21st Century V Bomber
Discussion
Scuffers said:
Remind us how this is different from the b52?
a) It can't drop several tonnes of bombs in a concentrated area.b) It would be far more limited in the type of weapons it could carry.
As far as I can see you would only gain some payload at the expense of flexibility. Why not just use 5x B-52's to achieve exactly the same thing, at zero development cost and retain the option of using a far wider range of ordnance?
Scuffers said:
I give up.
You have clearly never been anywhere near a b52 or have any idea what they can and can't do.
Please explain how your concept is significantly better than the 60-odd year old B-52. Ok it might have more capacity after you've re-stressed most of the fuselage and developed an elaborate rotary bomb rack and magazine, but apart form that what have you gained vs. what you've lost?You have clearly never been anywhere near a b52 or have any idea what they can and can't do.
By all means spell out what a B-52 "can and can't do" vs. your design.
Not as old as our V bombers ... but not very new, the B1 has been put to good use over Syria
"With its ability to loiter over the battlefield for hours at a time, carry 125,000 pounds of payload, and shoot up to speeds over Mach 1, the B-1B Lancer, also known as the "Bone," can be an insurgent's worst nightmare. And when it's equipped with a Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod, as this one likely was, it can be deadly accurate."
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-guy-just-liv...
"With its ability to loiter over the battlefield for hours at a time, carry 125,000 pounds of payload, and shoot up to speeds over Mach 1, the B-1B Lancer, also known as the "Bone," can be an insurgent's worst nightmare. And when it's equipped with a Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod, as this one likely was, it can be deadly accurate."
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-guy-just-liv...
paulshears said:
Not as old as our V bombers ... but not very new, the B1 has been put to good use over Syria
"With its ability to loiter over the battlefield for hours at a time, carry 125,000 pounds of payload, and shoot up to speeds over Mach 1, the B-1B Lancer, also known as the "Bone," can be an insurgent's worst nightmare. And when it's equipped with a Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod, as this one likely was, it can be deadly accurate."
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-guy-just-liv...
B2 X80 JDAMS."With its ability to loiter over the battlefield for hours at a time, carry 125,000 pounds of payload, and shoot up to speeds over Mach 1, the B-1B Lancer, also known as the "Bone," can be an insurgent's worst nightmare. And when it's equipped with a Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod, as this one likely was, it can be deadly accurate."
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-guy-just-liv...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjoMQRUWEe8
Talksteer said:
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.
Why refurbish what are basically knackered airframes?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.
With modern CNC machinery and tooling you can move an awful lot of metal very, very quickly and a damn site more accurately than Avro could ever dream of. Reverse engineering to create brand new Oily GT's would be straight forward too.
You would get far better value for money by building brand new aircraft.
Engineering is cheap, it's the political interference that costs money.
paulshears said:
"With its ability to loiter over the battlefield for hours at a time, carry 125,000 pounds of payload, and shoot up to speeds over Mach 1, the B-1B Lancer, also known as the "Bone," can be an insurgent's worst nightmare. And when it's equipped with a Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod, as this one likely was, it can be deadly accurate."
125,000lbs payload ....... 
You need to subtract 50,000lbs from that figure and then you'll be in the right ball park.
dr_gn said:
Scuffers said:
I give up.
You have clearly never been anywhere near a b52 or have any idea what they can and can't do.
Please explain how your concept is significantly better than the 60-odd year old B-52. Ok it might have more capacity after you've re-stressed most of the fuselage and developed an elaborate rotary bomb rack and magazine, but apart form that what have you gained vs. what you've lost?You have clearly never been anywhere near a b52 or have any idea what they can and can't do.
By all means spell out what a B-52 "can and can't do" vs. your design.
how do you think the B52 carries and drops bombs?
(clue - rotary launcher)
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.
it would be comparatively easy to turn it into a multi-role high level bomber/surveillance/C&C platform.
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.
what do you think AWACS is? yes, a Boeing 707 airframe, along with the KC-135.
or the newer KC-46 (Boeing 767).
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.
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.
Scuffers said:
dr_gn said:
Scuffers said:
I give up.
You have clearly never been anywhere near a b52 or have any idea what they can and can't do.
Please explain how your concept is significantly better than the 60-odd year old B-52. Ok it might have more capacity after you've re-stressed most of the fuselage and developed an elaborate rotary bomb rack and magazine, but apart form that what have you gained vs. what you've lost?You have clearly never been anywhere near a b52 or have any idea what they can and can't do.
By all means spell out what a B-52 "can and can't do" vs. your design.
how do you think the B52 carries and drops bombs?
(clue - rotary launcher)
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.
it would be comparatively easy to turn it into a multi-role high level bomber/surveillance/C&C platform.
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.
what do you think AWACS is? yes, a Boeing 707 airframe, along with the KC-135.
or the newer KC-46 (Boeing 767).
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.
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.
el stovey said:
Isn't he talking about the low wing on an A380 making it unsuitable for bombing whilst the B52 has a high wing and thus all the associated wing root and structure are above the area from which the bombs/missiles/rotary launcher are located and released from.
missing the point.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?
you're never going to want to drop everything in one go, and even if you wanted to, the B52 can't do that either! (and neither could the Vulcan/Lancaster/etc. they are dropped in sequence)
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.
Scuffers said:
el stovey said:
Isn't he talking about the low wing on an A380 making it unsuitable for bombing whilst the B52 has a high wing and thus all the associated wing root and structure are above the area from which the bombs/missiles/rotary launcher are located and released from.
missing the point.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?
you're never going to want to drop everything in one go, and even if you wanted to, the B52 can't do that either! (and neither could the Vulcan/Lancaster/etc. they are dropped in sequence)
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.
Why turn an aircraft built for carrying passengers into a poor bomber when you already have bombers built as bombers?
I expect scuffers is talking about this kind of thing.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-desig...
Not as unlikely as initially thought?
From the article.
'In retrospect it would seem that choosing not to develop the CMCA was a poor move. Such an aircraft, especially if it were eventually upgraded to carry smaller GPS guided munitions, would have been an extremely effective weapon system to have orbiting high over Afghanistan and Iraq.'
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-desig...
Not as unlikely as initially thought?
From the article.
'In retrospect it would seem that choosing not to develop the CMCA was a poor move. Such an aircraft, especially if it were eventually upgraded to carry smaller GPS guided munitions, would have been an extremely effective weapon system to have orbiting high over Afghanistan and Iraq.'
Edited by el stovey on Saturday 23 January 10:44
el stovey said:
I expect scuffers is talking about this kind of thing.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-desig...
Not as unlikely as initially thought?
From the article.
'In retrospect it would seem that choosing not to develop the CMCA was a poor move. Such an aircraft, especially if it were eventually upgraded to carry smaller GPS guided munitions, would have been an extremely effective weapon system to have orbiting high over Afghanistan and Iraq.'
I'm not disputing it can't be done, it's just the 'comparatively easily' part of it which makes me laugh.http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-desig...
Not as unlikely as initially thought?
From the article.
'In retrospect it would seem that choosing not to develop the CMCA was a poor move. Such an aircraft, especially if it were eventually upgraded to carry smaller GPS guided munitions, would have been an extremely effective weapon system to have orbiting high over Afghanistan and Iraq.'
Edited by el stovey on Saturday 23 January 10:44
Simulation..
..The unique capabilities of HARM, JSOW and MALD work to disrupt and overwhelm an advanced adversary across multiple domains while protecting aircraft........note temp bomb racks on C17's...
http://www.military.com/video/defense-systems/air-...
..The unique capabilities of HARM, JSOW and MALD work to disrupt and overwhelm an advanced adversary across multiple domains while protecting aircraft........note temp bomb racks on C17's...
http://www.military.com/video/defense-systems/air-...
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...
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...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff