Posted on 12/28/2014 9:50:25 AM PST by Olog-hai
Not to mention getting your luggage after and the hoards descending on customs on international flights...
For low intensity wars like Afghanistan and the coming ISIS war, all you need is a bomb truck. Big transport with multiple rotary launchers with various ordinance. Haul big loads long loiter time. But not enough $$$$$$ for the contractors and not sexy for the military....
“Super giant planes are, in my opinion, a terrible idea for passengers. Loading and unloading will take an hour”
Actually the worst part is when 800 people are suddenly cut-loose at a not-so-large airport to be processed by immigration officers (they still exist, at least in countries other than the United states). People can wait hours for that process to conclude.
“at $440 million each, it is$200 million less than an F35. I suggest militarizing Super Jumbos would make sense.”
Something that size could carry a lot of bombs.
google “ac130 gunship”
I seem to recall that the Japanese were asking Boeing for a triple-deck 747. The idea they were perusing was a short haul, high capacity commuter plane to speed up inter-island transportation.
The proposed layout would extend the first class lounge all the way back to the rudder, and the cargo deck would be converted to a carry passengers as well.
I don't know if Boeing talked them out of it or the Japanese rethought the logistics of embarking/debarking passengers by the thousand lot, needles to say it "never got off the ground!"
Regards,
GtG
Triple 7 is sweetest airliner flying.....flew in cockpit of a BA 777 from Heathrow to Dulles in 2000............
But then, I’ve not flown in the 787......
I’ve flown just about everything that’s taken to the skies over the past 50 years...including three rides on the 380.As much as I dislike Airbus (”if it ain’t Boeing I ain’t going”) I must admit that the 380 is a nice aircraft.However it’s no better than recent versions of the 747 or the 777.And from what I’ve read the 380 isn’t *as* good as the 787 (which I haven’t flown yet).
IIRC most of the world's most important airports have already modified their operations to accommodate it.There are already a half dozen in the US that have adapted and they say that even Boston will be getting 380s next year.If Boston is added can Minneapolis be far behind? Add a number of European,Asian and Australian airports to the list and this doesn't seem to be the issue it might have been 5 years ago.
While turning a commercial airline design into a bomb truck might be very economical, I doubt Boeing would like it if their airliners could plausibly be mistaken for a bomber.
The A380 was betting on increased demand for flights into and out of airports that cannot expand, like London Heathrow. If you cannot increase the number of flights, then you have to increase the number of passengers per flight.
Huh...good point but didn’t obama just effectively eliminate this process?
Not the same concept. Talking about a beast hauling LOTS of GPS, LGB’s, Mavericks, cluster bombs etc etc etc.
“Huh...good point but didn’t obama just effectively eliminate this process?”
But there are 200 or so other countries in the world, and each of those countries still takes its border control seriously...so you still can have problems.
I’ve wondered if the Israelis couldn’t produce “suicide drones” to blast underground Iranian nuclear facilities. The Israelis biggest handicap is the lack of heavy bomber capability. Send in a worn out airliner packed with heavy ordinance escorted by a cloud of radar and IR decoys and steer it for a vulnerable point. Then a couple more into search radar, air force barracks, et, you get the point.
Oh, to still have that problem. : )
But yes, good point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.