Hotje From Netherlands, joined Jul 2004, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5036 times:
For large military transport operations (troops in this case), I know for sure the US government uses civil transport. At the start of the Iraqi campaign NW flew at least some military transports east. Most likely other airliners did similar transports for the US Army.
So in case of mass transportation needs, civil aircraft are used.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13256 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4658 times:
Not really suitable, however there has been talk of some European NATO nations and Canada pooling together to buy and operate a fleet of AN-124s, as the AN people are thinking a putting a modernised (and westernised engine/avionic wise perhaps?) AN-124 back into production, this could spur such an effort on.
The RAF won't wait for any scheme like this to happe or not, as they are adding to and keeping the C-17s, not quite in the same class of course but suitable for most missions, AN-124 are charted now when the capability is needed.
GPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 833 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4631 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
I think that the A380 will be used as a military transport at some point, but that this use will be restricted to chartering an airline example for occasional troop transport. I can't imagine it would be easy to rework the innards to make a 'Guppy' type transport, but I guess anything is possible. I don't think it is something that Airbus will spend money on.
Fredadx From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 4164 times:
Greetings to all,
Has anybody heard anything new about this project? The Boeing Pelican, if it is to be built, is supposed to be some kind of very massive flying ship type aircraft utilizing a wing over water effect by flying just 30 feet off the ocean to conserve fuel, something very much like what the Soviet Union had in the 1960's and early seventies known as the Caspian Sea Monster to the western world. If built, this aircraft will far exceed any other aircraft built to date as far as dimensions goes, boasting a wingspan of 500 ft. dwarfing even the Howard Hughes Spruce Goose. It is supposed to be powered by four enormous 40,000 hp. engines driving props 50 ft. in diameter while transporting some 1,500 tons of supplies and 5,000 troops anywhere on the globe. Sounds unbelievable? The last I heard was this project was in the very early stages of development and many, many years away from construction of a prototype. Any information on this topic would be greatly appreciated, Thank you!
Dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4120 times:
Beyond any structural or tech issues, there is not one European government that is ready to add several multi-hundred million dollar aircraft for the purpose of transport, in addition to the A-400's that many are not terribly happy about being stuck with either. The militaries want them, because they are tired of not having an internal capability to move large cargo from theater to theater, but the civil governments have had to be continually prodded to meet their obligations. The Italians and Portuguese have already found better ways to spend their money on in-theater transports.
The Euro governments won't spend the money, nor is there a real need when Volga-Dnepr and others are chartering AN-124's and IL-76's.