The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - January 7, 2009

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Air Transportation Discussion Board
Sign In   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
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3   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

Thomas    RE:AlbanyRifles   4/26/2004 5:34:37 AM
You can't? What do you think cut-rate charter airliners do to save airport fee????? ;-)
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Thomas   4/26/2004 2:32:19 PM
Ahh, I see you have flown Ryan Air also!!!
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:AlbanyRifles    4/27/2004 7:28:10 AM
Sterling Airways actually; but you got the picture. The best LANDINGS are the ones of Türk Hava Yollari, they set the bird down like an F-16 with battle damage - very gently. Though they fly it like one too - evading manpads. Want to se Turkie: Don't look out - look up!
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:AlbanyRifles    4/27/2004 11:01:24 AM
I always heard that THY stood for They Hate You! :-)
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:AlbanyRifles    4/29/2004 9:24:50 AM
The proper translation is: Türk (Turkish) Hava (air) Yollari (roads) or Turkish Airways. They've always treat me nicely. But they are very security conscious VERY. I was on vacation with them just before 9 11. Even then they confiscated swiss army pocketknives, they were "telegili" (dangerous). The ones YOU DON'T MESS WITH are the police officers. My wife wore a corset, due to back-problem: Woman police officer -> ladies room -> strip. We were stopped at night in a taxi by a jendarma, passports examined - and they relaxed when they though we were german. They don't joke about security - in fact they have no sense of humour - and their interrogation methods are robust, if you give them trouble - and are not a tourist. They have the manpower to do all the tedious checking, and the officers job is on the line, so they are very conscientious.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy