AvObserver
Topic Author
Posts: 2391
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:24 am

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.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3138
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:22 pm

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
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Fri Mar 05, 2004 2:45 pm

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.
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Fri Mar 05, 2004 3:15 pm

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.
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Fri Mar 05, 2004 4:28 pm

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Fri Mar 05, 2004 6:01 pm

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.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:49 pm

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.



"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:09 pm

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.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:06 am

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
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:20 am

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
 
AvObserver
Topic Author
Posts: 2391
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:49 am

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 avatar
Cadmus
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:47 am

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:53 pm

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
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:39 am

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 avatar
Cadmus
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:47 am

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:54 am

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
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber

Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:20 pm

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]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ozair, Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests