Re: Airbus to move further into military AC inc Heavy Bombers

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:49:27 -0000, Mycroft > wrote:
>According to the Financial Times Airbus want to expand further into the
>military field, they have even done studies on how they could produce
>bombers based on their civil aircraft.

I get an image of someone throwing a Storm Shadow out the
back of an A400M.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[killfile]

The P-3 and Nimrod both started out as airliners, so it's perfectly
feasible. I'd be very suprised if Boeing isn't pitching a 'bomb truck'
civil-based aircraft to the Pentagon at the moment.

Matt

"Mycroft" <david > wrote in message
...
> According to the Financial Times Airbus want to expand further into the
> military field, they have even done studies on how they could produce
> bombers based on their civil aircraft.
>
> Myc
>
> --
> " We need a socio-polical nerd to offset our overwhelming coolness".
>
> To reply just remove the X's
>
>

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
phil hunt > wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:49:27 -0000, Mycroft > wrote:
>>According to the Financial Times Airbus want to expand further into the
>>military field, they have even done studies on how they could produce
>>bombers based on their civil aircraft.
>
>I get an image of someone throwing a Storm Shadow out the
>back of an A400M.

*I'm* getting the image of the "triple threat"[1] A380 gunship..

[1] Bomb you. Shoot you. Land on you [2]
[2] Gavin Bull, IIRC.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
killfile > wrote:
>The P-3 and Nimrod both started out as airliners, so it's perfectly
>feasible. I'd be very suprised if Boeing isn't pitching a 'bomb truck'
>civil-based aircraft to the Pentagon at the moment.
>
>Matt
>
>"Mycroft" <david > wrote in message
...
>> According to the Financial Times Airbus want to expand further into the
>> military field, they have even done studies on how they could produce
>> bombers based on their civil aircraft.

IIRC there was also consideration given to military variants - bombers
- of both VC-10 and Concorde, and back in the prehistory of jet airliners
there was one (IIRC) Avro Ashton which got under-wing bomb panniers.
NO idea if that was purely as a trials testbed for bomb sights for the
V-bomber fleet or whether it was actually in the frame as a second-
line fallback if the most conservative of the V-bombers (Vickers
Valiant)and the first-line backup (the Short Sperrin) both ran
into development problems.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[WDA]

After the dust settles it will probably become apparent that no one today
has a need for a big bomber carrying many bombs. The problem today is the
penetration of complex air defenses to strike selected pinpoint targets.
There is really not much need for hauling as many bombs as possible over a
target nowadays. also airliners are probably too big and bulky to meet
today's low observables criteria

WDA



end


"Mycroft" <david > wrote in message
...
> According to the Financial Times Airbus want to expand further into the
> military field, they have even done studies on how they could produce
> bombers based on their civil aircraft.
>
> Myc
>
> --
> " We need a socio-polical nerd to offset our overwhelming coolness".
>
> To reply just remove the X's
>
>

[Cub Driver]

>I get an image of someone throwing a Storm Shadow out the
>back of an A400M.

During the Falklands War, the Argies put bombs aboard a transport and
rolled them out the back in an ineffectual attempt to bomb the QE2.
They didn't come near it, but they did send her scurrying back to
England. Or so a crewman on the boat told me.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>There is really not much need for hauling as many bombs as possible over a
>target nowadays. also airliners are probably too big and bulky to meet
>today's low observables criteria

Still, it's nice to have options. Very few Air Force types believed
that the army really needed the A-10 Warthog, or at least not enough
to send the poor thing into harm's way. Who could have foreseen in
1985 that there would come a time when the opposition had had no air
force to speak of?

We need precision bombers now. That may not always be the case, and we
may not always have the B-52 at our disposal.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:20:50 -0500, Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>>I get an image of someone throwing a Storm Shadow out the
>>back of an A400M.
>
>During the Falklands War, the Argies put bombs aboard a transport and
>rolled them out the back in an ineffectual attempt to bomb the QE2.
>They didn't come near it, but they did send her scurrying back to
>England. Or so a crewman on the boat told me.

I heard a variant of that story -- they were using a Hercules to
bomb British troop positions. The Argies were using dumb bombs, but
modern ordnance such as Storm Shadow can guide itself, which makes
it a more practical proposition.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>During the Falklands War, the Argies put bombs aboard a transport and
>rolled them out the back in an ineffectual attempt to bomb the QE2.
>They didn't come near it, but they did send her scurrying back to
>England. Or so a crewman on the boat told me.

They never got near the QE2.

They _did_ hit the Liberian-flagged tanker _Hercules_ with an UXB
dropped from an Argentine C-130: unfortunately, the tanker had nothing
to do with the war (one version has it she was on an Argentinean charter
at the time)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:20:50 -0500, Cub Driver
> allegedly uttered:

>
>>I get an image of someone throwing a Storm Shadow out the
>>back of an A400M.
>
>During the Falklands War, the Argies put bombs aboard a transport and
>rolled them out the back in an ineffectual attempt to bomb the QE2.
>They didn't come near it, but they did send her scurrying back to
>England. Or so a crewman on the boat told me.

He's either mistaken or stringing you along.

The QE2 never went near the Islands (closest she got was South
Georgia) as she was deemed too valuable (read embarrassing) to lose.
And she didn't return until after the war.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[David Bromage]

killfile wrote:
> The P-3 and Nimrod both started out as airliners, so it's perfectly
> feasible. I'd be very suprised if Boeing isn't pitching a 'bomb truck'
> civil-based aircraft to the Pentagon at the moment.

Boeing looked at a variant of the 747 as a cruise missile platform. IIRC
the idea was to eject them out the side cargo door.

They also have ideas about an ASW platform based on the 737.

Cheers
David

[robert arndt]

EADS has had the idea to develop bomber aircraft through its EFW
conversion facility (former Junkers). Airbus 300-series conversion
bombers would cargo drop smart APs, or AeroPallets armed with missiles
and possibly other munitions. Another German idea is to drop a UCAV
mothership that would launch a "swarm" of UCAV killvehicles into enemy
airspace or against strong armored formations on the ground.
Dornier also has a design for a wedge-shaped tactical bomber. But the
most futuristic concept is the NiMet- a "Meta-bomber". This concept is
way beyond anything the US has concieved for the as-of-yet
undetermined B-3.

Rob

[Ron]

>This concept is
>way beyond anything the US has concieved for the as-of-yet
>undetermined B-3.
>
>Rob
>

And how do you know what ideas our engineers, scientists and military have come
up with, that makes them inferior to the EADS idea?

I somehow doubt LockMart, Boeing and Northrop include you in their discussions
of designs and ideas.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...


> This concept is
> way beyond anything the US has concieved for the as-of-yet
> undetermined B-3.
>

If its undetermined one can hardly claim that another system is in
advance of it.

Keith

[Cub Driver]

>I heard a variant of that story -- they were using a Hercules to
>bomb British troop positions. The Argies were using dumb bombs, but
>modern ordnance such as Storm Shadow can guide itself, which makes
>it a more practical proposition.

It was a Hercules in the story about the attempt on the QE2 as well.
But of course it could have been a story the QE2 crewman heard, and to
liven it up he applied it to the place he happened to be. I think that
was South Georgia island. Dunno if a Herk could go from Argentina to
South Georgia and back -- it's a fairly long jump.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Alan Minyard]

On 20 Nov 2003 05:39:14 GMT, (Ron) wrote:

>>This concept is
>>way beyond anything the US has concieved for the as-of-yet
>>undetermined B-3.
>>
>>Rob
>>
>
>And how do you know what ideas our engineers, scientists and military have come
>up with, that makes them inferior to the EADS idea?
>
>I somehow doubt LockMart, Boeing and Northrop include you in their discussions
>of designs and ideas.
>
>
>Ron
>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Herr Arndt is off in his fantasy land again. Airbus is not capable of building a
B-2 equivalent, much less an aircraft "way beyond".

Al Minyard

[killfile]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On 20 Nov 2003 05:39:14 GMT, (Ron) wrote:
>
> >>This concept is
> >>way beyond anything the US has concieved for the as-of-yet
> >>undetermined B-3.
> >>
> >>Rob
> >>
> >
> >And how do you know what ideas our engineers, scientists and military
have come
> >up with, that makes them inferior to the EADS idea?
> >
> >I somehow doubt LockMart, Boeing and Northrop include you in their
discussions
> >of designs and ideas.
> >
> >
> >Ron
> >Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
>
> Herr Arndt is off in his fantasy land again. Airbus is not capable of
building a
> B-2 equivalent, much less an aircraft "way beyond".
>
> Al Minyard

It's certainly bombastic to claim that any nation's top-secret projects are
more advanced than another's. Although I know it's impossible to ever get Al
to admit that there's anything outside the USA except a howling wasteland,
filled with ghosts, an EADS study recently concluded that the construction
of a B-2 type aircraft in Europe was perfectly feasible, provided the
combined European governments were prepared to sink the nesessary $40
billion into the project.

The Technology on the B-2 is now fifteen years old, and much of the research
that went into it is now creeping into the public domain. Although DASA/EADS
have never produced a full-scale Low Observable aircraft, they have a strong
LO department that has produced a number of sub-scale test articles and
their research is certianly on par with much of the work done in the US.
It's also worth considering that much of the technology that was involved in
the B-2 was developed specifically for the Aircraft - Europeans are no
dumber than Americans, so there's no reason why they couldn't develop it
too.

In terms of constructing such a beast, many of the composite construction
technologies that are going into the construction of the A-380 are
identical, or more advanced, than those in the B-2. The title of world's
largest carbon composite component now belongs to the A-380's center wing
box.

In all honesty, the truth these days is that there is little requirement for
an Aircraft with the B-2's highly L-O capablities. Modern Bi-Static radar
systems, such as the one associated with the Russian SA-10/SA-12 system, are
capable of detecting, and more importantly, tracking the B-2 at intermediate
ranges (Especially in the rain!).

The best proof of this is that the current US Administration has tried six
ways from Sunday to find an excuse to order more B-2's, even to the point of
retiring a portion of the B-1 fleet to create a requirement, but in the end
even they've had to admit that they're far too expensive for what they do.
(And they've cut the numbers of retiring B-1's!)

Matt

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"killfile" > wrote:

> In all honesty, the truth these days is that there is little requirement for
> an Aircraft with the B-2's highly L-O capablities. Modern Bi-Static radar
> systems, such as the one associated with the Russian SA-10/SA-12 system, are
> capable of detecting, and more importantly, tracking the B-2 at intermediate
> ranges (Especially in the rain!).

....in theory.

According to some folks who have done some math, and no actual tests.

But not in any practical test sense of the concept.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"killfile" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> In all honesty, the truth these days is that there is little requirement
for
> an Aircraft with the B-2's highly L-O capablities. Modern Bi-Static radar
> systems, such as the one associated with the Russian SA-10/SA-12 system,
are
> capable of detecting, and more importantly, tracking the B-2 at
intermediate
> ranges (Especially in the rain!).

Some of the software that modeled the B-2 has a decidedly French flavor.

> The best proof of this is that the current US Administration has tried six
> ways from Sunday to find an excuse to order more B-2's, even to the point
of
> retiring a portion of the B-1 fleet to create a requirement, but in the
end
> even they've had to admit that they're far too expensive for what they do.
> (And they've cut the numbers of retiring B-1's!)

The B-1 suprised us all and started working, it doesn't need replacing.

[Yeff]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:32:34 -0700, Frank Vaughan wrote:

> There is little that a good Herc can't do. :)

I heard they even put cannons on some (though I really don't believe such
fantastic tales...)

-Jeff B. (what sig?)
yeff at erols dot com

[David Bromage]

Yeff wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:32:34 -0700, Frank Vaughan wrote:
>>There is little that a good Herc can't do. :)
>
> I heard they even put cannons on some (though I really don't believe such
> fantastic tales...)

Add a smiley. Some people won't realise you're joking.

Pakistan used Hercs as bombers in 1965, rolling pallettes of bombs out
the back door. They were surprisingly accurate and took out several
Indian artillery positions.

Cheers
David

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:50:14 +1100, David Bromage
> wrote:

> Pakistan used Hercs as bombers in 1965, rolling pallettes of bombs out
> the back door. They were surprisingly accurate and took out several
> Indian artillery positions.

The US was using them as bombers in Afghanistan in 2002, pushing
daisycutters off the ramp. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>
> > This concept is
> > way beyond anything the US has concieved for the as-of-yet
> > undetermined B-3.
> >
>
> If its undetermined one can hardly claim that another system is in
> advance of it.
>
> Keith

Respectfully Keith, B-3 concepts are already being investigated and
some of the design work already proposed. See my archived "B-3" posts
with links.
The German NiMet, however, is way beyond THOSE proposals because it is
a Metamorphic bomber concept. The future materials and systems
proposed for the NiMet include a type of cellular material that can
absorb radar as well as direct hits from enemy a/c guns and missiles
without damage to the craft. It would have the unique ability to
transform, reform, and deform at will. Also, its outer bio-like
structure would allow weapons to be imbedded at various points and
released by a complex internal light control system. The future
Luftwaffe pilot is expected to be wearing a gel-suit and "cocooned" in
the event of an emergency.
Since the IOC of the future craft (and the future B-3) is not expected
to be until the late 2030s, the technology proposed will take time to
develop. But as stated earlier, the German proposal is way beyond any
current B-3 concept.
As for Airbus conversion aircraft, that is possible NOW. A converted
A-series cargo carrier could air drop palletized cruise missiles or
munitions.
See EFW for conversion concepts.

Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >
> > > This concept is
> > > way beyond anything the US has concieved for the as-of-yet
> > > undetermined B-3.
> > >
> >
> > If its undetermined one can hardly claim that another system is in
> > advance of it.
> >
> > Keith
>
> Respectfully Keith, B-3 concepts are already being investigated and
> some of the design work already proposed. See my archived "B-3" posts
> with links.

Equally respectfully I seriously doubt that you have access to such work or
that anyone with access will be posting about it in a public forum.


> The German NiMet, however, is way beyond THOSE proposals because it is
> a Metamorphic bomber concept. The future materials and systems
> proposed for the NiMet include a type of cellular material that can
> absorb radar as well as direct hits from enemy a/c guns and missiles
> without damage to the craft. It would have the unique ability to
> transform, reform, and deform at will. Also, its outer bio-like
> structure would allow weapons to be imbedded at various points and
> released by a complex internal light control system. The future
> Luftwaffe pilot is expected to be wearing a gel-suit and "cocooned" in
> the event of an emergency.

The basic technology you describe is not available at this time and its
development will
be protracted and expensive. Smart structures have been a buzz
word for may years now and their proponents are all seeking funding
but while promising in the long term we cannot plan weapons system
on the basis that they exist, they do not. More limited applications
of metamorphic systems design such as variable wing leading and trailing
edge contours, embeddable and nonintrusive sensors and smart actuator
materials will doubtless be available rather earlier.

The next generation of strike aircraft will very likely utilise unmanned
vehicles,
unlike close air support or air superiority there really is no need for such
aircraft to carry along a human for the ride. They will essentially be
re-usable cruise missiles.

> Since the IOC of the future craft (and the future B-3) is not expected
> to be until the late 2030s, the technology proposed will take time to
> develop. But as stated earlier, the German proposal is way beyond any
> current B-3 concept.
> As for Airbus conversion aircraft, that is possible NOW. A converted
> A-series cargo carrier could air drop palletized cruise missiles or
> munitions.

As could any transport aircraft


Keith

[WaltBJ]

Nothing new about 'metamorphic ' airframes. They have been discussed
in Av Week for a few years now. NASA has been working with the
concept. But what struck me is 'absorb hits by guns and missiles.'
Even Bismarck and Yamato found out that didn't work. There is a
definite limit to how much any structure can absorb, and some extant
missiles definitely can exceed that limit no matter where they hit the
airframe..
Walt BJ

[John Smith]

> The B-1 suprised us all and started working, it doesn't need replacing.

Like the B-2s, however, the B-1 cannot operate within acceptable cost and
deployment parameters, a fact apparent to mission planners as early as the
mid-1990s. Consult the Gulf War Air Power Survey (available online through Air
University's website or at fas.org), or at least the concluding report,
published seperately and widely available. The 52s will continue to serve the
baseline deployment function in virtually every conceivable, plausible current
mission scenario. Or at least every one for which we're presently willing to
budget.

Any defense wag will concede the dilemma of current development of both fighter
and bomber aircraft, namely that the systems-integrative character of
contemporary air power projection renders the sophistication of these platforms
massively redundant. What matters much much than the cutting edge character of
the platform is how seamlessly it fits together with the many, many other
components of the standing doctrine. When deploying a PGM, especially the
garden variety versions, experience - to say nothing of theoretical studies -
demonstrates that comparatively inexpensive platforms like the F-16 complete the
tasks much more cheaply and effectively than the 117s or 22s.

[robert arndt]

(WaltBJ) wrote in message >...
> Nothing new about 'metamorphic ' airframes. They have been discussed
> in Av Week for a few years now. NASA has been working with the
> concept.

True. But the German future design incorporates a range of
technologies that would be unprecedented in aerial warfare. The outer
structure of the craft is a a non-metallic material that functions
like an advanced living organism.

But what struck me is 'absorb hits by guns and missiles.'

That's why it would be unique. Since the outer structure is
non-metallic, fire from 20-30mm cannon would do nothing except lodge
in the material... which would react immediately by expelling it,
pushing it out of the outer skin. If a missile hit, a chunk of the
material would be exploded away... but again the reaction would be an
immediate repair of the damage through a form of electrosynthesis.

> Even Bismarck and Yamato found out that didn't work. There is a
> definite limit to how much any structure can absorb, and some extant
> missiles definitely can exceed that limit no matter where they hit the
> airframe..
> Walt BJ

The NiMet proposal is not a giant armored battleship. You're talking
apples and oranges. This craft is a highly metamorphic, adaptive craft
with ultra high tech internal systems that operate mostly by light.
The only drawing of the machine I've ever seen this year was a craft
that looked "alien" to say the least. It is not even in the same
category as the early B-3 proposals. As for NASA's Metacraft design,
it is a simplistic base-design that looks conventional when placed
next to the NiMet. NiMet looks like (in physical form) a giant,
hostile butterfly. It's quad wing shape surrounds a long segmented
body with a circular flight center at the head,followed by a
mid-section compartment, and then a long tail. At the front of the
craft is a U-shaped inlet of some sort that feeds the non-jet
powerplant (not specified in the article). Bulges near the front and
rear of the craft are suspected of being some form of decoy projection
system (holomorphics?).

It will be an amazing craft if built, but I do agree that it will take
the better part of two more decades to develop and integrate various
systems. I would just like to point out the deviation Germany is
taking in its approach to future combat. Rather than exploit
evolutionary designs like the US does, the Germans appear to be using
the same tactics as before- introducing small numbers of revolutionary
craft that can counter large numbers of conventional craft. On the
ground the Heer is breaking its army into future fast-moving hunter
groups that will be aided by ACRs (Autonomous Combat Robots), UCAVs,
and Smart Soldier technolgy. On the sea the stealthy Type 212 AIP SSK
will also be operating in the future with UUCVs, stealth surface
ships, and very high speed transports.

Rob

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Obviously soemone thought that the Airbus already was a heavy bomber,
judging by the account of the SAM-7 attack in Iraq.... kudos to the
crew who brought it down without losing their own lives.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> (WaltBJ) wrote in message
>...

>
> It will be an amazing craft if built, but I do agree that it will take
> the better part of two more decades to develop and integrate various
> systems. I would just like to point out the deviation Germany is
> taking in its approach to future combat. Rather than exploit
> evolutionary designs like the US does, the Germans appear to be using
> the same tactics as before- introducing small numbers of revolutionary
> craft that can counter large numbers of conventional craft.

A strategy that lost them the war, lots of P-51's , T-34's and cheap
frigates turned out to be a winning plan.

Keith