Slater Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=10677&printer=no I dunno. Maybe with future technology it could be made to work.
Guest JamesG123 Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 That shows you just how much the SF community is running things at DoD when the Air Farce is padding in a "Gunship mode" into its case for a new strategic bomber. I have a mental picture of a B2 with guns sticking out the sides... Gimme a friggin' break.
Calvinb1nav Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 I'm a bomber guy but I think the AF is smoking crack if it thinks it will get money for a new bomber. Plus the AF is run by fighter pilots for fighter pilots so I don't see this happening. We're trying to buy F-22s,F-35s, HH-47, new tankers, new space assets, etc. and now a new bomber? I bet the guy mentioned in this article Col James Pillar, chief for next-generation long-range strike, is probably a F-15C pilot knowing the AF. PBAR
Corinthian Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 That shows you just how much the SF community is running things at DoD when the Air Farce is padding in a "Gunship mode" into its case for a new strategic bomber. I have a mental picture of a B2 with guns sticking out the sides... Gimme a friggin' break. 392605[/snapback] B-52 with 8-inch guns triple mounted in a ball turret....
Marek Tucan Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 B-52 with 8-inch guns triple mounted in a ball turret.... 392673[/snapback]Front and rear, giving six-gun broadside
Jim Martin Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 Front and rear, giving six-gun broadside 392683[/snapback] Will it have belt armor and a torpedo defense system?
R011 Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 (edited) B-52 with 8-inch guns triple mounted in a ball turret.... 392673[/snapback]Just add B-52 wings to a Mighty M113 GAVIN!!!!!!!!!!, as well as the eight inch guns and you have a real winner. Edited November 15, 2006 by R011
Ivanhoe Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 I have a mental picture of a B2 with guns sticking out the sides... B-2s don't really have sides, other than top and bottom. The B-52 is a horrible gun platform. Lets assume we try to apply the AC-47/AC-130 concept to the Buff, and use gun systems contemporary to the Buff. Its fuselage is too narrow for the gun carriages to have a full recoil travel; shortening the tackles' reach will greatly increase the peak loads on the bulkhead blocks, shortening the structural life. Plus, with all that wing anhedral and sweep, much of the field of fire would be blocked.
Guest JamesG123 Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 B-2s don't really have sides, other than top and bottom. Joke dude...The B-52 is a horrible gun platform. Lets assume we try to apply the AC-47/AC-130 concept to the Buff, and use gun systems contemporary to the Buff. Its fuselage is too narrow for the gun carriages to have a full recoil travel... Since you nit-picked my post, I will return the favor. A B-52's fusalage is over 6 feet wide. That is plenty of room to mount the big gun and its recoil travel. Some more of it may be required to hang out of the airplane and a clever means of reloading might be needed as there isn't as much real estate available on a C-130, but its do able. In flight the wings droop much less so you wouldn't need to worry about the wings or engines blocking line of fire, but the guns could just be placed forward or far aft of them. The biggest problem with the unlikely use of a Buff is that it is subject to cross wind and has a tendency to fly off axis (sideways) at low speed. This would play hell with trying to line up a shot and or make the mountings much more complicated (asmuth as well as elevation)... Why can't we just leave this job to the Herk?
rmgill Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 What about that old plan for a TALCM platform that would carry multiple Rotary Launchers. A B-747 as it were. Plenty of room on that platform for weapons, ammo and sensors. Heck, you could mount multiple 105s, 20mm mini-guns and 40mm Bofors.
Slater Posted November 16, 2006 Author Posted November 16, 2006 Hell, there's always the AC-17 "Killer Whale". Probably mount a battery of M777 howitzers inside, with a picnic/lounge area for the crews.
Kenneth P. Katz Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 It seems to be like there is too much complexity inherent in this concept. Why wouldn't a new gunship be based on the relatively new C-130J?
TheMuffinKing Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Lets dispense with aircraft and deploy orbital bombardment. We could have sattelites mounting particle beam weapons and ballistic missiles in orbit over hot spots! Nevermind the logistics, the idea is so perfect the sattelites re-arm themselves!
Guest JamesG123 Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 It seems to be like there is too much complexity inherent in this concept. Why wouldn't a new gunship be based on the relatively new C-130J?393148[/snapback] Because the Air Force wants a new super sonic, super stealty, super sexy bomber and will give any song and dance they can think of to get it?
Corinthian Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 What about that old plan for a TALCM platform that would carry multiple Rotary Launchers. A B-747 as it were. Plenty of room on that platform for weapons, ammo and sensors. Heck, you could mount multiple 105s, 20mm mini-guns and 40mm Bofors.393126[/snapback] Now where is that picture of a 747 with side-mounted guns, bombs on the wings, and the words "Whoop Ass"....
