Possible Military A380
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
I believe the UK Guardian speculated several months back that one of the first VIP-decked A380s was being purchased by the King of Bahrain to replace his Boeing 747SP.I think yes. The A380 is going to carry a Middle Eastern commander-in-chief (or several) from time to time.
The A380 wouldn't make a very good military aircraft.
As a refueling tanker it wouldn't be that ideal. Though it would probably be the only use for it. Im not sure about the exact requirements of the A380 but it may be too big for alot of military runways and would only be able to operate from a select few large airports. This means if it was to act as an inflight refueling tanker it would have to operate from bases further away loosing its fuel advantage over smaller aircraft.
As an airlifter it wouldn't be able to get anywhere close to the front line plus it would take a long time to load and unload. By the time you modified a A380 into a airlifter you could buy two A C-17's. The A380 still couldn't do half the stuff a C-17 can. aving to them transport the cargo to the frontline on trucks or helicopters would completely destroy any cost/speed advantages of operating the A380.
As an AWAC it wouldn't be any good. AWAC's often require inflight refueling to stay on station. The refueling plane usually has to be bigger than the aircraft its refueling else it could not fill the planes tanks completely. For example the A330 Multi role tanker would only be able to fill up half of the A380's fuel tanks. It would have to refuel twice as often.
For example Australia using the smaller 737 wedgetail AWAC and operating the A330 tanker is a much better idea. A single A330 refueling tanker can go up and completely refuel not one but TWO 737 wedgetails AND a pair of Hornets!
An A380 as a refueling tanker would only be useful if you had really large aircraft to refuel, such as bomber aircraft. No European country operates such a large aircraft so the market does not exist.
As a refueling tanker it wouldn't be that ideal. Though it would probably be the only use for it. Im not sure about the exact requirements of the A380 but it may be too big for alot of military runways and would only be able to operate from a select few large airports. This means if it was to act as an inflight refueling tanker it would have to operate from bases further away loosing its fuel advantage over smaller aircraft.
As an airlifter it wouldn't be able to get anywhere close to the front line plus it would take a long time to load and unload. By the time you modified a A380 into a airlifter you could buy two A C-17's. The A380 still couldn't do half the stuff a C-17 can. aving to them transport the cargo to the frontline on trucks or helicopters would completely destroy any cost/speed advantages of operating the A380.
As an AWAC it wouldn't be any good. AWAC's often require inflight refueling to stay on station. The refueling plane usually has to be bigger than the aircraft its refueling else it could not fill the planes tanks completely. For example the A330 Multi role tanker would only be able to fill up half of the A380's fuel tanks. It would have to refuel twice as often.
For example Australia using the smaller 737 wedgetail AWAC and operating the A330 tanker is a much better idea. A single A330 refueling tanker can go up and completely refuel not one but TWO 737 wedgetails AND a pair of Hornets!
An A380 as a refueling tanker would only be useful if you had really large aircraft to refuel, such as bomber aircraft. No European country operates such a large aircraft so the market does not exist.
Think rjmaz1 pretty much covers all the bases there, as he says its just too big a platform and their are more cost-effective solutions available out there.
VIP carriers (for the obscenely decedant) probable, if it was built in the States then I have little doubt it would turn up as Air Force One eventualy.
VIP carriers (for the obscenely decedant) probable, if it was built in the States then I have little doubt it would turn up as Air Force One eventualy.
IIRC at least one VIP A380 is on order, but I think the identity of the Middle Eastern potentate buying it has not been revealed. IMO it would be logical to start guessing with the rulers of states which have airlines buying the A380, though logic doesn't necessarily apply to vanity purchases.
I presume that it will have an excellent communications suite, & could serve as an airborne command post while its owner flees his country, in the event of a coup or invasion.
Very expensive way to do it; most of the chitchat I've heard is they'd rather go so small you can fit a laser into a fighter or tactical bomber sized aircraft. I don't have any evidence to back that up with, though.
However from a cost and capability standpoint I'd rather spend the same or less making three somewhat smaller airborne lasers in something similar to the A330, rather than one big bugger in an A380. Three is usually better than one for those types of things.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #14
Its highly doubtful that the A380 would even be considered as Air Force One for one reason...it's not designed or made in USA. Well you could configure the A380 to sink the the C-5 does and give it a hinge at the front and the bak then you have an airlifter for general duties. And as for Awacs, bottom deck fuel tanks top deck crew station...
Agreed on the Airforce One, but what's really interesting is the notion of a C-5 replacement. Would it be practically possible to reconfigure A380 to a roll on-roll off air freighter for military use? I thought that commercial airliners normally were built with internal structures that would prevent this.
Ryttare's right - the structure doesn't permit a C-5 style conversion. It'd need a complete new fuselage, i.e. be a new plane.
For AWACS, it's just too big. You don't need an airframe that size for a radar, or for the number of crew needed for an AWACS, so it'd be a waste of money, & the size limits the airfields which can use it, which would be a severe operational disadvantage, as it would be for a military freighter.
An airborne platform for cruise missiles, maybe? If I recall correctly, Boeing offered a version of Boeing 747-200F for the standoff misslile launcher role in the late 70s or early 80s as an alternative to the B-1; it was supposed to carry 70-90 ALCMs.
Although I cannot think who might order something like that now. No, I can see a military A380 as a VIP plane only.
Better to have more baskets with fewer eggs in each, I would think. When EADS proposed an A340 cruise missile carrier, it was based on one of the smaller A340 models, quite deliberately.
A freight version of the the A.380 intended and ordered. I has been shelved for the time being while the wiring woes and production problems are being sorted out.
This is not to suggest that it will be a combat airlifter of any sort (forget that) but in the future you may see it doing work currnetly done by the likes of the 747.F (in various iterations) in carrying cargo in support on a commercial basis.
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a380/a380f/specifications.html
This is not to suggest that it will be a combat airlifter of any sort (forget that) but in the future you may see it doing work currnetly done by the likes of the 747.F (in various iterations) in carrying cargo in support on a commercial basis.
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a380/a380f/specifications.html