Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New JDAM/Stormshadow Carrier/bomber  
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Posted (6 years 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 3718 times:

I've been thinking - The USAF is looking for a new large bomber to supplement and eventually replace the B2 fleet, and I have often though the UK could do with a large bomber as a power projection tool seeing that our new CVGs are probably never going to see the light of day and will get cancelled quietly due to lack of cash.

My limited understanding of its necessary features as demanded by a Future Large Bomber RFP would be:

* Subsonic speed - (Mach 0.7-8 cruise).
* Large payload - circa 30-50,000 lbs of payload to be carried part internally if possible, with the remainder carried on external hardpoints.
* AAR capable.
* Very large unrefueled range in excess of 4,000 miles.
* Large internal generators/APU to power a large ECM warfare suite.
* Two man flight crew with a two man weapons team, rather than six on the B1B.

My question is this - why not just modify a widebody civilian airliner instead of having a new clean sheet design? I am sure there are compelling reasons not to do it, so I wondered if you would be able to discuss it here so I can understand why not.

For example, why not fit the A332 with the A340 wing and have a hardpoint for external stores where the number 1 and 4 engines would be? Or strengthen the wing on a 777LRF where the folding join is? I appreciate that because of the design of the wingbox and the MLG that an internal weapons bay is not possible, but surely it would be practical just for three or four 2,000lb JDAMs on each outer hardpoint.

Bear in mind the Trent 554 that would be on the outer mounting weighs 10,000lbs, so the structural strength is already there. How would the loss of engine torque affect the wing though? Of course you would likely need to put donks with a bit more power under the wings, but is it feasible to put a Trent 800 or 900 under the wings? Is it just a case of lengthening the MLG to give more clearance or is it more complicated?

Also three or four of the FU-size JDAMs (or Stormshadows, TLAMs or even air-launched UCAVs for that matter) on each hardpoint plus three recessed into the wingbox join each side would create considerably more drag than a pair of Trents, so would it be possible to tweak the airframe for drag improvements to make up the penalties, or am I completely wide of the mark here?

I envisage that this new FLB would spend as much of its time at FL39 cruising to and from a target as it would at a similar height dropping munitions in close support missions as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Would it not therefore be a huge advantage to have a bomber that can use the same in-theatre airstrips that your tanker and transport fleets use, and thereby massively increase on-target efficiency per-airframe?

One would assume that the new bomber would have unprecedented FLIR and datalink capability to enable it to work with an FAC on the ground, in the air in a JSTARS or AWAC platform, or with a pair of UAV drones in a surveil and destroy role. Imagine having a fully loaded FLB lifting twenty 2,000 JDAMs fully fuelled from an airbase in Qatar or Saudi and having nine hours endurance over the Afghanistan battlefield? How about two or three platforms on station at any one time, with many more less than two hours flying time away? What would it cost to have that capability from F15Es, B1Bs, B52s etc? Not just in man hours but in tankerage as well?

The MX savings over the lifetime of the airframe in terms of commonality with a tanker fleet would be hugely compelling, surely? With this in mind, you could order 50-odd of the FLBs and then use the rest of the budget on ten more B2s. It is a much lower risk project that is a much more cost effective solution than a B2-type design that is cripplingly expensive.

As an example then - eight 2K JDAMs on the wings, two ECM/Jammer pods of some kind (assuming these are not already fitted internally as part of the ECM suite) and six on the fuselage recesses with no need for external tankage because of the huge internal fuel capacity giving a total bomb uplift of 28,000 lbs of big JDAMs, with a loiter capability at cruise, meaning it can stay over the target datum for much longer than an F15E for example, whilst carrying a much larger combat load, and yet not requiring anything like the amount of support in terms of tankering and MX hours per mission hour that the strike eagle needs.

Of course in anything other than a zero-threat environment they are extremely dicey – you would need full AWAC and escort CAP to allow the platform to be effective if you did not have air superiority but surely the FLP would have at least the same ECM and jamming suite as found on the B1B, and they aren’t exactly stealthy, neither are the B52s. With the right tactics you should be able to support and protect them no problems.

My impression was that much of the B52 and B1B missions since GW1 involved very long flights with lots of tanking to drop large tonnages of bombs right where the target designators said so, and then flying home. Given that JDAMs/ cruise missiles are the weapon of choice for these missions, not to mention the UCAV insertion role I discussed earlier, surely wouldn’t it be better to have a hugely efficient dumb bomb truck for smart bombs, rather than a smart bomb truck for dumb weapons? I am not advocating getting rid of the B52s, B2s etc as they have roles that my proposed FLB cannot do, but for the mission profile I outlined, surely it makes sense to use the FLB and retain the B2B/B52/B1B capability. Allow them to do the complicated and dangerous stuff, and have a cheap (comparatively) and highly efficient platform to do their donkey work.

Think about it – what is it you want? It doesn’t need to be stealthy or even subtle because you have the B2s for that, and it doesn’t need to be able to drop the MOABs and other stupidly large ordnance because you have the BUFFs for that. What I am proposing is a dumb bomb truck that carries a good load of smart weapons and can deliver them to the battlefield and keep them there for a long time. Ideal for low-intensity wars like are being fought now.

Love to hear your thoughts on this.

Rgds,


CM


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 3711 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
For example, why not fit the A332 with the A340 wing and have a hardpoint for external stores where the number 1 and 4 engines would be? Or strengthen the wing on a 777LRF where the folding join is?

Nobody wants anything resembling a civilian airliner performing attack missions, lest someone decide that a real airliner be a valid target since their systems might not be able to differentiate.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 12 hours ago) and read 3670 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
* Two man flight crew with a two man weapons team, rather than six on the B1B.

The B-1B carries four...Aircraft Commander, Co-pilot and two weapons systems officers.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
but surely it would be practical just for three or four 2,000lb JDAMs on each outer hardpoint.

So lets say on the commercial aircraft...it has four external hardpoints...best case...16 JDAM's. Why do that when we can carry more internally on existing aircraft? Why decrease capability?

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
One would assume that the new bomber would have unprecedented FLIR and datalink capability to enable it to work with an FAC on the ground, in the air in a JSTARS or AWAC platform

Already have most of that in the current fleet.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
or with a pair of UAV drones in a surveil and destroy role.

There are no UAV's currently running in an autonomous mode...and most can carry munitions, so I don't see why you'd want to task the aircrew with that.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
It doesn’t need to be stealthy or even subtle because you have the B2s for that, and it doesn’t need to be able to drop the MOABs and other stupidly large ordnance because you have the BUFFs for that.

B-2 has already been fit tested successfully to carry our largest bomb.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 12 hours ago) and read 3655 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
For example, why not fit the A332 with the A340 wing and have a hardpoint for external stores where the number 1 and 4 engines would be? Or strengthen the wing on a 777LRF where the folding join is?

Nobody wants anything resembling a civilian airliner performing attack missions, lest someone decide that a real airliner be a valid target since their systems might not be able to differentiate.

Fair do's - didnt think of that.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 2):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
but surely it would be practical just for three or four 2,000lb JDAMs on each outer hardpoint.

So lets say on the commercial aircraft...it has four external hardpoints...best case...16 JDAM's. Why do that when we can carry more internally on existing aircraft? Why decrease capability?

But you cant build any more B52s or B1Bs, and B2s are prohibitively expensive - if you are proposing a new bomber that would have this great an internal bomb capacity, it would have to be a clean sheet design. Probably an order of magnitude more expensive to develop and so an order of magnitude more likely to get cancelled or scaled back to the bare bones in terms of an actual order at the end of it. What I am saying is that you dont need to spend that much on a dumb bomb truck.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 2):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
One would assume that the new bomber would have unprecedented FLIR and datalink capability to enable it to work with an FAC on the ground, in the air in a JSTARS or AWAC platform

Already have most of that in the current fleet.

