• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

"Arsenal Plane" Concepts

mkellytx

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
174
Reaction score
104
Just to give you a helping hand on IDing "potentially valid target"
When did it serve in that capacity?
Never; that configuration in particular was practically a complete redesign of the VC10.

The more sober SAC analysis of the KC-135 (I don't think its load factor was that different than the VC10)
indicated that the KC-135 might be able to carry two Skybolts.

As much as I criticize the cruise missile carrier aircraft concepts, they do at least preserve the aero-efficient
OMLs that the widebody designers spend so much time and money to achieve.
True, but they're designing for a different payload. Note how much narrower the B-52's fuselage is compared to a 777 or even 767. A 777 with a slim fuselage will have less drag than one designed for passengers.

View attachment 646639
Just bring that out a little bit and draw a circle around it and you get peace the old fashioned way!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url...ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCIDfmp--1O0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAp
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
202
Reaction score
68
Just to give you a helping hand on IDing "potentially valid target"
When did it serve in that capacity?
Never; that configuration in particular was practically a complete redesign of the VC10.

The more sober SAC analysis of the KC-135 (I don't think its load factor was that different than the VC10)
indicated that the KC-135 might be able to carry two Skybolts.

As much as I criticize the cruise missile carrier aircraft concepts, they do at least preserve the aero-efficient
OMLs that the widebody designers spend so much time and money to achieve.
True, but they're designing for a different payload. Note how much narrower the B-52's fuselage is compared to a 777 or even 767. A 777 with a slim fuselage will have less drag than one designed for passengers.

View attachment 646639
Just being an automotive engineer I had always tthoughtthe buff was so slender was because it didn't need to carry 300+ people. It was designed around the ordnance. Just because a widebody airliner isn't optimized for alcms doesn't mean it can't still do that mission.

When you look at the bone and blackjack its a little trickier to say how narrow or wide it is as its a pseudo blended design... And still supersonic even though neither resemble a concord.

I guess the thing about passenger planes serving as nuclear bombers is misidnentification. A number of passenger planes have already been shot down for thinking they were military aircraft... That puts a lot of innocent people at risk building a 100 or so boeings with missile bays.

You could also build business jets with aesa/ datalinks and internal aams.... But no one talks about that
 

In_A_Dream

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
79
Bring Back Blimp/Balloon Bombardment.

 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
174
Reaction score
104
Just being an automotive engineer I had always tthoughtthe buff was so slender was because it didn't need to carry 300+ people. It was designed around the ordnance. Just because a widebody airliner isn't optimized for alcms doesn't mean it can't still do that mission.
It only looks narrow because the wings are so big. Compared to the B-36 it was slender, compared to the B-47 it was fat.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,565
Reaction score
1,581
Just being an automotive engineer I had always tthoughtthe buff was so slender was because it didn't need to carry 300+ people. It was designed around the ordnance. Just because a widebody airliner isn't optimized for alcms doesn't mean it can't still do that mission.
It only looks narrow because the wings are so big. Compared to the B-36 it was slender, compared to the B-47 it was fat.
It looks narrow because it IS narrow. Take the wings out of the equation and it's fuselage is still noticeably narrower than commercial aircraft. They don't call those things, "wide-bodies" for nothing.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
127
Reaction score
76
Very basic stuff..

Drag is directly proportional to cross sectional area.

Higher cross section is required to carry less dense stuff(people,their environment and luggage), hence the wide bodies.

787-8 cabin+cargo volume = 16,000 cu.ft
787-8 payload = 90000 lbs

Bombers carry payloads with much higher density and are required to have a lower drag among other flight characteritics, and so, volume isn't as big a deal.

B-52 bomb bay volume = 2,000 cu.ft
B-52 payload = 70,000 lbs (granted, not all of it goes into the bay)
 
Last edited:

Fluff

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
417
Reaction score
202
If Boeing are getting 8 trillion dollars to put pylons on a 787, and change it’s name to raider, good for them!
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
174
Reaction score
214

You could also build business jets with aesa/ datalinks and internal aams.... But no one talks about that
The Bombardier Global 6000 is used as:
Saab Globaleye AEW,
Saab Swordfish MPA,
RAF Raytheon Sentinal surveilance aircraft,
USAF E-11A communications aircraft,

Israel uses the Gulfstream G550 for the Eitam AEW system.

Militarized commercial aircraft are not uncommon. And since the B-21 has half the cruise missile capability of the B-2 (a single 8 round rotary launcher) a cruise missile carrier for stand-off weapon delivery seems a decent idea to me. Use the B-21 for the high threat environments, and use something derived from a long range airliner to launch cruise missiles from outside the range of air defenses.
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
417
Reaction score
202
These 2 tier force structures sound great, a real cash saver.

In reality, you still need a fleet of stealth/magnetic direct drive aircraft, for your peer on peer war. If you then have a second fleet, you dont use your first fleet, which still needs training time, engineer time, upgrades, and will eventually need replacing when technology changes.

so it may seem gold plating, to fly your superdooper bomber, just to lob cheap cruise missiles at guys in flip-flops, but your keeping your pilots current, your using up hours on your airframes, so you can buy the next one.
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
202
Reaction score
68

You could also build business jets with aesa/ datalinks and internal aams.... But no one talks about that
The Bombardier Global 6000 is used as:
Saab Globaleye AEW,
Saab Swordfish MPA,
RAF Raytheon Sentinal surveilance aircraft,
USAF E-11A communications aircraft,

Israel uses the Gulfstream G550 for the Eitam AEW system.

Militarized commercial aircraft are not uncommon. And since the B-21 has half the cruise missile capability of the B-2 (a single 8 round rotary launcher) a cruise missile carrier for stand-off weapon delivery seems a decent idea to me. Use the B-21 for the high threat environments, and use something derived from a long range airliner to launch cruise missiles from outside the range of air defenses.
Touché
 

dark sidius

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
444
Reaction score
28

You could also build business jets with aesa/ datalinks and internal aams.... But no one talks about that
The Bombardier Global 6000 is used as:
Saab Globaleye AEW,
Saab Swordfish MPA,
RAF Raytheon Sentinal surveilance aircraft,
USAF E-11A communications aircraft,

Israel uses the Gulfstream G550 for the Eitam AEW system.

Militarized commercial aircraft are not uncommon. And since the B-21 has half the cruise missile capability of the B-2 (a single 8 round rotary launcher) a cruise missile carrier for stand-off weapon delivery seems a decent idea to me. Use the B-21 for the high threat environments, and use something derived from a long range airliner to launch cruise missiles from outside the range of air defenses.
How do you know B-21 have a single 8 round rotary launcher ??
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
174
Reaction score
104
These 2 tier force structures sound great, a real cash saver.

In reality, you still need a fleet of stealth/magnetic direct drive aircraft, for your peer on peer war. If you then have a second fleet, you dont use your first fleet, which still needs training time, engineer time, upgrades, and will eventually need replacing when technology changes.

so it may seem gold plating, to fly your superdooper bomber, just to lob cheap cruise missiles at guys in flip-flops, but your keeping your pilots current, your using up hours on your airframes, so you can buy the next one.
Hopefully all of that get mitigated by buying a full fleet of 100-170. That said, if the CPFH or maintenance costs for the LO are cost prohibitive they can always go the route of having T-7's at the base to keep up the beans on approaches and the like, not to mention those pesky flight hours so you can continue to get your flight pay...the B-2's do this with T-38's.

Honestly, the BUFF's will carry the load till the late 2030's, the Raiders will dominate the acquisition dollars till that time. Best guess, if there's a need for a non LO stand-off/low threat JDAM truck one of those blended wing body concepts will step into that roles and maybe the KC-10 replacement and/or C-5 replacement. FWIW the Lockheed BWB had two very large unpressurized cargo bays on either side of the pressurized center bay. Those could easily be turned into bomb bays if the need arose.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
127
Reaction score
76

You could also build business jets with aesa/ datalinks and internal aams.... But no one talks about that
The Bombardier Global 6000 is used as:
Saab Globaleye AEW,
Saab Swordfish MPA,
RAF Raytheon Sentinal surveilance aircraft,
USAF E-11A communications aircraft,

Israel uses the Gulfstream G550 for the Eitam AEW system.

Militarized commercial aircraft are not uncommon. And since the B-21 has half the cruise missile capability of the B-2 (a single 8 round rotary launcher) a cruise missile carrier for stand-off weapon delivery seems a decent idea to me. Use the B-21 for the high threat environments, and use something derived from a long range airliner to launch cruise missiles from outside the range of air defenses.
How do you know B-21 have a single 8 round rotary launcher ??
Because that'll make it directly capable of employing a multitude of payloads certified with the AF rotary launcher, seems like a logical decision seeing that its supossed to have exactly half the B2 capacity.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
535
Reaction score
209
The aircraft's bay will still need it's own certification for stores, so I don't see them being limited to the current rotary launcher. Also while the B-21 is definitely smaller than the B-2, no exact weights or loads have been listed, so 'exactly half' seems presumptuous unless you have a source for that.

The B-52s have a long life in front of them (so long as they get new engines) so don't see the point of trying to shoehorn bomb bays into passenger aircraft (which historically never works well). To the extent there is ever an 'arsenal plane', it will be the B-21: it will be survivable and probably operate at a higher altitude than other bombers, from where it can fling whatever weapons can be accommodated in the bomb bay(s). I could easily see them being fitted with long range A2A weapons and using UAVs as their sensors.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,144
Reaction score
433
Best guess, if there's a need for a non LO stand-off/low threat JDAM truck one of those blended wing body concepts will step into that roles and maybe the KC-10 replacement and/or C-5 replacement. FWIW the Lockheed BWB had two very large unpressurized cargo bays on either side of the pressurized center bay. Those could easily be turned into bomb bays if the need arose.
The hybrid or full BWB is about the only compelling non-LO option especially as it looks as if
the roll-on/roll-off palletized munition launchers for the airlifters will be a thing.
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
174
Reaction score
104
The hybrid or full BWB is about the only compelling non-LO option especially as it looks as if
the roll-on/roll-off palletized munition launchers for the airlifters will be a thing.
Thanks Marauder, it was the hybrid one I had in mind. The Boeing BWB's have a bit more pressurized area and pressure vessel isn't cylindrical like the LM concept.
 

Similar threads

Top