EU Bomber Speculation?

[robert arndt]

Again, old news. EADS was quoted as saying that if an airbus design
was selected to be converted over to a heavy bomber akin to the B-52
Stratofortress that its own EFW facility (former Junkers) would
perform the German conversions. The company is currently converting
former Airbus aircraft into cargo carriers and tankers for the
Luftwaffe.
EADS also mentioned using conventional transport aircraft and future
A400M to drop palletized cruise missile launchers.

Rob

[Thomas Schoene]

robert arndt wrote:
> Again, old news. EADS was quoted as saying that if an airbus design
> was selected to be converted over to a heavy bomber akin to the B-52
> Stratofortress that its own EFW facility (former Junkers) would
> perform the German conversions.

It seems rather unlikely that any Airbus could be converted into a
B-52-style heavy bomber. The bomber is just too optimized for its task, and
it woudl be very hard to put a large bomb bay into a commercial aircraft
(small bays like that in the new MMA wre feasible, but require careful
engineering).

> EADS also mentioned using conventional transport aircraft and future
> A400M to drop palletized cruise missile launchers.

Yes, I could more easily imagine them doing a missile carrier conversion, as
was proposed for the 747 some years ago, possibly launching Apache or other
stand-off weapons. Possibly they could even use less elaborate weapons like
JDAMs with range extension wing kits for a low-cost option. But they would
have to be very confident in their defense suppression if they planned to
overfly defended airspace at all. This airliner conversion would certainly
be less damage tolerant than a true bomber and probably less able to take
evasive maneuvers. Even the B-52 can be flown pretty aggressively to avoid
SAMs if need be (right BUFDRVR?)

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[BUFDRVR]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

>Even the B-52 can be flown pretty aggressively to avoid
>SAMs if need be.

I don't imagine a 747 is any less "rugged" in the maneuvering catagory than a
BUFF, but I don't think it would be as resilient to battle damage.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Neil Gerace]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Schoene wrote:
>
> >Even the B-52 can be flown pretty aggressively to avoid
> >SAMs if need be.
>
> I don't imagine a 747 is any less "rugged" in the maneuvering catagory
than a
> BUFF, but I don't think it would be as resilient to battle damage.

I dunno; that plane flying KAL007 that day needed two SAMs to down it.

[Eunometic]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message et>...
> robert arndt wrote:
> > Again, old news. EADS was quoted as saying that if an airbus design
> > was selected to be converted over to a heavy bomber akin to the B-52
> > Stratofortress that its own EFW facility (former Junkers) would
> > perform the German conversions.
>
> It seems rather unlikely that any Airbus could be converted into a
> B-52-style heavy bomber. The bomber is just too optimized for its task, and
> it woudl be very hard to put a large bomb bay into a commercial aircraft
> (small bays like that in the new MMA wre feasible, but require careful
> engineering).

I expect using on of their wide body aircraft wing platforms with a
new narrow body double bouble fueselage might be one option. The
lower body would carry the weapons bay.

Alternatively and A340-500/600 with for and aft bombays cut out and
rinforced ahead and aft of the wing carry through structure. This
would require a bit a center of gravity managment but I don't imagine
it's more of a challence than the A300-600ST Beluga "guppy"


>
> > EADS also mentioned using conventional transport aircraft and future
> > A400M to drop palletized cruise missile launchers.
>
> Yes, I could more easily imagine them doing a missile carrier conversion, as
> was proposed for the 747 some years ago, possibly launching Apache or other
> stand-off weapons. Possibly they could even use less elaborate weapons like
> JDAMs with range extension wing kits for a low-cost option. But they would
> have to be very confident in their defense suppression if they planned to
> overfly defended airspace at all. This airliner conversion would certainly
> be less damage tolerant than a true bomber and probably less able to take
> evasive maneuvers. Even the B-52 can be flown pretty aggressively to avoid
> SAMs if need be (right BUFDRVR?)

Strenghtening of stuctures becomes possible because of the weight
freed up. Wings can be made of slightly thicker sheet for instance.
(the Boeing 747SP had thiner sheet than standard 747-200s becuase of
its lessor load)

What seems to give the B52 a great deal of protection is that it can
fly so very high. Only the largest of SAMS can reach that height. IE
SA6/Hawke missiles are not up to it. It needs a S300/S400 class
missile.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
>
> What seems to give the B52 a great deal of protection is that it can
> fly so very high. Only the largest of SAMS can reach that height. IE
> SA6/Hawke missiles are not up to it. It needs a S300/S400 class
> missile.

Eh? I-hawk has a ceiling of some 58K feet--do you really see the BUFF
operating higher than that?

Brooks

[BUFDRVR]

Neil Gerace wrote:

>I dunno; that plane flying KAL007 that day needed two SAMs to down it.

Those weren't *SAMs*, they were Air-to-air missiles and generally much, much
smaller. Anyone know which missile type brought down KAL007? Atoll?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Krztalizer]

>
>>I dunno; that plane flying KAL007 that day needed two SAMs to down it.
>
>Those weren't *SAMs*,

I got a little chuckle out of that too, Buf.

> they were Air-to-air missiles and generally much, much
>smaller. Anyone know which missile type brought down KAL007? Atoll?

One size larger - and a radar version I think.

G

[Jeroen Wenting]

Su-15 is armed with 2 AA-3 Anab missiles and 2 AA-8 Aphid.
AA-3 was used.
It's a very large weapon, dedicated bomber killer.

