EU Bomber Speculation?

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

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

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"

"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.

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net...
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.

"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

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"

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

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"

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