So a new design would have the same facilities as in the existing fleet - fine. Cheaper that way, and fewer bugs to iron out.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 2):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
or with a pair of UAV drones in a surveil and destroy role.

There are no UAV's currently running in an autonomous mode...and most can carry munitions, so I don't see why you'd want to task the aircrew with that.

No I am say that the FLB would take the drones to the taregt area and then release them from underwing hardpoints - vastly increasing their useful range and over-target time. No workload on the aircrew as the UCAVs are controlled from a JSTARS or forward FAC recce unit. The bomber acts as a glorified tug basically. Also means it can loiter and launch the UCAVs only when strictly required, and if not required, they dont launch them. I am not sure I explained it very well - do you see what I mean?

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 2):
The B-1B carries four...Aircraft Commander, Co-pilot and two weapons systems officers.

My mistake - sorry. How many does the B52 have?

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 2):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
It doesn’t need to be stealthy or even subtle because you have the B2s for that, and it doesn’t need to be able to drop the MOABs and other stupidly large ordnance because you have the BUFFs for that.

B-2 has already been fit tested successfully to carry our largest bomb.

B2s can carry MOABs? Good Lord - does it fit in the bomb bay - it must do as the B2 doesnt have external hardpoints - WOW thats impressive. Doubt you'll ever see them dropping them in real life though.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13241 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 11 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

If mostly carrying stand off munitions is the task, what about the USAF getting some version of the USN's P-8?
Which in conditions of total air dominance could also carry a stack of JDAM's?

No one can say this is not a militarised platform.
And for the USAF, someone else is paying to do this!


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 3584 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
No one can say this is not a militarised platform.

The big difference is I don't think a 737 is likely to be performing many intercontinental missions...



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 3551 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 3):
But you cant build any more B52s or B1Bs, and B2s are prohibitively expensive - if you are proposing a new bomber that would have this great an internal bomb capacity, it would have to be a clean sheet design. Probably an order of magnitude more expensive to develop and so an order of magnitude more likely to get cancelled or scaled back to the bare bones in terms of an actual order at the end of it. What I am saying is that you dont need to spend that much on a dumb bomb truck.

Can't? Sure we could! We could spend the money and restart production, but we won't. It would be a waste of time. You say you don't need to spend that much on a dumb bomb truck...I say, fine...you're right. When was the last time we dropped significant quantities of 'dumb' bombs?? A few times during Desert Storm and a few times over Afghanistan? The more you can carry internally, the more range your going to get. Why spend the money to convert an airline style aircraft to carry externally, when we could do it better with a new design?

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 3):
No I am say that the FLB would take the drones to the taregt area and then release them from underwing hardpoints - vastly increasing their useful range and over-target time. No workload on the aircrew as the UCAVs are controlled from a JSTARS or forward FAC recce unit. The bomber acts as a glorified tug basically. Also means it can loiter and launch the UCAVs only when strictly required, and if not required, they dont launch them. I am not sure I explained it very well - do you see what I mean?

So now...in the place of those external bombs, your going to give up room for a couple of UCAV's? Okay...lets take the X-45B, which Boeing says will be the next step toward going operational with that design. It is 36 feet long, 4 feet tall and 47 feet wide...it weighs roughly just under 20,000 lbs. and will have an estimated payload capacity of 2,000 lbs. Where are you going to put them? Your bomb load just went out the window...lets not forget the extreme cost of being able to mate them to the airframe.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 3):
My mistake - sorry. How many does the B52 have?

Unless things have changed, the B-52 is a five person crew.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 3):
B2s can carry MOABs? Good Lord - does it fit in the bomb bay - it must do as the B2 doesnt have external hardpoints - WOW thats impressive. Doubt you'll ever see them dropping them in real life though.

Yeah...you won't see them dropping any as we don't usually advertise when we test stuff like that. We certainly wouldn't advertise its operational use until after it was over. But sure, they'll drop it. Here is a quote from Air Force Link, where they also have pictures of it. Quote: "Weapon specialists look on as a mock up of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator sits in bomb bay of the B-2 weapons load trainer Dec. 18 at Whitman Air Force Base, Mo. The MOP is approximately 20.5 feet long, with a 31.5-inch diameter and a total weight of slightly less than 30,000 pounds. The weapon will carry over 5,300 pounds of explosive material and will deliver more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, the BLU-109. It is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding."


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 5 hours ago) and read 3473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Who needs JDAMs when you can use ALCMs? Big grin

Boeing 747-200 ALCM Launch Vehicle


Plus you don't need to risk the platform getting jumped by a fighter or a guy with a SAM as it loiters over the target dropping iron.  relieved 



Seriously, I'm not sure the new bomber the USAF is looking at is really meant to replace the B-2 as a strategic strike platform, but more like replacing it as a theater strike platform because it is the only stealth platform that can carry more then two or so JDAMs internally.

Maybe something like a scaled-down B-2, but with a large bomb bay (since you would not need as much wing-space for fuel since you would not be operating from forward bases). Something like the TR-3 or A-12.



http://www.ausairpower.net/000-A-12A-USN-1.jpg

[Edited 2008-03-03 18:00:05]

User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3376 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 6):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 3):
But you cant build any more B52s or B1Bs, and B2s are prohibitively expensive - if you are proposing a new bomber that would have this great an internal bomb capacity, it would have to be a clean sheet design. Probably an order of magnitude more expensive to develop and so an order of magnitude more likely to get cancelled or scaled back to the bare bones in terms of an actual order at the end of it. What I am saying is that you dont need to spend that much on a dumb bomb truck.

Can't? Sure we could! We could spend the money and restart production, but we won't. It would be a waste of time. You say you don't need to spend that much on a dumb bomb truck...I say, fine...you're right. When was the last time we dropped significant quantities of 'dumb' bombs?? A few times during Desert Storm and a few times over Afghanistan? The more you can carry internally, the more range your going to get.

Dude read the post - i said a dumb bomb truck for carrying smart bombs, not a smart bomb truck for carrying dumb bombs - i thought that was very clear, as I made no mention whatsoever of carrying iron/dumb munitions - its a platform to launch ALCMs, JDAMs, or the Stormshadow missile off a wing hardpoint - thats all. The whole point was that it had huge unrefuelled range WITHOUT needing to accomodate the bombs internally as the design is optimised for the drag of two extra engines etc.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 6):
Why spend the money to convert an airline style aircraft to carry externally, when we could do it better with a new design?

Would you rather have three of these FLBs for the price of one new sheet design and about five years earlier?

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 6):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 3):
No I am say that the FLB would take the drones to the taregt area and then release them from underwing hardpoints - vastly increasing their useful range and over-target time. No workload on the aircrew as the UCAVs are controlled from a JSTARS or forward FAC recce unit. The bomber acts as a glorified tug basically. Also means it can loiter and launch the UCAVs only when strictly required, and if not required, they dont launch them. I am not sure I explained it very well - do you see what I mean?

So now...in the place of those external bombs, your going to give up room for a couple of UCAV's? Okay...lets take the X-45B, which Boeing says will be the next step toward going operational with that design. It is 36 feet long, 4 feet tall and 47 feet wide...it weighs roughly just under 20,000 lbs. and will have an estimated payload capacity of 2,000 lbs. Where are you going to put them? Your bomb load just went out the window...lets not forget the extreme cost of being able to mate them to the airframe.

I thought I was clear on this - I was talking about a platform that carries one Predator-type UCAV under each wing. It does not carry any other armament. The idea is that instead of launching them from behind the lines and having them use fuel to get to where you need them to be, and at the right height, and be at risk from small arms fire, why not have them airdropped and released over the target at 30,000 feet. Their endurance is massively increased, and attrition would be reduced. The FLB loiters in a CAP nearby and only launches the drones when the area controller needs them, and if it doesnt, it takes them home and they are free to be used another day.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 6):
The MOP is approximately 20.5 feet long, with a 31.5-inch diameter and a total weight of slightly less than 30,000 pounds. The weapon will carry over 5,300 pounds of explosive material and will deliver more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, the BLU-109. It is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding."

I understand the MOAB is considerably larger than this. I can totally see why you would want the B2 delivering a MOP, but my understanding of the MOAB's role is that it is a shock and awe weapon designed to be used against clusters of troops and vehicles, large command posts and the like. These are tactical targets, and carry some ground fire risk - you probably wouldnt want the B2, your primary strategic stealth penetrator, attacking these, or am i totally wide of the mark?



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3374 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
If mostly carrying stand off munitions is the task, what about the USAF getting some version of the USN's P-8?
Which in conditions of total air dominance could also carry a stack of JDAM's?

No one can say this is not a militarised platform.
And for the USAF, someone else is paying to do this!

GDB gets what I am saying.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3303 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 8):
Dude read the post - i said a dumb bomb truck for carrying smart bombs, not a smart bomb truck for carrying dumb bombs - i thought that was very clear, as I made no mention whatsoever of carrying iron/dumb munitions - its a platform to launch ALCMs, JDAMs, or the Stormshadow missile off a wing hardpoint - thats all. The whole point was that it had huge unrefuelled range WITHOUT needing to accomodate the bombs internally as the design is optimised for the drag of two extra engines etc.

I read the post...you said "dumb bomb truck". That's what I thought you were saying at that point. Apparently, you weren't clear. The point is that taking a commercial aircraft and modifying it for that purpose would be time consuming and offer no benefit over a legacy platform at this point...not to mention no stealth whatsoever.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 8):
Would you rather have three of these FLBs for the price of one new sheet design and about five years earlier?

No, I would not want my tax money wasted for the reason listed above.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 8):
I thought I was clear on this - I was talking about a platform that carries one Predator-type UCAV under each wing. It does not carry any other armament. The idea is that instead of launching them from behind the lines and having them use fuel to get to where you need them to be, and at the right height, and be at risk from small arms fire, why not have them airdropped and released over the target at 30,000 feet. Their endurance is massively increased, and attrition would be reduced. The FLB loiters in a CAP nearby and only launches the drones when the area controller needs them, and if it doesnt, it takes them home and they are free to be used another day.

Okay...I understand the problem now...your not up to speed on what your talking about. You've got an idea, but really have not looked into too much. A Predator is NOT a UCAV. UCAV is a Boeing creation that is not even close to operational service. A Predator (MQ-1) is a UAV. Further, your carrier aircraft would destroy the Predators it was carrying unless it remained at a very low speed. How do you think attrition would be reduced? That has no part of your idea and remains unaffected. Now here you talk about a platform that only carries Predators and no other armament...why waste the money then? The Predator can stay aloft longer than the carrier can without refueling, so why spend millions to modify each carrier aircraft? Sorry man, but IMO, your idea has gone from bad to worse. I see what your trying to get at, but it just wouldn't be a viable option. I think even AirRyan would agree with me on this issue and we usually don't see eye to eye.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 8):
I understand the MOAB is considerably larger than this. I can totally see why you would want the B2 delivering a MOP, but my understanding of the MOAB's role is that it is a shock and awe weapon designed to be used against clusters of troops and vehicles, large command posts and the like. These are tactical targets, and carry some ground fire risk - you probably wouldnt want the B2, your primary strategic stealth penetrator, attacking these, or am i totally wide of the mark?

You're pretty much on the mark. MOAB has limited use and would be dropped from cargo aircraft. MOP is designed for hard targets or bunkers. We would absolutely want the B-2 in a high threat environment...thats why stealth was designed. Thats why we've had B-2 strikes at the opening of both WOT campaigns along with TLAM strikes.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3285 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 10):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 8):
Dude read the post - i said a dumb bomb truck for carrying smart bombs, not a smart bomb truck for carrying dumb bombs - i thought that was very clear, as I made no mention whatsoever of carrying iron/dumb munitions - its a platform to launch ALCMs, JDAMs, or the Stormshadow missile off a wing hardpoint - thats all. The whole point was that it had huge unrefuelled range WITHOUT needing to accomodate the bombs internally as the design is optimised for the drag of two extra engines etc.

I read the post...you said "dumb bomb truck". That's what I thought you were saying at that point. Apparently, you weren't clear. The point is that taking a commercial aircraft and modifying it for that purpose would be time consuming and offer no benefit over a legacy platform at this point...not to mention no stealth whatsoever.

A dumb truck for smart bombs - whats unclear about that?

Also why do you need stealth for a standoff weapon platform?

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 10):
Okay...I understand the problem now...your not up to speed on what your talking about. You've got an idea, but really have not looked into too much. A Predator is NOT a UCAV. UCAV is a Boeing creation that is not even close to operational service. A Predator (MQ-1) is a UAV. Further, your carrier aircraft would destroy the Predators it was carrying unless it remained at a very low speed. How do you think attrition would be reduced? That has no part of your idea and remains unaffected. Now here you talk about a platform that only carries Predators and no other armament...why waste the money then? The Predator can stay aloft longer than the carrier can without refueling, so why spend millions to modify each carrier aircraft? Sorry man, but IMO, your idea has gone from bad to worse. I see what your trying to get at, but it just wouldn't be a viable option. I think even AirRyan would agree with me on this issue and we usually don't see eye to eye.

Point taken and understood - thanks for clearing that up, although why you felt the need to be so condescending I do not know.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 10):
You're pretty much on the mark. MOAB has limited use and would be dropped from cargo aircraft. MOP is designed for hard targets or bunkers. We would absolutely want the B-2 in a high threat environment...thats why stealth was designed. Thats why we've had B-2 strikes at the opening of both WOT campaigns along with TLAM strikes.

So basically, you agree with what I was saying. Thanks.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3261 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 11):
A dumb truck for smart bombs - whats unclear about that?

Also why do you need stealth for a standoff weapon platform?

I'm sorry, I thought I already explained how I took your post. I don't know what else you want me to say. You seem to be upset that you posted/proposed something and now don't like the answers your getting. I'm sorry. I'm just giving you a point of view from the Air Force.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 11):
Point taken and understood - thanks for clearing that up, although why you felt the need to be so condescending I do not know.

I didn't feel I was being that way...simply pointed out that you were confusing the two and that it still wouldn't work.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 11):
So basically, you agree with what I was saying. Thanks.

No, not really. Per your original post, the B-52 does NOT carry any large ordinance like you mention. Those are carried by transport aircraft such as C-17 and C-130. Again...I'm only giving you my view from the Air Force...If you don't care for it, don't ask the questions. Your proposal has been brought up before by others, with almost the same response from others.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3249 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 11):
A dumb truck for smart bombs - whats unclear about that?

Also why do you need stealth for a standoff weapon platform?

I'm sorry, I thought I already explained how I took your post. I don't know what else you want me to say. You seem to be upset that you posted/proposed something and now don't like the answers your getting. I'm sorry. I'm just giving you a point of view from the Air Force.

No I asked actual asked in the OP that I was after reasons why it has not been done - if it was as good and cost effective as I've runminated, then they would have done it already right? I'm certainly not upset that you dont agree with me, I just dont understand why my post was so hard to understand. I thought I was very clear, and have reiterated myself - but you still wont answer the question:

Why do you need stealth for a standoff weapons platform?

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 11):
Point taken and understood - thanks for clearing that up, although why you felt the need to be so condescending I do not know.

I didn't feel I was being that way...simply pointed out that you were confusing the two and that it still wouldn't work.

I felt you were being condescending - if you werent, then please accept my apologies. Appreciate you taking the time to explain things to me - unlike you, I am not in the Air Force, and instead work in the civil side of things. But then you knew that.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 11):
So basically, you agree with what I was saying. Thanks.

