Possible Military A380

[lobbie111]

No there is no rumor, well if there is i havn't heard it. Well heres my question, would there be a use for a military A380?

Thanks

[IceCold]

The probability cannot be denyed but there are other military planes available with quite cheap price tag as comapred to the A-380 to fullfill the military role. This makes it a little doubtfull.

[kato]

The French Magazine Air&Cosmos actually ran an April Fools joke for that in 2005 - the A-380 MRTB.

[Ophir]

I think yes. The A380 is going to carry a Middle Eastern commander-in-chief (or several) from time to time. :)

[Izzy1]

I think yes. The A380 is going to carry a Middle Eastern commander-in-chief (or several) from time to time. :)

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.

[rjmaz1]

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.

[Izzy1]

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.

[swerve]

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.

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. :D

[Raptor22]

There is one other use for A380; Airborn Laser System.

[stuuu28]

Look at flight global they have a story about A380s being the next AirForce One (not enough points to post the link yet :(

Just read this, can't see it happening after the fuss over Marine One though but even the pic will probs put the wind up Boeing ;)

[rattmuff]

Look at flight global they have a story about A380s being the next AirForce One.


Linky-Linky. (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/17/218681/exclusive-us-considers-airbus-a380-as-air-force-one-and-potentially-a-c-5-replacement.html) ;)

[McTaff]

There is one other use for A380; Airborn Laser System.

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.

[su-30mki]

Well thats gonna time a llllllooooooonnnnnnggggg time:D

I dont think we cannot completely overlule this possibility, maybe when airbus has no orders from private airlines.

[lobbie111]

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...

[Ryttare]

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.

[swerve]

... 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...

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.

[Ophir]

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.

[swerve]

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.....

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.

[lobbie111]

What use would either the A380 or the A340 be as a cruise missile carrier the requirement isnt there. One use dare I say, stick a shuttle in or on top...

[alexsa]

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

[K. Mogensen]

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.

Which brings us to the concept of the big dumb bomber. A huge not-too-sophisticated airframe like the A340, capable of loitering at a convenient distance from the battlefield, firing cruise missiles, or even entering low threat areas for a bit of carpet-bombing. (as USAF B-52's actually did in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991). The very size of the plane may facilitate a number of different mission add-ons, without costly rebuilds. It can monitor, it can simply be present. Bunks, galley and shower facilities would allow greater crew comfort for prolonged missions.
The longeviety of the B-52 in American service seems to demostrate the soundness of the concept, the B-52's are completely outdated regarding their original 1950's mission objective, but this stock of aging planes have nevertheless shown their usefullness time and again, and continue to do so.
Needless to say, I don't see the A380 in such a role for the moment, but I couldn't miss this chance of pushing the Big Dumb Bomber concept.

With regards,
Kristoffer Mogensen

[rjmaz1]

Which brings us to the concept of the big dumb bomber. A huge not-too-sophisticated airframe like the A340, capable of loitering at a convenient distance from the battlefield, firing cruise missiles, or even entering low threat areas for a bit of carpet-bombing. (as USAF B-52's actually did in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991). The very size of the plane may facilitate a number of different mission add-ons, without costly rebuilds. It can monitor, it can simply be present. Bunks, galley and shower facilities would allow greater crew comfort for prolonged missions.
The longeviety of the B-52 in American service seems to demostrate the soundness of the concept, the B-52's are completely outdated regarding their original 1950's mission objective, but this stock of aging planes have nevertheless shown their usefullness time and again, and continue to do so.
Needless to say, I don't see the A380 in such a role for the moment, but I couldn't miss this chance of pushing the Big Dumb Bomber concept.

With regards,
Kristoffer Mogensen
The idea is definitely valid.

The efficiencies of a commercial aircraft are so high that it would easily be able to replace a B-52. The only problem is that the aircraft would require a bomb bay with a rotary launcher. A Boeing commercial aircraft with inflight refueling probe would good however the large fuselage diameter would not be required and would only produce more drag. The B-52 has a fairly narrow fuselage for its weight and a massive wing and fuel capacity. These attributes will allow it to keep up with the latest high efficient commercial aircraft.

The P-8 based on the 737 i believe will be having a small weapons bay, so the idea could definitely work.

Replacing eight turbo jets with four large modern turbofan engines would allow the B52 to outperform any commercial aircraft.

The only benefit i see would be the lower maintenance costs of the commercial jets. However the cost to develop a missile carrier aircraft would probably pay for the maintenance of the B52 fleet for the next decade.

[Firehorse]

Freight or passenger A-380s may be used by the militaries to haul personnel & supplies, if the airfields are able to handle these superjumbos. Even without old C-5s, there are plenty of airlifters like AN-22/124s, IL-76s, C-17s, B-747Fs, C-130Js, KC-10/135s, etc. to do military ops of many types.

[lobbie111]

lol imagine a gunship A380, with a battery of 155mm's or even better you could put a massive airbourne command post in it, with its own radar, C3I and everything.

[Firehorse]

Gunships & jet engines don't mix. Command posts must be able to operate from smaller airfields. A-380 can't. But, if the French president decides to have a flying Elisee palace, I won't have a problem with that!

[DoC_FouALieR]

I remember having read a project using an A380 has a flying command center loaded with 64 Scalp cruise missile, a radar and satcoms to gather data from observation satellite like Helios and conduct real-time strike and damage assessment.

And another version to serve as a heavy lift cargo plane.

By the way the first project is far too costly for France to afford it.

[Firehorse]

Can you provide a link on that project?

USAF Talking to Airbus About A380 Air Force 1, C-5 Replacement? (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usaf-talking-to-airbus-about-a380-air-force-1-c-5-replacement-04041/#more)
AMC’s first request, however, asked EADS to submit data about the A380F Freighter for potential use as a military airlifter. ..The A380F goes a step beyond the 747's capacity, however, claiming a cargo maximum of 150t (333,000 pounds) – larger than the C-5B's 286,000 pound maximum. The question is whether the A380F's structure can be strengthened to handle loads like 70 ton tanks, which distribute great weight within a very small area. If and when the requisite structural modifications can be performed, the follow-on questions would be about their cost, and about the effect they will have on the aircraft's performance. EADS reportedly expects an invitation to present to USAF AMC in December 2007. ..The A380 could be a viable Air Force One candidate, however, and the small loss to the domestic economy from purchasing 2 of these jets might be outweighed by symbolism about "a new transatlantic partnership." Even so, fierce competition and more than a little bit of Congressional opposition can be expected.
On the C-5 front, a win of any size would be a huge boost to the A380F, which saw UPS and FedEx cancel their orders after they lost confidence in even Airbus' slipped delivery date of 2012. Given the ready alternative of C-17 production, however, military A380F orders are likely to face a very hard sell in Congress, even if the difficult hurdle of persuading Congress to cancel the C-5M program is met.
It's also worth considering that A380Fs (or indeed, a 747-8F) aren't exactly cheap alternatives. Having that cost data on hand could be useful in selling either the C-5 AMP/RERP program, or the acquisition of more $210 million C-17s, as part of a thorough analysis demonstrating that even commercial options may not be much cheaper.
Until the play fully materializes, it is very difficult to call at this point. The interest is worth noting – but excitation of any sort is premature.