Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
New Long Range Bomber
Collapse
X
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by urmomma158 View PostWhat kind of sonar does it use?????? Hope it has a low frequency variable depth dipping sonar to find those pesky SSK's.I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Comment
-
Originally posted by canoe View PostSays 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Defcon 6 View PostSounds 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.
A technological triumph, but not a very useful addition to the armoury.Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by glyn View PostOr 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostThe B-70 would have gone the way of the B-58. And the B-52 would still be around.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Defcon 6 View PostB-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.Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Defcon 6 View PostYou 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.Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by glyn View PostOr 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.
Comment
-
Comment