Talk:Military transport aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Untitled

Where are the helicopters?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An-225

I wonder if it should be listed here, as it was never used as a military transport aircraft. --84.103.32.232 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was never intended to be military either!!--Petebutt (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Range

The "Range" column is pointless as long as it doesn't specify the load. Currently it mixes numbers for ferry range (empty) with range at max payload and whatever. --Sitacuisses (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fairchild C-123 Provider

I do not see the C-123 listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.43.224 (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of military transport aircraft

The lists of fixed-wing and rotary-wing military transports used to take up most of the article and List of military transport aircraft used to redirect here. With the lists now deleted from here to improve balance, I have rescued that page from its redirect status and restored the lists there. They still need work to merge them, add references and suchlike. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and definition

This article needs a clearer definition to make its scope clear. Do military transports really include aerial refuelling tankers? What about the light/utility end of things such as Liaison, VIP transport, Special Operations (e.g. the British Westland Lysanders converted for dropping and picking up spies)? Helicopter carriers for the wounded (remember M*A*S*H)? Is there a clean way to draw the line? The issue also applies to the list of military transport aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a gray area at the smaller end, VIP aircraft for example are not military transport aircraft just because the military operate it. Would not count the Lysander and the like as "transport" aircraft more "utility". Perhaps we need to stick to aircraft designed and built to carry troops or cargo (C-17) or substantially modified from a civil type (C-47), this doesnt include light utility and communications aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When I look around at the larger end, I see talk of transports being converted to tankers, or tankers being converted from transports, as if the two classes are distinct. I think it safe to go with that unless somebody comes up with sufficient RS to dictate otherwise. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KC-46 was purpose built as both a transport AND tanker. Much of their functions overlap. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The standard definitions used by both primary and secondary forces - which are what Wikipedia is required to use - include aerial refuelling tankers that are converted from or are also transport aircraft - i.e. the KC-135, KC-10, KC-46, A330 MRRT, and such - as "military transport aircraft". (KS-3s, KA-3s, KA-6Ds, etc. would of course not be counted as such!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What these points highlight is that transports and tankers are seen as different, with a few types being multi-role. To me, that means we should include the multi-role types here but not tankers dedicated to the role nor tankers converted from bombers. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the smaller end, what about types such as the Bell "Huey" which was originally a utility type but became famous for its use as a troop transport (among other duties) during the Vietnam war? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to perform some maintenance on this article, so I had better check in before treading on any toes.

There was a German trooplift early in WWII, 'Operation Niwi'. It called for a battalion (400 men) to be dropped a few km behind enemy lines, a quite revolutionary idea. They used around 100 Fieseler Fi-156 Storch aircraft, each carrying just two men at a time, with a second run to make-up the full 400 troops. As ridiculous as that was, some years later the first helicopters were operating in Korea, and most of them could only carry a couple of men each. Between Korea & Vietnam we gained the Huey as mentioned earlier, but that only started out with a 700hp engine, and would probably break into a sweat with no more than 5 troops on board. The latest "Super Huey" now has over 3,000 shp available, and yet still only offers "up to ten crashworthy seats".

If we set the bar in view of the requirements of modern warfare, a large number of older transports could be eliminated from the list. Maybe that would be a good thing?

Or should we apply the duck test? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it goes on the list. WendlingCrusader (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Privately owned 'military' aircraft.

First line in the article;

A military transport aircraft... is a military-owned transport aircraft used to support military operations...

Except those lines can sometimes be blurred. It was always my understanding that any aircraft in the Aeroflot fleet could be commandeered for use by USSR military authorities at the drop of a hat, but of course I can't find a reference for that idea just now. Both the UK and USA (and probably a good few other nations) have arrangements in place whereby airlines would provide extra airlift capability as and when required. See Civil Reserve Air Fleet, but note also that airlines on their list provide trooping & cargo capacity on a regular basis, not just when CRAF is activated.

Historically airlines like Airlift International, Flying Tiger Line, Tower Air & Zantop International Airlines, flew troop flights (& more) mostly using standard civilian airliners. But Southern Air Transport also employed a large number of L-100 Hercules bedecked with an innocent non-camouflage colour scheme. 'Nothing to see here, folks'.

Apart from Air America <coughs>, none of the above are 'military-owned', so the aircraft types they fly do not deserve inclusion in this category.

However, consider the current arrangement for the UK A330 MRTT Tanker-Transport fleet, which is owned & operated by AirTanker Services Ltd, an aircraft leasing & operating company. Fortunately other nations also operate the A330 MRTT, otherwise we might find that this aircraft type also fails the 'miltary ownership' qualifying criteria. WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]