ARTICLE

February 2000

Industry Titans Vying for Early Lead in Cargo Aircraft Markets

by Sandra I. Erwin

Global aerospace suppliers have begun sketching new transport aircraft designs aimed to fulfill expected future needs for advanced, medium-lift platforms. Companies are pitching their concepts to the Air Force, the Marine Corps and the Army in an attempt to prove that these aircraft would, in about 20 years or so, be suitable to replace today's C-130 Hercules, which is the Pentagon's workhorse for in-theater transport operations.

The Hercules has been a popular airplane since it entered service in the late 1950s. Its most advanced version is the C-130J. But, looking 15 to 20 years into the future, military planners believe that it may need to be replaced, because it may not meet the requirements of the future force. Specifically, it cannot take off or land vertically and cannot operate in short, unprepared runways. The ability to do so, according to experts, increasingly will become a key requirement for 21st century tactical transports.

The Army, for example, is seeking a new transport helicopter that would replace Vietnam-era Chinooks. But the service also may be in the market for a cargo plane that would travel farther and carry more payload than a helicopter. A desire for more airlift capacity recently was expressed by the commander of the Army Special Operations Command, Lt. Gen. William P. Tagney. He praised the addition of the CV-22, a modified Marine Corps V-22 tilt-rotor, to the Special Operations Command fleet. But he suggested that, in the future, the special operations forces would need a bigger plane. "The CV-22 is a narrow platform, boxwise," Tagney told an industry conference in Washington, D.C. He expects that "insights from CV-22 will lead us to a variant with a bigger box for more soldiers."

And the Marine Corps is considering expanding its fleet of vertical take off and landing (VTOL) aircraft fleet by supplementing the V-22 Ospreys with a four-engine variant that could carry up to 100 troops.

Tilt-rotor aircraft can take off, hover and land like a traditional helicopter and, with its rotors in the forward position, fly with the speed and range of a large turbo-prop transport.

Rescue Hostages
At the Pentagon, meanwhile, some officials are eyeing the possibility of acquiring a large, hovering tilt-rotor that could be used to rescue American citizens in hostage situations, for example.

About a year ago, representatives from the office of the defense secretary approached the V-22 prime contractor, Bell Helicopter Textron, based in Fort Worth, Texas, and requested that the company "take a look at a large, hovering tilt-rotor that would use V-22 components," said Dick Spivy, program manager at Bell. "The issue was: how can we rescue Americans in danger at a foreign embassy?" he said in an interview. The V-22 is designed to transport 24 combat troops. But, according to Spivy, the Pentagon might be interested in a plane that could carry 100 or more people.

Bell Helicopter currently is working on a four-engine VTOL plane that would be a big as a C-130 Hercules. The company believes that, if funding is available, the Defense Department will want to buy such an airplane. Named the quad tilt-rotor, the system is in the early phases of design. And it may be a decade or two before the Pentagon has the dollars to purchase it.

The quad tilt-rotor is being designed with 90 seats, Spivy said. When used for cargo, it would move between 10 and 20 tons of equipment and fly at speeds of more than 300 miles an hour over distances from 1,000 to 2,000 miles. It would be able to land vertically in confined areas, such as the rooftop of an embassy. It also could operate off amphibious ships and conventional aircraft carriers.

"There is no military requirement written for it," he said. "But we want to adapt to emerging requirements for heavy lift." More than 50 percent of the components-such as engine, hydraulics and cockpit-would be common with the V-22. That could be a key factor in making the plane affordable, Spivy said.

The quad tilt-rotor, however, would cost more than a C-130J because of its hovering capability. A C-130J currently is priced at about $55 million.
The special operations community also has interest in the aircraft, said Spivy. "They want more range and payload in an aircraft that can work with the V-22." But to start a development program, "you need a large service to sponsor it."

Only one test has been conducted for the quad tilt-rotor so far, Spivy said. "More testing will take place this year in wind tunnels around the country." But he cautioned that the quad tilt-rotor still remains a long way away from becoming a working prototype. "It's not a done deal," he added.

Bell Helicopter would prefer that the quad tilt-rotor be tested by the Pentagon as a part of the Defense Department's advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) program. ACTDs are designed to bring weapon systems from the lab to the field faster than under the traditional procurement system. If the quad tilt-rotor became an ACTD, said Spivy, "we would take V-22 components and build two or three aircraft and flight test them."
Preliminary designs show that the quad tilt-rotor would have four V-22 rotors, engines, and transmissions, mounted two each on forward and aft wings. It would be able to carry a large helicopter-such as an Apache or Black Hawk-three Humvee trucks or up to eight standard loading pallets.

Bell officials, additionally, believe the quad tilt-rotor could fulfill the Army's requirement for a so-called joint transport rotorcraft. This program, which still is being refined, seeks a new cargo helicopter to replace aging CH-47 Chinooks. According to a Bell Helicopter marketing document, the quad tilt-rotor "comes very close to meeting many of the Army's emerging requirements with the existing V-22 components. It is likely that the Army will require the greatest numbers of aircraft."

The four-engine tilt-rotor appears to be generating interest throughout the military services, said Bill Dane, senior aerospace analyst at Forecast International, Newtown, Conn. But he believes Bell Helicopter's proposal "is still kind of fanciful."

Note of Caution
A retired Army brigadier general who works as an aviation consultant offered a word of caution about trying to build cargo aircraft for use in unprepared, primitive fields. The problem simply has to do with exposing expensive aircraft to unnecessary risk, said Samuel G. Cockerham. He recalled the early days of the C-5 Galaxy heavy-lift aircraft, the first of which was delivered to the Air Force in 1970. "The C-5 was designed for primitive airfields and was sold to the Air Force on that premise," said Cockerham in an interview. But, as it turned out, military officials became increasingly reluctant to risk a $100 million plane by making it land on rough, unprepared land strips, he related. One obvious problem is having enough wheel footprint so that the weight of the aircraft does not make it sink in muddy fields. "You can't hover every time, you need to be able to move it on wheels," Cockerham said.

He believes there is merit to seeking a replacement to the C-130, but he would not recommend investing in a sophisticated new aircraft before determining the level of acceptable risk when operating in rough terrain.
Meanwhile, the V-22's other prime contractor, the Boeing Company, also is marketing a new transport plane to the U.S. military. It is called the advanced theater transport (ATT) and has been nicknamed "Superfrog" because of its stocky shape. Although officials from Bell and from Boeing are reluctant to view the quad tilt-rotor and the ATT as future competitors, they likely will be, because both aircraft will have to battle for Pentagon dollars.
The focus of the ATT is "next-generation airlift," said Gerry Janicki, director of strategic development at Boeing's military aircraft division in Long Beach, Calif.

There are nearly 2,000 transports worldwide today, Janicki said in an interview. And many of them are based on designs that are 30 to 50 years old. With ATT, he said, "we are looking to demonstrate something more capable."

The ATT is a four-engine, no tail, tilt-wing aircraft that would be capable of landing and taking off from strips as short as 600 feet. It could carry up to 100 troops or 11 cargo pallets-as well as ground vehicles such as Humvee trucks.

Examples of possible cargo loads include:

• One Army MRLS rocket launcher with missiles, two Humvees and 40 troops.
• Five Humvees and 32 troops.
• One 5-ton truck, one 8-ton truck and 40 troops.

In creating the ATT, Boeing looked back at government studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, which led to the development of the C-17 strategic transport plane-now produced by Boeing. Those studies, said Janicki, emphasized the need for aircraft able to take off and land in less than 1,000 feet and carry a large payload. "That is how the tail-less configuration came about," Janicki said.

