21st Century V Bomber
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
dr_gn said:
Scuffers said:
May I suggest that before posting drivel, you actually read up on the subject?
Sure.Scuffers said:
how do you think the B52 carries and drops bombs?
(clue - rotary launcher)
Only rotary launchers? So there is no option to remove them at all? (clue - rotary launcher)
No?
Yes?
More likely "Don't really know because it's not on Wikipedia".
And when they are fitted, you're proposing effectively duplicating what you've already got, and at crippling expense?
Scuffers said:
whichever way you cut it, the A380 is bigger, has a far longer range, far higher load capacity, far lower operating costs, and is a modern airframe.
"Far lower operating costs"? By all means show me the figures.Scuffers said:
it would be comparatively easy to turn it into a multi-role high level bomber/surveillance/C&C platform.
Laughably naive.Have you ever been involved in aircraft design and/or production on any level whatsoever?
Scuffers said:
If you think about it for a minute, pretty much what Nimrod ended up as but on a much bigger scale with a better platform to start with.
Yeah! Just what we need! Another Nimrod debacle...Great example there.Scuffers said:
what do you think AWACS is? yes, a Boeing 707 airframe, along with the KC-135.
or the newer KC-46 (Boeing 767).
I think they're not bombers, which is what we're actually discussing on this thread.or the newer KC-46 (Boeing 767).
Scuffers said:
Designing a new airframe from scratch costs huge money (JSF anyone?), so quite logically, they pick the most suitable commercial airframe and work with that.
You should have told Airbus that before they started on the A400M. Maybe it's something to do with unacceptable levels of compromise and expense for certain specialist missions?...and drastically redesigning the A-380 fuselage for something totally unrelated to AWACS or IFR is cheap I take it? See previous comment re. drivel.
Scuffers said:
the A380's civilian max takeoff weight of almost 600 tonnes makes it ideal, it's flight envelope is also a huge improvement, not to mention is reduction in crew workload on long missions.
So if we stick to you wild guess of one B-380 replacing 5 B-52's, what happens if you lose 1 aircraft from your fleet due to u/s or enemy action? Oh dear, you've just lost 100% of your capability rather than - at most - 20%. Brilliant. (pro-rata the numbers as appropriate).Scuffers said:
missing the point.
Indeed.Scuffers said:
only reason old bombers have high wing layout is to support massive bombay doors.
quite apart from the A380' lower side being massive in comparison, with a properly designed delivery system, why do you need a massive pair of doors in the first place?
Maybe to deliver a massive bomb?quite apart from the A380' lower side being massive in comparison, with a properly designed delivery system, why do you need a massive pair of doors in the first place?
Scuffers said:
you're never going to want to drop everything in one go,
Not like in GW1 when B-52's carpet bombed Iraqi positions for several days then?Scuffers said:
and even if you wanted to, the B52 can't do that either!
Here's some breaking news for you:
Scuffers said:
(and neither could the Vulcan/Lancaster/etc. they are dropped in sequence)
More breaking news:
Do you know what this is?
Thought not. It's a bomb selector switch panel (makes a nice paperweight) form a Lancaster. One of the settings is "Single or Salvo" Do you know what "Salvo" setting was used for? Maybe you can educate yourself a bit by reading my thread here:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=111...
Scuffers said:
I would envisage a carousel system that presents bombs to the launch 'window' (and you could have several), hold them there so they can then acquire the target (for laser guided etc) then drop them as required.
Not unlike existing aircraft where the stores are held internally.
You mean not unlike the B-52 you've just pretty much duplicated at huge expense and technical risk?Not unlike existing aircraft where the stores are held internally.
"Drivel"? You were saying...
Anyway, I hope you noticed I was belittling him via. TWO of his previous posts...needed multiple windows to do that. Not bad eh?
This is what happens when I'm banned from building models.
Start with the Vulcan, fit it with the development-of-593 Olympus destined for the stillborn Concorde II (which was going to have as much thrust, with no reheat, as the 593 had wet thrust), stick a bloody big cannon (or multiples thereof) in the nose too... the Victor and Valiant were very nice, but the Vulcan's stealth and manoeuverability was without parallel...
Scuffers said:
what do you think AWACS is? yes, a Boeing 707 airframe, along with the KC-135.
Not quite AWACS or E-3 is based on 707
C-135 and derivatives based on 720(367-80) or (717)
Edited by NM62 on Saturday 6th February 14:17
RoverP6B said:
Start with the Vulcan, fit it with the development-of-593 Olympus destined for the stillborn Concorde II (which was going to have as much thrust, with no reheat, as the 593 had wet thrust), stick a bloody big cannon (or multiples thereof) in the nose too... the Victor and Valiant were very nice, but the Vulcan's stealth and manoeuverability was without parallel...
Why not start with a Concorde?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff