TheGregster From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 100 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4381 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.
GREASESPOT From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3050 posts, RR: 22 Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4253 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?"
TheGregster From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 100 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4227 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
Hotje From Netherlands, joined Jul 2004, 115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4160 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.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7694 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3940 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.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12706 posts, RR: 80 Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3782 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, 818 posts, RR: 27 Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3755 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 (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3288 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!
Fredadx From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3271 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.
Dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3244 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.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1356 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3238 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.)
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 100 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3050 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2004, 115 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8320 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
