A new B-52

[ANTIcarrot]

A little CGI I did for a while back:

Second X-84 prototype taking part in bombing trials.

The X-84 had a rather odd and conception that's rather informative about international politics. In the mid 2030s the last of America's B-52s were nearing the end of their service life, and the USAF issued an operational requirement, not for a new stealthy bomber, but for essentially 'more of the same'. A big slow aircraft that can carry lots of bombs anywhere in the world at high or low altitude.

As a european company, EADS was very aware that they had no chance of winning such a prestigous US contract. Yet after sitting down with the accountants, they calculated that the tax breaks associated with entering the competition amounted to almost eight hundred million dollars, plus the value of having access to the USAF's inner circle for the duration of the competition.

Thus the Condor was born. Two A380-300 wings and three Tamar-400 engines, mated to a semi blended wing center section that could carry 50% more than the B52, and carry it twice as far, and with twice the reliability and redundancy. For larger weapons the Condor retained its 4 'traditonal' engine mounts that could accomadate loads of up to 6,000kg.

It was a technically sound idea on paper and worked surprisingly well once built. It lost of course to more purpose built platforms offered by more American firms. Particularly Boeing's '52 More Years' campaign. But it had cost less to develop and build than EADS had gotten from the American government, and thus had served its purpose.

The single surviving example can be seen at Deutsches Museum in Munich.

 

[MattII]

Easyjet can fly 120 people from Paris to Moscow and back for a fraction of the cost of putting one bomb on a single Taliban held house. Either we have aircraft that are too expensive to fly, or we have lousy accountants...

Military hardware costs tons. Oh sure, you could convert a civilian plane to carry bombs, probably without too much expense, but then you have to install all that military hardware (which, given that the P-8 is based on the 737-800 seems to amount to literally several tons) which is generally considered essential for a military aircraft of that calibre.

 

[Xavier]

A little CGI I did for a while back:

Second X-84 prototype taking part in bombing trials.

The X-84 had a rather odd and conception that's rather informative about international politics. In the mid 2030s the last of America's B-52s were nearing the end of their service life, and the USAF issued an operational requirement, not for a new stealthy bomber, but for essentially 'more of the same'. A big slow aircraft that can carry lots of bombs anywhere in the world at high or low altitude.

As a european company, EADS was very aware that they had no chance of winning such a prestigous US contract. Yet after sitting down with the accountants, they calculated that the tax breaks associated with entering the competition amounted to almost eight hundred million dollars, plus the value of having access to the USAF's inner circle for the duration of the competition.

Thus the Condor was born. Two A380-300 wings and three Tamar-400 engines, mated to a semi blended wing center section that could carry 50% more than the B52, and carry it twice as far, and with twice the reliability and redundancy. For larger weapons the Condor retained its 4 'traditonal' engine mounts that could accomadate loads of up to 6,000kg.

It was a technically sound idea on paper and worked surprisingly well once built. It lost of course to more purpose built platforms offered by more American firms. Particularly Boeing's '52 More Years' campaign. But it had cost less to develop and build than EADS had gotten from the American government, and thus had served its purpose.

The single surviving example can be seen at Deutsches Museum in Munich.

Damn, nice picture, Airbus should totally build such a thing as A380 follow-up. I'm afraid though that it will cost quite a bit more to make even a single prototype than a measly 800M.

 

[Bill Garvin]

There are two bomber replacement programs running at the moment. One is Long Range Strike - Bomber or LRS-B and this has a substantial head of steam behind it. It got $400 million of funding in FY12 and I think it gets similar amounts in FY13. Current plans are for the first prototype to roll out in 2018 and it to become operational in 2022 - 24 depending on funding levels. This aircraft is intended as a B-1 and B-2 replacement; the B-2 has serious life expectancy issues due to deterioration of the airframe exacerbated by the small number in service. The B-2 is likely to leave the inventory somewhere between 2018 and 2024, again depending on how much we spend on it and how heavily it is used. The B-1 also has severe maintenance and life problems that will require a lot of money to accommodate. It is unlikely to last beyond 2028.

The current plan is to build between 100 and 200 LRS-Bs. They are manned penetrating aircraft that will probably look like a B-2 but take advantage of technology developed since the B-2 was designed.

