2 hours ago, abmwaldo said:

Or we field a "B" that looks an awful lot like a grey painted 737, 767, or 777 depending on cargo carrying capacity required.

Even in OEF C-17s spend/spent the vast majority of their time flying from 10,000 foot runway to 10,000 foot runway. Leave the "exquisite" capabilities of the C-17/C-130 to get things the "last mile" or into areas that are contested.

Oh yes, I agree a regular cargo jet(s) from the commercial world is probably 50% of the solution for AMC.

With the growth of long range mass fires though (TBMs, drones, cheap cruise missiles, etc…) I see the utility in having short, rough field or road based capabilities (need high floatation, good tire/truck weight distribution, high wing). Our bases in CENTCOM have absorbed a lot of shots so far in the war with Iran, with China the runways in Japan, Guam, the PIs, Saipan, etc… it’ll be 50x that.

OEF and OIF have some lessons for us but a lot of concepts that won’t be repeated likely for a while or ever again, namely long term steady state stabilization and support operations without air or long range fires threats. Even proxy forces now have capabilities only states would have, ala the Houthis, the democratization of technology and low price points now enable this. This is why we need some expeditionary heavy capabilities for Air Mobility, capable of short notice, ad hoc operations from many different airfields, roadways, suitable fields, etc… to give the enemy a harder targeting problem.

But not everything in AMC needs to be this, half and half fleet would probably suffice. There have been legit proposals out there for this, https://www.aeroflap.com.br/en/boeing-777-could-become-a-tanker-for-the-us-air-force/

You could probably add enough mil capes for low threat ops and necessary communications/links without breaking the bank to more economically support our OCONUS forces, on demand airlift for NEOs, routine force movements, etc…

Those 10 777xs not being accepted by Emirates would be prime candidates for this methinks

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/emirates-refusing-delivery-first-10-140451290.html

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Clark Griswold

I think more cargo capable tankers for a dual role to give TACC options and give our tactical airlift fleet a reprieve would be a win. Whether it be more KC-46s or bigger (KC-Z) based 777 or 330 MRTTs airframes to pack in some serious cargo. But, I also don't know how much of our cargo is outsized vs palletized/ULD so that is a giant assumption.

20 minutes ago, StoleIt said:

I think more cargo capable tankers for a dual role to give TACC options and give our tactical airlift fleet a reprieve would be a win. Whether it be more KC-46s or bigger (KC-Z) based 777 or 330 MRTTs airframes to pack in some serious cargo. But, I also don't know how much of our cargo is outsized vs palletized/ULD so that is a giant assumption.

That would be a COA, double down on the -46 assuming the teething problems are fixed

Like you mentioned, the ratio of outsized/vehicular vs palletized/containerized cargo requirements would factor into this plus others (short, unprepared field delivery requirements, air drop, etc)

If AMC decided to leverage commercial types for some of its routine, low risk, cargo missions, I’d go with the extremes and leave the -46 to handle the middle.

777 pax/cargo type, no ramp but a lot of people and pallets/ULDs for theater resupply and rotations.

737-7 MAX with gravel kit and Short Field Performance package, NG mods but Boeing could probably adapt to the MAX. This would be you island hopper, medivac, jack of all trades transport.

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

That would be a COA, double down on the -46 assuming the teething problems are fixed

Like you mentioned, the ratio of outsized/vehicular vs palletized/containerized cargo requirements would factor into this plus others (short, unprepared field delivery requirements, air drop, etc)

If AMC decided to leverage commercial types for some of its routine, low risk, cargo missions, I’d go with the extremes and leave the -46 to handle the middle.

777 pax/cargo type, no ramp but a lot of people and pallets/ULDs for theater resupply and rotations.

737-7 MAX with gravel kit and Short Field Performance package, NG mods but Boeing could probably adapt to the MAX. This would be you island hopper, medivac, jack of all trades transport.

The Guppy's off road ability (gravel kit) disappeared when they went from JT8D's to the CFM engines with the classic. I can't imagine the LEAPs, which are even lower, will work out.