Could the A380 be transformed to strategic airlifter

[Byrne]

The A380 hasn't become the succes Airbus had expected and it is no longer being produced. I wonder if the airframe - with some ovious adjustments - could perform as a strategic airlifter for air forces. Currently the only true (Western) strategic airlifters are the American C-5 and C-17 and it might be intersting for a European aircraft manufacturer like AIrbus to bring in an alternative.
In length it is comparable to the C-5, but would it fit a Leopard 2 tank? Or two (like the C-5)?
What are the restrictions, what are the possibilities?
John B.

 

[John Fedup]

The A380 hasn't become the succes Airbus had expected and it is no longer being produced. I wonder if the airframe - with some ovious adjustments - could perform as a strategic airlifter for air forces. Currently the only true (Western) strategic airlifters are the American C-5 and C-17 and it might be intersting for a European aircraft manufacturer like AIrbus to bring in an alternative.
In length it is comparable to the C-5, but would it fit a Leopard 2 tank? Or two (like the C-5)?
What are the restrictions, what are the possibilities?
John B.

Short answer, no. Airbus didn’t even offer a freighter version similar to the 747-8F which has some limited use for military transport. The A380 wings are near the bottom of the fuselage (unlike C-5, C-17, C-130 and A400M) and adding a ramp would be hugely expensive but most importantly the A380 line is done.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Initially Airbus planned a freighter version, the A380F.

In passenger operations, the A380 retains significant cargo capability in its lower deck while accommodating 550-plus passengers on the two main decks. The A380’s lower deck is designed to accept all standard underfloor cargo pallets and containers, including the LD-3. So the A380F should get three cargo decks, unlike the 747F which had one large maindeck and the standard cargo compartment at the bottom. These three floors on the A380F makes it logistically more impractical to load and unload the cargo than on 747's configuration.

Besides that, the 747 was designed from the beginning with a raised cockpit so it could be converted easily to a freighter, and A380's cockpit is placed right at the center of the front fuselage.

So i think John Fedup is totally right, any attempts to convert/build new A380Fs will be not cost effective, and absolutely not worth it if you still want to do it.

 

[Ananda]

Airbus Sold But Never Built A Cargo A380 - Here's Why

simpleflying.com

This assesment from simpleflying quite straight forward on why A380F not attractive to market.

the second level. People don't weigh much, but cargo does. The second level of the aircraft, if used for cargo, would quickly fill up with bulky but light cargo as the floor could not sustain heavy items.

This is in my opinion shown as one of big disadvantage for A380 as cargo. Basically you left with large portion of Aircraft as not really usefull for freighter need.

So as John and Sandhi also already put, the aircraft even with the size is simply for several reasons not really cut off to provide better value as freighter then Boeing competitors (747F and 777F). If the airplane can't attractive for Civilians Freighter market, how it's going to be attractive for more demanding Military transport market?

 

[swerve]

Initially Airbus planned a freighter version, the A380F.

In passenger operations, the A380 retains significant cargo capability in its lower deck while accommodating 550-plus passengers on the two main decks. The A380’s lower deck is designed to accept all standard underfloor cargo pallets and containers, including the LD-3. So the A380F should get three cargo decks, unlike the 747F which had one large maindeck and the standard cargo compartment at the bottom. These three floors on the A380F makes it logistically more impractical to load and unload the cargo than on 747's configuration.

Besides that, the 747 was designed from the beginning with a raised cockpit so it could be converted easily to a freighter, and A380's cockpit is placed right at the center of the front fuselage.

So i think John Fedup is totally right, any attempts to convert/build new A380Fs will be not cost effective, and absolutely not worth it if you still want to do it.

That nose with a raised cockpit was carried over from a Boeing proposal for a military freighter to meet a USAF specification, which was won by Lockheed & became the C-5. The engines had also been designed to meet the needs of that USAF freighter, which had to have no more than four engines despite being bigger than any four engined aeroplane in existence. The military freighter would have had a high wing, though: the airliner's very different, despite using some elements of it.

 

[John Fedup]

That nose with a raised cockpit was carried over from a Boeing proposal for a military freighter to meet a USAF specification, which was won by Lockheed & became the C-5. The engines had also been designed to meet the needs of that USAF freighter, which had to have no more than four engines despite being bigger than any four engined aeroplane in existence. The military freighter would have had a high wing, though: the airliner's very different, despite using some elements of it.

The C-5 can also be accessed from both the front and the back which would have been favoured by the USAF. By losing out, Boeing ended up designing both a big freighter and passenger jet for the commercial market selling at least 1,500 jets. C-5, maybe 200 so back in the day Boeing could do stuff right.

 

[Redlands18]

The C-5 can also be accessed from both the front and the back which would have been favoured by the USAF. By losing out, Boeing ended up designing both a big freighter and passenger jet for the commercial market selling at least 1,500 jets. C-5, maybe 200 so back in the day Boeing could do stuff right.

Boeing can't even claim credit for the C-17, it was a McDonnell Douglas project, funny how Boeing has been going downhill ever since the merger.

 

[John Fedup]

Boeing can't even claim credit for the C-17, it was a McDonnell Douglas project, funny how Boeing has been going downhill ever since the merger.

I have noticed a number articles over the years blaming the merger and M-D management for Boeing's problems. As for the C-17, yes it was a M-D design and it was a troubled project which partially necessitated the merger. The DC-10 didn't fare well against the 747 and a couple of bad crashes didn't help. They were lucky to get the KC-10 order. The MD-90, a tired redo of the DC-9. Merger was great for M-D. not so much for Boeing, at least on the civilian side. F-18 SH and F-15, a pot sweetener no doubt. I wonder how much involvement the M-D military designers had with Boeing's JSF design, a jet that would lose no matter how good its specs were because it was so super ugly?

 

[swerve]

Boeing can't even claim credit for the C-17, it was a McDonnell Douglas project, funny how Boeing has been going downhill ever since the merger.

Started out as the YC-15, competing with the Boeing YC-14 for a USAF requirement to replace the C-130 with a bigger jet. That was cancelled, but there was a new requirement for a heavier transport to replace the C-141 & supplement the C-5. The YC-14 wasn't a good basis for that (though Boeing proposed a version with three instead of two engines), I think because it was designed too closely to the short-field requirements of the C-130 replacement, but a considerably enlarged YC-15 was suitable. Hence the C-17.

It was another case of the improbably ugly one losing.

 

[Feanor]

What are the restrictions, what are the possibilities?

There's an old Russian joke. Here's how with some parts and a set of tools one can can convert a loaf or white (or black) bread into a trolleybus. But what for?