The second plan is a longer-term plan to build a replacement for the B-52. The Gray Lady is expected to remain in service until the 2038 - 2044 region. The main problem is the wing spar; this was forged using equipment that was scrapped twenty years ago and its equivalent no longer exists anywhere in the world. if the wing spar develops problems, the Gray Lady is gone. Fortunately, that doesn't look like happening. (Touch wood everybody). The B-52 replacement will not be stealthy because the Air Force believe that by 2040, stealth as a penetration technology will be obsolete. The B-52 replacement is only funded as conceptual studies at this time.

The bomb truck is a third requirement; the Air Force knows its there but haven't addressed it.

A few things; the B-1 cannot use its external hardpoints due to nuclear treaty limitations. The aircraft can carry 75,000 pounds of bombs as stated and its external hardpoints (when available) could carry 50,000 but these are not cumulative. 75,000 pounds is the upper limit; external payload substitutes for internal. The reason for the external hardpoints was that the bomb bays on the B-1B are restricted in size and some large items couldn't be carried in them.

Going to the toilet on the B-52 is not routine. It's awkward and makes the whole aircraft smell bad. The Gray Lady smells bad enough as it is. There is a bunk on board for one crew member but it usually has junk piled on it. Going down to the pit where the B/N and R/N live is an experience. They have no external windows and they get really airsick down there.

 

[tallthinkev]

If you wish to go down the multirole route, how about something based on the Fairchild C-120 Packplane. Airline size though.

 

[AdA]

Military hardware costs tons. Oh sure, you could convert a civilian plane to carry bombs, probably without too much expense, but then you have to install all that military hardware (which, given that the P-8 is based on the 737-800 seems to amount to literally several tons) which is generally considered essential for a military aircraft of that calibre.

Western military hardware costs tons. Putting GPS on your car costs 1000$, putting GPS on a bomb costs 30000$. Somebody must be making a stealth truck load of money somewere. We have now reached a point were the weapons we use to destroy tanks cost more then the current value of those tanks. Jean Larteguy wrote a book in the 70s called "a million dollars each viet" in wich he explained that the US had reached a point were each vietnamese they killed cost them more than a million buck, making that war unsustainable on financial as well as political grounds. How much does each taliban cost?
A lot of good people are being fired from western Armed Forces that make less in year than the cost of a single JDAM...

 

[FlyingDutchman]

An unmodified airliner would be unsuitable (especially the -8 since the main access is via the nose of the aircraft). That does not mean that a modified version wouldn't be ideal for the "bomb truck" role. You not really talking about a proper combat aircraft, you are talking about a cargo carrier whose cargo is bombs. The -8 or 777 would be an "off the shelf" solution for an ultra low threat environment delivery system such as that under discussion.

The modifications required to turn an airliner into a bomb truck are so extensive
, you're better off starting from scratch. What i meant is better explained by gunnarz, see below.

I doubt that the P-8 would serve very well in that role. It's weapon capacity is plenty for a maritime patrol aircraft, but it just is not suited for carrying the large quantities of ordnance you're talking about - 5 internal and 6 external hardpoints. The major problem there is the low wing; those spars go right through where an enlarged payload bay would need to be (source). Something like a C-130 or C-17 (cutaway diagrams linked) might well be a better bet. For starters they're designed to be able to drop their payload in flight, and you might be able to rig some kind of ventral door instead of using the rear ramp. The internal spaces would need a fair bit of rearranging, but the cargo bay is already clear - no need for renovating stuctural members in order to get the weapons to fit or be deployed.

Couldn't agree more.

The marines have allredy converted their KC130J to be able to drop smart bombs, so that's one way of doing it. If the requirementy is for a small number of aircraft, you have to go with an existing platform. If you want a few more, converting an aircraft mean a proper bombbay with doors under the aircraft. converting an airliner airframe along the lines of the P8 but with a bigger airliner as a base would be the way to do it cheaper, specially regarding operating costs. Since the USAF will have to buy a new refueling aircraft, using the same frame would make sense. So if they go for the Boeing KC46, a 767 based "B3" with a large ventral bombbay would be the way to go.

Not likely, see gunnarz post above.

 

[modelcitizen]

The B52 sounds like the Ford Crown Victoria and its sister car the Lincoln Town Car. The cars were built on the 1970s-vintage "Panther" platform. They were indestructible, simple to maintain, relatively inexpensive, and their fleet customers --police departments and taxi/limousine service-providers-- were deeply addicted to the vehicles. But Ford stopped making them.

There's about as much reason to stop "rebuilding" the B52 as Ford had for killing off the Panther platform, but I imagine that doesn't mean it won't happen. Then again, they're still using the A10, which is a fantastic "ain't-broke-don't-fix-it" example of something worth keeping.

 

[Xavier]

The modifications required to turn an airliner into a bomb truck are so extensive
, you're better off starting from scratch. What i meant is better explained by gunnarz, see below.

Meh, IMO the 'shove them out of a cargo plane" solution I already proposed is by far the cheapest and allows decent loitering time. A purpose built aircraft's only advantage would be more loitering time without the need for aerial refuelling.

 

[MattII]

Western military hardware costs tons. Putting GPS on your car costs 1000$, putting GPS on a bomb costs 30000$.

No, military hardware costs tons, if China or Russia is getting away with cheaper stuff it's because that stuff isn't as good. Check out the Yak-38 in comparison to the BAE Sea Harrier, the first thing to note is that the harrier outperforms the Yak in almost every way. And that for an aircraft that costs almost the same.

 

[Workable Goblin]

No, military hardware costs tons, if China or Russia is getting away with cheaper stuff it's because that stuff isn't as good. Check out the Yak-40 in comparison to the BAE Sea Harrier, the first thing to note is that the harrier outperforms the Yak in almost every way.

The Yak-38, of course, the Yak-41 I don't think so. The Yak-40 is a jetliner, so of course the Sea Harrier is a much better fighter plane...

 

[MattII]

Er yeah, corrected.

 

[LostCosmonaut]

The -41 definitely had would have had interesting potential, had it been completed. Also, I think Yakovlev had a brief partnership with Lockheed Martin in the early 90s, so it probably had some not insignificant influence on the genesis of the JSF.

 

[MattII]

I wonder how much money the Soviet navy poured into the Yak-41 before pulling the plug.

 

[Torqumada]

Western military hardware costs tons. Putting GPS on your car costs 1000$, putting GPS on a bomb costs 30000$.

Try less than $100 for a GPS on your car. Mine cost me $200, but I can also make phone calls on it, surf the internet, listen to music, watch video, play games etc... That's my cell phone BTW. Consumer GPS chips are cheap, but only use a single signal to get a position, while the military uses two different signals to get positions, making them more accurate. I agree, that it shouldn't cost $3,000.

Torqumada

 

[Pangur]

My own money is on a replacement B-52 that's unmanned. The posts have got be thinking a bit more about that idea. I am under the impression that currently drones are `flown' by `pilots' who are in most cases in air bases in the US. Would it not make more sense to have a position or two in a AWACS to control the drones or in need in this case the new B-52? The point that it is in part flying arty - OK, I agree fully so what I am suggesting takes that to its logical conclusion.

 

[Gunnarnz]

Actually, if you want long loiter times combined with plenty of space for the crew to stretch their legs and a large payload capacity, then airships are really the way to go. I'm a little surprised no-one has mentioned this yet, there was a thread not long ago about flying battleships which covered some of the same ground.
So, who's with me? Replace the B-52 with airships carrying smart bombs! As a bonus, they have the space and payload capacity to act as AWACS aircraft as well. There's just no down side!

 

[Pangur]

Not a bad idea however would there be an issue with a low service ceiling ? One advantage that the B-52 has is that it is flying so high that its near enough immune to attack from the ground

 

[Gunnarnz]

Not a bad idea however would there be an issue with a low service ceiling ? One advantage that the B-52 has is that it is flying so high that its near enough immune to attack from the ground

Might not be too much of a problem. Assuming an operating altitude of somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 feet you'd be out of range of small arms and man-portable heavy weapons, although heavier calibre guns and MANPAD SAMs might still be able to reach you I suppose (not sure). In any case we're talking about using this in the same sort of roles as the B-52 - long-duration fire support against opponents with no meaningful anti-aircraft weapons.
I'm not really serious, of course - I can't imagine anyone would really consider an airship as a pactical replacement for the B-52. Still, the idea does have a certain crazy logic to it...

 

[Pangur]

It has a crazy logic to it and its left field which is just the type of thinking that I happen to like