It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eh?! B-52 BUFF Buff for "Arsenal Plane" to include AMRAAM?!

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I'm not a huge fan of scout warrior, but they and military.com seem to have subsumed the old Defense Tech blog.

They discuss a number of upgrades that would be coming with the Arsenal Plane if the B-52 ends up being the platform. At this point, it almost sounds a foregone conclusion that the BUFF is it, but, who knows.

While I was aware the Arsenal Plane would end up carrying AAMs, I was under the impression they would be strictly for very long distance attacks, with the 5th/6th gen fighters doing final targeting via data link. However! The AMRAAM isn't THAT long of range unless they are planning on a, erm, forgive me, buffed version. I would actually expect something like a nouveau Phoenix being developed instead.

Likewise, I am curious about the weapons stowage. I would think they'd need to do something other than the rotatory launcher they have now, but I don't know of any alternatives the Blue Beanies are working on. The ARMY is finally coming around to a generic near vertical launcher, like the Navy has had for decades, but ... ah well.

www.scout.com...

I'm still of the opinion what will happen is the B-52 will end up the interim platform and an unmanned variant of the next cargo bird will be the 'real' arsenal plane.

Thoughts?




posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Search B1-R, an electronically updated re-engined BONE makes more sense since it could keep up with the F-22s & has lower RCS than a Buff.

K~



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

And has all the problems of a B-1. The cheapest way to get a B-1R is to upgrade the current B fleet, meaning all the current problems that the Bs have move to the new platform.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

They've had good sortie rates in the ME, fix the problems & upgrade or design a new platform.

From an operational envelope the B1 makes the most sense short of a clean sheet.

K~



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
AAM for self defence isnt a weird idea.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

The overall fleet mission capable rate was less than 50% because the entire fleet is currently going through a massive upgrade program. They've had up to 12 aircraft at a time at the Depot. The upgrades have covered everything from brakes, to an upgraded cockpit.

Years ago we would list them as Fully Mission Capable on our status board when they came through, but not one aircraft in the fleet was actually FMC.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I've heard they are are a maintenance nightmare but can that be improved or are the faults designed in.


I know they're getting the new glass & the Sniper Pod has been a boon can the FMC rates be fixed?

Still I'm biased for the design upgrade as I'm working on my own interpretation for an RC project.

K~



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

One of the biggest problems with the B-1 is lack of electrical power leads to a lot of issues. We had five aircraft broken on the ramp one night with engine problems. Four were coming out of Singapore and went through a thunderstorm resulting in ice buildup on the inlet. They couldn't deice at that point in the flight so it ended up breaking off and going down the intake.

They've upgraded them through the years and they always seem to find new ways to break after each upgrade. They're going to be a maintenance nightmare until they're sent to the Boneyard.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The B-52 will work fine for this. I don't think that you will need the AMRAAM. The primary mission would be air to ground. Your not going to deploy the "Arsenal Plane" until you have achieved air superiority. One or two fighter escorts will suffice.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

Maybe they'll use that as a reason to build the ramjet AMRAAM.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Damn shame, such a beautiful bird.

K~



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha



but I don't know of any alternatives the Blue Beanies are working on

Hey , watch it. I resembled that remark once upon a time. And you know unless you flown in or performed maintenance on a BUFF the proper term is B52




posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JIMC5499

Maybe they'll use that as a reason to build the ramjet AMRAAM.


Dont the Block 4 amraams get 97 miles range? thats only 3 miles less than the pheonix yes?

SO many get confused with the"medium" part in the name and dotn think its long range (for a Ato A missile)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

At long range the Pk is incredibly low. It burns most of its fuel getting there.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: yuppa

At long range the Pk is incredibly low. It burns most of its fuel getting there.


True. Maybe just add another peice to th eback that drops off after it burns out? A solid booster add on.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Only because they're constant burn motors. IIRC the Meteor can throttle it's motor to increase the Pk. Obviously any missile at the max extent of it's range is going to struggle but using mid-course updates and an variable engine would help a lot.

Not sure if the D variant will have the same functionaltiy as the Meteor but the 2 way datalink provides it with realtime midcourse updates as well as re-targeting info if required. The info can come from either the carrier platform or an other. If the D does that there's nothing stopping F22s and F35s providing the targeting and then a BUFF lobbing in missiles from standoff range.

Alternativly just fit the BUFF with a APG-77 and call it Old Dog ;-)



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Its a mixed bag. A B-1B (or preferable reconfigured to a B1-A Configuration) would be able to get on station much more quickly and be able to dash in and out with less risk. With the -A you would have a top end of Mach 2 but less time on station.

A BUFF with say upgraded CMF-56's would have a staggering amount of time on station, a staggering amount of missiles require less tanker support than a bone, but be slow and vulnerable too close to the front lines....

However, the RIM-174 aka the Standard SM-6 can be used as an a2a, and has a range of 200+ nautical miles when ship launched (air launched from a BUFF at FL400 should go much further). The BUFF can carry 20 AGM-86's which have about the same weight. With the CMF's it may be more and You might be able to modify the present force to the "D" model "Big Belly" configuration and see a bit more internal carriage but Im not 100% sure



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Donkey09

Oh there's no reason it wouldn't work with a BUFF and I like the idea a lot. There are a couple variants of missiles I'd prefer to see it carry than the AMRAAM though.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

I was scrolling up from the bottom and thinking "damn, an air-launched standard would possibly be the most terrifying A2A weapon ever fielded"

I'm glad someone else thinks so as well.

Zaph, are there any others in particular? (Other than the Meteor)

Speaking of ramjets, I wonder where we might be today if the Talos family had been the target of as many improvements as the Terrier/Tartar/Standard family got...
edit on 14-3-2016 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Actually, the first Arsenal Plane thread, Zaph and I were discussing air launched standard missiles. I was hoping for an SM-3 Block IIA deriv, but Zaph thought a SM-6 was better.

In the end, I think a hypersonic delivery stage with a second stage (much slower and more maneuverable) might be best.

8 minutes of mach 10 to get you to the target area (960 nm away) and then launch the real missile and it might have a 100 nm range from there, but with a full fuel load.

Let's see you get away from that, MFer. ahem.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join