Have the Boeing PELICAN enter service

The thing was ENORMOUS, as in carry 3,000 passengers or 17 Abrams MBT enormous, with a max lift of 1,400 tons. It makes the AN-225 look like a C-130.

In the Cold War it would have been a gimmie to get at least a hundred of them built. 40 aircraft could lift an entire Armored Division from the U.S. to Europe in a day. They would have been terrific during the Gulf War. Instead of facing the entire, tank heavy, Iraqi Army with RDF light units it would have been the 1st & 3rd ID there virtually from Day One.

To get it built you would need that sort of mission or at least a Congress that could be convinced that the U.S. needed to be able to put half the U.S. Army half a world away in a week (which, to be frank, it does, but try convincing Congress). One selling point might be that the U.S. would need to forward deploy less material and standing troop commitments in Europe could be reduced.
It might have some utility in the age of Anti-Access/Area Denial, since its speed would make it too fast for most anti-ship ballistic missiles to catch it (if it takes a DF-21C say thirty minutes to reach the location of the Pelican at missile launch, then the Pelican could be anywhere in a 138 mile radius, and the cross range on a DF-21C probably isn't that large) and can fly low enough to frustrate any long range SAM.

Of course, soon as it comes within enemy air cover with decent look down radar capability, it's screwed (sea mines with an aerial attack capability may also be an issue, but given the large size of the Pacific Ocean, probably not)
 
3000 troops or 1400 tons freight capacity? That's putting an awful lot of eggs in one very vulnerable basket. Why not simply build more C-5s and C-17s? Conventional transport planes are faster too. Pelicans need runways too. Maybe it would offer some advantage due to its cruise efficiency in ground effect but make it smaller. About 1/3 the size. Spread the eggs out a bit more.
 
Last edited:
3000 troops or 1400 tons freight capacity? That's putting an awful lot of eggs in one very vulnerable basket. Why not simply build more C-5s and C-17s? Conventional transport planes are faster too. Pelicans need runways too. Maybe it would offer some advantage due to its cruise efficiency in ground effect but make it smaller. About 1/3 the size. Spread the eggs out a bit more.
Nope.
A Pelican can carry 17 Abrams. A C5 can carry 2 theoretically, and maybe only 1 in practice. I don't believe a C17 can carry any.
 
How would it handle crossing the Great Plains, inland Australia, and other flat places that aren't the ocean?

It can carry as much as a 2/3 mile freight train, using regular shipping containers instead of the shorter airplane ones.
So civilian cargo transport is certainly a niche.
 
The Cold War and REFORGER could have been used for justification if the concept had been taken seriously enough early on, but it wouldn't be the reference "Pelican" design. (Seriously, it was a well known phenomenon and had been reported, studied and even used in 'practical' applications since the 20s) But the technology and capability would likely have to wait till the mid-80s at least and keep in mind that while the DoD actually found the concept to advanced and non-viable in the 90s (Aerocon Wing Ship concept) by the early 2000s they had changed their mind. (Even though Boeing was still skeptical about their ability to actually build the design)

3000 troops or 1400 tons freight capacity? That's putting an awful lot of eggs in one very vulnerable basket. Why not simply build more C-5s and C-17s? Conventional transport planes are faster too. Pelicans need runways too. Maybe it would offer some advantage due to its cruise efficiency in ground effect but make it smaller. About 1/3 the size. Spread the eggs out a bit more.
Nope.
A Pelican can carry 17 Abrams. A C5 can carry 2 theoretically, and maybe only 1 in practice. I don't believe a C17 can carry any.
Nope? Who says you only have to carry tanks? And anyway build a smaller Pelican then. About 1/3 size. Or build bigger conventional transports.

