A bit off-topic however:

and the C-17s are not a limited pool of aircraft since Boeing is talking about restarting productions

From C-17 production and deliveries:

In June 2025, it was announced that Boeing was in talks with an international customer to restart the production of C-17s, and that several other countries were interested in the prospect. There is speculation that the United States may be interested in buying new C-17s, as there is currently no replacement planned for existing C-17s or the aging C-5 Galaxy.[57][58] Japanese Prime MinisterShigeru Ishiba stated that the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force would be interested in aquiring C-17s.[59]

What would be the minimum number of C-17 orders to make re-opening the C-17 production line economically viable?
 
A bomber and a tanker/airlifter a fundamentally different aircraft, which is why purpose built, optimized machines of either variety look fundamentally different from each other. And while the tanker and cargo types can generally be unified in a single airframe (although something like an A330 MRTT cannot even hope to haul as much as a C-17), that's far more difficult with regards to bombers. Tankers and cargo aircraft are expected to operate either far away from the contact line or operate in completely controlled air space. Now, one might say "isn't that the case for a bomber that's not stealth as well?" and I would say that to a degree yes but mostly no. Bombers have very powerful ECM suites, they operate very differenty from tankers and airlifters and do go to great lengths to increase their survivability through various countermeasures. They're optimized for endurance, range and launch performance. Now something like a large BWB aircraft could lend itself to all three of these classes, but it would need to be designed as a bomber first, as it's by far the most specialized of the bunch. And generally speaking attributes that make a good bomber don't always translate well into being a good tanker or cargo aircraft.

We shanked another thread. But basically, you are saying there should be a special solution to shooting down aircraft that does not involve very low observation. And that this warrants a new aircraft.
 
Sorry I’m really not understanding the naysayers objections or alternatives. The thread began with the premise “we need something after the B-52 that is like the B-52 but it should be cheaper than the B-21”

A BWB can fulfil this roll purpose built with large bomb bays and advance ECM/radars etc. In addition we will need new transports and refuelers so why not use a “now mature in production design” (meaning after building a couple hundred bomb trucks) for that purpose? A BWB design can also feature LO technology from the start.

We’re not talking about something being needed next year so I don’t where the “use the C-17” even comes from I mean we’re probably talking 2040-45.
 
A couple of emerging trends might make an arsenal plane less useful in the future.

Firstly air to air kill chains are getting kills at amazingly long (to someone who vaguely remembers the Cold War) range. The AIM174 Standard ERAM has a range of over 200km, even the AMRAAM-D can do close to 150km against the right targets.

Secondly Israel has recently taken to using Air Launched Ballistic Missiles, including the ROCKS used in attack on Iran in 2024 that was leaked. I suspect this is an intermediate step to boost-glide hypersonics, and cruise missile will be at least accompanied by such missiles if not replaced in the short term.

I suspect these would have an impact on any arsenal aircraft in the future.
 
A bomber and a tanker/airlifter a fundamentally different aircraft, which is why purpose built, optimized machines of either variety look fundamentally different from each other. And while the tanker and cargo types can generally be unified in a single airframe (although something like an A330 MRTT cannot even hope to haul as much as a C-17), that's far more difficult with regards to bombers. Tankers and cargo aircraft are expected to operate either far away from the contact line or operate in completely controlled air space. Now, one might say "isn't that the case for a bomber that's not stealth as well?" and I would say that to a degree yes but mostly no. Bombers have very powerful ECM suites, they operate very differenty from tankers and airlifters and do go to great lengths to increase their survivability through various countermeasures. They're optimized for endurance, range and launch performance. Now something like a large BWB aircraft could lend itself to all three of these classes, but it would need to be designed as a bomber first, as it's by far the most specialized of the bunch. And generally speaking attributes that make a good bomber don't always translate well into being a good tanker or cargo aircraft.

