21st Century V Bomber
Discussion
I appreciate there are all sorts of reasons why this wouldn't happen. But just suppose someone decided to produce an updated version of one of the V bombers for dropping large numbers of bombs from medium altitude of opponents without air power. Much as the Americans do with the B52. What form would it take?
My guess is pick the Victor as the starting point as it's the one with the biggest load. Hopefully give all the crew ejection seats, but how many crew? The B1 has four, the B2 manages with 2 but presumably no on board radar.
What engines? I notice the engines of the B2 are roughly the same power as the Conways in the Victor B2. Or maybe just use two engines off a C17 if you could squeeze them in.
Could you make it significantly more stealthy without redesigning beyond recognition?
My guess is pick the Victor as the starting point as it's the one with the biggest load. Hopefully give all the crew ejection seats, but how many crew? The B1 has four, the B2 manages with 2 but presumably no on board radar.
What engines? I notice the engines of the B2 are roughly the same power as the Conways in the Victor B2. Or maybe just use two engines off a C17 if you could squeeze them in.
Could you make it significantly more stealthy without redesigning beyond recognition?
Edited by Dr Jekyll on Sunday 17th January 10:32
Assuming a permissive (i.e. nobody is going to try and shoot you down) environment you would start with the Airbus A350 wings, engine, and tail, and put a new fuselage on it with some doors at the bottom. It's too expensive to develop bespoke planes these days; even our new patrol aircraft looks like a Ryanair castoff in fancy dress.
Dr Jekyll said:
And as the Nimrod debacle shows, refurbishing an old aircraft can be even more expensive than building new. But it does sound cheaper so easier to get past the politicians.
The only débâcle was they were scrapped after they were paid for...Oh sorry the tories are trying to re-write history as we speak... your man CMD really does have an atrocious record in defence matters...F35....carriers gelded..Libya...Iraq... Edited by Mojocvh on Sunday 17th January 14:36
davepoth said:
you would start with the Airbus A350 wings, engine, and tail, and put a new fuselage on it with some doors at the bottom.
...and that would probably end with the wings folding up on first attempt at take-off.Cutting a large hole in the centre wing box of an aircraft isn't a particularly good idea. If you keep the wing box, you massively reduce the bomb load by having to distribute it by splitting fore-aft. That's why the vast majority of conventional heavy bombers of have high, or mid mounted wings. With a high wing, the A350's swept planform would then require anhedral, not it's current dihedral.
Apart from that it's a good idea :-)
dr_gn said:
davepoth said:
you would start with the Airbus A350 wings, engine, and tail, and put a new fuselage on it with some doors at the bottom.
...and that would probably end with the wings folding up on first attempt at take-off.Cutting a large hole in the centre wing box of an aircraft isn't a particularly good idea. If you keep the wing box, you massively reduce the bomb load by having to distribute it by splitting fore-aft. That's why the vast majority of conventional heavy bombers of have high, or mid mounted wings. With a high wing, the A350's swept planform would then require anhedral, not it's current dihedral.
Apart from that it's a good idea :-)
Mojocvh said:
dr_gn said:
davepoth said:
you would start with the Airbus A350 wings, engine, and tail, and put a new fuselage on it with some doors at the bottom.
...and that would probably end with the wings folding up on first attempt at take-off.Cutting a large hole in the centre wing box of an aircraft isn't a particularly good idea. If you keep the wing box, you massively reduce the bomb load by having to distribute it by splitting fore-aft. That's why the vast majority of conventional heavy bombers of have high, or mid mounted wings. With a high wing, the A350's swept planform would then require anhedral, not it's current dihedral.
Apart from that it's a good idea :-)
Edited by dr_gn on Sunday 17th January 15:42
Dr Jekyll said:
I appreciate there are all sorts of reasons why this wouldn't happen. But just suppose someone decided to produce an updated version of one of the V bombers for dropping large numbers of bombs from medium altitude of opponents without air power. Much as the Americans do with the B52. What form would it take?
My guess is pick the Victor as the starting point as it's the one with the biggest load. Hopefully give all the crew ejection seats, but how many crew? The B1 has four, the B2 manages with 2 but presumably no on board radar.
What engines? I notice the engines of the B2 are roughly the same power as the Conways in the Victor B2. Or maybe just use two engines off a C17 if you could squeeze them in.
Could you make it significantly more stealthy without redesigning beyond recognition?
The USAF started looking at a replacement for the B52 whilst it was still being built, they have carried out umpteen studies including one titled 'Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft' or AMSA for short. Like most of the studies it dragged on for many years to the point where it was known as 'Americas Most Studied Aircraft' My guess is pick the Victor as the starting point as it's the one with the biggest load. Hopefully give all the crew ejection seats, but how many crew? The B1 has four, the B2 manages with 2 but presumably no on board radar.