No, not really. Per your original post, the B-52 does NOT carry any large ordinance like you mention. Those are carried by transport aircraft such as C-17 and C-130. Again...I'm only giving you my view from the Air Force...If you don't care for it, don't ask the questions. Your proposal has been brought up before by others, with almost the same response from others.

This is largely irrelevent to the OP anyway - I never said the FLB would carry a MOAB, i was just questioning whether as per your post, the B2 could carry one -

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 2):
B-2 has already been fit tested successfully to carry our largest bomb.

It cant - and you wouldnt want it to. Anyway - irrelevent.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
Your proposal has been brought up before by others, with almost the same response from others.

Hmmmm - I'll do a search - thanks.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3241 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 13):
Why do you need stealth for a standoff weapons platform?

You don't, but with today's threats why wouldn't you want some level of it...especially if your going to orbit the big thing over the battlefield. Currently the B-52 & B-1 both do it all just fine...I don't see a replacement real soon.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 13):
It cant - and you wouldnt want it to. Anyway - irrelevent.

Well if were talking about tactical aircraft, then yes, the B-2 can carry our largest bomb. If its irrelevant, stop bringing it up.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3236 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 14):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 13):
It cant - and you wouldnt want it to. Anyway - irrelevent.

Well if were talking about tactical aircraft, then yes, the B-2 can carry our largest bomb. If its irrelevant, stop bringing it up.

You started it. LOL  Wink

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 14):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 13):
Why do you need stealth for a standoff weapons platform?

You don't, but with today's threats why wouldn't you want some level of it...especially if your going to orbit the big thing over the battlefield. Currently the B-52 & B-1 both do it all just fine...I don't see a replacement real soon.

I take your point, so do you think the new bomber RFP will say the design has to be stealthy? Surely a new stealth bomber is going to be murderously expensive?

How easy would it be to order more B2s?



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineSP90 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3191 times:

Let say for a moment that you don't need stealth because its a standoff platform. If its a bomber then surely the internal volume of a A330/T7 (area fwd and aft of wing) could and should be fully ultilized. The B-2 has that great rotating bomb rack. Why not install that into your "dumb bomb truck" before hanging bombs and missiles off wing hardpoints?

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3184 times:



Quoting SP90 (Reply 16):
Let say for a moment that you don't need stealth because its a standoff platform. If its a bomber then surely the internal volume of a A330/T7 (area fwd and aft of wing) could and should be fully ultilized. The B-2 has that great rotating bomb rack. Why not install that into your "dumb bomb truck" before hanging bombs and missiles off wing hardpoints?

If you don't need stealth or surprise, then a Tico or Burke can pack a bigger punch.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineSP90 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3169 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 17):
If you don't need stealth or surprise, then a Tico or Burke can pack a bigger punch.

But is it more cost effective to send over a bunch of TLAM or drop a bunch of JDAMs?


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3157 times:



Quoting SP90 (Reply 16):
Let say for a moment that you don't need stealth because its a standoff platform. If its a bomber then surely the internal volume of a A330/T7 (area fwd and aft of wing) could and should be fully ultilized. The B-2 has that great rotating bomb rack. Why not install that into your "dumb bomb truck" before hanging bombs and missiles off wing hardpoints?

I assumed it would be too much of a problem from a trim point of view - having an assymetric load in the forward or rear weapons bay would make the CoG of the aircraft shift dramatically - would it be flyable? The B2, B1, B52 has its weapons bay on or around the airframe CoG for this reason, as i understand it.

Obviously with a weapons bay uplift would be hugely increased and make the platform much, much more viable. Dunno if it could be done though.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 17):
If you don't need stealth or surprise, then a Tico or Burke can pack a bigger punch.



Quoting SP90 (Reply 18):
But is it more cost effective to send over a bunch of TLAM or drop a bunch of JDAMs?

Agreed - the point of the FLB is that it can lift an awful lot of JDAMs very cost effectively.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

Cost effectively? Now your talking about bomb bays...how cost effective is it to do all these modifications, flight test it and then flight test and certify each weapon system? Lots of money being thrown around...for a brand new airframe. So why not just build a new airframe?

