PDA

View Full Version : Theoretical discussion, Airbus/Boeing multi-mission jet


signatory
08-25-2006, 04:12 AM
Airbus and Boeing have touched upon the multi-role concept... I was thinking can it be expanded ? Is there any obvious "NO!!" ? let's hear it...

Theoretical Multi Mission Jet

Tanker: Wingpods and optional extra fuel in cargo tanks. (In use on MRTT)
MedeVac: 20-40 beds. (In use on MRT)
Bomber: High altitude bomber w/ GPS bombs, the limit the weight only a rack with smaller 250-500lbs bombs.
20-40 or 40-80 each. Ejecting 8-16 at a time on movable pylons.
Awacs: Ready for, but not mounted: Wedgetail or Erieye radar and control stations.
Maritime: Hardpoints. (Offered on A319.)

Example: In the begining of a conflict used as a tanker, then as a bomber, followed by replacing the bomb rack with 20-40 beds of MedeVac.

Any reconfig should be possible between hours and a full day.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/3721/mrttewf7de2bapl0.th.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mrttewf7de2bapl0.jpg)http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4247/mrttpix27e2a47ha8.th.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mrttpix27e2a47ha8.jpg)http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6829/mrtimage77ea923wb7.th.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mrtimage77ea923wb7.jpg)
Airbus A310 MRT(T) (Multi-role Transport (Tanker))
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6458/getasset74d465gl4pk6.th.jpg (http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=getasset74d465gl4pk6.jpg)
Airbus A319 Maritime
orange
08-25-2006, 09:13 AM
I would think that it's a pretty good concept! The question is, who'd buy it? I can see only one potential buyer and that's the US but they already have all the aircraft that they need I belive.

The conversions of passengerjets to MedeVacs is highly needed though! I know that they exist already but bigger and better would be welcome from a humanitarian standpoint.

Interesting find though...
bluffcove
08-25-2006, 10:40 AM
Might be a problem using a converted bomber as a medevac transport.

Sticking a red cross on the side of an APC doesnt garuantee it wont get shot at, if it looks like the aircraft that was on a bombing run the week before it might be even more likely to get shot at.
Beer Monster
08-25-2006, 10:51 AM
It could end up being a case of "jack of all trades master of none". Interesting concept none the less.


Might be a problem using a converted bomber as a medevac transport.

Sticking a red cross on the side of an APC doesnt garuantee it wont get shot at, if it looks like the aircraft that was on a bombing run the week before it might be even more likely to get shot at.

Never really thought of that before ........ I’m going to plead ignorance and ask ….... with over the horizon air to air missiles and powerful radar etc how would you be able to distinguish a medevac aircraft anyway? Do they have a special IFF beacon?
signatory
08-25-2006, 11:13 AM
Might be a problem using a converted bomber as a medevac transport.

Sticking a red cross on the side of an APC doesnt garuantee it wont get shot at, if it looks like the aircraft that was on a bombing run the week before it might be even more likely to get shot at.

That's a pretty good comment but then again medevac on the battlefield in the form of CSAR helicopters is probably no virgins either.. p-)

And in my vision the medevac jet would do things like transport seriously wounded from (let's say) Kuwait to Germany/the US.
bluffcove
08-25-2006, 06:16 PM
Equally the argies liked to store their ammunition in tents with red crosses on their sides.

Who is to say that a multi roled aircraft wouldnt be used by naughty people to be a bit more sneaky than we would like?