Military applications of Boeing Sonic Cruiser

[Triton]

I was curious if the Mach .98 speed of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser would make it an attractive platform for military applications currently performed by airliners. For example would the Mach .98 cruise speed be desirable for any of the following roles: airborne early warning and control, airborne command post, ground surveillance, aerial refueling, maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare, signals intelligence collection, operational support airlift/special air mission, and/or VIP transport. Or an airborne laser platform perhaps?

 

[flateric]

none of these
I advise you to read Wagner/Norris excellent book on 787 Dreamliner that has several chapters dedicated to SC project and ideology behind it that airlines didn't accept
none of the applications you have listed has tremendous need for speed boost, or economic sense as in case of VIP transport
nor sleek SC was optimized for any of these missions - most of them mean 'economy', 'loitering', 'huge mission-optimized volumes'

it's like]using Lamorghini instead of using pickup

 

[Triton]

It was a question that I had after seeing speculative drawings from aviation enthusiasts of military Boeing Sonic Cruisers with refueling booms or AWACS antennas. It made me wonder if the increased speed of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser compared to the current generation of airliners was desirable for military applications. That the military might be willing to pay higher operating costs of increased fuel consumption for the increased speed. Further, the military would not need to worry about skybridges and gates at existing civilian airports or the logistics of timetables for spoke and hub passenger distribution systems.

 

[Byeman]

It was a question that I had after seeing speculative drawings from aviation enthusiasts of military Boeing Sonic Cruisers with refueling booms or AWACS antennas. It made me wonder if the increased speed

Even if it were free, minor increase in speed does not provide any advantages.

 

[Avimimus]

It was a question that I had after seeing speculative drawings from aviation enthusiasts of military Boeing Sonic Cruisers with refueling booms or AWACS antennas. It made me wonder if the increased speed

Even if it were free, minor increase in speed does not provide any advantages.

That's not quite true is it?

 

[Bill Walker]

It was a question that I had after seeing speculative drawings from aviation enthusiasts of military Boeing Sonic Cruisers with refueling booms or AWACS antennas. It made me wonder if the increased speed

Even if it were free, minor increase in speed does not provide any advantages.

That's not quite true is it?

It might be more accurate to say "no significant advantage". In theory, a little bit of speed will always help, but in a world of finite budgets one has to ask if the money spent getting an extra 0.10 Mach couldn't be better spent on payload, reliabilty, fleet size, etc.

 

[TimothyC]

A Bomber.

Cruising at Mach .98 with long range improves bomber survivability. You'd need a new fuselage, but it shouldn't be any worse than other designs.

 

[flateric]

You'd need a new fuselage, but it shouldn't be any worse than other designs.

 

[Hobbes]

A Bomber.

Cruising at Mach .98 with long range improves bomber survivability. You'd need a new fuselage, but it shouldn't be any worse than other designs.

The weapons used against bombers (fighters, AAMs, SAMs) are so much faster that the extra 0.1 M isn't going to help in most cases.

 

[TimothyC]

You'd need a new fuselage, but it shouldn't be any worse than other designs.

Allow me to clarify; Shouldn't be worse than any other clean paper designs, or working off of C-17 wings.

 

[GeorgeA]

The weapons used against bombers (fighters, AAMs, SAMs) are so much faster that the extra 0.1 M isn't going to help in most cases.

Plus which, that is right in the middle of the transonic drag spike. You'd be better off, from a drag perspective, going slightly supersonic.

 

[Byeman]

A Bomber.

Cruising at Mach .98 with long range improves bomber survivability. You'd need a new fuselage, but it shouldn't be any worse than other designs.

No it doesn't provide any advantage over a Mach .9 bomber

 

[Triton]

I wasn't imagining that the aircraft would be modified as a bomber or a cruise missile carrier. I was imagining military applications of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser that are currently performed by modified civilian airliners manufactured by Boeing or Airbus.

I presume that range and on-station time would require higher fuel loads compared to existing sub-sonic airliners

 

[Orionblamblam]

Plus which, that is right in the middle of the transonic drag spike. You'd be better off, from a drag perspective, going slightly supersonic.

The SC could go supersonic. At worst case, it could climb to altitude and do a slight power dive to punch through Mach 1; it could then level off and cruise at slightly supersonic. A passenger liner would be less likely to do such a thing than a military craft. If it might be rated to fly at high subsonic at low altitude like the B-1, where winds and maneuvers would try to shake it to bits, then it could handle the power dive.

 

[Rickshaw]

I would imagine an increase in speed over other civil aircraft proposed to be adopted to bombers would offer both strategic and tactical advantages. A decreased time for deployment to theatre would be an advantage strategically while tactically the increased speed would mean decreased time to target and offer the advantage of different courses to the target. Both would complicate defence efforts considerably. My understanding though is that the SC is optimised for airline needs not military ones so any adaptation would effectively mean a new aircraft if it is to operate over the full range of altitudes and of course manoeuvres.

 

[Stargazer]

I had an idea today which I'm sure others have had long before me: what if the Sonic Cruiser had been developed as a sort of replacement of the Lockheed Blackbird? Sure, it wasn't near as fast, but I guess it could have made up for it in other aspects such as RCS reduction, weight, etc. Well, just a thought...