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

"Arsenal Plane" Concepts

In_A_Dream

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
272
Reaction score
130
Bring Back Blimp/Balloon Bombardment.

eCEgUuo3RTkgRAOk
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
218
Reaction score
209
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
14,035
Reaction score
2,462
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: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
225
Reaction score
200
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: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
546
Reaction score
310
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
200
Reaction score
291

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: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
546
Reaction score
310
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
270
Reaction score
156

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
472
Reaction score
61

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: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
218
Reaction score
209
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: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
225
Reaction score
200

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
908
Reaction score
534
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
3,159
Reaction score
510
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: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
218
Reaction score
209
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.
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
266
Air Force demonstrates value of rapid prototyping at Emerald Warrior
By Mark Ingram, Air Force Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation Office / Published May 14, 2021

An AFSOC MC-130J airdrops a Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation (SDPE) instrumented JASSM deployment box at White Sands Missile Range, March 2021. This program milestone maximized both stability and the weapon release envelope for the JASSM platform. This event also demonstrated, for the first time, the successful use of G-11 parachutes for airdrops at high altitude; setting an altitude record for their deployment from an air transport aircraft. (Courtesy photo)
0
PRINT | E-MAIL
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFRL) – The Air Force Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation Office demonstrated the value experimentation and prototyping have in rapidly fielding capabilities to address warfighter needs as it participated with its partner, the Air Force Special Operations Command, at the Emerald Warrior exercise in March at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

According to Dr. Dean Evans, Rapid Dragon Program Manager, SDPE successfully demonstrated that Rapid Dragon, previously known as the Palletized Munitions Program, was able to overcome issues identified in previous tests related to the stability of airdropped palletized munitions -- ultimately improving the likelihood of rapid fielding and significantly reducing the risk of costly failures during a planned live-fire demonstration later this year.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
225
Reaction score
200

Rapid Dragon experimentation campaign evaluates delivering long-range strike weapons via military cargo aircraft at Northern Edge 21

“The Rapid Dragon Program demonstrated the ability to transfer targeting data from the Standoff Munitions Applications Center (SMAC) to an airborne [AFSOC] aircraft,” said Dr. Dean Evans, Rapid Dragon program manager. “The data assigned a new routing and target to the on-board munition emulator, which set in motion the virtual launch of a ‘palletized’ Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) missile.

During this operational demonstration, which simulated the “closing of the kill chain,” an off-board sensor identified an emerging target and provided the location to the All Domain Operations Center-Experiment (ADOC-E). ADOC-E directed SMAC to dynamically retarget the palletized missiles, which was accomplished via BLOS communications. ADOC-E simultaneously directed the aircraft to proceed to the new simulated release area. Onboard the MC-130J, the JASSM-ER emulator achieved all-up-round (AUR) status, demonstrating the ability to strike the new targets in accordance with the updated orders.

Achieving this milestone paves the way for the next flight test this summer, where SDPE will conduct a system level jettison test from an AFSOC MC-130J and an Air Mobility Command C-17. The current phase of the program will conduct a live munition test of this new capability by the end of the year.

Rapid Dragon offers a roll-on, roll-off capability that uses standard airdrop procedures without any modifications to the aircraft, thus transforming mobility aircraft into lethal strike weapon platforms that augment the strike capacity of tactical fighters and strategic bombers.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
225
Reaction score
200
Rapid Dragon experimentation campaign evaluates delivering long-range strike weapons via military cargo aircraft at Northern Edge 21
TLDR -
A C-17 now can be a stand off 100k lbs armament(Jassm, JSow, SDB(?)) disposing truck. Likewise 30k lbs for C-130J.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
76
I don't know how well it'll work for glide munitions, given it gets ejected partially from the aircraft by drag.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,770
Reaction score
2,096
I don't know how well it'll work for glide munitions, given it gets ejected partially from the aircraft by drag.

I'd think most of the glide range stems from trading altitude for velocity. So as long as the weapons are deployed from altitude, being a bit slower at launch isn't a huge issue.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
225
Reaction score
200
Also, not nearly enough C-17s available as it is.
For a westpac scenario, C-17s will have little use in terms of transport, since operating within the first island chain is a no-no. Hence the increased focus on stand off capabilities. Most of the transport requirement (both fire and support) will be met by ships.

And if under any circumstance, the use cases for C-17 as a transporter are to open up, like paratrooping and force projection inside of first island chain, the theater will first need to be pummelled with overmatched number of strikes with stand off munitions to degrade enemy's area denial systems.
 
Last edited:

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
225
Reaction score
200
Most of the transport requirement (both fire and support) will be met by ships.
Not with the current state of the US Navy and US Merchant Marine, it won't.
USN has about 20 million ft² of (surge+)sealift capacity, and plenty of forward stockpiling positions as far as westpac is concerned(guam being the primary one).

"Looking at a notional 4,000-nautical-mile scenario comparing equal-cost ($20 million) lift forces [C-17s and the new large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) ships] and assuming no prepositioned ships in the theater, airlift could deliver 72,000 tons of cargo in 36 days. Sealift, on the other hand, could deliver 3,960,000 tons in the same 36 days."
 
Last edited:

trose213

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
76
Also, not nearly enough C-17s available as it is.
For a westpac scenario, C-17s will have little use in terms of transport, since operating within the first island chain is a no-no. Hence the increased focus on stand off capabilities. Most of the transport requirement (both fire and support) will be met by ships.

And if under any circumstance, the use cases for C-17 as a transporter are to open up, like paratrooping and force projection inside of first island chain, the theater will first need to be pummelled with overmatched number of strikes with stand off munitions to degrade enemy's area denial systems.
They'll be flying in materiel, if rockets don't take that job or they just move to do strike with them and cut out all the nonsense.
 

Similar threads

Top