Could one of the V-bombers have become a British B-52?

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Given the widespread selection of the Airbus 330 MMRT as a tanker transport, how about a strategic bomber version?

If you want a bomb truck. Start with a truck.
43,000kg payload, 8000 mile range.
UK tankers are being fitted with the Northrop Grumman large aircraft infrared countermeasures system (LAIRCM)

07-a330.jpg

Refuelling a JSF/Dave/LightningII
 
Last edited:
Given the widespread selection of the Airbus 330 MMRT as a tanker transport, how about a maritime patrol variant and a strategic bomber version?

If you want a bomb truck. Start with a truck.

A) Slow.
B) Gigantic heat and radar signatures.
C) Cannot take any battle damage.
D) Poor maneuverability.

Maritime Patrol variant is possible - the US is using a variant of the Boeing 737-800 for its P-3 Orion replacement - but strategic bomber, no.
 
Maritime Patrol variant is possible - the US is using a variant of the Boeing 737-800 for its P-3 Orion replacement - but strategic bomber, no.

Given that usual use of strategic bomber is to patrol over whateverstan and drop bombs the A-330 would be perfect for the role. In a large scale conflict the aircraft could launch the cruise missiles well away from the target as well as specified military aircraft.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I changed my mind about the Maritime Patrol aircraft as there is a low level requirement that could do with a more flexible design. The A330 is a bit focused on the high level truck thing.

Looking at typical B-52 battle damage:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4036

I can see that a twin engine airliner would be hard to toughen up. Maybe the four engine A340-500HGW (High Gross Weight) version (has a range of 9,000 nm and payload of 51 tonnes) would be better for the bomber. The Boeing 777-200LR seems even better suited to the task. A freight version is anticipated to carry 101 tonnes of revenue payload.
 
Last edited:
A) Slow.
B) Gigantic heat and radar signatures.
C) Cannot take any battle damage.
D) Poor maneuverability.

Maritime Patrol variant is possible - the US is using a variant of the Boeing 737-800 for its P-3 Orion replacement - but strategic bomber, no.

The A330's cruise speed at 541 knots (mach 0.82) is only 19 knots slower than the B-52's maximum speed; the Vulcan's low level operational speed was 375 knots and high level was mach 0.86.

Heat signature is a function of podded engines that could easily be improved; The Typhoon achieves a reduced radar signature by having as few metal parts as possible, and being built to a very high tolerance to avoid any radar reflecting gaps between parts. The A350 with composite wings would be a than the A330 and it's would have a far smaller RCS than a B52. Ironing out any noisy areas with RAM would not be prohibitively expensive.

Battle damage is a function of the hostility of the environment and incredibly random. A small piece of AA shrapnel hitting the fuselage has a different effect from it hitting the engine. These two scenarios only differ by random chance.

The B-52 ain't designed to be maneuverable - I think it's the only plane that takes off with the nose pitching down!!


The military always come up with hundreds of reasons why their specifications (that cost the earth) are totally inflexible. When the pressure is suddenly on in wartime, the Military suddenly find loads of ways to work more efficiently with eberyday resources available. In the lead up to the Falklands, MV Atlantic Causeway (sister ship to Conveyor) was converted into a reserve aircraft carrier compete with 140m runway within 10 days; after a close encounter with an Argentine 707 prompted the fitting of Sidewinders to Nimrods, the first of which was complete 8 days later...
 
The A330's cruise speed at 541 knots (mach 0.82) is only 19 knots slower than the B-52's maximum speed; the Vulcan's low level operational speed was 375 knots and high level was mach 0.86.

Heat signature is a function of podded engines that could easily be improved; The Typhoon achieves a reduced radar signature by having as few metal parts as possible, and being built to a very high tolerance to avoid any radar reflecting gaps between parts. The A350 with composite wings would be a than the A330 and it's would have a far smaller RCS than a B52. Ironing out any noisy areas with RAM would not be prohibitively expensive.

Battle damage is a function of the hostility of the environment and incredibly random. A small piece of AA shrapnel hitting the fuselage has a different effect from it hitting the engine. These two scenarios only differ by random chance.

The B-52 ain't designed to be maneuverable - I think it's the only plane that takes off with the nose pitching down!!


The military always come up with hundreds of reasons why their specifications (that cost the earth) are totally inflexible. When the pressure is suddenly on in wartime, the Military suddenly find loads of ways to work more efficiently with eberyday resources available. In the lead up to the Falklands, MV Atlantic Causeway (sister ship to Conveyor) was converted into a reserve aircraft carrier compete with 140m runway within 10 days; after a close encounter with an Argentine 707 prompted the fitting of Sidewinders to Nimrods, the first of which was complete 8 days later...

Generally military stuff is built to military, not commercial, standards for a reason. Although there definitely is a tendency to gold-plate everything in sight, most specifications are there for a reason.

Anyways, it's not efficient to start converting A330's or other commercial peoplecarriers as bombers because:
a) there already are plenty simple, cheap bombtrucks around which generally has only used up around 2/3 of it's lifespan or less; the B-52.

b) changing a commercial carrier into a bomber is going to be hideously expensive; imagine cutting a hole into a pressurehull which isn't designed for that to name just one of the problems. At most you'd be able to use the wings of an existing aircraft. The C-17 would probably be the most suitable of all transports around or so I've heard.

Ever heard of the P-8 Poseidon program? It's a relative simple conversion compared to converting to a genuine bomber (the P-8 wasn't required to have that much of a payload) and even that was extremely expensive.

c) the fly-away cost of an ordinary modern peoplecarrier is hideously expensive to start with; why would you buy a COIN-only aircraft for 250 mln USD and up? If you're going for a COIN-aircraft, it should be cheap.
 
Generally military stuff is built to military, not commercial, standards for a reason. Although there definitely is a tendency to gold-plate everything in sight, most specifications are there for a reason.

Anyways, it's not efficient to start converting A330's or other commercial peoplecarriers as bombers because:
a) there already are plenty simple, cheap bombtrucks around which generally has only used up around 2/3 of it's lifespan or less; the B-52.

b) changing a commercial carrier into a bomber is going to be hideously expensive; imagine cutting a hole into a pressurehull which isn't designed for that to name just one of the problems. At most you'd be able to use the wings of an existing aircraft. The C-17 would probably be the most suitable of all transports around or so I've heard.

Ever heard of the P-8 Poseidon program? It's a relative simple conversion compared to converting to a genuine bomber (the P-8 wasn't required to have that much of a payload) and even that was extremely expensive.

c) the fly-away cost of an ordinary modern peoplecarrier is hideously expensive to start with; why would you buy a COIN-only aircraft for 250 mln USD and up? If you're going for a COIN-aircraft, it should be cheap.
There was a RAF study/proposal, a couple of years ago, to launch palletised Storm Shadow missiles from the back of a Airbus A400M transport aircraft, but I don't know if that proposal is still viable (or possibly the A400M itself, for that matter...).
 
There was a RAF study/proposal, a couple of years ago, to launch palletised Storm Shadow missiles from the back of a Airbus A400M transport aircraft, but I don't know if that proposal is still viable (or possibly the A400M itself, for that matter...).

A330 MRTT has ramp as well, so delivery via ramp could be viable as well...
 
A330 MRTT has ramp as well, so delivery via ramp could be viable as well...

1) You sure about it's (rear) ramp? I would have thought it's tail isn't high enough for that; I thought it was just a cargodoor to load a few (8 max) pallets on the ground.

2) Even if it actually has a (rear) ramp to use on the ground, it is according to you also viable to use that ramp to throw stuff out while flying, from a pressurised hull?

Strange logic you've got.

AFAIK aircraft which actually throw stuff out through their ramp while flying, like for example the C-130 could throw the MOAB out of it's cargohold while flying, are actually designed from the ground up to be able to do that.

Even the C-17 used to (or still has, I don't know) have a problem with the airflow when flying with the rear ramp open and that aircraft was designed from the wheels up to do just that.
 
1) You sure about it's (rear) ramp? I would have thought it's tail isn't high enough for that; I thought it was just a cargodoor to load a few (8 max) pallets on the ground.

2) Even if it actually has a (rear) ramp to use on the ground, it is according to you also viable to use that ramp to throw stuff out while flying, from a pressurised hull?

IIRC, FSTA version does not have a centerline refuelling boom but a small cargo hatch (rear ramp is perhaps an overblown description in this case) instead, through which cargo to both lower and upper compartments could be delivered. I remember seeing a picture of it, but I can be well wrong.

As for throwing things out, what's the fundamental problem? Just build up a bulk head behind crew compartment or have them wear masks.
 
IIRC, FSTA version does not have a centerline refuelling boom but a small cargo hatch (rear ramp is perhaps an overblown description in this case) instead, through which cargo to both lower and upper compartments could be delivered. I remember seeing a picture of it, but I can be well wrong.

As for throwing things out, what's the fundamental problem? Just build up a bulk head behind crew compartment or have them wear masks.

I'm far from an aircraft engineer but from the top of my head I'd guess:
- airplane not designed to have it's airframe (fuselage) withstand the stress. If I'm not mistaken your improvised bomber will end up like the airframe failures the Comet had.
see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization#Pressurized_flight
- airplane not designed to have it's aerodynamica disturbed by an open hatch;
- airplane not designed to have stuff exiting it during flight without actually damaging itself. (where is that cargo door?)

Besides, what's the point?
You want to carpetbomb North Vietnam again? :D

I also doubt if LGB and other Precision Guided Munitions can correct themselves enough to land anywhere near their target when they're tumbling down uncontrollably from a hatch.

So my conclusion would be
a) it isn't needed;
b) you'd at most be able to re-use the wings of an aircraft, with the rest and especially the fuselage redesigned from the wheels up.
c) it would be prohibitively expensive. You're better off buying an extra squadron or two of F-35's instead of developing this program and buying a handfull of your emergency COIN-only bombers.
 
You want to carpetbomb North Vietnam again? :D
No, but we are considering the North West Frontier of Pakistan to order to wipe out them Taliban gooks.

Seriously though there is awful lot that could have been done with bombers in the Cold War. However that has been over for fifteen years and it is drones that are the new V bomber so to speak.
 
There was a RAF study/proposal, a couple of years ago, to launch palletised Storm Shadow missiles from the back of a Airbus A400M transport aircraft, but I don't know if that proposal is still viable (or possibly the A400M itself, for that matter...).


The RAF's 1990sstrategy - Future Offensive Combat Aircraft was a research initiative to design the Tornado replacement. When the interdictor strike mission was (at last) seen as futile, the research changes to Future Offensive Air System, essentially the optimum delivery of Storm Shadows. Typhoons, UAVs and A400Ms were/are the designated bomb trucks operating in a variety of environments.

I think this is the image you're thinking of - http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/foas/foas4.html
 
Last edited:
Top