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.

 

new bombers

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
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]




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I dont think their even close to becoming obsolete just that they are changing to a different form. Right now we have the B-2 which is just a amazing bomber with a large payload. But future development I think is going to the stealthy UCAVs for bombers. They already have some impressive prototypes like the Boeing X-45. I would never call the X-45 massive though. There is also some talk of a very fast,stealthy and perhaps even sub orbital bomber that would be manned and I imagine quite massive.

So expect bombers to be around for quite a bit longer though they might not have humans in them.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   

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!



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   

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!


LOL
the only new bomber that i can think of is that boeing 737 anti suubmarine somthing, but its not really a bomber



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont think their even close to becoming obsolete just that they are changing to a different form. Right now we have the B-2 which is just a amazing bomber with a large payload. But future development I think is going to the stealthy UCAVs for bombers. They already have some impressive prototypes like the Boeing X-45. I would never call the X-45 massive though. There is also some talk of a very fast,stealthy and perhaps even sub orbital bomber that would be manned and I imagine quite massive.


Bombers are the center of air to ground warfare. Bombers won't be obsolete as long as there is a need to be able to attack an opponent from the air. In the US, bombers are going through a major design shift. Granted, I have some oppinions about the design shift, but that's for another time. The current trends are leaning toward the fallowing: Stealth, Smart Weapons, & Improved all weather preformance.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   

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.


RAB

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
the Nimrod MRA4 for the UK is sort of a bomber very long range and large weps bay and can carry all raf weapons that are in service today



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Some wrong facts there shadarcloth. The standard bomb load of the Mosquito was 4,000 lbs, not 2,000, and at the time the Mossie went into service the typical bomb load of the B-17 was 4-6,000, a figure that was never improved upon by the B-17. Not impressive at all when you look at the size of it compared to the Mossie and feeble by comparison with the Lancasters standard 16,000lb, maximum 22,000lb, more than even the early versions of the B-29. The Lancaster was far from being a 'death trap', it was bloody cold and uncomfortable to fly but was a magnificent bomber.

The B-17 was a fine aircraft, I'm not knocking it, just aiming for a little accuracy. My, haven't we gone off topic quickly


a little reference point



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
The B-3 and Hypersoar are examples of new heavy bombers.

Not much is known since they are planned for when the B-52 and B-2 are phased out, but that will be a long time.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Some wrong facts there shadarcloth. The standard bomb load of the Mosquito was 4,000 lbs, not 2,000, and at the time the Mossie went into service the typical bomb load of the B-17 was 4-6,000, a figure that was never improved upon by the B-17. Not impressive at all when you look at the size of it compared to the Mossie and feeble by comparison with the Lancasters standard 16,000lb, maximum 22,000lb, more than even the early versions of the B-29. The Lancaster was far from being a 'death trap', it was bloody cold and uncomfortable to fly but was a magnificent bomber.

The B-17 was a fine aircraft, I'm not knocking it, just aiming for a little accuracy. My, haven't we gone off topic quickly


a little reference point




wrong the stadard payload was 2,000 for the Mosquito it was only upped to 4000 for the dambuster bomb it was not a normal bomb load for the plane. As for the b17 the standerd was 8,000, early models where 4-6k. I think deffently on the lancaster my step dads father flew in one and died in one.

refernce on mosquito

[url=http://www.b17.org/history/specs.asp] Refernce on b-17 [url]

[url=http://www.acepilots.com/planes/b17.html] More refernce on b-17 [url]

[edit on 16-2-2005 by shadarlocoth]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadarlocoth


wrong the stadard payload was 2,000 for the Mosquito it was only upped to 4000 for the dambuster bomb it was not a normal bomb load for the plane. As for the b17 the standerd was 8,000 not 4-6k. I think deffently on the lancaster my step dads father flew in one and died in one.


The Mosquito never carried the Dambuster bomb, only a smaller version of it called 'highball' and then only in trials so you are mistaken. The bombload of the Mossie WAS 4,000lb, the internal bay only accomodated 2,000lb, this is not the same thing, and in any case later bulged bomb doors allowed a full 4,000lb load to be carried internally.

Even if the B-17 load was 8,000lb, that is a bit different from the 17,600lb you stated before. I think the B-17G was capable of carrying 8,000lb (which also contradicts MY earlier statement, but the major limiting factor onm the B-17 was its extremely small bomb bay (for the class).

Regarding your final point, people died on every operational type, they were not all death traps, that is the horror of war.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
B17 MAX bombload was 17,600 with exturnal mounts...... Average 8,000

Masquito MAX 4000 normal was 2000. they might have made the doors biger to fit them but thats the same way the rigged the b-17 with exturnal mounts.

the lancaster droped the dambuster bombs but they developed a verant for the masquito.................. I have a video at home of a masquito droping a dambuster bomb and it skipping accross the water and hitting a battle ship.

highball was a dambuster just not the same one used by the lancasters so we are both right in that reguard

my last point was it does not make it a death trap because he died in it. from talking to his son and the storys he told him that is the bases of my opinon I'm sure it jaded but.... so is history


[edit on 16-2-2005 by shadarlocoth]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
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]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

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]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
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]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I take you point about the mods but this was impractical for operations; Your link also contains this line;


The maximum bombload of the first B-17Fs was 9600 pounds, but the range over which such loads could be carried was quite short. On typical missions the load was 4000-5000 pounds


so I can be right too



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
hahaha so we are both right 8)



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Bombers are here to stay. With the new JDAM's and such its much more attractive for huge bombers flying around over a battlefield and drop a JDAM at a target when deemed nessecairy. Thats is how the B52 and B1b are used right now. That is also one of the reasons why the B52 is still in service its cheaper than the B1b to do that kind of missions.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
thanks. i like those new prototype bomber sketches, they look nice



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   



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...


Actually their was a variant of the mosquito which carried a bomb called the cookie. This one bomb was comparable to the payload of a B-17.

Dont get me wrong. I love the fort, nothing else would make it home with damage you could drive a truck through but in comparison to RAF types of the day such as the Lancaster and Halifax it carried a considerably smaller payload and was quite slow. Due to their lack of defensive firepower These aircraft were also used in daylight raids towards the end of the war when the threat from the Luftwaffe was virtally nonexistant.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join