Macarthur Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I guess I can get why we would need a new gunship. But I can't fathom what possible need we have for a new bomber, We already have three heavy bombers, one of them has been serving for fifty years, and will probably end up serving another fifty! We need to get rid of at least one of the bombers we already have before we go and build more.
Guest JamesG123 Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I vote for mothballing the B1s. The highspeed strike mission can already be done by several other AC (and I mean literally, it takes several of them). The B-52 is a better bomb truck and the B2 is a better sneaky penetration bomber.
Josh Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I vote for mothballing the B1s. The highspeed strike mission can already be done by several other AC (and I mean literally, it takes several of them). The B-52 is a better bomb truck and the B2 is a better sneaky penetration bomber.393516[/snapback] I think we should keep them; they're capable platforms that can carry more ordnance than B-52's or B-2's and there's no shortage of spares I suspect since a third of the force has already been mothballed. Likely these three bomber types will be the last strategic bombers produced indefinately. Building a new bomber types is absurd. Combining that requirement with a gunship sounds like some twelve year old's idea of 'what's the coolest plane EVER?!?!?'
gewing Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 I vote for mothballing the B1s. The highspeed strike mission can already be done by several other AC (and I mean literally, it takes several of them). The B-52 is a better bomb truck and the B2 is a better sneaky penetration bomber.393516[/snapback] I don't think the B-52 is really a better bomb truck, unless we want to carry Tall Boys externally or some such.
John Gillman Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 I don't think the B-52 is really a better bomb truck, unless we want to carry Tall Boys externally or some such.393608[/snapback]------------------------Don't you mean the 10 ton Grand Slam bombs? Never mind 5 ton bombs!
Brasidas Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Just in the last two weeks I've been getting more than a few rumors that there are going to be very few new aircraft added to the inventory. We're talking cuts. I haven't heard specifics, but I am familiar with upgrade and life extension programs. CH-46s just got a little lease on life for about 80-90 airframes. Word coming down is that F/A-18 E/Fs will be carrying the load for quite a while and all NAVAIR aircraft need rationalized avionics architectures. JSF is in turmoil, big time. Spending out of control, proprietary architecture, and government oversight efforts are a joke at present. Vendors are out of control and the dems are in office. The military is bracing for the worst.
Guest JamesG123 Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 (edited) The blood will flow ankle deep in the Navy and Air Force dept. But I am hopeful that they will restore some rational and long term vision to the Army/land forces. Or at least kill off all these blue sky, vapor ware projects. I would gladly trade the FCS for an M1A3. Just my wishful thinking... Edited November 17, 2006 by JamesG123
gewing Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 ------------------------Don't you mean the 10 ton Grand Slam bombs? Never mind 5 ton bombs!393616[/snapback] Actually, I think I was thinking about a US developmental that weighted 30-40k lbs... According to Aviation Week, MOAB (2x?)can be carried internally by a B-2. I wonder if a B-1 can carry it?
Sikkiyn Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Wish John Boyd was still around, to slam-dunk the AF brass yet again on their stupid sh*t. Are any of his Acolytes still around --- any in a position to call these wasteful AF idiots to the public carpet?
Gunguy Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Just in the last two weeks I've been getting more than a few rumors that there are going to be very few new aircraft added to the inventory. We're talking cuts. I haven't heard specifics, but I am familiar with upgrade and life extension programs. CH-46s just got a little lease on life for about 80-90 airframes. Word coming down is that F/A-18 E/Fs will be carrying the load for quite a while and all NAVAIR aircraft need rationalized avionics architectures. JSF is in turmoil, big time. Spending out of control, proprietary architecture, and government oversight efforts are a joke at present. Vendors are out of control and the dems are in office. The military is bracing for the worst.393651[/snapback] Your are right of course. I have been saying that the cuts were coming. Even if the Republicans had total control, the cuts were coming. The Navy will continue to shrink, the Air Force is cutting hard in the next few years. The Army is already having to beg and make the case over and over to Congress, that they need reset money. Without it, FCS is in mortal danger. FCS is still in vapor ware mode. I was shocked when I just read that 90% of the software/gee whiz components of FCS were still in development with no predictions available from the developers, when they could have working versions to test. All the high risk issues are still high risk!It is going to be a LONG time before FCS sees reality. Congress is getting pissed about it. So, cuts all around. It is not going to be pretty, when the funding battles have all the services going after each others throats! Well, I'll bring the popcorn......
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now