A new B-52

TxCoatl1970

let's get back OT

IMO the B-70 was a bad idea for a multisortie bomber. Fast as heck but vulnerable to SAMs under 30K. Going higher with a MOA of 30K+ means stealth is
a non-issue. The good news is that you can stand off from hundreds of miles with ALCMs if you aren't going in with a load of iron.

The main issue is, B-52 has a decent range, loiter time, and plenty of internal and external load capacity to ruin s/b's day. Subsonic speed makes it cheaper to operate than the Valkyrie.

The solution to this boils down to:

How much weight in explosives do you need to accomplish the mission?

How quickly do you need to apply it on target?

How worried are you about combat losses?

What does it cost to operate and keep flying?
 

Nicola

MattII said:
The B-1B is half-way to being a stealth aircraft, but with external munitions that advantage of a smaller radar profile disappears. The extra drag will probably hurt their top speed a bit as well.
Click to expand...

the B1B is the logical continuation of the design thoughts that produced the Avro Vulcan - if the B1 had been a delta it would be even more obvious ...

the question is what is the role of something like a B1 against the alternative types

i.e. go smaller F111 / Tornado IDS / Strike F15/ TSR2/ Strike Typhoon interdictors

or

go large with a B52 size heavy carrier with true intercontinental range that can act as a bomb truck or carry loads of ALCMs
 

chris N

The US Air Force and Boeing announced the celebration of the 5oth birthday for the newest model of the B-52H. The plane has been rebuilt a number of times but it continues to function as a truly devastating ground pounder. The USAF has money in the budget to begin study for a new strategic bomber.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

chris N said:
The USAF has money in the budget to begin study for a new strategic bomber.
Click to expand...
Right, they are looking at a new bomber. But it's almost certainly going to be a 'cheaper' B2 kind of thing, rather than a 'new B52'. And, of course, that fact that it is originally MEANT to be 'cheap' doesn't mean a thing by the time it's built. Look at the F35, for instance.
 
Andre27

Andre27

Banned
Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Right, they are looking at a new bomber. But it's almost certainly going to be a 'cheaper' B2 kind of thing, rather than a 'new B52'. And, of course, that fact that it is originally MEANT to be 'cheap' doesn't mean a thing by the time it's built. Look at the F35, for instance.
Click to expand...

To be honest i expect the B-52 to be the last of its kind. With the rise of unmanned aircraft even a capable airframe such as the B-52 will go the way of the dinosaur.

Resources, maintenance and every increasing effective air defense make the heavy bomber a thing of the past.

Unless some Klingon visit and a RL cloaking device is invented even stealth improvements to aircraft cannot undo this chain of events.
 

burmafrd

Banned
The B-70 was extremely heavy; with todays light weight possibilities in metals and composites you could build one that could fly even higher and faster.

Would be interesting.
 

M. A. Dickens

I would say that an Airborne Artillery Platform aka. Zeppelin version of AC-130 is quite suitable for COIN work. Install an active protection system against SAMs and you're pretty much set.

If you still want a bomb truck, though, I would support a UCAV bomber. Or, really, start rebuilding B-52s with better engines.

Marc A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top