Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Dutchy wrote:Wasn't there a proposed version of the 747 as a cruise missile carrier?
flyingturtle wrote:One problem with the 380 as a bomber is that the both floors are load-bearing. You can't remove the upper floor in a 380 to gain more space.
Phosphorus wrote:Not sure it's a universal ban, but I do remember there was a special provision in one of 'major' arms control treaties. Basically the idea was to prevent development of bombers out of civilian airliner platforms. (To preempt questions -- no idea where does the torpedo in the bomb bay of P-8 fit in this respect, legally).
Channex757 wrote:Two words apply here (especially for the A380).
Sitting
Duck
They would just be such a massive target for the other side to aim at with their long range weapons, and neither is really designed for low level flying. That's why the USAF is making such a fuss over stealthy designs for bombers. We could discuss the arsenal aircraft the USAF wants, but again these big civilian aircraft are not designed for military flying tactics such as low level.
Channex757 wrote:We could discuss the arsenal aircraft the USAF wants, but again these big civilian aircraft are not designed for military flying tactics such as low level.
steman wrote:The current B-2 and the proposed B-21 have already a very long range which can be extended with air refuelling and they carry a heavy load of weapons. But they are relatively small, the B-2 being only about 20 meters long. I doubt there will ever be the need for a bomber the size of a 747 or a A380. Weapons are getting smarter and smaller, no need to carry several tons of them. Even the TU-160 is not that big compared to airliners. But maybe we will see a 747 or A380 sized strategic airlifter in the future. Afterall those C-5s aren´t eternal.
WIederling wrote:flyingturtle wrote:One problem with the 380 as a bomber is that the both floors are load-bearing. You can't remove the upper floor in a 380 to gain more space.
As a cruise missile truck you wouldn't need that.
You'd have to design some nice mechanism to get them out the door though.
flyingturtle wrote:One problem with the 380 as a bomber is that the both floors are load-bearing. You can't remove the upper floor in a 380 to gain more space.
David
TWA772LR wrote:flyingturtle wrote:One problem with the 380 as a bomber is that the both floors are load-bearing. You can't remove the upper floor in a 380 to gain more space.
David
You can make it a hybrid bomber/ECM/EW/AWACS aircraft with the bombs in the lower deck and all the mission critical equipment and crew areas on the top.
LightningZ71 wrote:However, what's the main issue here? Crew endurance. You can't keep a crew aloft for as long as you can keep the plane itself.
WIederling wrote:TWA772LR wrote:flyingturtle wrote:One problem with the 380 as a bomber is that the both floors are load-bearing. You can't remove the upper floor in a 380 to gain more space.
David
You can make it a hybrid bomber/ECM/EW/AWACS aircraft with the bombs in the lower deck and all the mission critical equipment and crew areas on the top.
I'd demand inclusion of Parasite Fighters for your Eierlegendewollmichsau Thingy too.
WIederling wrote:flyingturtle wrote:One problem with the 380 as a bomber is that the both floors are load-bearing. You can't remove the upper floor in a 380 to gain more space.
As a cruise missile truck you wouldn't need that.
You'd have to design some nice mechanism to get them out the door though.
TWA772LR wrote:flyingturtle wrote:One problem with the 380 as a bomber is that the both floors are load-bearing. You can't remove the upper floor in a 380 to gain more space.
David
You can make it a hybrid bomber/ECM/EW/AWACS aircraft with the bombs in the lower deck and all the mission critical equipment and crew areas on the top.
prebennorholm wrote:The A380 fuselage is pressurized. The two floors are active structures keeping the fuselage in shape when pressurized.
FrmrKSEngr wrote:How about a B-52 Max? New wing and engines, same fuselage. If Boeing could pull that off they could move on to the favorite 757Max.
Channex757 wrote:Now if the bigger is better is taken out of the equation....what about attaching (or rather rebuilding) a redundant A345 with the body of an A330ST Super Beluga?
LightningZ71 wrote:So, the soda machine bomber concept is a neat idea, but, there's not quite anything out there that would quite fit the profile of what they'd really be looking for. Ideally, you'd want something that has a truly ridiculous range, similar to the Soviet bear in concept with turbo props for propulsion and high endurance planned into the design. This is, of course, a setup for a permissive environment. The plane would have multiple, internal weapons bays for dispensing SDBs and other precision munitions without incurring the drag from external mounting. It would also likely have all sorts of electronics and optical intelligence gear as it would be a perfect observation platform. Self defense jammers and decoys would be a natural fit as permissive environments don't always stay that way.
