Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B-52 Replacement By Airbus?  
User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5110 times:

German N-tv.de says that Airbus is going to build an long-range bomber to replace the B-52.
Will European Air Forces buy such a bomber ?
I doubt that the USAF will buy it, as they have to buy Boeing/american products...

"Airbus Industrie will in Zukunft einen Bomber bauen. Der Konzern plane ein Konkurrenzmodell zum US-Kampfflugzeug B-52, sagte Airbus-Vorstand Noel Forgeard dem Nachrichtenmagazin "Focus".

Damit will der europäische Flugzeugbauer das Geschäft mit einem B-52-Nachfolger nicht allein dem Erzrivalen Boeing überlassen. Die schon im Vietnamkrieg bewährten B-52 wurden zuletzt von der US-Luftwaffe in Afghanistan eingesetzt.

Airbus baut bisher nur Passagiermaschinen; das erste militärische Modell soll der Transporter A400M werden, über dessen Beschaffung es in Deutschland heftige Auseinandersetzungen gegeben hatte. Der geplante Bomber wäre dann das erste "echte" Kampfflugzeug.

Der Kampf gegen den internationalen Terror könne nach Auffassung von Wehrexperten auch in Zukunft den Bau von Langstreckenbombern erfordern.

Airbus ist ein gemeinsames Unternehmen des europäischen Raumfahrtkonzerns EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space) und des britischen Luftfahrtkonzerns BAe Systems. "

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4944 times:

German N-tv.de says that Airbus is going to build an long-range bomber to replace the B-52.
Will European Air Forces buy such a bomber ?


What European air forces need to replace their B-52s?
There's your answer.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4932 times:

Sounds extremely unlikely.
Only 3 nations in the home market for European military aircraft have had bombers after the second world war, and only one of those has had bombers with intercontinental capability.
Those countries are Germany (Canberra bombers in the 1950s and '60s), France (Mirage IV) and the UK (V-force and Canberras).
All except the French Mirage IVs have been withdrawn for a decade or so now at least.
The Mirage IV is in a totally different class. Even if France were to have an intention of replacing a low-altitude medium range supersonic penetration bomber with a (supposedly) larger high altitude subsonic intercontinental bomber with far more range the production run (no more than 2 dozen or so) would not warrant the cost to a commercial corporation. IF it is created nonetheless it would be irrefutable proof that airbus is getting massively subsidised by European governments which could lead to the sale of their aircraft being banned in many countries including the very lucrative US market.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4902 times:

I think Airbus are looking at modifying an aircraft (A3405/6?), to haul lots of stand-off smart weapons.
Not dropping loads of 'dumb' or more recently, JDAMs, like the B-52's have been doing.
The RAF are keen to get more Nimrod MRA4s beyond the 21 programmed, not soley for maritime patrol, but as a way of carrying numbers of Storm Shadow weapons, which will shortly enter service on RAF fast jets.
So you can see how Airbus are thinking, maybe their aircraft would be designed for quick change from transport, tanking, C3 and surveillance, and the stand-off weapon lauching role.
Give Europe's forces a much needed long range capabilty.
I could see the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and perhaps the Netherlands being customers.


User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6287 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4877 times:

And when exactly was the last time any European nation had a heavy bomber? The answer is almost 60 years ago. A light bomber such as the F-117 I could see, but not a heavy.

BTW. Yes the F-117 is a bomber as opposed to a fighter, as was the F-111 before.



Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4865 times:

Piedmont, check your military history and my earlier post.
The UK retired its last heavy bombers about a decade ago, they were last used in anger in the Falklands, making the longest bombing missions in history.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6287 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4852 times:

Oops! Forgot the Vulcan.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4847 times:

The world has changed, the last British heavy bombers were designed for nuclear deterrence, and were replaced in that role by SLBM's.
The Vulcans carried on in reduced numbers as they had a useful night/adverse weather long-range capability. In effect they were stop-gaps until the Tornado arrived.
(Though many think an updated Buccaneer would have been better, it would have been range wise).
But the Tornado fitted the bill for central European operations.
Now the focus is on 'out of (NATO) area' operations.
So the need for long-range, big payload aircraft is emerging again.
It wouldn't be a B-52 replacement, European airforces would use it.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4831 times:

I think that the question was answered by the fact that no European Militaries operate the B-52 and the U.S. is going to kep the "Buffs" flying for many decades to come.