Bombers traditionally needed a different wing and fuselage structure to accommodate a large ventral bay(s) vs cargo aircraft that needed large internal carriage space for bulky payloads. But the former is no longer true. As for defensive systems, you can put those on anything (indeed C-17 does have some) and IMO a B-52 or B-1 is about as vulnerable as a C-17 for all practical purposes.

Is there any attribute the hypothetical new bomber brings to the table besides ECM and countermeasures?
 
I wonder if the JetZero BWB construction method is acceptable for a cargo plane. They don't build the fuselage as a single piece, they build it as 4 "tunnels", each of which has an aisle and rows of 4 seats. Is the width usable for the military, would they have to figure out how to turn it into a single space?

JetZero's proposed design for the USAF right now can take palletized cargo the same way that the KC-46 and the late KC-10 -- with a lift via a side-loading door.

They are also studying an actual RoRo freighter, but the fuselage has to be different, starting with adequate height.


Looking at this image of the current design, the cargo loading door is presumably the hatch just ahead of the wing root.

1751894136509.png
 
Not sure I'm wanting a BWB arsenal plane so much as a BWB ro-ro tanker/transport plus Rapid Dragon.
 
I wonder if one approach would be what bobbymike proposed in the original post: a standoff bomber/missile carrier that could also handle cargo and tanker missions. The multipurpose parasite concepts studied by Boeing and Douglas in the late 1940s might be an inspiration. Essentially, develop a core aircraft structure with propulsion and digital backbone, then attach interchangeable mission units that could be swapped out as needed. Options could include a large tanker module and boom, an offensive pod with weapons and mission systems, a cargo module, or an ELINT/SIGINT/whateverINT pod and associated sensors.

This could cover the requirements for KC-Z, a medium cargo lifter, a standoff cruise or ballistic missile carrier, and EC/WC-135 replacements.
 
Sorry I’m really not understanding the naysayers objections or alternatives. The thread began with the premise “we need something after the B-52 that is like the B-52 but it should be cheaper than the B-21”

A BWB can fulfil this roll purpose built with large bomb bays and advance ECM/radars etc. In addition we will need new transports and refuelers so why not use a “now mature in production design” (meaning after building a couple hundred bomb trucks) for that purpose? A BWB design can also feature LO technology from the start.

We’re not talking about something being needed next year so I don’t where the “use the C-17” even comes from I mean we’re probably talking 2040-45.
Well I will try my best to explain myself… I would argue any airlifter/tanker/bomber multi-purpose large aircraft would have to be an airlifter first and foremost because of cargo bay height limitations: munitions occupy much less space compared with many military vehicles, and fuel is a liquid that can fill in any spot. On the other hand, a airlifter can satisfy the requirements of a standoff bomber if retrofitted with better ECM. As a result, I don’t see how much a new platform can bring to the table compared with the already operational C-17s. Having a larger fleet of the same aircraft also makes logistics much easier. As of the JetZero BWB proposal, since it is loading through side doors like the KC-46, I don’t see it replacing the C-5/C-17 airlifter fleet without a major redesign. Modified airlifters can be tankers though, as the Russian (IL-78) and the Chinese (Y-20U) have already proven…
 
Remember, the USAF uses Flying Booms for aerial refueling, and I have yet to see a transport with a ramp and Flying Boom.
 
Remember, the USAF uses Flying Booms for aerial refueling, and I have yet to see a transport with a ramp and Flying Boom.
I would consider fitting a KC-46-style remotely controlled flying boom onto an airlifter easier than increasing the cargo hold height by 1.5x though...
 
It might make more sense to have variations of an airframe rather than making tankers and lifters identical.
 
Remember, the USAF uses Flying Booms for aerial refueling, and I have yet to see a transport with a ramp and Flying Boom.
I've seen BWB proposals with booms on the wingtips, which would get them out of the way of a cargo ramp.

I've also seen a transport airframe with the ramp replaced with a boom install, not sure which one. A400?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom