Airbus to move further into military AC inc Heavy Bombers

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

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.

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.

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

"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

"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