Skip to comments.Boeing, Lockheed team up for new US Air Force bomber
Posted on 10/25/2013 5:27:29 PM PDT by Java4Jay
The air force has two programs, the B-1 and the B-2, aimed at replacing the aging B-52s but they were wracked with heavy cost overruns. The air force only bought 20 of Northrop Grumman's B-2s, the newest long-range bomber in its fleet.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
25 or less will be built at $1.5 billion each. Mostly due to requirements changes and cutbacks in numbers bought.
I’d rather we develop orbital capability and implement “rods from God”. It’s quick, cannot be interdicted, and it’s very powerful without being radioactive.
IOW, about the cost of the Obamacare website that doesn’t work.
We need a non-stealthy heavy bomber for theaters like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Basic Boeing airframe and engines.
Why not modify the 747?
Fly it high, and put a lot of anti-MANPAD countermeasures on it.
That ought to do it in about 50% of the places we need to bomb to smithereens.
Bring back the B-47 or DH-4 will probably be the solution. No, they will confiscate all of the currently flying WWII bombers and call that the “new” USAF bomber force.
>>>Why not modify the 747?
Fly it high, and put a lot of anti-MANPAD countermeasures on it.<<<
Do you REALLY think 747 is any vulnerable to manpads at service ceiling even without countermeasures?:-)
They had a concept 747 cruise missile bomber back in the day. It carried around 100 cruise missiles in rotary launchers and they dropped of a rail in the tail section.
Not many air defenses can handle 100 cruise missiles coming at it.
Great bombers converted from passenger planes in the past:
Douglas B-18 Bolo (DC-3)
Heinkel H-111 (transport built to be a bomber)
Lockheed Hudson (Lockheed Super Electra)
Focke Wulf FW-200 Condor
Bristol Blenheim Mk I - IV (began as Bristol Blenheim private transport)
And these are off the top of my head. More research needed.
And currently most attacks are with precision standoff weapons, launched from distances at least 40nm, up to 1000 nm. Saturation bombing with Mk 82’s are mostly for area battlefield and softening up an area where air superiority has been acheived and defenses have been sufficiently suppressed.
what they should do is used the fuselage of the b-1 bomber it has a larger bombbay than the B52 and give it fixed wings like a su-27 fixed wings will be cheaper to build fairly stealthy with more bombs than a b52.
The O’Bomber ?
These Bozos know that current non-stealthy designs are more than enough for 90% of any future conflicts.
The remaining 10% are potential foes who will be able to defeat stealth by the time these could be fielded. Roosha already has anti-stealth radars, just not many of them. In 20 years stealth will be 'yesterday's technology'.
I’m sure they can find some kind of bombers in the boneyard and brush off the desert dust.
” In 20 years stealth will be ‘yesterday’s technology’. “
From an engineering standpoint, it already is. The Air Force runs our intelligence agencies outside the CIA, so if they want to spend big bucks on airplanes they get to.
Looking at the P-8 Poseidon/B737 it seems not unreal to use a civil aircraft as a bomber.
I would prefer 4 engines like on B747 but the B747 is to much aircraft according to volume to move small and heavy things.
There is only one other aircraft available: the A340. Especially the A340-500HGW. This aircraft was used for the longest commercial flight in civil aviation.
A military version of the A330/340 is already available with complete aerial refueling equipment A330-MRTT. The A340 could be three things: bomber, tanker and cargo aircraft. The tanker and cargo option is already available.
I dislike two engines for such long operations. With one engine out you are out. - F-35 come to my mind ...-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.