Could the XB-70 Valkyrie be feasible today?

[gewing]

I think the BWB concepts are beautiful, and agree. I'm not certain they would really not be great passenger liners, as some have mentioned problems with forces during banks, etc. As cargo aircraft, bombers, etc, I think they have GREAT potential. IIRC the Vulcan had a relatively low Radar Cross Section. Coat a BWB bomber with the films developed for the B-2 program mantainability upgrades (iirc, easier to apply and maintain) and you might be able to achieve a significantly smaller RCS than one would immediately assume based on size.

 

Has anybody looked at how a BWB would perform in ground effect? Might be able to extend range even more for some missions.

 

 

Originally posted by Burncycle360:

I think a fast bomber does have potential -- a UAV version of the Hypersoar

 

Kind of like an intercontinental cruise missile, but instead of the disposable kind it can be resused. Goes mach 10 skipping off the atmosphere, delivering payloads to strike multiple targets before returning home.

 

 

      If we're talking airliners, BWB is supposed to come out about the same time B-52's retire...  *shameless BWB plug*

 

It has the potential to carry a great deal more ordinance than a B-52, 747, or any other proposed airliner thusfar. (greater lifting capability, greater internal volume) with the same range and speed. It's total span and length is not much larger than the 747 too.

 

Keep in mind I mean a purpose built bomber based on the BWB, not a converted airliner- it's designed and built from the ground up as a bomber, but since the aircraft manufacturer can use many of the same manufacturing processes, tooling, and off the shelf parts I would imagine it would reduce development time and cost substationally.

 

Also it would be well suited for other long endurance/heavy payload missions (airborne laser, AWACS, C3I bird, JSTARS, airborne control center, tanker, etc).

 

Since the company will make parts anyway for the airline versions, parts should be plentiful and maintinence relatively cheap.

 

It's not stealthy, but I think it's important to still have a bomb truck. We'll be handicapped with our stealthy/fast silver bullets that are so few in number.

 

           

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Burncycle360 (30 Nov 2004).]

[Ivanhoe]

Originally posted by gewing:

OTOH, could the mach 3+ start give enough boost for long range missile strikes?  Imagine a system that starts off gliding at that speed.  :0   ok, probably not possible, but...

 

Not gonna help too much, unless the missile has very high density. Drag at transonic to supersonic speeds eats up initial momentum very quickly. If you have access to a ballistics program, an interesting exercise is to look at a standard cartridge like .30-06 at 1000 yards, and see how much increase in muzzle velocity is required to increase velocity at 1000 yards by 100 fps. For example, using Sierra's Infinity program, a 150 grain .308 spitzer starting at 2900 fps is at 1043 fps at 1000 yards. Increasing muzzle velocity to 3400 fps only yields 1189 fps out at 1000 yards.

 

Has anybody looked at how a BWB would perform in ground effect?  Might be able to extend range even more for some missions.

 

At altitudes where a large aircraft is going to experience noticible reduction in induced drag, gust loading from atmospheric turbulence is going to be appreciable. Most BWB designs I've seen appear to have wing loading (or wingbody loading, however one wants to phrase it) too low for smooth low altitude flight. With today's active control systems and whatnot, gust loading can be partially alleviated, but then that adds control system weight and wear and tear on the control system instead of the structure.

[gewing]

Yah, I should have thought of the hugely increased drag. I was, however, thinking of weapons designed FOR ultra high velocity release. LIke my idea of using it for a first stage space booster. Same technology could be used for a strike missile.

 

 

Too bad, WiG could let you make what would be nearly a flying Corvette.

 

Originally posted by Ivanhoe:

At altitudes where a large aircraft is going to experience noticible reduction in induced drag, gust loading from atmospheric turbulence is going to be appreciable. Most BWB designs I've seen appear to have wing loading (or wingbody loading, however one wants to phrase it) too low for smooth low altitude flight. With today's active control systems and whatnot, gust loading can be partially alleviated, but then that adds control system weight and wear and tear on the control system instead of the structure.

[Tbone]

Question....Lets say that Minot, Barksdale,Dyess and Whiteman suffer some kind of attack...nuclear, terrorist...whatever...thats all of our heavy bomber strength gone. Do plans exist to convert 747 airliners into bomb trucks....granted there would be no stealth whatsoever but you dont have that with the B-52 and to some extent the B-1B. 747's would be able to carry some awesome weight in bombs....What says the forum?

 

T-Bone

 

[Edited by Tbone (03 Dec 2004).]

[Ol Paint]

Originally posted by Tbone:

Question....Lets say that Minot, Barksdale,Dyess and Whiteman suffer some kind of attack...nuclear, terrorist...whatever...thats all of our heavy bomber strength gone. Do plans exist to convert 747 airliners into bomb trucks....granted there would be no stealth whatsoever but you dont have that with the B-52 and to some extent the B-1B. 747's would be able to carry some awesome weight in bombs....What says the forum?

 

T-Bone

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Tbone (03 Dec 2004).]

 

If things get that bad, adapting C-5s and C-141s makes more sense, if you don't just call the Ohios. The C-141s are recently retired, so still up to par with respect to military communications and they also have provisions for aerial refueling, an unobstructed cargo bay, and an aft ramp that is easily adaptable to air dropping weapons (I seem to recall that there may have been some experiments air-launching ICBMs from C-5s, but may be wrong on that one). Davis-Monthan can probably also supply F-111s, a few B-52s (that haven't been chopped up), possibly some B-57s, and ~30 B-1Bs.

 

It might also be able to scrape together a wing of B-52Ds and (maybe) B-47s by raiding museums and gate-guards, although these will be more problematic from the reactivation standpoint (depending on where and how they were preserved)... Heck, come to think of it, there are 10-12 B-17s still flying along with a couple of B-24s and one B-29. Also, I believe there are at least two Vulcans that we could get the Brits to return to flight. I think there is at least one A3D still flying and Davis-Monthan should also have large stocks of A-6 Intruders and P2Vs.

 

Douglas

 

[Edited to add everything after the first sentence.]

 

[Edited by Ol Paint (03 Dec 2004).]

[Smitty]

Originally posted by Ol Paint:

 If things get that bad, adapting C-5s and C-141s makes more sense, if you don't just call the Ohios.

 

Developing palletized delivery systems for cargo aircraft (like the EADS system or BMACK) would be preferable, IMHO. That way any cargo aircraft could, in theory, be adapted to the role.

 

 

 

[Edited by Smitty (03 Dec 2004).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Ol Paint:

It might also be able to scrape together a wing of B-52Ds and (maybe) B-47s by raiding museums and gate-guards, although these will be more problematic from the reactivation standpoint (depending on where and how they were preserved)...      Heck, come to think of it, there are 10-12 B-17s still flying along with a couple of B-24s and one B-29.  Also, I believe there are at least two Vulcans that we could get the Brits to return to flight.  I think there is at least one A3D still flying and Davis-Monthan should also have large stocks of A-6 Intruders and P2Vs.    

 

Douglas

 

There are enough planes parked in Davis-Monthan to redo the USAF a couple of times over.

Seriously, imagine a massive drive to bring back all the F-4s, A-4s, A-6s, A-7s, early model F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, etc...

[Ol Paint]

Originally posted by Rod:

There are enough planes parked in Davis-Monthan to redo the USAF a couple of times over.  

Seriously, imagine a massive drive to bring back all the F-4s, A-4s, A-6s, A-7s, early model F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, etc...

 

True, but I was sticking to the heavy bombers for the moment. I suppose one option to meeting strike requirements would be to reactivate the naval strike aircraft and load the CVNs up with 80-90 aircraft. Given enough time, it is probably possible to re-open the B-1B line... I don't see mass airliner conversions being a viable mass program due to the extent of modifications being necessary. Given the amount of work that would probably be required, it might not take that much longer to dust off the drawings and pull the B-1 tooling out of the desert.

 

Douglas

[Tbone]

Originally posted by Ol Paint:

True, but I was sticking to the heavy bombers for the moment.  I suppose one option to meeting strike requirements would be to reactivate the naval strike aircraft and load the CVNs up with 80-90 aircraft.  Given enough time, it is probably possible to re-open the B-1B line...      I don't see mass airliner conversions being a viable mass program due to the extent of modifications being necessary.  Given the amount of work that would probably be required, it might not take that much longer to dust off the drawings and pull the B-1 tooling out of the desert.

 

Douglas

 

The tooling is in the desert? I didnt know that.

 

Tony

[Ol Paint]

Originally posted by Tbone:

The tooling is in the desert? I didnt know that.

 

Tony

 

It was as of ~4 years ago. I don't know if it has been sold off in the interim. Basically, they preserved about 60% of the tooling that comprised all of the difficult-to-find/recreate tooling in case they wanted to re-open the line. Stored it in the Mojave desert.

 

Douglas

[James1978]

Originally posted by Tbone:

Question....Lets say that Minot, Barksdale,Dyess and Whiteman suffer some kind of attack...nuclear, terrorist...whatever...thats all of our heavy bomber strength gone.

Actually, we'd still have two B-1 squadrons at Ellsworth AFB.

[Burncycle360]

Actually, we'd still have two B-1 squadrons at Ellsworth AFB.

And I think there are some at Warner Robins AFB, at least there were when I left in '99

 

It was as of ~4 years ago. I don't know if it has been sold off in the interim. Basically, they preserved about 60% of the tooling that comprised all of the difficult-to-find/recreate tooling in case they wanted to re-open the line. Stored it in the Mojave desert.

 

Douglas

 

How "big" is tooling exactly? I wish they required tooling for all aircraft stored in controlled conditions for a certain period at least. I've been told some tooling is purposely destroyed

 

It can't be THAT expensive just to store can it?

 

 

[Edited by Burncycle360 (03 Dec 2004).]

[James1978]

Originally posted by Burncycle360:

And I think there are some at Warner Robins AFB, at least there were when I left in '99

Nope, the Air National Guard squadron there lost their B-1s the same time the Kansas ANG squadron at McConnell AFB lost their's when the B-1 fleet was reduced and consolidated.

[Burncycle360]

Nope, the Air National Guard squadron there lost their B-1s the same time the Kansas ANG squadron at McConnell AFB lost their's when the B-1 fleet was reduced and consolidated.

 

Awww

 

Silly question... what happens to the unit? Do they get transferred to another B-1 unit and become backups, do they crosstrain to work with other aircraft, or do they get discharged/disbanded?

[James1978]

Originally posted by Burncycle360:

Awww  

 

Silly question... what happens to the unit?

The former 116th BW became the 116th Air Control Wing - they operate the E-8C JSTARS. When they lost their B-1s, the Air Force stood down the active duty squadron that had the JSTARS and made the 116th a "blended wing" with both active duty and guard personnel. Total Force in practice.

[Burncycle360]

I see, thanks

[Tiemler]

Originally posted by gewing:

I think the BWB concepts are beautiful, and agree.  I'm not certain they would really not be great passenger liners, as some have mentioned problems with forces during banks, etc.

 

I can't imagine this being any worse than those lift-in-your-seat moments created by everyday turbulence. During steep banks, such as entering the landing pattern, the safety belt light will be on, anyway. And a flying wing can change heading using drag rudders as well, if I'm not mistaken.

[Chris Werb]

Originally posted by James1978:

Originally posted by Burncycle360:

Awww    

 

Silly question... what happens to the unit?

The former 116th BW became the 116th Air Control Wing - they operate the E-8C JSTARS. When they lost their B-1s, the Air Force stood down the active duty squadron that had the JSTARS and made the 116th a "blended wing" with both active duty and guard personnel. Total Force in practice.

 

 

I could be FoS, but don't all ANG squadrons have a mix of regular and part-time personnel?

[Chris Werb]

Originally posted by Smitty:

The USAF is looking at arming AC-130s with cruise missiles or bombs, and at a new concept called BMACK  (Bomber (, SpecOps/intel (M), gunship (A), transport ©, tanker (K)), that would be a stealthy C-130-sized, reconfigurable, STOL aircraft that could carry up to 40 JDAMS in the bomber config.

 

Why don't they make it V/STOL and make absolutely certain it will never happen.

[James1978]

Originally posted by Chris Werb:

I could be FoS, but don't all ANG squadrons have a mix of regular and part-time personnel?

There is a difference between full-time national guard and active duty, or at least there used to be. When I was a kid, our next door neighbor was full-time Kansas Air National Guard.

[TheSilentType]

Since we're on this topic, how hard would it be to convert a modern airliner like a 777 into a bomb-truck type aircraft? Would the modifications be relatively simple, or would adding a large bomb bay be so complex that they might as well design a new aircraft from scratch?

[Tbone]

Originally posted by TheSilentType:

Since we're on this topic, how hard would it be to convert a modern airliner like a 777 into a bomb-truck type aircraft? Would the modifications be relatively simple, or would adding a large bomb bay be so complex that they might as well design a new aircraft from scratch?

 

I asked the same thing earlier about 747's. Given the impetus I am certain that it could be done. I have no doubt it would not be hard to get the people necessary to do it in a bona-fide National emergency. Additional internal bracing. Addition of bombay with doors, necessary bomb arming wiring, avionics.....It would be sweet to say the least. Costly but sweet.

 

Tony

[Smitty]

Originally posted by Chris Werb:

Why don't they make it V/STOL and make absolutely certain it will never happen.  

 

 

 

Yes, well it does seem a bit ambitious.

[gewing]

As others have said, I think it would be a lot easier to set up a conveyer/rotary system for cargo aircraft such as C-130, C-141, c17,c-5

 

Just feed them out the back, rotate the drum and eject them until empty, eject drum, feed next one back...

 

 

Originally posted by Tbone:

I asked the same thing earlier about 747's. Given the impetus I am certain that it could be done. I have no doubt it would not be hard to get the people necessary to do it in a bona-fide National emergency. Additional internal bracing. Addition of bombay with doors, necessary bomb arming wiring, avionics.....It would be sweet to say the least. Costly but sweet.

 

Tony  

[Burncycle360]

Back to the question:

 

Is that a temporary solution (that will inevitiably become a permanent one)?

 

Most heavy transports are doing just that; transporting important stuff. That's a full time job.