The B-52 and the future

[Samson]

You don't need AI for this.  You just need to be able to datalink precise target coordinates to the UAV.  Or downlink UAV video to the guys on the ground so they can designate their own targets.  Or SATCOM with a UAV operator sitting in Nevada to walk him in to the target. 

 

The machine orbiting up above doesn't need to be "smart".

265827[/snapback]

 

Yes, of course, but in that timeframe it could potentially be smart to the point of being pilot like.

 

This would be one more safegaurd against jamming or loosing signal, etc...

[Smitty]

Yes, of course, but in that timeframe it could potentially be smart to the point of being pilot like.

 

This would be one more safegaurd against jamming or loosing signal, etc...

265829[/snapback]

 

If datalinking target coordinates is jammed, chances are voicecomms will also be jammed.

[Slater]

The old "Big Belly" B-52D's could lug 108 Mk 82's/M117's. That's around 60-70 tons of bombs (depending upon configuration). Could a commercial airliner be so modified?

[swerve]

The old "Big Belly" B-52D's could lug 108 Mk 82's/M117's.  That's around 60-70 tons of bombs (depending upon configuration). Could a commercial airliner be so modified?

265848[/snapback]

 

Yes.

 

Or at least, the weight's no problem. Taking the A340 as an example, the smallest model has a max T/O weight about 60 tons more than a B-52. Its maximum fuel load is rather more than the difference between empty & maximum weight for a B-52 (i.e. fuel plus bombs), & it can carry cargo as well. Only problems might be structural, since I'm sure the airframe isn't designed to have big bomb bays cut into it, & max payload for the structure is quoted as 43.5 tons (bigger models exceed 70 tons).

 

IIRC, the (unsolicited) EADS proposal was based on the smallest A340, with minimum structural change. No belly doors. Instead, the munitions would be dispensed from a rear hatch, using some kind of palletised dispenser, with appropriate internal handling systems. Almost all the development risk was in the munitions handling systems, not the airframe. Much the same systems could be fitted in any other large enough airliner or freighter, e.g. the Boeing 777 - indeed, they've been proposed by EADS for the A400M - & it would retain most of its cargo capacity. Wasn't the C-17 proposal similar?

[Smitty]

The old "Big Belly" B-52D's could lug 108 Mk 82's/M117's.  That's around 60-70 tons of bombs (depending upon configuration). Could a commercial airliner be so modified?

265848[/snapback]

 

The bigger question is do we need a modern bomb truck to carry that much? Especially a cost-conscious bombliner.

[Jason]

B-2 is the B-58 of today. It has a limited ability to do utility missions, being goog for deep penetration missions, and thats about it. We anly have 18-20, so who really cares anyways.

265668[/snapback]

In all fairness, you’re not giving the B-2 enough credit.

 

The B-2 was NOT designed to be a multi-purpose bomb carrier, it was designed to penetrate the Soviet air defense umbrella and deliver nuclear weapons on priority targets within the USSR.

 

The fact that the B-2 has been used to deliver JDAM's and other conventional and precision guided munitions just goes to show it is more versatile than one might think.

 

I’m not a huge fan of the B-2, and I believe the plane is a dinosaur from a bygone era, but the fact is that 20 of them were paid for, and in two air campaigns (Yugoslavia and Iraq) it has been used for delivering conventional and precision guided munitions to pretty good effect. It is a capable aircraft with a useful bomb payload, and seeing as it is paid for, why not use it?

[Samson]

The bigger question is do we need a modern bomb truck to carry that much?  Especially a cost-conscious bombliner.

265872[/snapback]

 

IMO it would be better to have UAVs, half or so of the bomb load, but greater range and loiter.

 

Just make twice as many of them since they are UAVs and in theory can be made cheaper then manned craft.

[Michael Dekmetzian]

If i were in fantasy dream land , we should have airships which can launch, recover, rearm, refuel and possibly repair the UAV's. Would probably make a rather juicy target though.

 

Might not even be too hard to do given the inclination.

[Rickshaw]

Way back when, in the early 1960s, Vickers proposed a bomber version of its VC-10 passengerliner/transport aircraft. It was to have two large panniers a'la the Vickers Wellesley, one under each wing to carry the payload. They also proposed a version carrying I seem to remember a dozen Skybolt airlaunched IRBM, six under each wing. I wonder how difficult would it be to do something similar with one of the modern airliners. I expect you'd need to redesign the wing to accept hard points but it would mean little major alteration to the aircraft's structure.

 

Further, I wonder how hard it would be to adapt a modern airliner's baggage handling doors to use as bombdoors? Those behind the wing would be ideally positioned while the storage hold would make a reasonable bomb bay if you could design an internal bomb handling system to move the bombs to the doors. It would mean a minimal redesign of the fuselage structure.

[Guest pfcem]

Further, I wonder how hard it would be to adapt a modern airliner's baggage handling doors to use as bombdoors? Those behind the wing would be ideally positioned while the storage hold would make a reasonable bomb bay if you could design an internal bomb handling system to move the bombs to the doors. It would mean a minimal redesign of the fuselage structure.

265915[/snapback]

Adapt the already existing sytems for hadling & removing cargo...that ludicrous!

 

May still require the doors to be relocated but certainly would be easier from an engineering standpoint than to redesign the airframe with a "traditional" bomb bay.

[Samson]

How about a reverse VLS? Bombs are loaded in an upright nose down position, they simply drop out a hole.

 

Wind sheer might neccesitate an reward angled launch tube. The tube/holes could exit between ribs or what have you.

 

No handling system, lots of doors.

 

You could probly pack a HUGE number of SDBs in there, more then you could lift to be sure.

[Koesj]

How about a reverse VLS?  Bombs are loaded in an upright nose down position, they simply drop out a hole.

265942[/snapback]

 

Dropping them at a traditional angle should give the bombs more range though I bet dropping them horizontally from rectangular holes could be done in the same way you are describing the vertical system though.

[FlyingCanOpener]

If i were in fantasy dream land , we should have airships which can launch, recover, rearm, refuel and possibly repair the UAV's. Would probably make a rather juicy target though.

 

Might not even be too hard to do given the inclination. 

265909[/snapback]

 

Crimson Skies!

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Various thoughts:

 

The C-17 would be a lousy and expensive bomber. It has relatively short legs because of all the engineering trade-offs made to give it a STOL, austere field capabilty. That capability is irrelevant to the bomber mission.

 

The A340 and A350 could also be the basis of an excellent bomber. Given political realities, the USAF isn't going to field a bomber that is part French and part German.

 

The A380 is much too big for the bomber mission.

 

Modifying an airliner fuselage for use as a bomber is essentially designing the fuselage from scratch, so extensive would be the modifications. That the structure would be almost totally different doesn't mean that external mold line would be much different at all.

 

Reengining the B-52 has been considered. It would not be a "maintenance" job, it would be massive project with major changes to the fuel, pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical and cockpit instrumentation systems. If an APU was installed, it would even be bigger. If you think that it would be a minor effort, take a look at the systems description in a B-52H flight manual.

 

I'm a big fan of UCAVs. If you are going to fly an aircraft in heavily defended airspace, so much of the expense and mission constraints are associated with bringing the crews home alive. Removing the crew from the aircraft makes lot of sense. We've lost boatloads of Predators, and who could care? If you are taking about big airplanes that are not going to fly in hostile airspace like my "B-3" why would you go with a UCAV? Less reliable and no benefits. Bombers should not be penetrating hostile airspace in the missile age. Trying to do that has given us the XB-70 (too expensive, cancelled), the B-1A (too expensive, cancelled), the B-1B (very expensive, only 100 built), and the B-2A (extremely expensive, only 21 built). Do you see the pattern? Missiles should penetrate, not bombers. A missile can always be made to be faster or more stealthy than a big bomber. In 2006, it's long past time to hang up the white scarves and build lots of big trucks for smart weapons and missiles.

 

If I were appointed King of the USAF, here is what I would do.

1. Cancel the F-35. We don't need lots of fighters, the present ones will do until UCAVs become ready which is coming soon enough. That would free up hundreds of billions of dollars. That's a lot of money even for the USAF.

2. Build several hundred B-3s based on airliners. Relatively economical to operate and maintain. Maybe a squadron or two would be B-2Bs with a nuclear capability with the ACM.

3. Retire the B-52H force and B-1B force when the B-3 becomes available. The cost savings would be enormous.

4. Develop and field some neat new things to be carried by the B-3: a hypersonic conventional strike missile, stealthy missiles including some with large payloads, air-launched recon UAVs.

5. Network the whole thing together: the B-3, its payloads, offboard sensors on other aircraft and spacecraft, GPS, guys on the ground, satcom, etc.

6. Build into the B-3 provisions for a big AESA radar and retracting launchers for AAMs and ARMs. Big, slow and unstealthy need not mean a sitting duck.

7. Keep the B-2As as a "silver bullet" force for specialized mission, such as dropping massive penetrators to attack deeply buried targets.

8. Lots of modern tankers, also based on airliners.

9. Ditto for the ISR fleet, based on airliners and big bizjets (G550, etc.).

10. I didn't address airlifters, but clearly global mobility is a key.

 

If we had the force that I described in service today, it could probably devastate Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities in a matter of weeks, operating exclusively from sovereign American territory (Guam).

[Kenneth P. Katz]

To fly the distance that an modern long-range airliner can fly unrefueled, a B-52H, B-1B or B-2A requires two aerial refuelings which means two tankers sorties.

 

To first order, that means compared the airliner, the bomber plus two tankers requires three times as many aircrew, three times as many parking spaces at a forward operating location (tankers taking up spaces that could be used for bombers), three times as much logistics support from CONUS, three times as much support equipment, spare, maintainers, etc.

