Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 - Military Transport  
User currently offlineTheGregster From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 100 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4896 times:


With the A380 Roll out not far away,what are the chances of a military modified
Version being realised to European air forces and air forces around the world.

Would a request for such an aircraft be on the cards?

The A380 would be able to carry large amounts of troops anywhere in the world and
Would easily surpass the capabilities of the C-5 and An124.


14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGREASESPOT From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3076 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4768 times:

It would not surpass. The C5 and AN 124's benifits is not in carrying troops but it can cary bulk oversize loads that the A 380 still will not be able to carry.

Greasespot



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineTheGregster From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 100 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4742 times:

True

Although the possibilities of a swing nose or tale could solve that problem

Boeing are in the progress of developing a 747 guppy that has this capability to help transport the production of the 7e7 although this aircraft would not be commercially available.

Taking away the middle floor would also be necessary to carry outsize loads


User currently offlineHotje From Netherlands, joined Jul 2004, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4675 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.


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

A380 would not be able to match either C5 or AN124. it's not designed to haul bulky or outsized loads, and a swing tail or nose won't change that.

User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8434 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4568 times:

removing the deck for it to carry those loads would also probably require some structural changes, as this would probably be more then just a floor.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4455 times:

There's another good reason why you won't see the A380 as a pure military transport: no built-in roll-on/roll-off ramps.

That's why the An-124 is very popular, mostly because outsized cargo can be rolled on and off the plane easily.


User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4393 times:

dont forget, the C-5 and AN-124 are a high-wing design to facilitate landing on soft strips and easier unloading.


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineNWDC10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4376 times:

I'm suprised. When i had a post about the 7E7 for refueling tankers, they moved my post to military section. Robert NWDC10

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13044 posts, RR: 78
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4297 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.


User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 827 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4270 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.

Regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineFredadx From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3803 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!


User currently offlineFredadx From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3786 times:

Didn't mean to change the subject on the A380 Military transport. I mean't to start a new topic on the Boeing Pelican. Sorry Gregster, my bad.

User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3759 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1368 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3753 times:

Taking away the middle floor would also be necessary to carry outsize loads

If the floors are removed from the A380, it can't be pressurized. It has a triple-bubble cross section that puts the floors in tension to hold shape against pressurization.

(There would be precedent. Boeing's outsized 747 transporter will be unpressurized except for the cockpit. I don't know about the A300-600ST.)


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A380 - Military Transport
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canada's Military Transport Dilemma posted Wed Jan 23 2002 04:20:27 by CPDC10-30
Military Transport Crashes,killing 34 Soldiers posted Thu May 17 2001 12:03:41 by Wing
747 Military Usage - Any Hope For A380? posted Thu Dec 1 2005 21:49:12 by Hrhf1
A380, US Military Cargo posted Mon Nov 14 2005 22:10:25 by 777D
A380 As A Troop Transport? posted Mon May 9 2005 22:02:23 by AC787
Iranian Military Plane Crash posted Mon Nov 27 2006 13:40:18 by 7of9
Military Cargo A/C In CLE? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 21:14:43 by Dan2002
Is The U.S.C.G. Considered "Military" posted Sun Nov 12 2006 19:19:37 by UH60FtRucker
Military Flights Into BHX posted Thu Nov 9 2006 14:18:21 by DC10BHX
Fastest British Military Jet posted Thu Nov 2 2006 17:36:49 by N215AZ

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format