Obama says kill the new bomber and delay the tanker

[timmay]

both of you guys are describing single mission aircraft. It is easier to do that than it is today. Now a new design has to be multi-mission capable. what ever that is for a bomber..Maybe lowlevel as well as high alt bombing. what ever. When Kelley Johnson was around, they gave him a requirement and kept it at that requirement. Didn't change it every few months forcing the company to redesign. That is what is wrong now.

The A12 actually had two other variants in the works one as an interceptor and the other a bomber. However the AF didnt bite and went with the B1 instead But I get the point of your reply.

 

[AvroGuy]

The A12 actually had two other variants in the works one as an interceptor and the other a bomber. However the AF didnt bite and went with the B1 instead But I get the point of your reply.

The YF-12A was smoke and mirrors. Yes there was a few built and the AIM-54 predecessor was built for the thing but I stand on the smoke and mirrors thing.
Cover for the CIA to get thier A-12's.

 

[flyf15]

As far as the bomber goes....

The B-52 is just a bomb truck. Why not buy some 747s, 767s, 777s, or 787s (depending on how much you want to pay and the capability you want to have), put some bomb bays in them, hardpoints on them, electronics and other goodies on the inside, and call it the B-52 replacement? Sure its not perfect, and would require some reworking and modification of the airframe, but you now have a cheap, off the shelf, immensely reliable, available today, subsonic non-stealth bomber. Save the B-1s and B-2s for the more specialized stuff.

If you pick the 767, you now also have commonality with the KC-767 (if that ever shows up) too. Heck, put some detachable refueling equipment on it and some fuel tanks in the bomb bays and let the bomber also be the new tanker. Put a cargo door on it and let it carry a lot of the palletized cargo thats currently being carried around by much more expensive C-17s. Equip it to have other electronics and equipment put in the bomb bays, main deck, or hardpoints and you can replace a lot of the specialized -135 variants running around too.

What it all comes down to is that for many of these jobs, all you really need is a medium-large aircraft that can carry a significant payload cheaply, reliably, safely, over a respectable distance. This aircraft doesn't have to be a new design... Boeing has gotten pretty good at designing airplanes that do just that. Everything beyond that is just what you decide to load onto it that day. Sure, its not going to be as perfect as a special new build design for that specific mission, but we could have it tomorrow instead of 20 years from now, and at a quarter of the cost.

Save the very expensive and specialized aircraft we have in small numbers (B-1, B-2, C-17, KC-10, etc) for when a mission requires its capabilities.

 

[AvroGuy]

As far as the bomber goes....

The B-52 is just a bomb truck. Why not buy some 747s, 767s, 777s, or 787s (depending on how much you want to pay and the capability you want to have), put some bomb bays in them, hardpoints on them, electronics and other goodies on the inside, and call it the B-52 replacement? Sure its not perfect, and would require some reworking and modification of the airframe, but you now have a cheap, off the shelf, immensely reliable, available today, subsonic non-stealth bomber. Save the B-1s and B-2s for the more specialized stuff.

If you pick the 767, you now also have commonality with the KC-767 (if that ever shows up) too. Heck, put some detachable refueling equipment on it and some fuel tanks in the bomb bays and let the bomber also be the new tanker. Put a cargo door on it and let it carry a lot of the palletized cargo thats currently being carried around by much more expensive C-17s. Equip it to have other electronics and equipment put in the bomb bays, main deck, or hardpoints and you can replace a lot of the specialized -135 variants running around too.

What it all comes down to is that for many of these jobs, all you really need is a medium-large aircraft that can carry a significant payload cheaply, reliably, safely, over a respectable distance. This aircraft doesn't have to be a new design... Boeing has gotten pretty good at designing airplanes that do just that. Everything beyond that is just what you decide to load onto it that day. Sure, its not going to be as perfect as a special new build design for that specific mission, but we could have it tomorrow instead of 20 years from now, and at a quarter of the cost.

Save the very expensive and specialized aircraft we have in small numbers (B-1, B-2, C-17, KC-10, etc) for when a mission requires its capabilities.

well that is an interesting idea. I know where you can get some 74 classics real cheap. Maybe even some 744 real cheap with the economy.

 

[hindsight2020]

As far as the bomber goes....

The B-52 is just a bomb truck. Why not buy some 747s, 767s, 777s, or 787s (depending on how much you want to pay and the capability you want to have), put some bomb bays in them, hardpoints on them, electronics and other goodies on the inside, and call it the B-52 replacement? Sure its not perfect, and would require some reworking and modification of the airframe, but you now have a cheap, off the shelf, immensely reliable, available today, subsonic non-stealth bomber. Save the B-1s and B-2s for the more specialized stuff.

