the Dnepr (lol, lmao) so it should be pretty easy for even the useless Europeans to defend themselves from such inept expansionism and lethargic invasions.
Couple other long poles in the tent..
A. Logistics infrastructure….at EUCOM, USAREUR and whatever is left at 21st TAACOM…..planners, host nation coordination, ground transport clearances, z.b.
B. Fort to Port..in CONUS and at arrival port and onward movement.
C. A Reserve Component HQs and trained organization to execute the RSOI.
Back in the day, REFORGER 89, our TAACOM up north used 2 ARNG Log Commands to form the RSOI infrastructure from Dutch and Belgian ports, to the POMCUS sites near MGB, then linked up with arrival flights into Köln Bonn Flughafen.
Then the fun began …synchronization of troops, CEGE/POMCUS , then road and rail haul down to the maneuver box.
It was damn difficult then. And we did it every year. I’d speculate there isn’t a greenie on active duty that has ever tasted this…most of us have long moved on.
From 1989 - 1993 I was in the REFORGER Planning Group at USAREUR HQs in Heidelberg, GE. More specifically, I worked closely with FORSCOM to develop the TPFDDs to bring troops to Germany and then send them home. It was a great help when it came time to send VII Corps to Saudi for Desert Storm. The actual ODCSOP planners were familiar with developing TPFDDs for bring troops over, but not sending them out, so all of us Exercise TPFDDers had to build it for them.
Navy is finally, FINALLY, recently looking into airships for logistics; albeit looking at the wrong craft (that double-bubble-butt-blimp monstrosity called "Airlander") But at least I'll give the Navy a plus fer tryin.... Prior to this, the (ahem) Army was heading that way too; and once again, looking at the same wretched piece of....uhm.. nonsense. At that time...the "LEMV"; the precursor to "Airlander"
NO blimps! No BLIMPS! No bloody bloomin BLIMPS! no chinese-lantern-like zeppelins or dirigibles.
stop trying to make glorified balloons do any real work.
and yet, DARPA was on the right track with the "WALRUS" idea. Airships capable of carrying up to 500 tons, able to deliver anywhere on the globe within 72 hours. Anywhere.
No ports needed. No runways needed.
Load em up in Nebraska, fly em over oceans, ice, shores, mountains, anywhere. deliver cargo exactly where it is needed.
AIRSHIPS..................it's a traditional NAVY thing. Needs to be again. Big time.
The Navy explored this idea in the 1980s--again, after trying and abandoning it in the 1930s. There was even a proposal for a nuclear-powered airship that would have had effectively infinite endurance and significantly higher velocity than a warship...though obviously not as great as an actual aircraft.
Also there were proposals for airships tethered to CVNs and possibly smaller surface combatants that would have supplemented--possibly even replaced--the E-2C AEW systems. Sadly, none of it ever went beyond the planning stage: I'm fairly sure they never even built prototypes.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try again...just that--based on two separate, unsuccessful attempts--the airship concept does not seem to fit well into the Navy's operations.
I appreciate your nod to the idea of a nuclear powered airship, and the "sadly" note about not using lighter-than-air craft as supplement AEW. (although, "tethered" would have failed miserably) As you write, those of the past have been less than stellar. That is only because all past "airship" efforts have been based solely on either blimps, or dirigibles; which are absolutely archaic in fact, and severely limited in capabilities.
A new type of airship is needed. Designed as amphibious craft, and constructed robustly, "weatherproof", with thick hulls of aluminum and carbon foam, not the fragile membrane envelopes of the past. Large enough to carry substantial power, even nuclear (ALL past airships have been vastly underpowered )
The Navy should abandon any 19th Century "airship" concepts and their ilk, and move on to the 21st Century. It can be done. It should be done. and, NOW
Sure. Blimps (or whatever airship)...as long as the wind is blowing the right direction, and not too hard.
What are the prevailing winds from Nebraska, as you say, to (say) Hawaii? Guam? S. Korea?
I have 270/70 engraved on the wind side of my E6B for a reason...
As a reference, the Hindenburg managed 84mph on about 4,500 hp from four (4) 1930's era diesel engines. One (1) engine of a C-130 supplies about the same power. A primary reason why blimps (ugh) and zeppelins (bleagh) travel slowly is not simply because they are universally underpowered, but because the fragility of their membrane hulls doesn't allow them to push against wind....they will collapse, as an umbrella in a storm.
So....build modern airships robustly, of aluminum and carbon foam. Build them large enough to carry multiple powerful engines. Increase speeds, increase stability in weather.
Winds? not a problem that can't be overcome.
Same issue as wing in ground effect. Odds of crashing have to be massive in comparison to a traditional airlifter.
Pedantically it should be REFORPOL, or maybe REFORPOLBALTFIN, but how about REFOREUR?
EXACTLY
We need it, but more for the Pacific.
Need both...
True, but the days when we could pull off a PacEx'89 and Kangaroo'89 back-to-back are long past. Hell! The Navy doesn't have enough hulls available on both coasts to pull off a PacEx'89. West of Wake is going to be a series of smoking chum balls.
