new bombers, page
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 16-2-2005 @ 08:33 AM by shadarlocoth
Originally posted by JamesBlonde
Originally posted by Son of the lost maji
Most of the talk here is about figthers which is cool, but i was wondering, does anyone know anything about new projects (USA or other) regarding massive bombers, something wit a very high payload like a fortress type aircraft. Im guessing that these planes have gone obsolete because of precision guided smart bombs and the such. thanks.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by Son of the lost maji]


High payload like a Fortress. I assume yo mean the B-17?
Sorry but variants of the DH Mosquito had a bigger payload.

Were flying flying fortresses at 30,000 feet
Were flying flying fortresses at 30,000 feet
We've bags of point 5 ammo
And a teeny weeny bomb
And we drop the bastard from so high
We dont know where its gone.

Glory Glory shall we drop it?
Glory Glory shall we drop it?
Glory Glory shall we drop it?
And we drop the bastard from so high
We dont know where its gone!


weeny bombs??? 17,600 lbs was the max warload on the b17 in 500 or 1000 pound bombs how is that weeny bombs?
DH Mosquito bomb load was only 2,000 pounds 17,600 vs 2,000 little off...
the mosquito was a very good plane loved it but it was not a heavy bomber. The b17 was odd on the best bomber of the time not because of how many bombs it could hold but its how much damage it could take and still bring the crew home. Now you are going to say the numbers that where lost. if crews had to pick between liborators, b17's, or lancasters for daytime bombardment I bet that if the crews had the chance to fly in each they would pick the b17. Both the liborator and lancasters where death traps. Lancasters had a blind spot on there under sides that fighters could explote. Liborators had leakie gastanks and got the nickname on earlyer models of flying coffens because a few shots and they would explode.

bags of 50cal ammo each gun only had 1 min of fireing time before it was out. How is that bags? Or are you saying that they should have been unarmed?

As for we dont know where they go? the bombs we drop? We had the nortan bomb sight one of if not the best bombsight in the world at the time.


reply posted on 16-2-2005 @ 01:44 PM by waynos
EDIT; I see you edited your post before my reply went up so some of these points are already covered. Though I dobt that 9,000lb of bombs went under the wings

Yes, that was highball and it was never used operationally, I do know a bit of what I'm on about you know.

If the B-17 max load was 17,600lb, tell me where the load was accomodated?

The B-17 bomb bay was contained entirely within the wing chord line and could only take a limited number of bombs, see picture;



By comparison;


The Lanc's massive bomb bay stretched for 33 feet and, unlike other bombers, was one continuous uninterrupted space. Partly for this reason, the Lanc had the versatility to undertake raids with large, specialized weapons. However, this meant that the main wing spars became obstacles to movement within the aircraft, particularly for airmen wearing heavy clothing and flight boots.





[edit on 16-2-2005 by waynos]


reply posted on 16-2-2005 @ 01:53 PM by intelgurl
Originally posted by Son of the lost maji
Most of the talk here is about figthers which is cool, but i was wondering, does anyone know anything about new projects (USA or other) regarding massive bombers, something wit a very high payload like a fortress type aircraft. Im guessing that these planes have gone obsolete because of precision guided smart bombs and the such. thanks.


The massive "Fortress" type bomber airframe may not actually be obsolete but there is no near-term US development planned for such a vehicle. Maji, You, ShadowXIX and ghost are all basically correct.

Precision strike capabilities lessen the need for massive carpet bombing campaigns - now it is basically a "one target - one bomb" philosophy of air bombardment. Precision strike technology does not negate the need for large heavy bombers, but as Shadow indicated it changes their role and lessens the number of sorties necessary to accomplish their goals.

As a case in point, in
September 2003 a B-2 loaded with 80 JDAM-82 smart bombs, made one pass over a test range and all JDAM's successfully struck within 10ft of their intended targets, (well within the killzone of such munitions).

The future of aerial bombardment seems to be in a combination of manned bombers and stealth UCAVs such as the X-45 that Ghost mentioned.

Apparently, the US Air Force plans call for maintaining a fleet of 130 operational heavy long-range bombers through 2037, at which time the B-52s will be 80 years old, the B-1s close to 60, and B-2s, 45.

Development of a new heavy bomber isn’t scheduled to begin until 2019 - In the meantime much attention is being given to various concepts of smaller medium range bombers with the intent to field them in the near-term. These medium range concepts have been discussed at length on ATS and include both a delta-winged F-22 sometimes referred to as the FB-22 and an updated revision of the Northrop YF-23.


Pictured Below: A few Long Range Strike Platform (Heavy Bomber) concepts...



Further Reading:
"Beyond the B-2"; Aviation Now Magazine

[edit on 16-2-2005 by intelgurl]


reply posted on 16-2-2005 @ 01:57 PM by shadarlocoth
link with info on exturnal bomb mounts



Beginning with B-17F-30-BO, B-17F-20-DL, and B-17F-20-VE, external bomb racks were fitted under the inner wings for the carriage of two 4000-pounds bombs. This brought the maximum short-range bombload to 17,600 pounds. Under certain conditions, eight 1600-pound bombs could be carried internally and two 4000-pound bombs externally, raising the total load to 20,800 pounds. However, with such a load the effective range was quite small and all maneuvers were severely restricted. Consequently, external bombs were only rarely carried by the B-17F. Although all subsequent models had lugs and controls for their attachment, the underwing racks were not installed at the factory.



I stand corrected max bomb load was 20,800 pounds 8)

never said highball was in active service. I also know what I'm talking about. My father is a history major and is a fanatic about the 8th airforce.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by shadarlocoth]

Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



In Case Of Videos Of Flying People
  Posted 9 days ago with 9 member flags
Lockheed and Boeing may have seen my design
  Posted 19 days ago with 9 member flags
First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
  Posted 12 days ago with 4 member flags
Boeing X-37 and X-40 - the ultimate history
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags
F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
  Posted 0 days ago with 2 member flags
Its a bird, its a plane, no its a ....
  Posted 14 days ago with 0 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Alien Grey caught in photo ?
  Aliens and UFOs, Posted 7 hours ago, 57 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 11 hours ago, 53 replies
Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 53 replies