However, what's the main issue here? Crew endurance. You can't keep a crew aloft for as long as you can keep the plane itself. This would have to be a drone. We already have high flying, long loitering drones with optics and weapons carriage. You just want a larger one that can do more.
prebennorholm wrote:TWA772LR wrote:flyingturtle wrote:One problem with the 380 as a bomber is that the both floors are load-bearing. You can't remove the upper floor in a 380 to gain more space.
David
You can make it a hybrid bomber/ECM/EW/AWACS aircraft with the bombs in the lower deck and all the mission critical equipment and crew areas on the top.
The A380 fuselage is pressurized. The two floors are active structures keeping the fuselage in shape when pressurized.
Such a hybrid plane would need an unpressurized weapons bay and a pressurized upper crew deck. That would mean a totally redesigned fuselage such as on the P-8A or the Nimrod.
No way can an A380 fuselage floor easily become a pressure bulkhead, and even if it could, then the rest of the fuselage structure isn't made to support such a bulkhead.
A new fuselage would likely also mean a new center wing box. A new center wing box would mean changed landing gear. What do we have left? Engines and tail feathers and not much more.
Mortyman wrote:Why would the US need another bomber ? The US should be well covered With their B-52's, B1's and B2's ...
FrmrKSEngr wrote:How about a B-52 Max? New wing and engines, same fuselage. If Boeing could pull that off they could move on to the favorite 757Max.
Andre3K wrote:With all of that aside, a freaking M-15 could take out either one of those. Stealth might not be necessary but those planes are too juicy on radar to be worth the risk.
tjh8402 wrote:Mortyman wrote:Why would the US need another bomber ? The US should be well covered With their B-52's, B1's and B2's ...
The idea behind this would be to have a cheaper to run alternative that would save $ and precious flight hours on more expensive and valuable aircraft in a more permissive environment.
tjh8402 wrote:You don't necessarily need supersonic or stealth bombers for plinking terrorists in pickup trucks. Might also allow for more forward deployment options if they don't have the same security requirements.
Ozair wrote:tjh8402 wrote:Mortyman wrote:Why would the US need another bomber ? The US should be well covered With their B-52's, B1's and B2's ...
The idea behind this would be to have a cheaper to run alternative that would save $ and precious flight hours on more expensive and valuable aircraft in a more permissive environment.
I think you would find that there aren’t many savings that occur from flying a cheaper airframe if you are going to keep the previous high threat airframe in service. The USAF has done the numbers a host of times and a smaller, lighter, cheaper to operate CAS platform for permissive environments still hasn’t made it though. While it could be argued some of that is institutional bias there are additional type considerations from maintenance, weapons support, training, additional aircrew etc that have to be factored in. Per hour flight costs are a small percentage of overall capability cost once everything gets factored in.
Even UAVs have not reduced the personnel burden as the airframes still need to be serviced, flown and often require additional support and intelligence staff to monitor, assess and advise the mission commander.
The final side is most military platforms don’t have a problem with flight hours (USN excepted). There are plenty of hours remaining on the current Bomber fleet and while they cost more to fly they also need to be flown to maintain currency and capability. You might as well rotate your bomber crews though operational deployments to give them exposure to dropping live weapons, even in permissive environments.tjh8402 wrote:You don't necessarily need supersonic or stealth bombers for plinking terrorists in pickup trucks. Might also allow for more forward deployment options if they don't have the same security requirements.
The three things that made the B-1 the CAS platform of choice in Afghanistan were payload, persistence and speed. The B-1 has able to bring a large number of weapons onto station, remain on station for 12 hour periods and when a TIC occurred transit to that location faster than most other platforms. So stealth isn’t important in that environment but speed certainly can be.
tjh8402 wrote:NASA's SOFIA airborne telescope 747SP can open its main deck door in flight.
Mortyman wrote:Why would the US need another bomber ? The US should be well covered With their B-52's, B1's and B2's ...
smithbs wrote:... A380 were not.
Mortyman wrote:Why would the US need another bomber ? The US should be well covered With their B-52's, B1's and B2's ...
cumulushumilis wrote:There already exists platform/proof of concept frame built from the parts of two 747s, that would be perfect for the job. The systems on the A380 and 747 are very mature, so why not apply the the concept of the Stratolaunch carrier aircraft? That thing appears to be the perfect bomb truck capable of lifting 500000 lbs with most of the systems cannibalized from the 747. I would not be surprised if that "Frakenplane" has not already been evaluated by the USAF as a cruise missile carrier/bomber.