Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 As A Troop Transport?  
User currently offlineAC787 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 337 posts, RR: 1
Posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3762 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...


12 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3739 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.
User currently offlineAC787 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 337 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3716 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

User currently offlinePronto From Canada, joined Mar 2000, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3653 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...

User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3640 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.


Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12360 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3526 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.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3507 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.

I wish I were flying
User currently offlineRuger11 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3333 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.

User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3119 times:

The only time I see an A380 being used by the UK military is for the odd charter flight, 747s have been chartered in the past.

User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3105 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...
User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3091 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!!

User currently offlineBjornstrom From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2927 times:

Remember the 248 killed from 101st Airborne in Gander 1985:

I saw the memorial at Ft Campbell KY last summer.

OT: Got my hair shaved there and they gave me a Airborne money clip. Martin shaved Visiting 101st Airborne

Eurobonus Gold | BMI Gold | http://my.flightmemory.com/bjornstrom/
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2921 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.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A380 As A Troop Transport?
No username? Sign up now!

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!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

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

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 As Presidential Aircraft? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 01:18:35 by AerospaceFan
US President Selects A380 As New Air Force One... posted Tue May 3 2005 22:56:35 by AirOrange
A380 - Military Transport posted Fri Oct 8 2004 12:10:02 by TheGregster
How Many C-130s Have Served As Fat Albert? posted Sun Oct 8 2006 00:57:35 by Dl757md
Iraq As UAV Proving Ground posted Thu Sep 14 2006 21:59:24 by BOE773
140,000 US Troops In Iraq - How Many Troop Flights posted Fri Sep 1 2006 00:46:03 by Gh123
Why No Dedicated Thunderbirds Transport Aircraft? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 04:43:57 by TheRonald
A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary posted Wed Jun 21 2006 16:20:48 by UAL747-600
Japan’s CX Transport posted Sat Mar 11 2006 08:41:21 by Zeke
Stealth Fighters Might Select Hickam As Base posted Thu Mar 2 2006 01:06:32 by Squirrel83

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format