Read the article and proposal, that was the 'requirement' to carry a massive amount of payload to a far away destination so you don't HAVE to 'wait' on more conventional transport assets:
"successfully deploying an Army brigade of 3,000 troops and 8,000 short tons (7,300 t) of equipment within ninety-six hours (4 days) instead of the three to six months (91 to 183 days) it required in the past"

The 3-to-6 months IS with 'more' C-5s and/or C-17s, along with standard shipping and air-freight :)

In the Pelican's case that worked out to about 8,000 "people", or 17 Tanks, or 52 MRLS's, or about 178 standard ISO containers PER Pelican. It's an actual 'freighter' aircraft :) That's what the 'customer' (the DoD) asked them to deliver and they were far from the only design submitted. The more 'conventional' approaches had aircraft about the size of the "Roc" carrying modular payload containers, (but needed a bit more than a dozen of them), fast-cargo ships employing everything from 'hovercraft' to semi-submersible ships and of course a raft of hybrid and "conventional' LTA designs. Pelican checked more of the boxes but Congress balked at the core idea, (that the US military actually NEEDS to move lots of troops and equipment anywhere fast) but more specifically the estimated cost of such a project, (several billion JUST to get to the prototype stage never mind the actual vehicle) and vetoed the funding.

The "problem" of course is there's no real 'other' use for such capacity so you're probably right that a "smaller" version would be better but keep in mind that the studies and requirements were driven by the DoD and not commercial applications. And even a smaller design needs to meet some pretty hefty 'minimum' requirements. (As noted they had to carry MORE than a C-5, FASTER than a ship AND be able to land almost anywhere a 'conventional' aircraft could)

Essentially the only way to meet the OP is to have Congress become convinced the US military really DOES need to be able to deploy quickly anywhere in the world and for Boeing to take on the job which in and of itself isn't guaranteed :)

How would it handle crossing the Great Plains, inland Australia, and other flat places that aren't the ocean?

Flies over them like any other aircraft. It only used GE over large stretches of water. It had enough lift to clear any mountain range lower then the Himalayas'.

Randy
 
How is that going to work given that it explicitly cannot land other than on a runway?
I'm looking at that picture & seeing "flying boat". Did I not get the memo? ;)

I'd agree with the "shuttle" proposal, but I'd add Miami to the Bahamas or Bermuda, or maybe Jamaica, or N.O. to Kingston (for a start).

The ability to deliver 3000 people, or 8000 tons of freight, at a time, could be very useful for disaster relief. It might also be good for high-value perishables. I'm not sure Fed Ex or UPS couldn't find a use for it, either.
 
Flies over them like any other aircraft. It only used GE over large stretches of water. It had enough lift to clear any mountain range lower then the Himalayas'.
There is nothing inherent in the design of GEVs (or particularly in the Pelican design as far as i am aware, flying as a GEV only over water was likely only SOP for avoiding collisions) that precludes their use over flat ground. Russian GEVs often fly over flat ground.
 
The thing was ENORMOUS, as in carry 3,000 passengers or 17 Abrams MBT enormous, with a max lift of 1,400 tons. It makes the AN-225 look like a C-130.

In the Cold War it would have been a gimmie to get at least a hundred of them built. 40 aircraft could lift an entire Armored Division from the U.S. to Europe in a day. They would have been terrific during the Gulf War. Instead of facing the entire, tank heavy, Iraqi Army with RDF light units it would have been the 1st & 3rd ID there virtually from Day One.

To get it built you would need that sort of mission or at least a Congress that could be convinced that the U.S. needed to be able to put half the U.S. Army half a world away in a week (which, to be frank, it does, but try convincing Congress). One selling point might be that the U.S. would need to forward deploy less material and standing troop commitments in Europe could be reduced.

Maybe during the Cold war make the Soviet sub threat appear even worse with the popular perception being that the US cannot rely on ships to move emergency armor and heavy equipment to Europe. Even the blisteringly fast Algol class.

Honestly this makes me wonder more about other US super heavy cargo aircraft. Was their ever any serious proposal for something like a US AN-225?
 
There is nothing inherent in the design of GEVs (or particularly in the Pelican design as far as i am aware, flying as a GEV only over water was likely only SOP for avoiding collisions) that precludes their use over flat ground. Russian GEVs often fly over flat ground.

Exactly, it was a design/operational choice for the vehicle

Randy
 
The Americans had built the C-5. Not much smaller then the AN-225.

A C5's maximum theoretical take off weight is 920K pounds. An AN-225 maximum's theoretical take off weight is 1,410,958 lb.

I think in one instance the chartered AN-225 carried something like four million MRE's to Afghanistan in a single load.
 
A C5's maximum theoretical take off weight is 920K pounds. An AN-225 maximum's theoretical take off weight is 1,410,958 lb.

I think in one instance the chartered AN-225 carried something like four million MRE's to Afghanistan in a single load.
That's a lot of disappointed diners.
 
Top