"We found the most effective way to carry heavy payloads in a short runway was a tilted wing ... It's been demonstrated that, if you tilt the wings and get a rolling start you can take up almost 30 percent to 200 percent more payload [versus] going vertical," Janicki asserted. "Vertical requires a very heavy rotor load and a lot more thrust."

The wing in the ATT tilts upwards in a 45-degree angle. Janicki claimed that the propulsion requirement is for 50,000 pounds of thrust in a tilt-wing plane, compared to 150,000 pounds of thrust for vertical lift. "Many studies were done about tilt-wing [aircraft] in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s," he noted. It is not new technology.

When asked about how Boeing views the quad tilt-rotor design by Bell Helicopter, Janicki gave it good marks. "We evaluated a quad rotor. It's a good design but it cannot carry the amount of payload we plan for the ATT."
One reason for the tail-less design, he explained, is that a tail would interfere with the aircraft's ability to fly at low enough speed so it can land on a 600-foot strip.

Being a large commercial aircraft supplier, Boeing also is exploring civilian applications for the Superfrog. Janicki believes there is significant potential for commercial sales of the ATT. "There are 5,000 airports in the United States that can't accommodate big airplanes."

The company currently is testing a 7 percent model of the Superfrog, tethered to an automobile and flown with a remote control device. It will take 10 to 15 years to escalate the program to a full-size prototype. "We are working with Army and Air Force to ensure we meet their requirements for [the] future combat vehicle," Janicki said. "We easily could have something in place to meet Army and Air Force requirements in 2015."

Some of the funding for the ATT came from a research cost-sharing agreement between Boeing and the Air Force for flight control technology. "But the Army really is the focus" of this program, said Janicki. Because the Army takes a lot of heavy equipment to the battlefield, "we want to design this aircraft so the cargo can be loaded and offloaded autonomously directly to a truck or to the ground without any extra equipment."

Janicki would not disclose the estimated price tag for the Superfrog, but he offered that it would be "about the same price of an A400 ... I can't give you the numbers." The A400 is a medium-lift cargo plane currently under development by a European consortium led by Airbus. This aircraft is expected to also compete as a potential replacement for the C-130. Its cost is estimated at $65 million, a price tag that could shift as a result of the fluctuations in the euro-dollar exchange rate.

But Janicki is not worried about competing with the A400. The more formidable enemies are right here at home: the other aircraft programs the Pentagon plans to fund in the next decade-the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-22 air superiority fighter, a replacement for the KC-135 and KC-10 tanker aircraft. "Finding the resources is one of the greatest challenges," he said.
The battle between program offices for funding will intensify, predicted Dane. He believes the advanced tactical transport requirement is "way out there, around 2025 or beyond ... There won't be much in the way of funds."
Hercules prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems, based in Marietta, Ga., also has released a preliminary sketch of an advanced theater transport. Company officials were not available at press time to provide details. According to a Lockheed marketing brochure, this aircraft is expected to provide super short take off and landing in less than 1,000-foot areas. It is being designed to operate in unprepared landing zones and mobile offshore bases.

The Paris-based Airbus Military Company, meanwhile, is seeking to position the A400 as a future key player in the European market, even though the program has not yet entered its development phase. For the foreseeable future, Boeing and Lockheed Martin will "almost monopolize the world transport markets," said Richard Aboulafia, aerospace analyst at the Teal Group, a defense market analysis firm in Fairfax, Va. The Boeing C-17 and the Lockheed Martin C-130 today capture 93 percent of the world's military transport market.

But other experts predict Airbus could eventually challenge the two U.S. giants. "The A400 will be tough competitor to the C-130," asserted Michel Merluzeau, aerospace analyst at Frost & Sullivan, a market research firm in Mountain View, Calif. "The success of the C-130 today results from being the only aircraft on the market and the absence of competitors," he said in an interview.

The A400 also will be tough competitor to Boeing's Superfrog, said Merluzeau. "Boeing and Lockheed Martin will have a tough time overseas."

Back To Top