Also, the longest bombing runs or "missions" record is not held by the B-2. Whiteman AFB to Afghanistan then to Diego Garcia, Non-stop.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6287 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Is or is not held by the B-2? Well, not is the answer. The longest sorties ever flown were Barksdale AFB to Iraq and return during the Gulf War. Flown by several B-52s, 12 I believe. That is a touch longer than Whiteman-Diego Garcia I believe.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4821 times:

Hmm that definately does raise the issue of whether or not the B-2 holds the record. Then again, during Operation Allied Force, B-2's flew nonstop Whiteman-Bosnia-Whiteman. Maybe the B-2 holds the longest mission with a different AFB at the end?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineWhiskeyNovembr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4804 times:



Piedmont,

If the F-117 is a bomber, what's up with the "F" prefix in the designation? Just typical government logic (or lack therof)?



User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4788 times:

First of all, the F-117 is a bomber, there's no doubt about that (same for the F-111). We've had a discussion about it's designation a while ago. See Why F117 And Not A117?


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineSpectre242 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4776 times:

A heavy stand off weapon platform would be a very useful addition to the larger European air forces. The US has made extensive use of its three heavy bomber types over the past decade or so with so many conflicts being in distant parts of the world. With the UK MoDs shift towards a greater ability to react to conflict quickly in distant countries a heavy long range bomber fleet would seem like an ideal weapon. I mean, you can have bases everywhere and long range Tornado missions using multiple tankers would be very hard on the crew in the cramp fighter-style cockpits. Plus the Tornados payload would not compare to what a heavy modified airliner (if that is what Airbus are proposing) could carry. GDB had an interesting point about the Nimrod. This would certainly seem like an ideal solution to this issue, at least for the short term. An airliner design which is already modified for military weapons carrying with state of the art avionotics and engines. Does anybody know what is the range of the MR4s?

User currently offlineHoffa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4747 times:

IMHO, Airbus should worry more about the A400M which is arguably a much more sound and logical program for which there is a clearly-proven demand. Don't see European countries raising their defence budgets anytime soon so I don't see such grandiose projects coming to light.

User currently offlineDash 80 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 309 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4714 times:

An Airbus replacing the B-52.........over my dead body!


...where the rubber hits the runway...
User currently offline747 4-ever From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 604 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4675 times:

German N-tv.de says that Airbus is going to build an long-range bomber to replace the B-52.
Will European Air Forces buy such a bomber ?

What European air forces need to replace their B-52s?



How many eurpean air forces has B-52's to replace??


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4669 times:

747 4-ever, was that a rethoric question? If not, no European AF (or any other AF outside of the US) has never operated the B-52.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineSpectre242 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4655 times:

747 4-ever, it's not actually about European air forces replacing thier B-52s, its giving European airfoces a plane with B-52 capabilities or, I guess you could say replacing the strategic bombers which some European air forces used to have 10-20 years ago.

User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4781 posts, RR: 23
Reply 19, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4646 times:

Rumour has it North Korea is interested  Smile

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B-52 Replacement By Airbus?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pentagon Proposes To Cut B-52 Force By 40% posted Fri Feb 24 2006 20:42:55 by LAXPAX
Shuttle Replacement By 2010? posted Fri Jun 24 2005 01:50:04 by Blackbird1331
Airbus To Decide By June 23 On Jet Plant, Tanker posted Mon May 23 2005 23:23:34 by Keesje
C-5 And B-52 Engine Replacement? posted Wed Aug 14 2002 20:42:17 by Sunilgupta
Possible Replacement Aircraft For B-52? posted Mon Jul 22 2002 23:48:03 by Planelover
CDN CT-114 Tutor Replacement posted Sun Nov 12 2006 04:38:51 by Kearney
CDN Forces C-130 Replacement posted Sat Nov 11 2006 07:47:25 by Kearney
Fighter Jet Fly-by Question posted Mon Nov 6 2006 05:37:12 by Chi-town
Polaf Helo Replacement posted Sun Oct 22 2006 07:24:18 by Cancidas
Tornado Display Filmed By HUD Camera posted Wed Oct 18 2006 20:12:33 by Columba

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format