Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Long Range Bomber

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}- View Post
    Should do the job so long as it doesn't come up against too much opposition I guess.
    Looks pretty much like a straight up replacement for patrol aircraft like the P-3 and Nimrod. Good for patrol, ASW and anti-shipping, like highsea said. Probably can carry anti-ship missiles like the Orion can.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

    Comment


    • #17
      Looks like a nice a/craft - shame the UK decided to rebuild old Nimrods for god only knows how much more... lol

      Comment


      • #18
        The UK Nimrods would have been fine (and maybe even got the US contract instead of the 737) but for the fact that the government tried to penny-pinch by mating old fuselages to new wings. Given that the fuselages were all built using 1950s technology and were therefore substantially dimensionally different, they've had to spend hundreds of millions on bodging them to the new wings, while killing all prospect of other orders. Had they just gone for new build fuselages as well, it would be in service by now.

        Incidentally, IIRC the 737 MMA uses pretty much the same combat system as the Nimrod MRA4.
        Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
        Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

        Comment


        • #19
          What kind of sonar does it use?????? Hope it has a low frequency variable depth dipping sonar to find those pesky SSK's.
          Last edited by Shadowsided; 22 Oct 06,, 03:56.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by urmomma158 View Post
            What kind of sonar does it use?????? Hope it has a low frequency variable depth dipping sonar to find those pesky SSK's.
            Dipping sonar? How would a fixed wing aircraft use a dipping sonar? I thought they just used sonabuoys.
            I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by canoe View Post
              Says something about the BS that all future bombers need to be stealth.

              Theres a niche for stealth aircraft, that niche doesn't include everything though. Sometimes the simple, rugged, hardass wins. See A-10, B-52, C-130, F-15.
              Sounds like the arguement for the Iowa's to me. hehe.

              The B-52 is amazing. But I think the USAF should have pursued production of the XB-70. Then we might not have to deal with this idea for a new long range bomber. But then again, the military loves to throw money away.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Defcon 6 View Post
                Sounds like the arguement for the Iowa's to me. hehe.

                The B-52 is amazing. But I think the USAF should have pursued production of the XB-70. Then we might not have to deal with this idea for a new long range bomber. But then again, the military loves to throw money away.
                Or did the brasshats come to realise that the operational requirement they had formulated some years before was being overtaken by events? Only 2 XB-70s were flown, but it was too complex, too large, too expensive and un-necessarily fast. Had it entered service, I suspect the B-52 would have outlived it.
                A technological triumph, but not a very useful addition to the armoury.
                Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The B-70 would have gone the way of the B-58. And the B-52 would still be around.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by glyn View Post
                    Or did the brasshats come to realise that the operational requirement they had formulated some years before was being overtaken by events? Only 2 XB-70s were flown, but it was too complex, too large, too expensive and un-necessarily fast. Had it entered service, I suspect the B-52 would have outlived it.
                    A technological triumph, but not a very useful addition to the armoury.
                    You mean like the B-1b? Sounds like it to me. In any event, I'll rephrase my statement. The XB-70 wouldn't have replaced the B-52, but I believe it would have eliminated the need for the B-1. Could retire some of the B-52's I'm sure as well.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                      The B-70 would have gone the way of the B-58. And the B-52 would still be around.
                      B-58 wasn't a heavy bomber though. Not really a good comparison. I haven't seen any medium bombers like the B-58 since uh...well since the cold war. Maybe it's because the idea of a medium bomber became obsolete? The same way that the B-47 went out. B-58 is a poor example in comparison.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Defcon 6 View Post
                        B-58 wasn't a heavy bomber though. Not really a good comparison. I haven't seen any medium bombers like the B-58 since uh...well since the cold war. Maybe it's because the idea of a medium bomber became obsolete? The same way that the B-47 went out. B-58 is a poor example in comparison.
                        The (mis-designated) F-111 was the most able nuclear strike aircraft the USAF ever fielded. Unfortunately it was one of the things that had to go during the START negotiations that enabled the cold war to come to an end. The B-58 Hustler (catchy name, eh?) was another technical triumph, but its only party piece was its supersonic speed. As a way of shifting fuel it had few equals, but it was not a nice flying machine, was unforgiving, expensive to operate and had a rather short career.
                        Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Defcon 6 View Post
                          You mean like the B-1b? Sounds like it to me. In any event, I'll rephrase my statement. The XB-70 wouldn't have replaced the B-52, but I believe it would have eliminated the need for the B-1. Could retire some of the B-52's I'm sure as well.
                          The B-1B Lancer makes a most unusual saga, and I feel that there are yet lessons to be drawn from a study of it. What other production aircraft do you know of that were significantly less less capable than their prototypes? Offhand, I can't think of one.
                          Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I highly doubt the XB-70 would have been able to do what the B1-B does. It was designed for high altitude and Mach 3+ speeds. The B1-B was meant to go in at very low level, at high subsonic speeds. Also, I don't think the bomb load of the Valkyrie was terribly good, which pretty much limits it to a nuclear role. Of course, the same could be said of the original B-52, but it's such a versatile design that they were able to rectify that when conventional bombing became a priority. The XB-70 was such a bleeding edge design to begin with that I have a feeling there wouldn't have been much room for changes like that.

                            As for the B1-B having poor performance compared to the original design, sure, it wasn't able to do the same things as the B1-A, but it wasn't designed to do the same things. It can't go as fast, but when it comes to low altitude, high speed dashes, it does just fine. Just a different role than it was originally designed for.
                            I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by glyn View Post
                              Or did the brasshats come to realise that the operational requirement they had formulated some years before was being overtaken by events? Only 2 XB-70s were flown, but it was too complex, too large, too expensive and un-necessarily fast. Had it entered service, I suspect the B-52 would have outlived it.
                              A technological triumph, but not a very useful addition to the armoury.
                              Don't forget that one of those two prototypes crashed rather spectacularly in a collision.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ArmchairGeneral View Post
                                Dipping sonar? How would a fixed wing aircraft use a dipping sonar? I thought they just used sonabuoys.
                                They dont use dipping sonar they use sonabouys and madbooms.

                                Madman Madman!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X