Airbus plans B-52 Competitor!!

[DHC Twin]

Yeh...Right!

Also , sadly , 6000 jobs to go..

<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,5-2002029243,00.html" target="_blank">www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,5-2002029243,00.html</a>

[ 18 January 2002: Message edited by: Diego Garcia ]</p>

[twistedenginestarter]

There are similarities. The B52's wings flex by 30 feet in flight. In the case of the A300 it's the tail that flexes... by about 5 miles.

[Tom the Tenor]

That is so twisted! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[Mycroft]

And exactly which market would the AB52 be competing for? Even the US hasn't seen a need to build any for the last 40 years, and although the Pakistan war has shown the publicity value of a heavy bomb load, multiple smaller loads are probably preferrable. What airbus may develop is a smaller attack aircraft/bomber, as development in europe at the moment is concentrated on air superiority fighters. Such an aircraft may also have sale potential in other markets, especially middle eastern and eastern europe markets currently dominated by ex-USSR designs

[Blackshirt]

twist: that's hillarious in a very dark sort of way...can't you work it into some sort of witty signature??? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[MachOverspeed]

The days of the huge "bomb trucks" have come and gone. Sure, the B-52 has some usefullness, but its long since paid for. No replacement is in the works (here in the States at least). No company will risk the huge development costs associated with a B-52 replacement and remain in business.

As for smaller types, the Joint Strike Fighter will (in my opinion) come to dominate that market, if only for the fact that it is a modular platform (read: easily modified) and development is already well on the way. Lockheed has hit a home run with Raptor and the JSF. Same old story, timing is everything.

USAF, USN and Royal Navy are committed to the type. The other NATO partners will see the financial advantage of aquiring JSF. Game over. The US taxpayers have paid for the majority of development costs for NATO's next tactical aircraft, and EU politicians aren't stupid enough to spend billions on another design. Per unit cost will drive this decision.

The best part of this story is that with the talent of the various EU partners engineering teams being thrown into the mix, JSF will continue to develop for a long time, with the resultant increases in capability and cost effectiveness being predictable. Lots of good high paying jobs for folks on both sides of the pond. A very good thing.

I could be wrong

[ZK-NSJ]

well something the size of say the a340-600
with 3-4 bombbays would have a pretty good payload

[ORAC]

Seriously, as UCAV proliferate, there will be a market both both large off-shore launch stations (both for the UCAVs and stand-off weaponery) and ABCCC platforms. The US will probably use 767 based aircraft.

What will Europe use??

[aw ditor]

Bring back the Vulcan!!

[MarkD]

Yep, the Germans will sign up for 2000, and when the time comes to "buy the round", Herr Scharping will say "2000? I meant 2, or maybe 3 if Herr Eichel will allow me".

The 52H has CFMs doesn't it? Perhaps some A340-200 refits would be better, if no-one worries about speed