If you pick the 767, you now also have commonality with the KC-767 (if that ever shows up) too. Heck, put some detachable refueling equipment on it and some fuel tanks in the bomb bays and let the bomber also be the new tanker. Put a cargo door on it and let it carry a lot of the palletized cargo thats currently being carried around by much more expensive C-17s. Equip it to have other electronics and equipment put in the bomb bays, main deck, or hardpoints and you can replace a lot of the specialized -135 variants running around too.

What it all comes down to is that for many of these jobs, all you really need is a medium-large aircraft that can carry a significant payload cheaply, reliably, safely, over a respectable distance. This aircraft doesn't have to be a new design... Boeing has gotten pretty good at designing airplanes that do just that. Everything beyond that is just what you decide to load onto it that day. Sure, its not going to be as perfect as a special new build design for that specific mission, but we could have it tomorrow instead of 20 years from now, and at a quarter of the cost.

Save the very expensive and specialized aircraft we have in small numbers (B-1, B-2, C-17, KC-10, etc) for when a mission requires its capabilities.

Oh that's a remarkable idea, and has been thought of in the lower circles, but mother Boeing won't let it happen on the cheap, for which reason it'll never happen. I've heard around the peanut gallery that the 75- was built with a military bomber application possibility in mind (rumor quotes the high standing gear as an indication for such intent). Now that's be a bad ass permissive environment bomber, get my drink on with a couple eastern european (non-union for sure) FAs while retaining the ability to stand up and stretch (STS)..easiest air medal anyone would ever get, but I digress (AF medals is for another day)...

At any rate I don't think it will happen. What makes the BUFF old makes it relevant (sadly...as I tap on 8 eyechart steam gages to get em unstuck for a simple engine start.), in the yet again renewed emphasis to the nuke mission (and I'll keep it OPSEC friendly). These requirements would make any off-the-shelf modification costly (thanks DOD contractors!) and would defeat the purpose of visiting the commercial off-the-shelf option. Furthermore, it is mother blue's intention to phase out the buff dramatically if they are to take on another bomber airframe. Which they can't afford to do with the whole GSC thing. Also, thinking GSC will inherit all the buffs and ACC will get their new conventional bomber is a pipedream, though said attitude would be par for the course of the part of ACC... The name of the budget game is called "either/or" baby.

Honestly, I rather fly FB-111s, those suckers are still mint condition sitting in their shrinkwrap, if it weren't for START treaty shenanigans we'd have the -111 providing the critcal EW and gap-fill bomber missions we are so crassly botching right now. ACC would get a huge boner for something with afterburners (read love affair with the B-1) and they know the Buff is currently on track to outlive the Bone (again, unbelivable our state of affairs in the bomber world). But that [FB111s] will not happen either.

So we'll get asked to do more with less as usual and our bomber capes will continue to rely on the hope that a major non-permissive skirmish doesn't happen until 2040. Good luck with that. I do beleive the 2018 bomber won't happen in the proposed timeline, they're sitting on their hands up there in the Pentagon and if they think they're gonna come up with a new design option for said timeline they've hit their heads. Hell, I just read the Tu-95MS are model year 90s, if that doesn't cause indignation on the US bomber world somebody needs to check the koolaid cause that punch is spiked.

 

[LR25]

Theres something not right with that analysis.

The P-3 replacement, the P-7 is a 737.

I was told that the cost of cutting a bombay in the belly is not that easy, for some reason. Also the Navy was offered a new P-3 "P-3 2000" and it would have been a alot cheaper because of the R&D of the 737.

I have no first hand knowledge, just know a bunch of P-3 guys.

 

[HoursHore]

The problem with an off the shelf boeing 7 something design is there is already a ton of stuff where the bombs would go. ACM, Fuel Tanks, etc. Its not as simple as cutting a hole in the bottom of the plane. Whole systems would have to be redesigned.

 

[LRvsH25B]

Wouldn't building airplanes create/sustain high paying manufacturing jobs?

I'm just saying...

Sure would, for people in Europe. The Marine 1 contract and the Tanker projects were both given to European manufactures by the Bush Administration and Bush's Pentagon.

It took Obama coming in and putting the skids on these projects to say enough is enough. No more of the Republicans sending all of our good high paying jobs over seas for the Brits and the Indians to get all the work while we sit here at home unemployed.

I'm just saying.....

 

[bagasticks]

I think we should just bomb our enemies with love and song. . . . not napalm and death. . .

The muslims and commies just want our friendship. .

 

[pilotyip]

P-7

Theres something not right with that analysis.

The P-3 replacement, the P-7 is a 737.

I was told that the cost of cutting a bombay in the belly is not that easy, for some reason. Also the Navy was offered a new P-3 "P-3 2000" and it would have been a alot cheaper because of the R&D of the 737.

I have no first hand knowledge, just know a bunch of P-3 guys.

The P-7 was a Lockheed super P-3 with engine and props like the C-130J; it was killed by then Sec of Def Dick Cheney. The 737 P-3 substitute is the P-8. Notice I said substitute, because nothing will ever replace the P-3.