The "Super F111" proposal seems to essentially do that. I wonder what it could carry as a maximum theoretical ordnance load out.
AHC: alternative USAAF post-B-52 bomber force
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
The "Super F111" proposal seems to essentially do that. I wonder what it could carry as a maximum theoretical ordnance load out.
Not really. There are all sorts of niggling little details that make transports not quite suited to be bombers and vice versa, which is why you don't actually see that much overlap in practice except in the case of improvisations by air forces that need a bomber but can't afford to procure one. In any case, the Air Force already had B-52s and keeping them or building more would have been cheaper than developing an adapted transport-bomber.
The reality is that the US has not really used bombers much in the past 50 years. A few B-2 strikes is about it. Otherwise you have to go back to Nam. Everything else has been basically using them as trucks. That is why the B-52 is still around. It is a dependable inexpensive (as we already own them) truck that carries weapons to a give spot and drops them. Be it bombs or missiles.
So the Air Force jeeps looking at all singing all dancing aircraft on the bleeding edge of whatever tech is the current flavor of the week then the money runs out or the flavor changes or both.
If you want to replace the B-52 give up on penetration missions (the B-52 only ever sort of said this in Nam and not all that well, as it turns out)
Just by a truck.
Thus I suggest in the late 60s that the AirForce buys the B-747
When Boeing designing the 747 go to them and figure out a way to install bomb bays. Then add in flight refueling and jamming and rely on fighters to sweep the sky and Cruise Missiles to get around the rest.
then Build a handful of B-1 supersonic bombers and B-2s abd later FB-22 (or better yet FB-23s to do penetration missions while the B-747 handles the heavy lifting.
So the Air Force jeeps looking at all singing all dancing aircraft on the bleeding edge of whatever tech is the current flavor of the week then the money runs out or the flavor changes or both.
If you want to replace the B-52 give up on penetration missions (the B-52 only ever sort of said this in Nam and not all that well, as it turns out)
Just by a truck.
Thus I suggest in the late 60s that the AirForce buys the B-747
When Boeing designing the 747 go to them and figure out a way to install bomb bays. Then add in flight refueling and jamming and rely on fighters to sweep the sky and Cruise Missiles to get around the rest.
then Build a handful of B-1 supersonic bombers and B-2s abd later FB-22 (or better yet FB-23s to do penetration missions while the B-747 handles the heavy lifting.
Unfortunately the book in question (published in 1980) which I quoted doesn't give any performance parameters, only stating next to the image
" . . . it would be an extremely capable aircraft with a range and payload well in excess of the current FB-111 . . . . but was never built!"
Regards filers
That's not a problem. Niggling little details are small enough to be addressed by the bomb racks themselves or minor field kits, so that for bombing in low-threat environments, bombing isn't much different than performing airdrops. That's why there are a few transports/converted airliners used as bombs in low-threat environments, but no one has ever made a dedicated cheap bomber. The AC-130Js, C-130s carrying MOABs, P-8 Poseidons, etc, are as good as any clean-sheet bomber for their tasks.
Despicable Guru
Banned
I never quite understood why didn't the USAF put turbofans on the B-52G and kept them. I mean, they were very much B-52H except for the cranky engines.
I would say, TF34s for both B-52G and B-52H fleets, before the end of Cold War. Or TF33s for the B-52G fleet.
I would say, TF34s for both B-52G and B-52H fleets, before the end of Cold War. Or TF33s for the B-52G fleet.
SsgtC
Banned
This isn't true actually. The B-52 was used heavily in both Afghanistan and Iraq as an on call CAS aircraft using PGMs. They have such long loiter times, they could be kept on station and ready to respond while smaller tactical jets had to remain at their base until needed (or if kept on station, they had short loiter times or required friend in flight refueling). They also serve a useful deterrent role. North Korea in particular seems to be terrified of the things. Parking a few on Guam or in Okinawa sends a useful message to Pyongyang when needed.
I think the point being made is that, for the CAS role you identify, an actual 'bomber' is not necessary. Any aircraft with a long loiter time, similar size payload capacity, and the ability to drop PGMs - a converted C-17, for example - would have done the job just as well. Rolling JDAMs out the back door of a C-130 might even have been adequate.
For the deterrent role, you probably do need a bomber. For just dropping things on people who can't shoot back, though, it seems excessive.
SsgtC
Banned
It doesn't really work that way. It may not seem it, but dropping a bomb accurately is a lot harder than it looks.
Oh, of course. That's why, if you want to drop bombs accurately, you need a bomber. But with PGMs, the "basket" in which the bomb needs to be released is much larger. And in permissive environments it's much easier to get an aircraft into a position in that basket where it can release a PGM with a high expectation of the PGM being able to reach its target. That's why, with PGMs in permissive environments, you don't need a bomber.
SsgtC
Banned
Again, not accurate. You can't just roll a JDAM out the back of a transport and have it work. The bomb needs to be dropped cleanly so that the slip steam doesn't throw the bomb around and send it spinning. Then it doesn't matter what fancy guidance package is on it, the bomb won't hit the target.
Yes but what makes a bomber a bomber? You don’t need stealth you don’t need mach 3 you don’t need ground hugging.
You need long range. Good payload. A bomb bay, a targeting system. a navigation system and that is about it.
You can’t say that if you include it from the start that the 747 could not have had all of that. Or the. 777 or for that mater. You don’t need bleeding edge to replace the B-52 In 90+% of its missions.
In the last 50 years almost every B-52 mission has been one of the following.
Carry missiles to location X and send them on their way.
Carry Smart Bombs to location X and send them on their way.
This is not exactly rocket science and does not need a 5bilkion dollar bleeding edge bomber.
The AirForce has tried many bombers over the years.
B-58. And B-70 went for speed,
The B-1 also went for a speed (but not as much
the B-1B went for stealth on a platform designed for speed.
thren we have offerings that didn’t get anywhere like the FB-22, FB-23 (stealthy). And the super F-111
B-2 obviously went our stealth,
And for the most part they all had one common issue, they subscribed to the state of the bleeding art of whatever trick of the week that was going to make them invincible. Then they either cost to much or the trick didn’t work as intended or the bad guys found a way around the trick. Or a combination of the above.
None of these attempts were economical bomb trucks. And with a few exceptions (a handful of B-2 raids) the US has not used a bomber on a penatration rad in half a century. The US sends in other aircraft and clears a path or they send in long range missiles.
So why spend billions and billions for something you don’t need? And are not using?
And I promise you this new all singing and all dancing “cheep” bomber is going to be the most expensive bomber in history and won’t get built in anything more then a couple dozen if that. Because once again what stated off as an inexpensive bomber I’d slowly going all singing and all dancing.
Basicly it is the same mission creep that got us the all singing and all dancing Bradley.
You need long range. Good payload. A bomb bay, a targeting system. a navigation system and that is about it.
You can’t say that if you include it from the start that the 747 could not have had all of that. Or the. 777 or for that mater. You don’t need bleeding edge to replace the B-52 In 90+% of its missions.
In the last 50 years almost every B-52 mission has been one of the following.
Carry missiles to location X and send them on their way.
Carry Smart Bombs to location X and send them on their way.
This is not exactly rocket science and does not need a 5bilkion dollar bleeding edge bomber.
The AirForce has tried many bombers over the years.
B-58. And B-70 went for speed,
The B-1 also went for a speed (but not as much
the B-1B went for stealth on a platform designed for speed.
thren we have offerings that didn’t get anywhere like the FB-22, FB-23 (stealthy). And the super F-111
B-2 obviously went our stealth,
And for the most part they all had one common issue, they subscribed to the state of the bleeding art of whatever trick of the week that was going to make them invincible. Then they either cost to much or the trick didn’t work as intended or the bad guys found a way around the trick. Or a combination of the above.
None of these attempts were economical bomb trucks. And with a few exceptions (a handful of B-2 raids) the US has not used a bomber on a penatration rad in half a century. The US sends in other aircraft and clears a path or they send in long range missiles.
So why spend billions and billions for something you don’t need? And are not using?
And I promise you this new all singing and all dancing “cheep” bomber is going to be the most expensive bomber in history and won’t get built in anything more then a couple dozen if that. Because once again what stated off as an inexpensive bomber I’d slowly going all singing and all dancing.
Basicly it is the same mission creep that got us the all singing and all dancing Bradley.
You'll note that what I said was that they should procure more B-52s.
Also, while I'm not going to argue that the Air Force never has procurement failures, it's worth noting that they kept the F-15 and F-16 in line, pretty much. Yes, both of them did end up undergoing mission creep--years after they were introduced and in new variants that simply expanded on what was already there. It's hardly the same thing as the B-70 or B-2. It's hardly preordained that a new bomber program will undergo scope creep and failure.
The Bradley has proven to be a reasonably successful IFV in practice, so I'm not sure why everyone always brings it up. Yes, yes, Pentagon Wars, but you'd think people would bring up examples of military procurement failure that actually failed, like the littoral combat ships or the Zumwalt-class destroyers.
Last edited:
There was a submission by Boeing for the "New Technology Bomber" that was basically a set of 767 wings mounted high in the fuselage of a rectangular pattern with a tandem cockpit
SsgtC
Banned
The fact that the "armor" can be penetrated by a 5.56mm AP round is kind of a big failure.
Wouldn't the B1-A have been pretty much that, if somewhat bigger?
The failures of the Zumwalt and LCS programs weren't narrated by Doctor Cox from Scrubs.