backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by Treckin.. on Oct 25 at 7:59 PM


Singapore Airlines Airbus A380  (Source: Associated Press)

Lockheed Martin C-5 Galaxy  (Source: Air Mobility Command)

Air Force One
Boeing may have some competition when it comes to the replacement for Air Force One

Things are finally starting to look up for Airbus' troubled A380 superjumbo program. The first production A380 was delivered to Singapore Airlines on Monday in Toulouse, France. The plane was then flown from France to Changi Airport in Singapore where it will await final preparations for its first scheduled flight on October 25.

The A380, however, is making an even bigger splash in the news world for a completely different reason. Flight Global reports that the U.S. Air Force (USAF) is looking at the A380 as a replacement for two aircraft programs: a replacement for the Lockheed Martin C-5 Galaxy and as a replacement for the Boeing 747-200B (VC-25A) used as Air Force One.

The C-5 Galaxy made its maiden flight on June 30, 1968 and first entered service in June of 1970. The USAF Air Mobility Command (AMC) requested information on the A380F freighter last year as a possible replacement for use as a heavy military airlifter.

Plans to upgrade the existing C-5 Galaxy fleet are estimated to run 50 to 100 percent over budget according to the USAF and Airbus' new A380F would make an ideal, modern and cost-efficient platform.

In addition, the USAF is looking at the A380 as a replacement for the current Air Force One which was introduced in 1990. Boeing isn't giving up the fight, however. The company is well aware of the competitive efforts involved in finding a replacement for the VC-25A and is offering up a 747-8 which uses new wings and engines for increased fuel efficiency.

Boeing has provided jet-powered transportation for the President dating back to the Boeing 707 first used by John F. Kennedy.

Airbus' A380 superjumbo has been the subject of more than a few articles on DailyTech. The A380 was delayed in September of last year due to wiring problems -- a month later; Airbus announced that deliveries of the aircraft would be delayed by an entire year.

In November 2006, FedEx dumped the A380 and instead decided to go with Boeing's 777. A few months later in March 2007, UPS announced that it too would cancel its orders for the A380F. The UPS cancellation meant that Airbus had lost its last A380F customer.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

seriously?
By Chernobyl68 on 10/19/2007 1:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
I can't imagine a civilian passenger jet ever really becoming a primary military transport plane. when has that ever happened?
C-130, C-141, C-5, C-17...none are passenger jets. Some have civilian roles, surely, but the frame of a civilian jet doesn't lend itself to heavy lift cargo (low ramps for vehicles...)




RE: seriously?
By BitJunkie on 10/19/2007 2:09:15 PM , Rating: 3
RE: seriously?
By rippleyaliens on 10/19/2007 2:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
Naturally the Internet Tough Guy- Nerd hits.
People say the size of the JET, BE advised, there are also things like, It can fly from the US to 90% of the World without re-fueling.
Why need a private jet: Heads of state need privacy as well as the Presidents 30+ security + staff+ staff on the jet+support personal. Not to mention the Plane is designed as a mobile command post.

Wit Airbus- YAH right, that would be like the President getting driven in a Mercedes. Yah the Benz may be better, but it is not American made. Most of the sellouts who post may choose to buy foreign gear, but as the leader of the free world, he also has to stand by his country, not buy against it.

AND believe me, the USAF will not buy a jet from Airbus - Mainly because Boeing. LONG TIME commitment. SECOND- USAF has enough time dealing with Boeing for replacement parts, definetly not a good idea to buy foreign for something that will be used and abused. (Military uses their jets 3 to 5x times as much, and as long as any civilian)

Yah the Marines are looking at a foreign designed Helo.. Before you idgets start with the comments, 1. with budget cuts in the past, there is min- amount in the budget for that type of Helo even for research. The osprey, however troubled is a marvel, and the USMC's DREAM helo. EVERY other HELO, other than the Black hawk, is WELLLLLL over 25 YEARS old. With the Marine ch46 from the Vietnam era, the CH53 from the early 70's. The UH1- Vietnam ERA, and the Cobra- DEFINETLY VIETNAM era..

Learn your history
Learn what the thing does
Learn the NEEDS
More importantly, start thinking before opening your mouth,, Cause you can Google, and Wikjpedia your little hearts content, does not make you smarter. Just resourceful, Intelligence comes form resources But more importantly, the COMMON SENSE attained by actually doing something versus reading about it.


RE: seriously?
By Screwuhippie on 10/19/2007 2:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
what he said ...


RE: seriously?
By djcameron on 10/19/2007 2:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing Vietnam era about an AH1-W or AH-1Z.


RE: seriously?
By DBRfreak on 10/25/2007 1:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
Other then about 75% of the control system and various other components...


RE: seriously?
By ikkeman on 10/19/2007 3:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
verry interesting rant...
nothing usefull or intelligent in there though...


RE: seriously?
By Mclendo06 on 10/19/2007 4:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think that you're right. The main issue is the level of the cargo deck. A M1A1 tank can drive through a C-5 using nothing other than ramps which are part of the aircraft. To even get a tank into an A380 (or 747 or other wide body commercial air transport) requires that a significant infrastructure be in place at the airfield where cargo operations are being performed. This gives high-wing/low body aircraft like the C-5 / C-17 / C-130 a huge advantage over low-mid wing/high body aircraft like the A380 / 747 when it comes to vehicle transportation.


RE: seriously?
By weskurtz0081 on 10/19/2007 4:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
Also,

I the higher elevated engines can help keep from sucking up rocks when these aircraft are landing on below standard runways. They would need to be very careful landing a jet when the engines are lower to the ground in these areas, and if they were to make the A380 low enough to drive on and of then likely the engines would be much to low and would probably get damaged very often from FOD.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki