Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Transportation Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why specialized military transport aircraft?
Roman    10/3/2003 8:46:50 PM
Why do armies/airforces use specialized military transport aircraft and not merely modifications of civilian ones, which would be far cheaper to maintain and develop due to huge commonality of parts and co-development for civilian use? I am no expert, but I am guessing that civilian and military cargo aircraft can achieve just about the same things - there is nothing special that military cargo planes do that civilian ones cannot. Obviously, the civilian aircraft would need some modifications, such as anti-airdefence systems and back-ramps, but still, is there anything that they cannot do and military planes can?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
AJW    RE:Why specialized military transport aircraft?   10/17/2003 2:07:25 PM
The answer is clear by looking at the difference between the civilian derived early transports, the C-54, C-121, for example, and the early specialized military transports, the C-123 being about the first. The rear ramp is the first distinguishing feature, but to have a rear ramp, you need a high tail (often a T-tail), which most civil transports don't have. This isn't something that can be retrofitted. It's a basic part of the aircrafts' structure and aerodynamics. Civil transports have low wings with engines slung below, raising the fuselage high above the runway. It's more fuel efficient, but cargo can't be loaded without specialized loading equipment, which then has to be carted into austere bases. High-wing aircraft lower the fuselage and permit loading from regular trucks. Then there's landing at austere bases, beat-up, short runways require more tires on the landing gear trucks, better suspensions, etc. (Don't remember the 747 landing gear wheel number, but it's less than the C-5 with 28). There's been proposals going around for some time to replace the C-5 with the 747-400F cargo variant. It makes some sense, but the fact of the matter is, most of the cargo that the 747 can haul for the military it does haul through charter flights! The actual AMC fleet is small compared to the military's needs. They charter commercial craft to fill in the gaps already. -Andy
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Why specialized military transport aircraft?   10/17/2003 5:15:32 PM
The military needs to RENT the Ukraine's Antonov AN-124 fleet as needed. This will not happen because of politics, BUT if it did happen it could embarrass the Air Force to build more C-17s inplace of F-22s, not likely.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Why specialized military transport aircraft?   10/17/2003 6:35:14 PM
Other issue with using civilian cargo aircraft: -they aren't wide enough for oversized military loads -their floors aren't strong enough to stand up to AFVs -they aren't designed to land on short, possibly unpaved runways.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:Why specialized military transport aircraft?   10/18/2003 10:09:27 AM
Macawman, Actually we rent Russian AN -124s. Still the AF doesn't care.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    Ok, thank you for your thoughtful replies.   10/19/2003 8:16:45 PM
This showed me the reason for developing dedicated military transport aircraft. Once again, thanks!
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Ok, thank you for your thoughtful replies.   4/9/2004 6:51:40 PM
It demonstrates some forethought on the russians to ensure that their larger "civilian" transports can fill a dual mil transport role. I'm not sure whether it was made clear, but mil transports are usually designed for fast cargo extraction as well. Hence the frames are ruggedised for such work. Interesting to note that the C17, C5 and Ant 124 series of aircraft all owe their suspension systems to the Me-323 of WW2
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Ok, thank you for your thoughtful replies.   4/22/2004 4:14:50 AM
Gf0012 I don't know about the forethought of Russian designers, as the designed military cargoplanes. The fact is that no significant western airliner has used russian civilplanes, which is strange as they are dirt cheap, but there is more to a profitable airliner than paying the mortages. Even Estonian Air got rid of its russian planes for western - dispite being strapped for cash and having the planes more or less given to them. The Soviets wanted to airtransport their army, and ended up with freaks, just goes to show the dangers of demanding spending a lot of money on strategic transports - such projects can swallow any amount of money - and still leave you without a solution. One thing to consider is that a civilian plane spends (long haul) about 3000 hours in the air each year on average. Whereas military planes hardly ever fly. Characteristically dedicated civilian cargo planes have never been developed.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:Ok, thank you for your thoughtful replies.   4/22/2004 4:24:10 AM
Some egyptian airliners have purchased the Tu-204, the main problem with Russian airlienrs though is the very poor fuel economy, which is not up the the standards of the west, the engines are also less reliable. APparently, according to Rolls Royce guys working on the tu-204 project,t heir aerodynamics are ahead of the west.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas2    RE:giblets   4/22/2004 5:00:25 PM
Fuel economy is the problem, but a long haul airliner is a fuel tank with something inside.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    Why specialized military transport aircraft?   4/23/2004 8:55:51 AM
And one other point about civilian aircraft....you can't shove 140 paratroopers out the door of one at 850 feet!!! You need dedicated military transport aircraft
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics