ArmchairGeneral

I believe there was a thread sometime ago where someone mentioned using transports as bomb trucks, but someone else said that such a transformation would be rather impractical, as their structure is not built for carrying that kind of payload.

Modified Hercs are already stellar performers in surveillance and gunship roles.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

-{SpoonmaN}-

Well they can roll Daisycutters out of the back cargo doors on a herc already. Basically, I want the ADF to seriously consider how we can achieve more mass by using support birds in more aggressive roles, such as Hercs as gunships, bombers, surveillance and ECM birds, as well as enable the P-3s to serve in a serious maritime strike capacity (they're already most of the way there). I figure if we can refine this down to the point where each plane can be used in different roles with minimal modifications, then we'll effectively have twice the combat power we have now without even buying a new aircraft. Obviously I'm not advocating deploying Hercs as bombers in defended airspace, but in other environments which we are finding ourselves in far more often (A-stan, COIN, that sort of thing) where they would probably prove even more devastating in a bomb-truck and gunship capacity than a Hornet strike.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

ArmchairGeneral

Here's the thread I was thinking of:
Cheap RAF Bomber
And a couple of relevant posts:

Akita

USAF still has hundreds of strategic nuclear bombers: B-Trident, B-MX and B-Minuteman, (are minuteman ICBMs still on duty?).

USAF still has hundreds of tactical, (and tactical nuclear), bombers: BF-15E, BF-16C and BFA-18, etc...

Excuse me for being facetious but don't these reporters understand that a Strike Eagle IS a bomber?

When Isreal took out Osirak, they used F-16 BOMBERS for the most strategic operation they ever performed. USAF has hundreds of those bombers, hundreds more in mothballs at Davis-Monthan.

Jimmy

When people think of bombers, they tend to think of heavy bombers. But you're right, Strike Eagles and F-16s take up the lions share of US strike missions.

WECIV

The ridiculous number of casualties we will take against the PRC would justify having hardpoints to place racks on every new built airliner in the US (and start reinforcing the underneath of older airframes to also support racks). Pop off cruise missiles when the PRC has its SAM forces together and drop JDAMs as a CAS aircraft when the SAMs are defeated and the ground forces need support. Make every civilian airline pilot and their maintainers members of the USAFR and they have to practice these missions one week a year in a simulator (barring that if laws do not change and invite them to do so). Cheap bombers and we can take an awful lot of casualties and still have more planes and pilots.

W

Jimmy

Dear God. You just bankrupted the United States. And killed dozens of aircrews.

What ridiculous casualties would we take? Are we invading China? Cuz they certainly cant move their army anywhere.

gunnut

I have a question: how expensive will it be to design a new bomber that does exactly what the B-52 does?

Design it with practicality in mind. Minimize gadgetry (I know this one will be tough for the military). Emphasize ease of maintenance and cost.

It doesn't seem like a very challenging project. A flying freight train with up to date aerodynamics and engine technology. You can't tell me we can't build something with today's technology that can best the B-52.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Jimmy

Considering just re-engining the current fleet is prohibitively expensive, I'd expect a replacement to be even worse.

-{SpoonmaN}-

This is the US Government you're talking about, they can't possibly do anything cheap, everything has to be overpriced so that their chums who funded their campaigns can get rich. Or richer.
It's like the USSR, except sober, and the planes don't crash at least.

JungleMike

Bro. "Gunnut",

You have touched on something that I've been pondering for several weeks.
I have some Airforce Monthly mags that my worksupervisor's deceased father had a subscription to. It talks about the B-1,B-2 and B-52's having many more years ahead of them. If I recollect correctly, it says that the high-time B-52 has only about 13,000 hours on the frame and can live up to 26,000 hrs. I will gladly be corrected if anybody had those exact figures. It also talked about the problems that USAF has in jammers. Their stand-off jammer program got killed for cost and I think some of the '52s were in line to be that jammer.

This is probably more of a fantasy idea that a real practical one. However, what would be the problem with designing what I would call a "modular" bomber. A common airframe, GOOD powerful engines that could haul around a constantly changing payload. "Mission modules" could be designed for what role you need the bird to play. They could "plug and play" into the airframe like so many shipping containers. Airframe could be changed from penetration bomber to stand-off jammer by switching mission modules. Keep so many airframes and create mission flexibility by pimping your bird. Hey, you could even do engine swaps to create mach-busters or subsonic bomb trucks! I know that engine swaps can be done quite speedily and easily these days. Fuel tanks could be added internally if needed where other modules were not being used. Crazy, huh!

What do you think? Fire away.

regards

Mike

hello

So you want some sort of customizable tuner-bomber? FYI, the 'bomb-truck to jammer and vice-versa' concept is already being used. It's the E/F/A-18E/F/G SuperHornet/Growler.

As for the engine-changes, I really doubt you can turn a frugal, subsonic long-range bomb-truck into a quick-strike supersonic penetrator just by changing the engine! You would need some expensive variable-geometry wings and low RCS to do that. It's like converting a B-52 into a B-1. No point going supersonic if you don't have to launch a B-1 style urgent penetrator attack. The speed will be negated by the time required to change engines.

aktarian

The problem with heavy bombers (B-Xs) is that they are running out of missions. They are useful in 2 cases, when you need a lot of concentrated firepower or when you operate far from bases. Or combination of both.

Large scale bombing attacks of WW2 bomber offensive are not needed anymore. You don't need to flatten entire factory to take it out, few critical points will do. Or cut it's electrical supply. So when will you need big bombload over small one? when you need to take out big targets, like armored division deployed. Like Iraqis did in 1991. but honestly, who is going to do it today? However big bombload is usefull when you need to take out many targets, something I'll return to later.

Next is use when you operate far from bases, like early OEF. US could deploy planes from MidEast bases and carriers there but in order to do much damage they would have to be supported by large fleets of tankers and distances involved would mean large numbers of combat planes would ahve to be used to guarantee constant presence in A'stan (to offset for planes in transition to and from there). So you send heavy bombers. First they can operate far from base so no need for large tankers. They have long loiter time so no need for large numbers to be in air. And they have large bombloads which is useful when you need to take out several targets in succession. Bs come, drop bombs somewhere, hang around, are called to bomb something else a bit away, hang around do it again etc. If you would use smaller planes (Fs) they would be able to do one, maybe two missions while tanking.

So in other words, large bombers have a role to play but relatively specialised one. So it makes sense to upgrade existing ones rather than develop new ones.

B-52HBUFF

Right here!