User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3106 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 20):
Lots of money being thrown around...for a brand new airframe. So why not just build a new airframe?

Or just restart B-2 production. At $300-400 million a pop, plus a bit for enhanced avionics, and maybe minus a bit if it's restricted to conventional attack... you're way ahead of the game. Carry just about every munition in the arsenal, already combat proven, low observable, and doesn't cary around a useless fuselage.

Chris: Don't be sucked into the "B-2 is too expensive" folly. The high price is due to the development costs of the program being rolled into the 21 airframes produced. If the original 130 or so were built, it'd be a relatively inexpensive "stealth" heavy lifter.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3093 times:

You could restart it, but it would cost many hundreds of millions just to redevelop the tooling needed...

User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3080 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Thread starter):
For example, why not fit the A332 with the A340 wing and have a hardpoint for external stores where the number 1 and 4 engines would be? Or strengthen the wing on a 777LRF where the folding join is?

Nobody wants anything resembling a civilian airliner performing attack missions, lest someone decide that a real airliner be a valid target since their systems might not be able to differentiate.

 checkmark 

This would be a nightmare for everyone's air defense, and the best reason not to consider it for a minute.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3072 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 22):
You could restart it, but it would cost many hundreds of millions just to redevelop the tooling needed...

Tooling is still around and in storage. In any case, I'm afraid that if the need to bring more bombers online is pressing, then hundreds of millions of dollars would just be a drop in the bucket.



The last of the famous international playboys
25 Checksixx : The tooling should have been destroyed when the line was shut down...unless I missed something, it was.
26 Spacepope : Nope, tooling is in storage at AMARC.
27 Checksixx : Interesting...I didn't know that. Unusual for that to have been done...hell, they've already discussed destroying the tooling on the Raptor line if it
28 Marcus : What is the main reason for destroying the tooling of aircraft after they go out of production but still have years (or decades) of service left in th
29 Checksixx : The tooling to build them, not the tools used to maintain them.
30 Marcus : Yes I know that, but why destroy something when you don't know if down the road there will be a need for new builds of the same plane? If you build a
31 Baron95 : How much do you think Boeing or Airbus would have to charge for a 777 or A380 if THEIR ENTIRE PRODUCTION RUN WAS 20 PLANES? Prety close to $1B right?
32 Checksixx : The Govt owns the tooling and usually destroys it for security reasons.
33 SP90 : Can't say I blame them at the time. The USSR fell and the B-2's primary mission which was to penetrate Soviet air defense in an all out war just evap
34 Baron95 : That is really not a problem. If you had a 77F carying say 40,000lbs of JDAMs inernally, your bomb release mechanism would just sequence the release
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic New JDAM/Stormshadow Carrier/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 Long Range Bomber Announced posted Thu Aug 3 2006 01:32:53 by AislepathLight
New Bomber Plans For USAF, J-UCAS Cancelled. posted Mon Jan 16 2006 22:39:21 by CX747
Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber posted Fri Mar 5 2004 00:24:20 by AvObserver
Push For R&D On New Bomber, 23 B1-Bs To Be Spared posted Sat May 10 2003 03:30:29 by AvObserver
Heaviest Thing Taking Off An Aircraft Carrier posted Tue Feb 26 2008 14:00:58 by AF1624
Any New News On YAL-1A? posted Sat Feb 23 2008 02:46:21 by KC135TopBoom
Landing On A Aircraft Carrier. posted Sat Feb 16 2008 12:20:28 by FXramper
Russian Bomber Violates Japanese Airspace posted Sat Feb 9 2008 09:31:46 by CO777ER
Some Great New Added Photos Of Norwegian F 16-s posted Wed Feb 6 2008 11:18:11 by Mortyman
Boeing And LM To Team-Up On Bomber RFP posted Fri Jan 25 2008 09:06:42 by Stitch

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format