What are the plans for commercial aircraft in a WW3 scenario?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (33KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1280x720px

CRASHING THIS PLANE

>>31520001
Fly them into sand ape cubes.

That's exactly what will happen, they will rot. Civilian Aircraft require extensive service, are expensive to operate, and have extremely little use in military application. Furthermore, most countries worth a damn have their own military transports for these kinds of things. If the civilian airports are shut down due to war, so will commercial aircraft.

Completely different is ships, every cruise ship, tanker, or cargo ship can be drafted for service and utilized for various military applications. It's just not that way with commercial aircraft.

>>31520027
Military planes are just as expensive if not moreso to operate. Besides, doesn't the US military move troops around on civvie planes? (Not to the front lines or anything, but around to different bases in the US). Most governments have a vested interest in keeping commercial travel up and running. It prevents people from feeling cooped up or inconvenienced by conflict, which hurts politicians chances come election day.

>>31520009
Anon, read the baneposting manual before doing it.
>>31520027
They can be used as transport, as seats are modular and removable.

>>31520027

Modern civilian aircraft are designed to be cheap to operate, otherwise airlines go out of business. If they are more expensive to operate, that would be due to civilian aviation standards of safety and comfort being higher.

Even the USA, which has the biggest military airlift capacity of any country, would use civilian aircraft where possible to move personnel and cargo well away from the front lines, to free up its military cargo planes for duties only they can perform.

That and, using civilian aircraft to move troops overseas would be preferable politically to having troopships torpedoed.

>>31520027
>Civilian Aircraft require extensive service, are expensive to operate, and have extremely little use in military application.

In case of a war that isn't police action military would take over 'em to move troops and air freight. In case of a war that can be considered police action they just lease civilian aircraft.

>Completely different is ships, every cruise ship, tanker, or cargo ship can be drafted for service and utilized for various military applications
>every cruise ship

LOL. First kind of ship you mention is only kind of ship most armed forces wouldn't be interested in at all.

>It's just not that way with commercial aircraft.

It is exactly same way as with cargo ships.

>>31520045
>Military planes are just as expensive if not moreso to operate.

Military transport planes are more heavily built for rough and short field operations, due to that those are more expensive to operate for amount of cargo moved.

>Besides, doesn't the US military move troops around on civvie planes? (Not to the front lines or anything, but around to different bases in the US).

US military has plenty of bases around world and pre-stockpiled material in those bases. Not in amounts they had during cold war, but they still can establish units by just flying in users for all that equipment. Video kinda related, this what happens when MRAP isn't tied down properly in 747 cargo plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T_gHFae_Y4

>Most governments have a vested interest in keeping commercial travel up and running. It prevents people from feeling cooped up or inconvenienced by conflict, which hurts politicians chances come election day.

In case of a world war that doesn't apply. They wouldn't confiscate every airliner, but only ones that are useful for military. Civilian air travel with planes still remaining in civilian control would be heavily restricted. Even if war doesn't go nuclear, things like aviation fuel, in reality all fuels, will be rationed.

The MC-21 uses the same assembly line as the T-50. A small refit will make the passenger plane a stealth fighter.

>>31520123
>LOL. First kind of ship you mention is only kind of ship most armed forces wouldn't be interested in at all.

The UK commandeered cruise ships as well as cargo ships to move troops and equipment to the Falklands.

>>31520451
>The UK commandeered cruise ships as well as cargo ships to move troops and equipment to the Falklands.

As I said most countries and Falklands was pretty odd kind of war due to Falklands being really fucking far away from any friendly port. Also those ships weren't cruise ships in first place, but ocean liners. Liners were faster than almost all cruise ships. French and UK might use cruise ships for amphibious police actions.

It's also worth noticing what has happened to cruise ships in last few decades, those have ballooned in size on other end or become smaller in the other. Biggest cruise ships are too big and ones that aren't too big aren't big enough as those have been built to serve niche markets.

>>31520027
>Civilian Aircraft require extensive service, are expensive to operate

As opposed to military aircraft, which run on pixydust and unicorn farts, making them immune to mechanical failure and cost mere pennies to run.

>>31520001
It would largely depend on need. If there was a great need to move large numbers of US troops around that the Air Force could not fill then commercial planes would be used. Constraints would include things like the security of the airspace the aircraft would need to operate in.

Besides, the civilian fleet is so large that even if the military utilized it there would likely be little impact on commercial flights. In reality we would just contract the flights - there would likely be no 'taking' of the aircraft.

>>31520123
What was going on with air travel during WWII? Air liners were sort of in their infancy at the time but air travel did occur. Was it shut down completely, or just severely limited? I guess at that point air travel was seen as something for the upper class, so most normal people wouldn't really notice a difference. Still, it seems like the upper class would definitely bitch if they weren't allowed to fly where they wanted.

File: 7071159_orig.jpg (584KB, 1100x742px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1100x742px

>>31521795
They stopped flying pretty fucking fast

In WWIII the air forces of the world are going to be too busy trying to survive themselves than to start using additional aircraft.

>>31521795
No one had flown an airliner into the empire state building yet.

>>31521795
>What was going on with air travel during WWII? Air liners were sort of in their infancy at the time but air travel did occur. Was it shut down completely, or just severely limited? I guess at that point air travel was seen as something for the upper class, so most normal people wouldn't really notice a difference. Still, it seems like the upper class would definitely bitch if they weren't allowed to fly where they wanted.

Production of aircraft was cranked to 11 due to war, including airliners, DC-3 was relabeled C-47 and sold to military in insane numbers. Civilian air travel really became a thing of masses only after war and that was helped a lot by lots and lots of C-47's being surplussed. Longer ranged airliners were developed during war largely thanks to massive military R&D effort, they wanted longer ranged and more capable transport aircraft. Also there were massive synergies with development of military aircraft B-29, it was developed transport variant called C-97 and civilian version was called Boeing Stratoliner.

Lots of existing civilian aircraft was taken by military to be used as training aircraft.

US government basically banned production of civilian cars during WWII. All cars produced based on civilian designs were made for military with stripped down chrome. That didn't make people riot.