 

Having fuel hogs on the flight line is a huge issue.

 

Fuel hog?  At 250hr/yr who cares.

[Ivanhoe]

4. Develop and field some neat new things to be carried by the B-3: a hypersonic conventional strike missile, stealthy missiles including some with large payloads, air-launched recon UAVs.

 

At some point I expect USAF or USAF + foreign partners to develop a supercheap ALCM, which dovetails right in with the B-3 Dreamliner concept. I haven't tried the calculator exercise to look at breakeven points for ALCMs versus JDAM type PGMs, but I think it'll happen sooner or later. Design the thing for cheap fabbing, buy them in lots of 2500 units or whatever, accept a higher in-flight system failure rate, and plan on throwing them at OPFOR by the dozen.

 

Otherwise, make your #10 your #1 priority and I'll vote for you.

[EchoFiveMike]

Bombers should not be penetrating hostile airspace in the missile age. Trying to do that has given us the XB-70 (too expensive, cancelled), the B-1A (too expensive, cancelled), the B-1B (very expensive, only 100 built), and the B-2A (extremely expensive, only 21 built). Do you see the pattern? Missiles should penetrate, not bombers. A missile can always be made to be faster or more stealthy than a big bomber. In 2006, it's long past time to hang up the white scarves and build lots of big trucks for smart weapons and missiles.

 

4. Develop and field some neat new things to be carried by the B-3: a hypersonic conventional strike missile, stealthy missiles including some with large payloads, air-launched recon UAVs

 

266084[/snapback]

 

 

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005psts/richman.pdf

 

46MB download, details the US plan for hypersonic strike, both manned and expendable. S/F....Ken M

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The list was not in priority order. I think that airlift is a key USAF mission.

 

As for the B-3 Dreamliner, "we are approaching the missile launch point so please raise your seats to the full upright position and stow your seatback tables. If you look out the windows, you can see the exhaust trails of the rocket boosters as the missiles accelerate to scramjet light-off velocity. Thank you for flying America's Air Force."

 

Otherwise, make your #10 your #1 priority and I'll vote for you.

266089[/snapback]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Manned hypersonic strike aircraft! If we could only afford 20 B-2As during the Cold War, how many manned hypersonic aircraft could we afford now? One? Five?

 

Hypersonic missiles are a fine idea.

 

... details the US plan for hypersonic strike, both manned and expendable.  S/F....Ken M

266093[/snapback]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Another beautiful thing about my B-3 is that if many of the systems and components fail, you can pull them and ship them to United Airlines or Honeywell or whoever to fix. Less money invested in specialized depot maintenance capabilities and more leveraging of commoditized commercial R&O services means more money for the things that find and kill the enemy. I'm a bloodthirsty warmonger, so more money spent on finding and killing the enemy, and less money spent on overhauling air cycle machines, brake pads and hydraulic actuators is a very good thing.

 

One of the biggest problems with the supersonic and the stealthy is that nearly every piece is specialized, so lots of money gets spent developing and maintaining the mundane stuff, spread out over some ridiculously small number of end items.

[EchoFiveMike]

Manned hypersonic strike aircraft! If we could only afford 20 B-2As during the Cold War, how many manned hypersonic aircraft could we afford now? One? Five?

 

Hypersonic missiles are a fine idea.

266095[/snapback]

 

I didn't say it was a good idea, just that they have a plan S/F....Ken M

[seahawk]

Without douht re-engining the B-52 would ba major upgrade, however if you would calculate the savings coming from less fuel consumption, less maintenace and importantly more range and less tanker usage, the project would probably pay for itself in 20 years. Whiule meanwhile giving better mission ready rates and better endurance, payload and climb.

[Hans Engstrom]

I didn't say it was a good idea, just that they have a plan S/F....Ken M

266099[/snapback]

I have a cunning plan, milord.

 

I like the use of civilian airframes etc. to as great an extent as possible. Leveraging the advantages of the civilian contractors is, IMO, about the only way even a country as rich as the US can provide a decent infrastructure support.

[Samson]

Superb insight and Plan Mr. Katz.

 

I hereby apoint you king of the USAF.

 

Now let us unleash the robotic birds of war!

 

Seriously, I agree with all that you have said thus far.

 

Smart weapons, missles, etc...they will all become cheaper as technology improves and becomes off the shelf.

 

Huge expensive bombers and such are just not worth it when we are on the verge of incredible UCAVs. And we can use the money saved to buy more UCAVs so they can be onstation 24/7.

 

Not sure about cancelling the F35 though. I think we need the VTOL and the Naval versions at least. Let the USAF buy some of those if they must, or they can just buy their Raptors.

 

I dont think we can bet the farm on zero new manned fighters just yet, but we dont need to go overboard and load up on them either.

[Slater]

Some schools of thought originally postulated that the last few blocks of F-35's would be unmanned versions. Not too sure if that's a valid assessment, though.