Airbus to move further into military AC inc Heavy Bombers

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

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

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

"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

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

On 20 Nov 2003 05:39:14 GMT, 362436 (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

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
news
On 20 Nov 2003 05:39:14 GMT, 362436 (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

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.

"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.

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