What engines? I notice the engines of the B2 are roughly the same power as the Conways in the Victor B2. Or maybe just use two engines off a C17 if you could squeeze them in.
Could you make it significantly more stealthy without redesigning beyond recognition?
Edited by Dr Jekyll on Sunday 17th January 10:32
Putting something like a newbuild and updated Victor or Vulcan back into service would be (If you could keep the f
kwit politicians and anyone in the RAF above the rank of LAC from interferring) quite a straight forward process. Tell the contractor what's required regards range, payload, agreed price, in service date etc and let them get on with it, you'd probably get an aircraft under budget and ahead of time too.Ps The B2 does have a radar system
For 'low intensity' I think you'd be better off with a roll on/roll off package for the C130 or A400 - a pallet of small diameter bombs and a replacement rear door with launcher.
Like the USMC's Harvest Hawk
Like the USMC's Harvest Hawk
Tango13 said:
The USAF started looking at a replacement for the B52 whilst it was still being built
And they still haven't found anything better some half a century later, which is why the old girl's will still be in service for another 20 years at least!!I bet they are wishing they hadn't had to cut so many of them up.....!
maffski said:
For 'low intensity' I think you'd be better off with a roll on/roll off package for the C130 or A400 - a pallet of small diameter bombs and a replacement rear door with launcher.
Like the USMC's Harvest Hawk
That summarises the situation perfectly, if your weapons have the reach and ability to penetrate a advanced air defence system you don't need to develop custom bombers..Like the USMC's Harvest Hawk
If you wanted to replicate what the US did with the B52 they are basically the same age as the Victor and Vuclan so bring them back!
The Vuclan B2 is the most numerous, with around a squadrons worth sitting in museums.
Refresh to flying condition, around 5-10 million per aircraft based on Vulcan to the sky costs.
They would need more modern protection systems, wonder what happened to the Nimrod MR4 equipment.
Weapons fit should rely on as many bolt on systems to reduce integration costs. I'd go gravity bombs only using a bolt on laser pod.
I'd limit engine mods to improved components from later Olympus engines.
Not sure what compelling case there would be for doing this as Tornados and Typhoons can probably deliver the same effect with much better self protection at similar ranges with similar levels of tanker support.
The Vuclan B2 is the most numerous, with around a squadrons worth sitting in museums.
Refresh to flying condition, around 5-10 million per aircraft based on Vulcan to the sky costs.
They would need more modern protection systems, wonder what happened to the Nimrod MR4 equipment.
Weapons fit should rely on as many bolt on systems to reduce integration costs. I'd go gravity bombs only using a bolt on laser pod.
I'd limit engine mods to improved components from later Olympus engines.
Not sure what compelling case there would be for doing this as Tornados and Typhoons can probably deliver the same effect with much better self protection at similar ranges with similar levels of tanker support.
If what you want is a high level, high load carrying bomber, use an A380 and have a carousel bomb delivery system in it, then you have no need to cut a huge hole in the bottom of the plane, just rotate the bombs to the 'door'.
perfect for loitering over an area delivering precision guided bombs on demand to ground-based teams (with laser designators or the like).
this would give you a potential payload of ~150 metric tonnes, (with a fuel load of some 190 Tonnes).
that's almost 5x the B-52's 31.4 tonne max bomb load...
perfect for loitering over an area delivering precision guided bombs on demand to ground-based teams (with laser designators or the like).
this would give you a potential payload of ~150 metric tonnes, (with a fuel load of some 190 Tonnes).
that's almost 5x the B-52's 31.4 tonne max bomb load...
Scuffers said:
If what you want is a high level, high load carrying bomber, use an A380 and have a carousel bomb delivery system in it, then you have no need to cut a huge hole in the bottom of the plane, just rotate the bombs to the 'door'.
perfect for loitering over an area delivering precision guided bombs on demand to ground-based teams (with laser designators or the like).
this would give you a potential payload of ~150 metric tonnes, (with a fuel load of some 190 Tonnes).
that's almost 5x the B-52's 31.4 tonne max bomb load...
That's a really brilliant idea!perfect for loitering over an area delivering precision guided bombs on demand to ground-based teams (with laser designators or the like).
this would give you a potential payload of ~150 metric tonnes, (with a fuel load of some 190 Tonnes).
that's almost 5x the B-52's 31.4 tonne max bomb load...
(if you happen to want to drop hundreds of widely spaced bombs in a straight line about 300 miles in length with very low accuracy)
Next.
Scuffers said:
Did you actually read my post?
Key words - precision guided, laser designator.
This is exactly how the yanjs have been using their b52's in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In which case it could only effectively do one thing, and even then, the percieved threat of one anti-aircfaft missile launcher would ground it.Key words - precision guided, laser designator.
This is exactly how the yanjs have been using their b52's in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why spend billions developing something that can be accomplished with current technology?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff