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.

 

Advance Bomber Concept- Could it Work?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I concieved it as a carrier based 'mini-nimrod' for the FAA and export. It would not have the range or loiter capability of the bigger RAF type and so wouldn't really be a suitable replacement.

Weapons would be carried (aboard the MRA/.1) on the six underwing pylons and a small internal bay ahead of the main undercarriage. They would comprise the normal kit of depth charges, Harpoon, spearfish etc. The C(K).3 would have a rear loading door for the COD role (one was designed by BAe for the real 146 in 1982) and would serve as a two point tanker for FAA F-35'S with underwing hose and drogue units while the AEW.2 would have a similar fit to the E-2C Hawkeye (which is under consideration for the RN).




posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MBF
Your bomber should work fine, but if all that you want to do is replace the B-52 and what it does now, why not just take a 747 and modify it.

That is highly unpractical, you can't just take an aircraft built for Civilian Commerical flight and modify it to be a bomber, the design flaws would be too great.

Besides, we want new bombers that are capable, not old aircraft and modify them, even when the 7E7 and the A380 are coming out in a couple of years, we want to progress not regress.

Shattered OUT...


MBF

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

That is highly unpractical, you can't just take an aircraft built for Civilian Commerical flight and modify it to be a bomber, the design flaws would be too great.

Shattered OUT...


Doesn't Russia use modified commercial aircraft for military purposes? I think the intent of the aircraft was to haul a larger payload of bombs than the B-2 can carry. The 747 has a max payload of about 250,000lbs and i think the B-52 payload was listed as 70,000lbs.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by MBF]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
In Russia its the other way round, the Tu-114 was a civil version of the Tu-95 Bear and the Tu-104 was based on the Tu-16 Badger. None of Russia's airliners since these two has been developed from a bomber, or vice versa.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I agree with ShatteredSkies, its not a smart move to transform a commercail airliner into a bomber. I'm sure the military will buy some 7E7's, but they will be for troop transport and not a bomber.

and yes, speed is a very important characteristic in a future bomber, We have enough bombers to last us until we get our next one online.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I'm sorry but i hate slow bombers, the US has enough of them we dont need more. Our fastest is the Lancer which only goes to mach 1.2 the USAF neds at least one Mach 2 calss bomber IMO!



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Some civilain planes can be converted for military operations.The Airborne Laser (ABL), a highly altered Boeing 747-400 series





posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

The Aircraft is intended to Fill the role of the B-52, Fallowing the B-2 into the target area with a larger payload. What do you think, Could it Work?


Would it work? Likely... Would it be cost-effective? No... I'm sure a B-52 replacement is already in the testing stages at the very least.


Gazrok... the B-3's are in a testing stage if this is what you mean. However, it also is true that the ORIGINAL purpose of the B-1's were to replace the B-52 fleet. But, considering the fact we were in a cold war at the time of the mass B-1 production... *hint 1* and... assuming (since this is before I was born) that the US wanted more military power, than just one massive payload bomber?

The B-1 in production... could have easily taken over the B-52 fleet already, and pretty much should have, and was supposed to. The B-3 however, when it is reveiled... will be pushing the B-52 out of service.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 07:05 AM
link   
and upgrade our tomahawks..... nothing in the world says honey we are home like a volley of tomahawks or other newer cruise missiles........ (see what happens when a navy guy reads the post)



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ilovehaters
and upgrade our tomahawks..... nothing in the world says honey we are home like a volley of tomahawks or other newer cruise missiles........ (see what happens when a navy guy reads the post)


Granted it'd mean less stress of worrying about pilots dying... however, how can you assure that your missiles will hit? no matter what, the enemy will get ahold of something similar, and before you know it you've gone back 1 er 2 centuries.

The USAF is not about to let go of it's precious bombers, they want to be the superpower that has the latest technology, and the best tactical fighters, attackers, and bombers. Thus meaning, the statement above will not occur.

As long as the USAF has a "TYPE" of resoure, then it will continue to advance further and further. Tomahawks are even becoming out-dated. OSL is now taking place of our previous long range missiles, though still in testing.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MBF

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

That is highly unpractical, you can't just take an aircraft built for Civilian Commerical flight and modify it to be a bomber, the design flaws would be too great.

Shattered OUT...


Doesn't Russia use modified commercial aircraft for military purposes? I think the intent of the aircraft was to haul a larger payload of bombs than the B-2 can carry. The 747 has a max payload of about 250,000lbs and i think the B-52 payload was listed as 70,000lbs.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by MBF]

I never said civilian airliners weren't used for military purposes, I said it would be stupid to turn a civilian airliner into a militaryBOMBER. That does not dismiss the role of civilian aircraft in the Military altogther.

And MBF was talking about turning a civilian airliner into a bomber not a military aircraft Shadow, and I know that 747-400's have been modified to be airborne lasers.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
O and MBF, the 747-400 carries 250,000lbs of people and the B-52 carriers 70,000lbs of bombs, what weighs more? A 2,000 lb bomb, or a 150 lb person?

I would go with the bomb, so for each bomb on the B-52 there would be about 4-5 people, and if you use miltiplication, you would see that the B-52 performs better and bombs are more compact than people, so dropping people on enemy territory would be stupid^^.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
O and MBF, the 747-400 carries 250,000lbs of people and the B-52 carriers 70,000lbs of bombs, what weighs more? A 2,000 lb bomb, or a 150 lb person?

I would go with the bomb, so for each bomb on the B-52 there would be about 4-5 people, and if you use miltiplication, you would see that the B-52 performs better and bombs are more compact than people, so dropping people on enemy territory would be stupid^^.

Shattered OUT...


Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying.

Do you mean the B-52 actually carries more because the bombs are individually heavier than the people on the 747? Or have I got it wrong?

If the B-52 carries 70,000lb and the 747 250,000lb then the 747 is the clear winner. It doesn't matter whether its bombs or people (well, it would matter to them if you dropped them from 50,000ft!
) its like the old trick question "Whats heaviest, a ton of coal or a ton of feathers?"



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Im not sure wether we should develop a new bomber and waste more money to develop a plane that congress will nick to about ten planes. Instead the money should be used to make more and improve the B-2 fleet. new cheap stealth and computer assembly processes from the Jsf could improve its cost and lessen the highly rare maintenance equipment. The money to develop a single new bomber could cover 60 new craft, upgrades, and all equipment necessary to handle the bombers. this is because the production line is paid for, all of the bomber design is concrete save for skin and avionics that always change, and an extensive fligh testing program has already been completed. I think that 60 new B-2's would easily fill the void of the B-52, and the B-1B can be modified to make up for any capibilities lost.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
O and MBF, the 747-400 carries 250,000lbs of people and the B-52 carriers 70,000lbs of bombs, what weighs more? A 2,000 lb bomb, or a 150 lb person?

I would go with the bomb, so for each bomb on the B-52 there would be about 4-5 people, and if you use miltiplication, you would see that the B-52 performs better and bombs are more compact than people, so dropping people on enemy territory would be stupid^^.

Shattered OUT...


Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying.

Do you mean the B-52 actually carries more because the bombs are individually heavier than the people on the 747? Or have I got it wrong?

If the B-52 carries 70,000lb and the 747 250,000lb then the 747 is the clear winner. It doesn't matter whether its bombs or people (well, it would matter to them if you dropped them from 50,000ft!
) its like the old trick question "Whats heaviest, a ton of coal or a ton of feathers?"


I dont understand either?

Shattered - I think your now talking about volume and not weight.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ilovehaters
and upgrade our tomahawks..... nothing in the world says honey we are home like a volley of tomahawks or other newer cruise missiles........ (see what happens when a navy guy reads the post)


So lets say that "You" had a military and that to make more sense and to save on money you got rid of all your bombers and put it all in a newer updated taomhawk missile. What happens if your enemy spends most of there money on a laser defence system to counter your missiles. and since you have no back up plan to bomb them, then what?


Life is like Chess, not Checkers.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by MBF

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

That is highly unpractical, you can't just take an aircraft built for Civilian Commerical flight and modify it to be a bomber, the design flaws would be too great.

Shattered OUT...


Doesn't Russia use modified commercial aircraft for military purposes? I think the intent of the aircraft was to haul a larger payload of bombs than the B-2 can carry. The 747 has a max payload of about 250,000lbs and i think the B-52 payload was listed as 70,000lbs.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by MBF]

I never said civilian airliners weren't used for military purposes, I said it would be stupid to turn a civilian airliner into a militaryBOMBER. That does not dismiss the role of civilian aircraft in the Military altogther.

And MBF was talking about turning a civilian airliner into a bomber not a military aircraft Shadow, and I know that 747-400's have been modified to be airborne lasers.

Shattered OUT...


If we are talking about bombers then yeah I agree with you I dont know of a single civilian plane that would be of use as a bomber. Since military bombers do there jobs so good. Some might have good payloads but I think it would be much better to design a plane just for bombing from the ground up.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Hmmm, scratch what I posted, I was talking about volume.

Nevermind, anyways the 747-400 might carry more, but it was designed for people not bombing, you would need to completely redesign the plane in order to get the bombs on the plane, the way that the plane is designed, it is designed for civilian transport.

The 747-400's that are modified; not many changes are made, maybe a section might be changed, seats would be removed, cargo bay welded shut, new instruments installed, but not an entire body make over like a bomber would require.

Besides the plane is subsonic, we want fast bombers that can do the job accuratly.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I think this shows why the B-52 is still flying. Other than the fact that they are falling apart, smell really bad, and are older than most of the pilots' fathers, they do EXACTLY what they are supposed to do. They are simply big aerial dump trucks. If the US does not have a replacement on the board right now, they'll be flying into their 75 year before we know it...



posted on Sep, 22 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Im wondering how much a B-1 or B-2 could carry when the SDB is introduced, i men a Raptor can hold max 8-12 internally so how much could a bomber hold? With that kinda firepower we might not need the B-52 any more.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join