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.

 

Air Force looking at MOAB class weapon on B-52

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

And there is a practical limit to the size, strength, weight of the launcher itself. So even if you somehow doubled the weight-bearing capacity or the pylon/wing, the upshot is not a doubling of the missile carriage on the pylon.




posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Meh once again you guys are right and the Pentagon is stupid.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




 ... and the Pentagon is stupid.


Governmental waste or incompetence is hardly unprecedented.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

ok lets try this cool picture



The Air Force thinks about modifying the attachment system - marked red - to be able to carry more than 5000lb max. They dont look into modifying the pylon - marked yellow. You can already put 6 JASSMs on the damn thing as is.
upload.wikimedia.org...

So messing with the attachment systems wont help with standoff weaponry at all. The limiting factor is space, not weight. If the pylon were longer they could put 9 JASSMs on it without running into weight issues.
The proposed update is only about Building an heavier attachment system to be able to hanging a single MOAB (or MOP i gues) on the pylon. As explained, this is just not a neccessary capability to have.


edit on 22-6-2018 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I definitely know I misread the article then, because The Drive came to the wrong conclusion I did.

www.thedrive.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight




If the pylon were longer they could put 9 JASSMs on it without running into weight issues. 


Right, and then the launcher is longer, and therefore heavier, and also needs additional internal strength to withstand the additional stresses due to higher weight and drag acting on an even longer movement arm; so even more weight cutting into whatever additional load you cleared the pylon for. It's a game of diminishing returns.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

No, no, you're right. Just like almost everything else lately, this is just another waste of money by the Pentagon. Typical government waste that has no return.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It's not no return. It's just not a return worth the investment. In my/our opinion. Which I don't find particularly far-fetched at all.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Same thing.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh come on, this would hardly be the first time the Airforce *thinks* about wasting money.

I'm not opposed to this in principal, i just dont see a compelling reason for this upgrade. Being able to carry MOABs is an unneccessary capability.

But sure, lets make stuff up and pretend the Air Force is sitting on a secret hypersonic weapon in the 5k to 20k range ready for procurement like they propose on TheDrive. Just need to figure out why they wouldnt just have the pylon mod for a super secret hypersonic weapon on the black side as well and we are good to go.

edit on 22-6-2018 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Just because you don't see one, doesn't mean that they aren't working on something. But hey, what do I know. Apparently all military planners are complete idiots that do nothing but waste money on things they don't need.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




Apparently all military planners are complete idiots that do nothing but waste money on things they don't need.


Nobody said that either...



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I didn't say anyone in this thread did, but that's the prevailing attitude that's going around lately among several threads and discussions on other sites.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Zaphod58


Thats a long life for the aircraft!! Imagine if the Wright Brothers were still flying around in the "Wright flyer".


They design aircraft around the task it's meant to do - so a bomber starts off with a bomb bay, maximum altitude and speed; how big it is and how much weight it is going to carry. Then they figure out the airframe, how much lift the wings need to generate, how powerful the engines need to be, get the airflow optimized to reduce drag and maximize lift, then add the cockpit and instruments. Once they have all those sorted out, that design will last generations.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh come on, this would hardly be the first time the Airforce *thinks* about wasting money.

I'm not opposed to this in principal, i just dont see a compelling reason for this upgrade. Being able to carry MOABs is an unneccessary capability.

But sure, lets make stuff up and pretend the Air Force is sitting on a secret hypersonic weapon in the 5k to 20k range ready for procurement like they propose on TheDrive. Just need to figure out why they wouldnt just have the pylon mod for a super secret hypersonic weapon on the black side as well and we are good to go.


Because black projects are more expensive and difficult to run and it wouldn't be feasible to keep it secret at all the aircraft maintenance sites.

It might be a UCAV for all we know.



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel
I'd argue that black Projects are far less difficult to run and usually much less expensive than white world equivalents.

I dont see why they can keep the weapons system a secret but not a freaking attachment system.



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Because that sort of thing is highly engineered. No reason to make it accessible to everyone anymore than there is any reason to make any private proprietary technology part of the public domain.

Less reason, actually.







 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join