Sir - The editorial "Missing a trick" (Flight International, 17-23 April, P3), proposing a European involvement in the Lockheed Martin C-141 replacement, seems to raise the more fundamental question of whether a new civil transport could be adaptable to military requirements.
While the tanker role presents few problems, the military transport clearly does, in terms of cabin cross-section and field performance. Strategic "reach" demands something like Lockheed C-5 cross-sections and C-130 tactical field performance. On the C-17, this unique capability implies a degree of technical innovation and specialisation quite removed from civil requirements.
On very large aircraft, however, an 8m fuselage diameter (with length and span around ten times that) naturally encloses either a C-5/C-17 cargo hold, or a spacious, double-deck, passenger cabin. A modest wing loading and generous thrust:weight ratio could make possible higher-altitude and quieter long-range flight, with sleeper-seat layouts.
None of this is likely to do other than compromise the efficiency both of the civil and military versions of a genuine global multi-role transport. One would not want to doubt the technical optimisation of the European Airbus A3XX as projected today.
Should the investment requirements of the European super-large aircraft and of long-term European force projection best be met in isolation? Should the increasing tendency of the military to adapt commercial aircraft to its various needs be keyed into commercial design (particularly on very large aircraft) from the start?
Source: Flight International