REFORGER? Best I can do is a table top exercise.
Bet I can tell you what the AAR says, even before it starts!
Excellent comments and observations all.
I live in a town with a Port (RO/RO and other), Fort, and Air Force base with strategic and theater lift. And I recall the hullabaloo back in the 70s and 80s when REFORGER would go down. The population in town dwindled bigtime for the duration. The skies filled with departing airlifters. The rails to the port having been busy before that.
Yes. We need to practice up and conduct more REFOREURs. And let us not forget that these facilities I mention also include the the roundout and primary support for Korea and those troops. Another area that needs some practice and AAR/Troubleshooting. REFORKOR?
I'd like to think that we have smart people that have already done the planning and basics on how we would accomplish either/both. That there are packages of missions predrawn and units designated. That we can do better than a repeat of the grabasstic start of Desert Shield.
Yessir, REFORGER was a big deal here in Tacoma. Always. And in between, each soldier had a closet full of gear for no notice recalls. I am sure that many such skills have long atrophied, but we are in a new age; beyond the rotational deployments to the Sandbox. It's time we figured out the new reality and practice.
Agree completely CDR.
Stuttgart planners need to shift exercises. Also, bring in the EPU's from the Navy Reserve. We're going to need liaison personnel in those EUCOM ports. Hopefully, the intact railhead starts on the continent, as well.
Probably time to think about moving USEUCOM to somewhere else - Poland, Hungary.....
Poland
England
Some thoughts. First, directly from the mouth of Biden. First, we are in for a win in Ukraine. Loud and plain. Second: 600 ship navy.
While 747's are being retired, many are not that old that they could be refurbished for military cargo. Heck, the plane was designed, originally to be a cargo plan since the SST was to be the future of passenger travel.
A 747 is a suboptimal cargo aircraft - even if it had the swing nose option. The body is not wide enough for large vehicles, and having to lift them 20+ feet into the air to load is slow... They can be used to move palletized cargo, as long as the receiving field has a suitable runway, sufficient apron space, and the loaders (or the loaders have to come in on a real transport). Also, the floor strength is about half of the C17, IIRC
You can fit 5 MRAPs by weight on a 747, but only one by the loading manual. Which was a fatal surprise to an aircrew a few years ago.
War, at least in the first year, is come dressed as you are. And, what we have in the inventory, if WWII is any guide a mere shadow of what will be needed. We're getting an object lesson in that with the production of artillery shells.
Whether it's reopening a C5 or C17 production line or placing into production a new design that gives us C5 or C17 capability is something that will not be available at the onset of a war. So you use what you got and, imperfect it may be, we use the 747 and 777 that are around. And the capabilities for loading and unloading those planes exist with UPS and FedEx.
We have dangerously allow our industrial base to erode, I hope Putin and Xi are providing the necessary wake up call to get these capabilities back on line. We need to act like we're at war
"A 747 is a suboptimal cargo aircraft "
The 747 is a civilian oriented product derived from Boeing's failed C-5 competition, and was never intended to be a backup military hauler.
https://secure.boeingimages.com/archive/Boeing-C-5-Design-Concept-2F3408E1BEF.html
It should also be pointed out that only the purpose built 747Fs have the swing nose. Backfitting that to existing freighter conversions would require such extensive surgery that it's not considered feasible. 747 freighter conversions only get a side door.
No new large cargo aircraft, the C-5 and C-17 lines are long gone. Better make that tank fit into a C-130. Do we have enough C-130's?
If we decided to build enough sealift, do we have the sailors to man them? Do we have enough escorts to get them across a semi-contested ocean? Do we have enough mine sweepers to clear a lane for them to get into ports?
So we decide by some miracle to fix all of this today and find the cash to do it, money no object, how long will it take?
We have some LCS capacity, not how do we make them a decent ASW escort quickly, the Independence class seem to have a nice flight deck?
Can we buy something off the shelf to make into minesweepers? But that does not solve manning. Do we even have the dock and maintenance capacity for a surge like this?
LOL
No tank in the US arsenal can fit in a Herc. And no IFV can meet the weight limits
If the waterjet noise really is an issue for ASW, they could still put a MAD sensor and the MH-60 dipping sonar on the CUSV and launch them. The minesweeping module uses 2 but I think LCS-2 ought to be able to carry 4. That and 2 MH-60 is a solid start.
We wont do a sea based Reforger ever again would cause to much disruption at major commercial ports which would cost major business money
when I was a social work officer at MEDDAC FT Campbell, I envied my 101st fellow officers went to Germany for Reforger and finally got my chance to go to Germany for Reforger 85. It was amazing in just 2 wk the US airlifted 100,000 American troops to Germany combat ready to meet the Russians and warsaw Pact troops. It was amazing seeing thousands of US tankers airlifted to crew prepositioned tanks. A combination of USAF, commercial US aviation and MAC charter aircraft transporting US troops to and from Germany fully equipped for combat. we gave away one of the most valuable tools that the US had for NATO alliance support. Now with Russia actively threatening western Europe and the massive logistical challenge of supplying Ukraine defense we need the ability to carry out major movement of manpower and materiel