The Arsenal Plane: Here comes the newest buff for the BUFF

a reply to: anzha

It was. With the externals added that max payload climbs to 134K (75 internal, 59 external) lbs. With internal only it's still larger than the B-52.

www.airforce-technology.com...

a reply to: anzha

Any serious talk about an "arsenal plane" is a bit off tack. Do we have any huge lifter that can be deemed that within reason? A B52...? 'Kidding right? Same for any airplane in existence or that will ever be in existence.

The platform will be an "arsenal ship" alright. It will move through the air, but technically, not truly flying. It will be one of the mysterious, mass canceling black triangles in one of its multiple and amazing forms. And BTW, for its defense, it will carry a host of those laser pods weapons for self-protection.

Wouldn't it make more sense to modernize with a modified 767/747 hybrid like the old plan we all bring up from time to time. I'm guessing that both of those aircraft would decimate the B-1 and the B-52 in ready rates.

Sounds like a mega setup of MetalStorm to me..

a reply to: Caughtlurking

The B-52 had about a 75% mission capable rate last year. That's about as good as you'll get out of either of those platforms, and the initial modification costs will be much lower since the BUFF can already carry most of the weapons involved.

a reply to: Sammamishman

My bad.

I thought the buff had 85 tons.

*hangs head in shame*

a reply to: anzha

Build a brand new B-1R, these airframes are just stupid old, 50+ years on B-52, 30-35+ on the B-1 or older.

Who cares about money, just call the FED, print up about 5 billion more in, what does it take, 2 keystrokes, and hand it to Boeing.

Im amazed you guys even care about money anymore, they can print whatever they want, its a whole scam, just add a few billion more for the latest and greatest B-1r, anyone advocating for an upgraded B-52 loses all credibility. Really?

a reply to: BigTrain

Forget the money for a moment.

Have you looked at the numbers for the combat readiness and time to repair that came up in the thread already?

a reply to: BigTrain

So sorry for, you know, trying to be realistic here.

There was a story about taking 747's and using them as missile trucks filled with cruise missiles.

Sam posted it on ATS in November.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: grey580

They also talked about C-5s and C-17s as mobile ICBM launchers over the years too.

a reply to: Zaphod58

they certainly could, couldn't they.

Though for an ICBM I'd bet they'd want something a bit more stealthy. Not that it would have to be stealthy.

a reply to: anzha

This sounds cool. I am waiting to see a flying battleship or better yet a flying mother ship capable of rearming and re fueling fighters.....maybe even launch them or pick them up mid flight.

a reply to: grey580

Most of the places they'd launch from are so far outside of where fighters could get without having massive tanker support, and being really really obvious though.

a reply to: Zaphod58




That they did.

Where are the real inovative idea ? Arsenal plane or how making new with the old, soon we will see re-appear B-24 with smart drone

a reply to: darksidius

Personal suspicion is we will see a new airframe, but based on something else. But that's just a gut feeling.

Lockheed could propose something based on the C-5 airframe (or something else) and Boeing the 747 or some other replacement. It'd be interesting if they could roll the C-17 replacement and this into one airframe.

a reply to: anzha
Yes I agree because B52 is a great plane but realy we can hope something elses for the 21 century. Don't you think it make a race with the LRS-B ? why imagine this on old plane when LRS-B will be soon in the game ?

a reply to: darksidius

So instead of repurposing an airframe that already carries 90% of the weapons we're talking about, and would require almost no modification, and can be ready in a few years, spend billions and 10+ years developing a clean sheet design, because that would be cooler.

Makes perfect sense to me.

a reply to: darksidius

The LRS-B is meant for a different role. As I noted in other threads, something like a robo buff is needed. Up engined, modern airframe, etc. with offboard targeting capabilities. The key though is to be relatively cheap.

The LRS-B while a manageable price is still too high for this. A C-5 costs $90M. Even if you double the cost over that for the new arsenal plane (NAP) it'd still be ~40% of what an LRS-B would cost.