Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5406 times:
Somebody tell me why this idea I have wouldn't work so I can stop thinking it....
As far as the B-52 goes, it is essentially a dump truck with 8 jet engines on it. It isn't exceptional in any way (compared to other bombers)...it is not supersonic, it is not stealthy, etc. But it definately gets the job done and does it well.
It seems like the mission the B-52 performs could be very well performed by an airliner...take a 747 or 777, stick a bomb bay or two in it, and instantly we have a brand-new long range subsonic heavy bomber.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5280 times:
Why, as a stand off platform the B-52 is doing fine, its not falling apart as some on here claim. There is nothing wrong with the airframe its sound and solid. As for the new engines i dont think it will ever happen, there are plenty of replacement TF-33's out there.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5250 times:
Of course the FB-22 can never replace the B-52 and B-1. It just lacks the range...
But then the USAF has been known to push programs they like on bogus grounds, like claiming there will be enough positioning bases out there, which in many areas is far from certain. What for example if they're needed in southern Africa and the RSA government denies basing rights? Or in the Gulf if they can't base out of Israel, Turkey or Saudi?
B-52s can stage out of Diego Garcia and reach both (but even Diego Garcia is only leased from the Brits, who could deny the USAF the use of the base), an FB-22 could never make it to the target and back from there...
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5247 times:
Flyf15; the only time I can recall an airliner proposed for the bomber role was in the late 1970's when the Carter Administration cancelled the B1-A program in favor of cruise missile development. The missiles were to be carried in bulk in a converted 747, although I think the DC-10 and L-1011 were also evaluated as missile carriers. As a stand-off bomber, the 747 would have launched the missiles while still a considerable distance from the target, probably hundreds of miles and the huge volley of cruise missiles, flying at low-level, would have been extremely difficult to track and shoot down. The carrier aircraft, however, would be another matter. With sufficient warning to the enemy, an relatively slow airliner-based missile carrier would be a sitting duck for an enemy interceptor, analogous to the 1983 shoot-down of the Korean Airlines 747 when it strayed into Soviet airspace. Obviously, a lot of government folks thought better of this idea, too, so while advanced cruise missiles were developed, the airliner carrier concept was shelved. Even though production was cancelled, the B1A test program continued and was it later redeveloped as the stealthier, higher payload but much slower B1-B under the Reagan Administration. The new-gen cruise missiles were eventually deployed on all U.S. heavy bomber models.
Cadmus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5069 times:
According to the Great Airliners Series book on the DC-10 the cruise missle carrying airliner conversions were also opposed by a number of airlines who were concerned that it could lead to airliner shoot downs.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5031 times:
Well, in the case they'd have been used that would no longer matter as they were intended for an all-out nuclear exchange.
In the face of that airliners would all be in use as troop carriers until the time the bombs started dropping on the cities.
Remember that at the time USAF cruise missile technology was part of the nuclear triad exclusively and the USN was just starting to investigate the Tomahawk in the anti-shipping role.
Cadmus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4964 times:
Going back further in time, during 1959-61 Vickers proposed a bomber version of the VC-10 to the RAF. The aircraft would have combined the fuselage of the Standard VC-10 with the wings engine and tail fin fuel tank of the Super. Four store attachment points would have been provided under each wing to carry either Skybolt missiles or bomb cocoons. The cocoons would have carried eight 1,000-lb bombs each, giving a maximum possible bomb load of 64,000-lb.
Presumably, a similar scheme could work on a contempory design.