Airbus to move further into military AC inc Heavy Bombers

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).

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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).

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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