Should the United States government purchase used Airbus A380 models for future use to Ferry troops in the next future conflict?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 02:31:28 -0500

A few days ago Airbus Industries announced that they will discontinue the production of the A380 superjumbo jet. The Canadian newspaper article stated that there is no used market for this aircraft and they will most likely be scrapped. Shouldn't we purchase those planes and use them for future contingencies? We could send a whole Battalion of troops with each aircraft. Each aircraft can hold up to 800 Personnel. What do you think Rallypoint? Is this plane too large for most conventional military or civilian airfields? Could This Plane be converted to be an Airborne launch platform to launch one whole airborne battalion at a time? I'm not trying to sound like la Loca Ocasio-Cortez. I'm just asking some crazy questions so please be kind and give me some constructive criticism if this is too far-fetched. I was thinking about this in a civil Affairs way of things. I'm trying to think outside the box and save money at the same time. This is not the Spruce Goose. Sorry Boeing Aircraft company. When I went to Iraq in 2004, the whole 116th CAV Brigade of the Idaho Army National Guard was sent on 2 Lockheed L-1011 jumbo jets to Kuwait.

Response by LTC Trent Klug made Feb 17 at 2019 3:07 AM

LTC Trent Klug — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 03:07:26 -0500

Its a good question and a feasible plan in my book. My only issue would be replacement or repair parts.

Oh, and, FIRST! Because I'm going for those influencing points. Of course, as a 35 year LTC, I don't think I influence jack. I'm still waiting for my RallyPoint Dodo award for breaking 260,000 points. 8^)

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Feb 17 at 2019 6:51 AM

CW4 Guy Butler — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 06:51:46 -0500

Why purchase when you can charter? Buying s discontinued airframe means ever-increasing maintenance costs - and they need maintenance whether they’re flying or not.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2019 7:19 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 07:19:19 -0500

If the US could get them discounted might be worth it. Certainly they are newer aircraft with lots of capacity. I would say though parts might pose an issue. If the 380s are using engines that will have no commercially available parts due to being discontinued either a replacement program needs to be established STAT or they should focus on options where it wouldn’t be an issue.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Feb 17 at 2019 7:50 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 07:50:59 -0500

The airlines are required to keep certain aircraft at ready for "State Department" mission necessities. I think having a few on hand could be a prudent idea save the fact they need to be kept in ready status. That means flyable right now. I know of no mission that would be able to use them aside from troop transport. FedEx already scrapped the cargo idea. Let me add too, they make excellent bullseyes...

Response by SPC Mike Lake made Feb 17 at 2019 8:06 AM

SPC Mike Lake — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 08:06:37 -0500

Good Idea just a lot of up keep and maintenance and storage

Response by SP5 Mark Kuzinski made Feb 17 at 2019 9:18 AM

SP5 Mark Kuzinski — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 09:18:00 -0500

I like the idea. Great post!

Response by CW4 Anthoney Lowry made Feb 17 at 2019 10:05 AM

CW4 Anthoney Lowry — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 10:05:02 -0500

Just because Airbus is going to stop making them in 2021, that doesn't mean they are going to stop flying them in 2021. Those airlines spent $400+ million on each one of those airplanes, they are going to be using them for the next 20+ years. Airbus is not going out of business so they will continue to support their customers. Think of it like this, the last MD-11 was delivered in 2001 but there are still over 100 of them flying around the world.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Feb 17 at 2019 11:02 AM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 11:02:01 -0500

LTC Private RallyPoint Member - Sir, I see several problems with this plan. First, these airframes make GREAT targets for even the worst anti-aircraft gunner. I'd rather not lose an entire Battalion to one missile if I can prevent it. Second, most airlines only dump airframes when they've reached the end of their service life. Even if DoD wanted to use them, the maintenance cost would be huge and overburden an already underfunded activity. Not to mention putting service members on an aircraft that has an increased potential for in-flight catastrophic failure at any time. Third, as deployments wind down and less troops are being moved, the need for the aircraft becomes less. Why spend millions on something that will sit the majority of the time? And lastly, why would I incur heavy maintenance costs, increased crew needs, and increased garrison costs to house the aircraft when I could just lease them at a much lower cost on a "as needed" basis?

OH! One more issue I just thought of... These are BIG aircraft. They need BIG runways to take off and land. The flight line also must be capable of handling very heavy aircraft without cracking/breaking under the load. Many locations do not have the luxury of huge flight lines capable of handling aircraft this large. This limits the bases and/or civilian airports we could fly into. This is one of the primary reasons we use smaller charter aircraft. It's just more financially feasible in the long run.

It's actually not a bad concept but it just isn't viable IMO.

Response by MSG Frank Kapaun made Feb 17 at 2019 11:32 AM

MSG Frank Kapaun — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 11:32:34 -0500

The short answer is no. That is why the ISAF has the C17.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Feb 17 at 2019 12:18 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 12:18:07 -0500

99% of the time we use dual purpose AC- able to carry either cargo or pax( C-130.C141, C5A, etc.). Seldom are strict pax AC used cause they only have 1 purpose ( mostly contracted from airlines), normal airlanes do NOT have any AA protection,etc. They are just sitting ducks- that's why they are not used in forward areas, but safe pacified area. Meaning Pax only AC will spend a lot of time waiting on the ground.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Feb 17 at 2019 1:01 PM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:01:09 -0500

Discontinuing production means discontinuing parts. This aircraft is already somewhat of a beast to keep in the air as indicated by the fact it has no used market. Let the goose die.

Response by 2LT Earl Dean made Feb 17 at 2019 1:09 PM

2LT Earl Dean — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:09:45 -0500

That question does not sound that crazy. If it could hold a battalion and you could slow down enough to dump all of them in a AO why not try it. Could save billions of dollars for the DOD.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Feb 17 at 2019 1:49 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:49:50 -0500

I would say no for a few reasons. We use the civilian contract fleet for this purpose because it is a LOT cheaper than the Pentagon or DoD owning planes and having them sit idle most of the time (as compared to utiliization of civilian airliners). Second, if we did purchase, our primary military transport is Boeing so we would now have to stock Airbus parts, increasing expenses. Third, no guarantee on how long the Europeans would produce replacement parts for these aircraft.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Feb 17 at 2019 6:59 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:59:04 -0500

Nothing like picking up the scraps on what an industry is racing away from. About the same as getting an albatross hung around your neck. The long term annual costs will be much higher than stuff still in wide use. The other thing will be airports reconfiguring not to support them anymore as they fade away. Up front costs may seem appealing, but long term, ouch.

Response by LTC Jim Young made Feb 18 at 2019 5:51 AM

LTC Jim Young — Mon, 18 Feb 2019 05:51:19 -0500

US will not and should not purchase, they are TOO big for most airports and required special ground equipment to handle - the same limitations that prevented its widespread acceptance in the civilian sector. There are only a few airports in the US are capable of handling them (LAX, SFO, JFK, CHI to name a few). Missile threat not a problem, civilian charter aircraft never get in the ADA threat ring during a shooting war - we transload to C130 for ferry missions