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gerace wrote:
>
> >I dunno; that plane flying KAL007 that day needed two SAMs to down it.
>
> Those weren't *SAMs*, they were Air-to-air missiles and generally much,
much
> smaller. Anyone know which missile type brought down KAL007? Atoll?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Laurence Doering]

On 24 Jun 2004 17:20:42 GMT, Krztalizer > wrote:
>>
>>>I dunno; that plane flying KAL007 that day needed two SAMs to down it.
>>
>>Those weren't *SAMs*,
>
> I got a little chuckle out of that too, Buf.
>
>> they were Air-to-air missiles and generally much, much
>>smaller. Anyone know which missile type brought down KAL007? Atoll?
>
> One size larger - and a radar version I think.

The Su-15 Flagon typically carried 4 AAMs, 2 AA-3 Anab (produced in both
radar-guided and heat-seeking versions) and 2 heat-seeking AA-8 Aphid

Major Osipovich fired 2 Anab missiles at KAL 007. The Anab is considerably
larger than an Atoll (launch weight of about 600 lbs for the Anab, 165 lbs
for the Atoll), with a 70 lb warhead.


ljd

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Krztalizer) writes:
>>
>>>I dunno; that plane flying KAL007 that day needed two SAMs to down it.
>>
>>Those weren't *SAMs*,
>
> I got a little chuckle out of that too, Buf.
>
>> they were Air-to-air missiles and generally much, much
>>smaller. Anyone know which missile type brought down KAL007? Atoll?
>
> One size larger - and a radar version I think.

The shooter was an Su-15, so I'd expect it to be some flavor of AA-3.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>Neil Gerace wrote:
>>I dunno; that plane flying KAL007 that day needed two SAMs to down it.
>
>Those weren't *SAMs*, they were Air-to-air missiles and generally much, much
>smaller. Anyone know which missile type brought down KAL007? Atoll?

Anabs, since it was a Su-15.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

[Krztalizer]

>
>Su-15 is armed with 2 AA-3 Anab missiles and 2 AA-8 Aphid.
>AA-3 was used.
>It's a very large weapon, dedicated bomber killer.

And the pilots were typically hard-nosed, dedicated airmen. The Flagon pilots
pressed hard against us - they were not intimidated in the least in these open
ocean contests. I have a pretty clear memory (and the photos help) of an Su 15
coming in about 30 degrees off our nose with about 600 mph closure. His wake
turbulance felt like that earthquake that we had here last week. Our mission
put us in front of various Soviet aircraft - Tu-16s, 95s, Su-15s, Be-8, An-38,
MiG-23, Mi-8, Mi-24, etc. - along the Kurilski Ostrovka. The Su-15s were up by
Petro and on Ostrov Sakhalin; the MiG-23s were on the smaller islands, Mi-24s
from Frontal Aviation and Border Troops; all of them came out from the mainland
to show their displeasure at our continued existance. When the Sakhalin-based
Sukhoi showed up and made high speed passes around us, I felt like we truly
were in mortal danger, that the probability of a shootdown had switched from
"possible" to "imminent". Shove the raft bag toward the door, call the
position of the jet as it swings behind us so the pilots can manuever sideways
away from the Sukhoi's approach. Still two Hinds above us - the pilots and I
were working together to keep all three in sight and NOT directly behind us;
one of the most interesting half hours of my career. LT Arvonen was a natural
in that environment. Hopefully, he is out of the Navy and having fun by now.

Sukhois out of Sakhalin? Don't mess with them. Old or not, they were all
business.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Neil Gerace]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gerace wrote:
>
> >I dunno; that plane flying KAL007 that day needed two SAMs to down it.
>
> Those weren't *SAMs*, they were Air-to-air missiles and generally much,
much
> smaller. Anyone know which missile type brought down KAL007? Atoll?

Of course you're right, heh. But nevertheless, there were two of them. One
wasn't enough.

[Rob van Riel]

"Neil Gerace" > wrote in message >...
> Of course you're right, heh. But nevertheless, there were two of them. One
> wasn't enough.

Not necessarily (although I don't have enough details to be certain).
If I recall correctly, standard doctrine was to fire both an IR and a
radar missile at any given target, to insure at least on hit. The
communications transcript I have shows the pilot firing both missiles
at the same time. Whether this was due to the mentioned doctrine, or
to a hunch/calculations that a single missile would be insufficient, I
don't know.

Rob

[Neil Gerace]

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...

> Not necessarily (although I don't have enough details to be certain).
> If I recall correctly, standard doctrine was to fire both an IR and a
> radar missile at any given target, to insure at least on hit. The
> communications transcript I have shows the pilot firing both missiles
> at the same time. Whether this was due to the mentioned doctrine, or
> to a hunch/calculations that a single missile would be insufficient, I
> don't know.

IIRC the plane wasn't disabled until the second one hit.

[David Nicholls]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > What seems to give the B52 a great deal of protection is that it can
> > fly so very high. Only the largest of SAMS can reach that height. IE
> > SA6/Hawke missiles are not up to it. It needs a S300/S400 class
> > missile.
>
> Eh? I-hawk has a ceiling of some 58K feet--do you really see the BUFF
> operating higher than that?
>
> Brooks
>
No, but you could see a Victor or a Vulcan - apparently they could cruise at
65k feet, or the EU could get Concorde at the same altitude - if they got
them back from museums!

David