Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber  
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7113 times:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/bombr03044.xml

Good move. If they'd stayed with the original 2037 fielding date, I'm sure our B-52s would also be dropping pieces of themselves, not just bombs, in a conflict.

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6986 times:

The article indicates there is a push for the FB-22. This thing reminds me a lot of the olf F-16XL program.



FB-22.jpg">



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6940 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.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6926 times:

It wouldn't be that simple to convert an airliner, probably simpler to borry airliner pieces around a new airframe. Would probably have better results too.

Anyway that looks more like an F-15E replacement then anything else.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6915 times:

The B-52 may be subsonic, but I think it did get its job done!

Cant this bitch be engined with 4 CFM type engines? SHould be drool worthy!

-ROy


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6884 times:

Roy,

There have been a couple of proposals to regine with PW and RR motors. I belive the RB 211 was the proposed one for the Rolls conversion.

Frankly I don't think a B-52 is a B-52 without 8 motors so I suggest hanging those 717/G5 engines on the, what are they BR-715's?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6860 times:

A logical development I guess.

These days you need less bomber to do the same job better (Jdam etc.)

Speed, range & maintenance cost are getting more important.

B52 require a lot of maintenance & crew and are vunerable.

A 2 engined medium size, long range 2 seat alternative with more range & comfort and less noise/ fuel burn should be possible.





User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6826 times:

Indianguy:

With four CFM series engines the B-52 would be grossly under powered. More likely if the B-52 were to be re-engined the CF6 or PW4000 would be the ones chosen.


User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6814 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
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6784 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...



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6781 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.

User currently offlineCadmus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6603 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.


Understanding is a three-edged sword
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6565 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.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineCadmus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6498 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.



Understanding is a three-edged sword
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6479 times:

The F15E will be around for a long time. I believe the last one built was in the early 90's.



[Edited 2004-03-11 04:22:47]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Bomber Plans For USAF, J-UCAS Cancelled. posted Mon Jan 16 2006 22:39:21 by CX747
Push For R&D On New Bomber, 23 B1-Bs To Be Spared posted Sat May 10 2003 03:30:29 by AvObserver
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:45:20 by Lumberton
NZ Govt To Purchase NH90's For RNZAF posted Tue Jul 11 2006 14:18:07 by Zkpilot
12 To 18 Rafales For Morocco posted Tue Jun 6 2006 23:23:44 by ElGreco
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer
Why It Took 40's Years For A New Class Of Carrier posted Tue Feb 21 2006 00:34:47 by 747400sp
C-17 To Be Unseated By New Airlift Design. posted Tue Jan 10 2006 14:18:02 by CX747
Bush To Ask Eads For Aircraft Plant (Jeb) posted Tue Jun 7 2005 13:49:03 by Keesje
I Think Its Time For New Jets (Snowbirds) posted Thu Feb 10 2005 02:48:37 by BT

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format