Airliner to Bomber Conversion

[ocay]

Do you guys think that airliners to bomber conversion -especially a cruise missiler carrier- feasible? What kind of platforms is good to carry let say 20-30 cruise missile? And how much could it cost a conversion? For-example can it double price of the aircraft?

Thanks..

 

[Nik]

Ask Airbus, given they're the only folk who've dared to hack a 'regular' design-- The A300 into the amazing Beluga...

 

[gtg947h]

Ask Airbus, given they're the only folk who've dared to hack a 'regular' design-- The A300 into the amazing Beluga...

?

I'd actually argue that Boeing (with the P-8), Lockheed (P-3), and HS/BAe (Nimrod) have come closer to an airliner/bomber conversion than Airbus ever has.

 

[stew3]

From what I understand the problem is that a low wing airliner makes it difficult to add a bomb bay which would interfere with either the wing spar box or the center of gravity by having it so far forward or aft in order to avoid it. Most heavy bombers have to work around it, and airliners are just to difficult to adapt, although the P-8 Poseidon seems to have a small bomb bay aft of the wing. A bomber is just too specialized/different a design.

 

[stew3]

Of course Stealth is not even part of this discussion, as if we are really talking about a cruise missile carrier, and there was a 747 design in the 1980s that was considered as a strategic and naval weapon.
http://www.g2mil.com/bm747.htm

 

[jstar]

And they got the idea for this 'hack' where?

Ask Airbus, given they're the only folk who've dared to hack a 'regular' design-- The A300 into the amazing Beluga...


?

 

[Retrofit]

And they got the idea for this 'hack' where?

From there (Airbus Industries was using 4 Super Guppy):

 

[jstar]

After they saw...

 

[stew3]

Actually this sounds like quite a weapon according to the link.

http://www.g2mil.com/bm747.htm

Just a dozen of these cruise missile armed 747s, armed with over a thousand cruise missiles costing less than one surface escort, would decimate any surface battle group.

And that is only one application.

And the aircraft, pilots mechanics and parts are all available and very (relatively) inexpensive.

I wonder why we have not done this?

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

Cause then every 747 in the world would be targeted as they would be inseparable from one another.

 

[royabulgaf]

Since many bombs today can be made with a certain amount of control, either homing in on a laser reflection or a GPS coordinate, a C-17 as a bomb truck seems plausible. You pop in a module that handles targeting, have the bombs in a CG appropriate spot, and just push them out the ramp. The bombs will figure out how to reach the target.

 

[stew3]

Cause then every 747 in the world would be targeted as they would be inseparable from one another.

In a shooting war that won't matter much. Everything will be shot at. Besides, most 747s are cargo carriers today anyway. Only two US passenger carriers even fly them anymore.

 

[unclejim]

U. S. carriers never were big users of 747s. But last I looked at LAX most Asian and European carriers are still major users of the type.

 

[pathology_doc]

I wonder if the remaining Concordes still exist to be pulled out of mothballs. They're designed for sustained Mach 2 after all, and there must be a whole lot of stuff even now that simply wouldn't catch them. Surely wouldn't be too hard to find a way to fit a bomb bay for small rocket-powered/wing-deploying munitions, even if it's only a fast supersonic dash out to the edge of an air-defence zone, toss the munitions and turn back before you get too vulnerable.

 

[CNH]

They're designed for sustained Mach 2 after all, and there must be a whole lot of stuff even now that simply wouldn't catch them

Any post 1960 SAM.

 

[pathology_doc]

I meant in terms of aircraft.