AC787 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 337 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2330 times:
Just wanted to know if airbus has marketed the 380 to any governments as a possible troop transport or if the idea is even viable. It would seem like a good plane for the job, they could probably fit 800+ troops in the plane and would be good for rapid dispatch. Only drawback I could see is that there would need to be a good sized runway to be able to take her. Anyone heard of this talked before, might be good for the Canadian army so that we don't need to ask for other countries to fly our troops to the places they need to go...
Lemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2307 times:
Considering most troop movement nowadays is charter work done by airlines, it'll happen, but not in a special-purchase configuration. The only troop transport most Western military organizations want specialized aircraft for is the kind of transport that goes into hot zones. (i.e. combat troop transport)
I'm sure it'll happen, but it will be on a flight-by-flight basis depending on who has them, if anyone.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
AC787 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 337 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2284 times:
Quoting Lemurs (Reply 1): Considering most troop movement nowadays is charter work done by airlines
Is that really true for the US, and most of the world. I know the US does it considerably but they surly have massive lift capabilities on there own for troop movements before they rely on charters. It would be interesting to see how much different governments rely on troop charters for there troop movements, I had always thought it wasn't too significant
Pronto From Canada, joined Mar 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2221 times:
Probably a long shot - it's too expensive to buy as a personnel transport for a country's military and look at the airlines ordering it - not exactly military charter types...
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2208 times:
The military always prefers something a little more self sufficient than an airliner. You can't always rely on ground handling equipment to be available at the site of deployment, which is why your typical military transports have ramps, kneeling capability etc.
Bottom line is that if you need an airliner to transport a bunch of troops, it's so much easier to just charter a civilian one. It's only when it comes to moving the associated equipment that special needs arise that cannot be solved using an average civilian aircraft. Also important is the fact that when you have an airplane that can transport the personnel of an entire battalion at a time, it will spend 95% of the time sitting around doing nothing. Nobody out there today is able/willing to afford that, especially not Canada.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2094 times:
Quoting AC787 (Reply 2): Is that really true for the US, and most of the world. I know the US does it considerably but they surly have massive lift capabilities on there own for troop movements before they rely on charters.
The US Miltary can actually move people and their equipment by putting the troops on charters and using the C-5, C-17, KC-10, and KC-135 to fly equipment.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2075 times:
And of course in times of need the government can temporarilly nationalise airliners (complete with crew).
The US government pays the airlines for their use, not all countries are that nice.
Ruger11 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 50 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1901 times:
I know this might not be a good issue to bring up... considering, but imagine the horrific impact on our military, the families, government, insurance, political pressures, etc if a plane with 500-600, maybe more troops went down?
jeez... the after effects would be terrible, especially in today's media picked-apart military.
Bsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1673 times:
To get troops to near the theatre for a major engagement? Possibly.
To get them to the battlefield? No.
As stated by most other posters, it may be chartered to get large numbers of troops to a neighbouring country or seriously in the rear of the theatre, but it simply does not have the survivability, nor the capability to land and turn around on semi-prepared airfields.
In addition (and as hinted at in earlier posts), there are few nations that could afford to lose 850 troops in one go and still wage an effective campaign. We need to remember that these won't be 850 grunts, but a mixture of standard infantry soldiers and specialists. The latter are not easy to replace. History teaches us well. In the Falklands campaign the 48 men who died on the Sir Galahad in Bluff Cove, along with many other injured, caused changes in the battle plans. However, they had a much more serious political effect back home in the UK and it caused a major political drive to be launched (far more than the 60000 casulaties on the first day of The Somme, 1916).
The western world seems to be able to cope with 5-10 soldiers killed every day, much in the same way as we accept 7 people per day killed on Britain's roads. However, 850 killed in one go and it could (would?) change the entire course of a campaign.
For that reason alone (although all of the military and engineering aspects are still valid), IMHO the A380 will not be used to transport troops anywhere near the battlefield.
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
KennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 478 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1659 times:
Bsergonomics, I totally agree, the way the size of UK forces is going you could get the whole army on an A380.
Only joking, but the loss of even 500 men would probably cripple an operation bearing in mind the small numbers of men deployed nowadays. I believe a C5 crashed in Germany during the first Gulf War, imagine if that had been full of troops!!
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1489 times:
There are also some agreements which have lasted for many decades now between Governments and airlines, where a retainer is paid to the airline in return for which the Government can 'call up' the aircraft in times of need.
One particular operator ordered a couple of their fleet with cargo doors for no obvious reason whatsoever some years back. That was the reason why, the Government had a requirement for standby aircraft in that configuration and size.
These agreements are administered and negotiated quietly as there is no need for publicity.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 337 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 478 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 327 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
