Possible Military A380

[K. Mogensen]

An airborne platform for cruise missiles, maybe? If I recall correctly, Boeing offered a version of Boeing 747-200F for the standoff misslile launcher role in the late 70s or early 80s as an alternative to the B-1; it was supposed to carry 70-90 ALCMs.

Although I cannot think who might order something like that now. No, I can see a military A380 as a VIP plane only.

Which brings us to the concept of the big dumb bomber. A huge not-too-sophisticated airframe like the A340, capable of loitering at a convenient distance from the battlefield, firing cruise missiles, or even entering low threat areas for a bit of carpet-bombing. (as USAF B-52's actually did in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991). The very size of the plane may facilitate a number of different mission add-ons, without costly rebuilds. It can monitor, it can simply be present. Bunks, galley and shower facilities would allow greater crew comfort for prolonged missions.
The longeviety of the B-52 in American service seems to demostrate the soundness of the concept, the B-52's are completely outdated regarding their original 1950's mission objective, but this stock of aging planes have nevertheless shown their usefullness time and again, and continue to do so.
Needless to say, I don't see the A380 in such a role for the moment, but I couldn't miss this chance of pushing the Big Dumb Bomber concept.

With regards,
Kristoffer Mogensen

 

[rjmaz1]

Which brings us to the concept of the big dumb bomber. A huge not-too-sophisticated airframe like the A340, capable of loitering at a convenient distance from the battlefield, firing cruise missiles, or even entering low threat areas for a bit of carpet-bombing. (as USAF B-52's actually did in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991). The very size of the plane may facilitate a number of different mission add-ons, without costly rebuilds. It can monitor, it can simply be present. Bunks, galley and shower facilities would allow greater crew comfort for prolonged missions.
The longeviety of the B-52 in American service seems to demostrate the soundness of the concept, the B-52's are completely outdated regarding their original 1950's mission objective, but this stock of aging planes have nevertheless shown their usefullness time and again, and continue to do so.
Needless to say, I don't see the A380 in such a role for the moment, but I couldn't miss this chance of pushing the Big Dumb Bomber concept.

With regards,
Kristoffer Mogensen

The idea is definitely valid.

The efficiencies of a commercial aircraft are so high that it would easily be able to replace a B-52. The only problem is that the aircraft would require a bomb bay with a rotary launcher. A Boeing commercial aircraft with inflight refueling probe would good however the large fuselage diameter would not be required and would only produce more drag. The B-52 has a fairly narrow fuselage for its weight and a massive wing and fuel capacity. These attributes will allow it to keep up with the latest high efficient commercial aircraft.

The P-8 based on the 737 i believe will be having a small weapons bay, so the idea could definitely work.

Replacing eight turbo jets with four large modern turbofan engines would allow the B52 to outperform any commercial aircraft.

The only benefit i see would be the lower maintenance costs of the commercial jets. However the cost to develop a missile carrier aircraft would probably pay for the maintenance of the B52 fleet for the next decade.

 

[Firehorse]

Freight or passenger A-380s may be used by the militaries to haul personnel & supplies, if the airfields are able to handle these superjumbos. Even without old C-5s, there are plenty of airlifters like AN-22/124s, IL-76s, C-17s, B-747Fs, C-130Js, KC-10/135s, etc. to do military ops of many types.

 

[lobbie111]

lol imagine a gunship A380, with a battery of 155mm's or even better you could put a massive airbourne command post in it, with its own radar, C3I and everything.

 

[Firehorse]

Gunships & jet engines don't mix. Command posts must be able to operate from smaller airfields. A-380 can't. But, if the French president decides to have a flying Elisee palace, I won't have a problem with that!

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

I remember having read a project using an A380 has a flying command center loaded with 64 Scalp cruise missile, a radar and satcoms to gather data from observation satellite like Helios and conduct real-time strike and damage assessment.

And another version to serve as a heavy lift cargo plane.

By the way the first project is far too costly for France to afford it.

 

[Firehorse]

Can you provide a link on that project?

USAF Talking to Airbus About A380 Air Force 1, C-5 Replacement?
AMC’s first request, however, asked EADS to submit data about the A380F Freighter for potential use as a military airlifter. ..The A380F goes a step beyond the 747's capacity, however, claiming a cargo maximum of 150t (333,000 pounds) – larger than the C-5B's 286,000 pound maximum. The question is whether the A380F's structure can be strengthened to handle loads like 70 ton tanks, which distribute great weight within a very small area. If and when the requisite structural modifications can be performed, the follow-on questions would be about their cost, and about the effect they will have on the aircraft's performance. EADS reportedly expects an invitation to present to USAF AMC in December 2007. ..The A380 could be a viable Air Force One candidate, however, and the small loss to the domestic economy from purchasing 2 of these jets might be outweighed by symbolism about "a new transatlantic partnership." Even so, fierce competition and more than a little bit of Congressional opposition can be expected.
On the C-5 front, a win of any size would be a huge boost to the A380F, which saw UPS and FedEx cancel their orders after they lost confidence in even Airbus' slipped delivery date of 2012. Given the ready alternative of C-17 production, however, military A380F orders are likely to face a very hard sell in Congress, even if the difficult hurdle of persuading Congress to cancel the C-5M program is met.
It's also worth considering that A380Fs (or indeed, a 747-8F) aren't exactly cheap alternatives. Having that cost data on hand could be useful in selling either the C-5 AMP/RERP program, or the acquisition of more $210 million C-17s, as part of a thorough analysis demonstrating that even commercial options may not be much cheaper.
Until the play fully materializes, it is very difficult to call at this point. The interest is worth noting – but excitation of any sort is premature.