Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Let Us Try Again To Turn The 747 Into A Bomber
SYSOP    8/23/2009 7:59:21 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT
SAE       8/23/2009 11:10:08 AM
I got slammed for this idea too. See my comments (SAE       6/23/2009 11:41:06 AM) in the 6/23/2009 Naval article "USN Can't Get Enough 737s" and (SAE       4/19/2008 4:43:26 PM) in the April 17, 2008 article "B-1B Bested By B-52."
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    And Rightfully So SAE   8/23/2009 11:49:38 AM
Just because someone is examining the idea doesn't mean it's a good one...the B-747 and other commercial bombers have been looked at since 1978/79 and in 30 years they've never been chosen.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       8/23/2009 12:21:50 PM
Just because someone is examining the idea doesn't mean it's a good one...the B-747 and other commercial bombers have been looked at since 1978/79 and in 30 years they've never been chosen.

That's because they only seem like a simple and cheap solution.  The proposed system from the '80s could carry 40 cruise missiles (ALCMs).  It was forced to carry them internally because it has no wing structures for hardpoints.  Of course, it also has no bomb bay, and no bomb bay doors, so it needed a complex conveyor belt system to haul the missiles from each rotary missile carrier to a hatch in the back of the airplane.
 
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a320/Jeremy70/B-747cruise1.jpg" width="659" height="331" />
 
In the end, it wouldn't have proven particularly cheap to buy.  And then the operating costs weren't in its favor either; it is larger and requires more fuel and runway than a B-52, and likewise hangars and ramp facilities would have to be updated to handle it.
 
Quote    Reply

davod       8/23/2009 2:00:40 PM
"Meanwhile, the USAF has also changed its tactical doctrine in the last decade, and is no longer willing to go in low after ground targets. In the 1999 Kosovo campaign, most of the bombing was done from three miles up"
 
They still do close air support, even of they do not want to.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush       8/23/2009 2:21:04 PM

"Meanwhile, the USAF has also changed its tactical doctrine in the last decade, and is no longer willing to go in low after ground targets. In the 1999 Kosovo campaign, most of the bombing was done from three miles up"

 

They still do close air support, even of they do not want to.


Which is one of the reasons the Marine Corps has its own aviation assets.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       8/23/2009 3:05:23 PM
Really.  Name one USAF member who doesn't want USAF to do CAS.  Of course, that wouldn't matter anyway, since it's still going to remain a fundamental mission of USAF to provide CAS regardless of whether you could ever find any USAF personnel who thinks it shouldn't be, and USAF will continue to do it better in every way than ever before.
 
What USAF... and USN... and USMC... does not do is fly low enough to be engaged by AAA ***if the mission does not require it.***  In today's era of plentiful smart munitions, far better sensors, and better communications with the JTACs, that requirement is far more rare than it used to be.
 
 
Quote    Reply

rmancassman       8/23/2009 3:54:20 PM
If a long range, non stealthy, aircraft that can carry a large payload is required and the current fleet of B-52s because of age or whatever or unable to perform the current mission, why not just build an updated version of the B-52.  Obliviously production was closed down long ago, that said I'm sure the blue prints are around somewhere and the production tooling can't be too terribly different from what they use on commercial aircraft, given that modern airliners supposedly trace their lineage to the B-47 which is the father of the B-52 so to speak.  I'm sure you could use many "off the shelf" commercial components such as engines etc.  I would imagine that when all is said and done this would be a much cheaper alternative than trying to turn a 747 into a bomber.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/23/2009 4:47:23 PM
This will warm the c0ckles of Carlo Kopp/Peter Goon and APA's collective hearts.

Based on their previous behaviour they will be seeking a commission for expressing the idea many moons ago (just like they expected a "finders fee/commission" if Australia ever got the F-22.

sigh..... 
 
Quote    Reply

stoker    'New' B52's   8/23/2009 8:02:04 PM
It would most probably be cheaper to build brand new B52's ( with 4 engines) than to try and modify commercial 747's into a practical bomber.
Failing that, the Brits have most probably still got the plans for the prettiest two bombers ever made, the Vulcan and the Victor. lol
As has already been stated you don't need ever 'bomber' to be a ultra expensive stealth aircraft, that's why we have precision weapons'
A new B52/Vulcan/Victor type bomber would provide a excellent platform  for provide long duration support for troops, day and night, with a large weapon capacity.
Waba
 
Quote    Reply

Gerry       8/23/2009 8:42:46 PM
The idea that only precision bombing will be the trend of the future, ignors history. Jungles and heavily forested areas, mountain terrain,  as well as dispersed troops on the move will still require carpet bombing of some sort. The Ho Chi Min trail is a prime example. If SAMS are in the area, there goes the CAS.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics