Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can The 767 Or 330 Be A Possible B52 Replacement?  
User currently offlineNorlander From Faroe Islands, joined Sep 2007, 139 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12777 times:

A question as the title says.

Is it possible to use the winning airframe of the KC-45 program as the basis for replacing the B52 fleet? Or are the structural problems with making bomb bays and hard points too costly for such a program?

With todays fuel prices there would be a substantial savings for the US Air Force, if their main bomb truck was based on the Boeing 767 or the Airbus 330 instead of the B52 and B1B.


Longtime Lurker
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCruiser From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1000 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 12776 times:

I think it would be much cheaper to just proceed with the re-engining program that has been proposed. The B-52 still has a considerable life left in it, and it has proven to be extremely reliable.

As for the replacement of the B-1B, the 767/A330 is just not up to the task. Neither are supersonic, and neither can be made to be stealth in any fashion. The B-1B is certainly an incredible airplane that would take a whole new clean-sheet design.



Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 12704 times:

The only bomber mission the B-767 or A-330 could possibly take on would be that of a large cruise missile carrier. About 20 years ago, or so, there was a proposal for the (then new) B-747-400F to do that. It would have carried some 240 AGM-86s and spit them out through a shut near the lower tail. It would have replaced the B-52G/H, B-1B, and FB-111A in the penetration role.

SAC didn't think much of the proposal.


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12692 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
The only bomber mission the B-767 or A-330 could possibly take on would be that of a large cruise missile carrier. About 20 years ago, or so, there was a proposal for the (then new) B-747-400F to do that.

Personally, I'm a fan of the "Airborne Aircraft Carrier" concept, in which a 747 was to carry, deploy, and recover a small fleet of fighters:



 Smile

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12659 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 3):
Personally, I'm a fan of the "Airborne Aircraft Carrier" concept, in which a 747 was to carry, deploy, and recover a small fleet of fighters:

That was actually tried with the B-36.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29706 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12652 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 3):
Personally, I'm a fan of the "Airborne Aircraft Carrier" concept, in which a 747 was to carry, deploy, and recover a small fleet of fighters:

That was actually tried with the B-36.

And the USS Macon and Akron.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g410000/g416532.jpg



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 827 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12646 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

The Russians did many experiments with flying 'aircraft carriers' in the 1930s and 1940s. I recall images of 5 single engined aircraft attached to a Tupolev 4-engined aircraft (converted bomber?). I think the risk of collision leading to total disaster was/is too high.

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5609 posts, RR: 45
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12599 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
SAC didn't think much of the proposal.

I will bow to your experience but I believe another obstacle was the SALT or START arms talks and the Soviets declared that if the project went ahead all Western airliners or at least all B747 would be considered strategic bombers, not a scenario the governments nor the airlines concerned though very palatable.

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12597 times:

I have read years ago that Airbus was looking at a bomber version of the A340 but since European forces did not take interest the idea was dropped.


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineNorlander From Faroe Islands, joined Sep 2007, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12552 times:



Quoting Cruiser (Reply 1):
As for the replacement of the B-1B, the 767/A330 is just not up to the task. Neither are supersonic, and neither can be made to be stealth in any fashion. The B-1B is certainly an incredible airplane that would take a whole new clean-sheet design.

My point was that in the role as a bombtruck you don't need stealth or supersonic speed. The B52 has proven that for over 50 years now.

Building the bomb truck from a modern widebody commercial airliner would enable the Air Force to greatly increase it's bomb payload from 20-40 tonnes of munitions to 60-125 tonnes, while at the same time using less fuel and being able to stay on station for a longer period of time without refueling.



Longtime Lurker
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12551 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
About 20 years ago, or so, there was a proposal for the (then new) B-747-400F to do that. It would have carried some 240 AGM-86s and spit them out through a shut near the lower tail.

She was actually a 747-200.

http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/uploads/ats39557_B-747cruise.jpg

I did however, find the patent Boeing filed in April 1980 for it - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4475436.html

And this gentleman wrote a thesis about using C-17s for the role - http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/benson.htm

[Edited 2008-01-17 05:45:04]

User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 12407 times:

those things loke like tampons!

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 12192 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 11):
those things loke like tampons!

A tampon dispenser from SAC....

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12077 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 11):
those things loke like tampons!

150 kiloton tampons.  Wink



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12070 times:

With currently current satelite / uav / ground guided munitions I think speed, range stealth and costs are more important then sheer capasity needed to excecute the carpet bombing requirements of the past.

The current internet / cellphones / satelite networks made them publicly unacceptable too.. Collateral damage is on everybodies screens hours before the Dod can deny it.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11951 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
With currently current satelite / uav / ground guided munitions I think speed, range stealth and costs are more important then sheer capasity needed to excecute the carpet bombing requirements of the past.

The current internet / cellphones / satelite networks made them publicly unacceptable too.. Collateral damage is on everybodies screens hours before the Dod can deny it.

Not all combat operations take place in the middle of an urban environment...


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6291 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 11789 times:

A heavy bomber plane needs:

- a minimal sized pressurrized cabin for survivability (some nasty things might hit it)

- the room at center of gravity freed up for bomb / cruise missile bay.

Therefore a lot of things prohibit planes like ordinarily airliners to be modified as bombers:

- the whole fuselage structure

- landing gear arrangement

- wing spar arrangement.

Maybe the tail feathers of an airliner could be used for a B-52 replacement. Not much more.

The B-52 can be maintaned for many more years. But why haven't they been reengined?

Me thinks that the main obstacle for reengining is the lack of a suitable engine. It will be very costly to modify current civil turbofan engines to accept simultaneous cartridge start of all engines.

If a potential opponent knows that he with one ballistic missile can nuke out a whole B-52 squadron before it gets off the ground, because it takes 15 minutes to get those engines spinning, then.....



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11757 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):
The B-52 can be maintaned for many more years. But why haven't they been reengined?

Me thinks that the main obstacle for reengining is the lack of a suitable engine. It will be very costly to modify current civil turbofan engines to accept simultaneous cartridge start of all engines.

If a potential opponent knows that he with one ballistic missile can nuke out a whole B-52 squadron before it gets off the ground, because it takes 15 minutes to get those engines spinning, then...

I'm not sure China is in a position to sail the Type 094 close enough to the US to achieve a fifteen-minute or less launch window with our ASW network. I wonder too if our ABM system might be able to intercept them. And I do not expect Russia, the UK or the French to launch an attack.  Smile

Worst case, we just go back to the orbiting B-52 fleet as well as the "hot standby" force ready to go in under five minutes.

I imagine the real reason is the old dog doesn't need the update to keep doing her job and while their would be savings to be had in using CF6s or RB211s vs. the eight TF33s, the GAO felt the cost to modify the planes would be twice as much just keeping the existing engines on, though that original report has been met with skepticism and criticism.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11585 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
With currently current satelite / uav / ground guided munitions I think speed, range stealth and costs are more important then sheer capasity needed to excecute the carpet bombing requirements of the past.

No, it is just that the old "carpet bombing" techniques are no longer a viaable military statigy used by the US. Maybe someday it can be useful again. But, for now, using one or two samrt bombs is a lot cheaper than 108 Mk. 82 dumb bombs.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I'm not sure China is in a position to sail the Type 094 close enough to the US to achieve a fifteen-minute or less launch window with our ASW network. I wonder too if our ABM system might be able to intercept them. And I do not expect Russia, the UK or the French to launch an attack.

One of the problems with the current form of defensive thinking, for a USN CVNBG, or any other US military force, is the defensives can easily be overwelmed by very high numbers. China, Russia, Iran, and others already knows this, and has no problem accepting losses of hunderds of airplanes or troops if it can sink a CVN

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
The current internet / cellphones / satelite networks made them publicly unacceptable too.. Collateral damage is on everybodies screens hours before the Dod can deny it.

Thats because liberals think war should be conducted in such a way that no body gets hurt........

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):
Me thinks that the main obstacle for reengining is the lack of a suitable engine. It will be very costly to modify current civil turbofan engines to accept simultaneous cartridge start of all engines.

No. The cartridge start capability was eliminated on the KC-135A when it was reengined to the KC-135R, with F-108-100 (CFM-56-2B) engines. All that was needed was an improved APU over what the KC-135A had. Adding an APU to a reengined B-52H to be able to start the engines is easy.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):
A heavy bomber plane needs:

- a minimal sized pressurrized cabin for survivability (some nasty things might hit it)

- the room at center of gravity freed up for bomb / cruise missile bay.

Therefore a lot of things prohibit planes like ordinarily airliners to be modified as bombers:

- the whole fuselage structure

- landing gear arrangement

- wing spar arrangement.

Well, it is nice to have all of those, but not necessary. All you really need is a very good control over the rapidly changing CG during heavy bomb releases. The B-52, B-1, and B-2 do this by sequencing the individual bombs for release. They drop a bomb from the front, followed by one from the back (of the bomb bay or wing pylon), and so on. this keeps the airplane balanced during the rapid CG change. Tankers do this manually by monitoring the amount of fuel pumped from each individual tank.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Can The 767 Or 330 Be A Possible B52 Replacement?
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...
Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement? posted Tue Apr 11 2006 07:21:14 by AviationAddict
E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07 posted Fri Feb 2 2007 14:27:17 by NYC777
Can The U.S. Export Sell The CEV? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 16:44:25 by DfwRevolution
Do The Marines Or Air Force Use ABDUs? posted Sat Nov 19 2005 20:41:23 by AGM114L
When Will The Last F-4 Phantom II Be Retired? posted Tue Sep 20 2005 23:36:34 by TheSonntag
What Would Be A Good A4M Replacement? posted Sun May 29 2005 07:03:01 by L-188
On How Few Engines Can The Buff Fly? posted Wed Apr 6 2005 21:01:58 by Bsergonomics
Can The F-15C Still Hold Its Own? posted Sun Oct 3 2004 04:58:00 by Dl021
Question Can The X-15 Go Up Into Space posted Tue Nov 19 2002 13:16:54 by Canon
When Will The Usaf Order The 767 Tankers? posted Sat Oct 26 2002 21:22:04 by CX747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format