Bomber thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
What does the B-52 do that the B1-b doesn't? I don't know much about bombers so I don't really get why we still use the old b-52s. Sure they are cool looking, but that is what the b-2 is for.
They're around primarily because they're still flight worthy and buying more bombers costs money, and so they just exist as bomb trucks.
>>28848728
>I don't really get why we still use the old b-52s.
Because they will work.
They're cheap to fly and get the job done well enough.
>>28848837
>>28848728
be cost effective
well, they still work.
Basically, they'll still serve until it becomes more expensive to fly and maintain them than it would be to replace them. And since the airforce isn't too concerned with long range heavy strategic nuclear bombers because it's not the 1950's, I'd say the odds of money being spent on a dedicated replacement is low.
Until then, they'll use them as bomb trucks. Updated data links with 5th gen fighters will keep them capable. Also, they carry shit tons of cruise missiles too, which is great.
Also, they don't even use them much. Little known fact is that most CAS/Strike missions in Afghanistan were done by B-1's.
>>28848728
No reason to upgrade if they're at no risk from the 30+ year old Anti-Aircraft systems that the brown farmers you bomb have.
>>28848908
Not as cheap to fly anymore compared even to the swing-wing B-1. But yeah, as anons said still cheap in a different sense since the airframes already exist and already have the relevant kit.
Another way to look at it is to think of B-52s at Garcia or in the UK in the same way you think of Marine Expeditionary units deployed wherever they are. They represent a serious bit of long-range power projection, even if they aren't as efficient as something else in every situation.
>>28848949
Why do they need a dedicated replacement? How hard would it really be to modify a 767 or something to do the job?
>>28849347
short answer yes, it would be more trouble than it's worth.
>>28848728
because we need to X bombers but they can't all be super expensive shit. same reason we're keeping out f16s/f15s going into 5th gen and far beyond
>>28849347
my point was that they don't need a replacement for a 1950's strategic nuclear bomber.
it would be very hard to modify a 767 for that. More work than making a new plane.
>>28848728
As said, its partly the expense isn't too much to warrant them and the fact that they still have a very dominating presence (even if the B1 can carry more bombs) thanks to their history of leveling jungles in Vietnam and being the go to Nuclear bomber back during the cold war.
>>28849426
I don't mean modifying an existing plane, I mean building a brand-new 767 with the appropriate changes such as bomb bays, hardpoints, and countermeasures, like they did with the P-8 or less directly with the likes of the E-767 and KC-767.
START
>>28849544
again, there's no need for a big strategic nuclear bomber. Strike fighters can serve the same role that the B-52 does today
During the chemical weapons showdown with Syria and after the sixth fleet had positioned itself just outside of Syrias coastal defense reach, there were reports of B52s flying from the USA to the middle of the Mediterranean and back right up until Assad signed away his rights to chemical weapons.
This is why.
>>28849667
Just imagine the range if they actually gave B-52's engines that are not from the 50's.
>>28848728
Won't BUK sama or S300 san blow up all of the B52 ?
>>28849611
There is some need for stealthy strategic bombers like the LRS-B. For one thing, if it's a target-rich environment, a bomber can be more cost effective than a fighter, because your payload fraction is higher.
The other advantage to big bombers is that they can carry specialty ordnance like MOPs and MOABs, as well as cruise missiles, etc internally.
>>28849720
yes theres no point to have any aircraft anymore, the russians have air defense. we must also remove all of our tank inventories, for the russians have anti-tank missiles. while we're at it, let's get rid of our body armor, because russians have armor piercing rounds.
>>28849720
AGM-86 and AGM-158 say hi.
>>28848728
Lob cruise missiles and carry nukes. The latter is really only because of treaty restrictions but the B-1B never really had much standoff capability until JSOW and JASSM.
>>28848728
Tu-95 = B-36
M-4 = B-52
Ironically, it was the B-52 and Tu-95 with the greatest longevity
>>28848728
The Valiant is the closest Yuropoors have come to building a bomber that matches the BUFF
>>28849815
and hence the existence of the LRS-B and such.
But there isn't going to be a Big Ugly Fat Fuck replacement.
>>28848728
It's insane that the B-1 has a greater bombload that the B-52 if not restricted from use of hardpoints.
>>28848728
The B-1, B-2 and B-52 are the modern equivalent of the V-bomber force.
>>28849975
except sexy instead of brit-tier ugly.
seriously, the brits have a knack for designing butt-ugly planes. But in an affectionate sort of way, you know?
>>28849938
The LRSB is being brought onboard as a replacement for the B-52/B-1. Of course, that's a process which will take a very long time, but that's also why they're getting started now. (or at least they'll get started as soon as Boeing stops their stupid lawsuit)
I wonder how many B-52's are going to be converted to arsenal planes.
The Chinamen will never come up with that stealth bomber they are reputed to be building. They are barely capable of building a stealth fighter as it is, and the bomber concept is in any case a poor investment when a larger number of long-range strike fighters can fill the job
The B-1 was meant not to replace the B-52, but the Hustler
>>28850028
There are situations where having a big bomber that can loiter on station for hours with a huge amount of ordinance is better than a group of fighters that can only stick around for about an hour and then have to go home. The fact that the DoD is funding the LRSB tells me that they think it is a capability worth keeping around.
>>28850013
>muh arsenal planes, I saw it on duh histery chanel
when the B-52 gets an RCS below the F-22 or USAF adopts a long-range missile: aka NEVER
>>28850116
Hello anon who is completely out of the loop.
>>28850140
hello cable-TV believing KID
Your B-1R was an unrequested proposal that nobody wanted. Get over it. And any advance in A2A technology will proportionally benefit conventional fighters over huge lumbering targets.
>>28850203
The Pentagon literally said that they're funding it now. Although the B-52 seems more likely than the B-1.
>>28850218
I'd say the B-1B is; more efficient (probably) high speed cruise, long internal bays, larger payload capacity, significantly lower RCS, etc.
>>28850218
eagerly awaiting your misinterpreted clickbait "source" for that claim anon
>>28850235
But the B-1 still gets plenty of use as a strike aircraft for CAS. Would converting it to B-1R configuration prevent it from doing that?
>>28849544
>I don't mean modifying an existing plane, I mean building a brand-new 767 with the appropriate changes such as bomb bays, hardpoints, and countermeasures, like they did with the P-8 or less directly with the likes of the E-767 and KC-767.
They already did exactly that, anon. Only, they decided the F-15 would be a better place to start.
>>28850257
My source is the Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter. He literally said "we are developing the arsenal plane" at the last budget meeting.
>“[Arsenal plane] takes one of our oldest aircraft platforms, and turns it into a flying launch pad for all sorts of different conventional payloads,” Carter says. “In practice, the arsenal plane will function as a very large airborne magazine, networked to fifth-generation aircraft that acts as forward sensor and targeting nodes – essentially combining different systems already in our inventory to create wholly new capabilities.”
>>28850259
I don't see it really having much of an impact, unless they demand that all B-1Bs be flown with exclusively stand-off payloads while there aren't any active IADS / aerial threats.
>>28850257
I'm not him, but it's straight from Carter's mouth as part of the new offset strategy:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-02-02/pentagon-budget-pursues-arsenal-plane-swarming-drones
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dod-reveals-arsenal-plane-and-microdrones-in-budge-421516/
>>28850235
B-1B has an 11,000lbs lower MTOW
>>28850257
>Ash Carter
>clickbait
>>28850308
so basically they're going to retire the B-52 as a heavy bomber, replace it with the the LRS-B, and then outfit them with bigass magazines of AMRAAMS, whatever new magical long range missiles, Meteors, JSOWS, Cruise Missiles, etc.
>>28849611
>there's no need for a big strategic nuclear bomber. Strike fighters can serve the same role that the B-52 does today
Strike fighters don't have the range for the strategic bomber mission, and yet we quite frequently see strategic bombers performing the strike and CAS mission instead these days. Heavy bombers with long range/endurance are a shitload more relevant than you think.
>>28850344
Slightly lower MTOW, but considerably higher payload capacity. If you need to exceed the MTOW, you can just take off with a high payload and fraction of it's internal fuel, then top up the tanks in the air. That said, it's not the mass that matters, but the volume with air-to-air weapons. a pair of AMRAAMs take up practically as much room as a 2000lb JDAM, but together weigh about 1/3 as much. For that, and to not deal with the drag / RCS penalties, the B-1B's large internal bays give it the advantage.
>>28850401
I didn't say a long range strike bomber isn't relevant. I said a strategic nuclear bomber is.
The B-52 is a 1950's era strategic nuclear bomber. It has since been shoehorned into a long range strike and CAS role. Which is fine. But it won't be "replaced" with another strategic nuclear bomber. It's going to be replaced with something like the LRS-B, a long range strike bomber.
>>28850320
Somebody told me that the B-1B's would have to be completely re-winged to get them into B-1R configuration. The B-1B's wings are not durable enough for supersonic flight, especially not now that they've been in use long enough to have some wear and tear on them. This is in contrast to the B-1A, which had heavier wings and a much faster top speed.
Plus, he said "one of our oldest platforms." That says to me: B-52. The B-52 might not seem like the most practical platform to build the arsenal plane upon, but I strongly suspect that the biggest reason they are doing this is that they want to test out the technology on a proven platform BEFORE integrating it into the LRSB, which I believe is their true end goal.
They want to keep costs down for the LRSB as much as possible, and that means using as much off-the-shelf tech as possible. So they're developing in the tech in a separate program as a ruse to hide the development costs. Or so I speculate.
>>28850461
The LRSB is a strategic bomber in all but name.
>>28850507
sure. "strategic".
I'm distinguishing a "strategic nuclear bomber" from just a long range "strategic" bomber.
>yfw you realize the B-2 costs more to run per hour than you make in a year
>>28850524
>I'm distinguishing a "strategic nuclear bomber" from just a long range "strategic" bomber.
Why?
>>28850459
That's why we just say fuck START and put the external wing storage back on the BUFF
>>28850566
different design goals, different usage doctrine, etc.
If someone asks "but what's gonna replace the B-52" the answer is "nothing, the roles it has been shoehorned into today will be filled by other aircraft". Same with the A-10. It won't be "replaced" in its original design of blunting soviet armor offensives in europe. The roles the A-10 currently fills will be filled by other aircraft.
>>28850485
That would make sense (using the B-52s as an initial proof of concept for LRS-B).
>>28850524
Well a dedicated modern strategic nuclear bomber would only need a very small payload, since nuclear weapons are tremendously smaller than they were in the '50s. Really, the BUFF is a hell of a lot closer to a modern conventional heavy bomber than a modern nuclear bomber.
That is of course unless the nukes themselves must be delivered by some larger, heavier stand-off missile. If that's the case, then you could easily end up with something as large as the Tu-160 again.
>>28850859
well, the B-52 is still in service because of that exact reason. It so happened that the design for it ended up being really useful for other weapons.
>>28850203
Some of the B1R upgrades have already been done. Its gone through a lot of changes but it its still a thing, its just not the split stab history channel version
>>28850897
>the B-52 is still in service because of that exact reason.
Yep, and it's slowly getting worn out and less reliable and harder to maintain and closer to it's inevitable end of life. Granted, that's still a long ways off since we built so damn many of them and have so many airframes to spread the workload across as well as spare parts, but still. Something along the lines of the B-52 is still plenty useful, and basing any future replacement off existing airliner designs could save considerable development, manufacturing and operating costs.
>>28849699
>B-52's engines
>from the 50's.
Nigga do you think they are using the same aircraft from the 50's? Yeah, they use the same basic airframe, and some are pretty old, but it's a ship of Theseus sort of thing- the planes have been upgraded to the point where they are entirely different aircraft.
>>28851008
B-52's have used the TF33-P-3 engine since 1961.
>>28849347
>How hard would it really be to modify a 767 or something to do the job?
>take a jet designed entirely around civilian use and convert it to a heavy bomber
not this thread again...
>>28848949
>Until then, they'll use them as bomb trucks
cruise missiles trucks too using that handy dandy rotating launcher in this pic and a few more missiles under each wing
>>28849720
>what is SEAD
>>28849990
Except the Spitfire, that was a nice looking plane but after WW2 they went potato with plane design
we use b52s for the same reason we still use a10s.
we have a bunch, they're tough as shit, and delivering 35 tons of potentially nuclear ordinance anywhere in the world is a damn good thing to have in your arsenal.
sure the b1b can carry more, but those fuckers are expensive and not as tough as the glorious BUFF
>>28848728
I often forget just how big the B1 & B1-b are. In my head I think the b-52 has this massive heavy bomber payload and the other two are lightweights, yet that is totally not the case and logically I know that.
>>28850617
>>28850961
Does anyone know when we'll see the arsenal plane move from just a concept to actually existing?
God damn the future is looking bright ad fuck for the US Air Force
>>28851350
Carter said within the coming years. Whatever that means.
>>28851350
Never, the military in general is extremely fickle about shit like that
>>28851350
forgive my ignorance, but what in the hell is an arsenal plane? a modular fighting aircraft? a giant supersonic dildo? I need answers
More interested in the c130 replacement tbqh
>>28851375
Basically you have a big ass missile truck sitting back BVR to chuck missiles at anything on the radar or anything that needs a good dicking.
>>28851375
Planes built for the singular purpose of carrying lots of bombs so other aircraft can concentrate on more specialized things.
>>28851375
Arsenel Plane is a newly announced program which will be an upgraded B-52 or C-130 or B-1B and will work as a missile truck, sitting way back and using new advanced data links to fire a2a missiles and cruise missiles at targets identified by F-35s and F-22s.
>>28851350
more B1 pics
love this sexy bitch
>>28851350
Getting shit approved to actual use takes a long as time. People were talking about getting one of the navigation components upgraded to the R model when I first started working on the plane. Didn't see the mod come out till 4 years later, and the last of the planes got it two years after that.
>>28851401
>>28851429
>>28851433
so a giant flying battleship armed out the ass with missiles and bombs. sounds fun.
why not take a c5, make the bottom open (like a garage, with the bottom of the fuselage pulling inwards on a track, sorta like a football stadium)
then having all the pylons in there that could advance forward when empty to bring the new ordinance to bear, like a conveyor of death. retain some ass end cargo space seperated by a bulkhead for troops/moab, and you have one deadly skywhale.
>>28851481
the senators gotta make sure the right people in the right states get the contracts
>>28851486
Because C-5's struggle to not break:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWp0prT9RN4
>>28851375
A niche that became obsolete in the 20th century that is filled at great expense by Congress' favorite defense contractors.
>>28851375
Think of it as an artillery piece
The scouts (F-22/35) are miles ahead of the artillery piece and when they find enemy aircradt they relay the info back to the artillery piece (arsenal plane) that then shits out missiles(they have A LOT of missiles in them soft tender bellies) to dead the fuck outta whatever the F-22/35s told them to kill.
>>28851471
Aw nigga that was gonna be the next one I was gonna post
>>28851471
I used to live in Abilene. These sexy things were flying around all day long.
speaking of SEAD, bring back this awesome jet
>>28851501
Funding comes and goes on a whim. There's a ton of shit that needs upgrading, the engineers know it, some of it actually has been tested, but then before it can be implemented, the funding gets pulled
>>28851580
Why when the F-35 will be the true grand child of the wild weasel?
>>28851536
nice
i've only seen them at air shows
>>28851644
>>28851642
That's the only way I've gotten in close. But there is a spot in Tye where people sit to watch the Bones take off at night. Unfortunately don't have a pic of that though.
it kinda cracks me up, comparing the B52 and the B1
the B1 looks like a smoother blackbird, elegant like a bird. the B52 looks like a flying battleship. it's funny to me, seeing these two planes which are pretty much the same thing that look so different,
>>28851677
>same thing
Not even close. They carry the same weapons but that's it
>>28851674
And that's all the Bone I've got from that airshow because I don't feel like finding the SD card and resizing/post processing anything else tonight.
>>28851696
they carry the same weapons with the same-ish payload, and are both heavy bombers. they fulfill the same role, generally speaking. they are different in many ways, but in general the same
>>28851674
Used to sit at the end of the runway and watch them take off overhead. I honestly don't think a louder machine exists
>>28851720
>same-ish
You know the Bone carries nearly double right?
70k vs 120k lbs.
>>28851720
Not in the slightest. Their only similarity is that they're both strategic bombers and can carry mostly the same munitions.
>>28851738
In premise, but when was the last time you saw a B-1 using its external hardpoints.
>>28851786
When's the last time you saw a B-1B? Just because you don't see them doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
>>28851786
There is some treaty we signed with the Russians that says no externally mounted weapons on the B-1, as stupid as that sounds.
>>28851786
>>28851838
>>28851862
We just don't need them for the types of missions we fly today, but its still an option.
>>28851862
I'm about 90% certain that's a lie. We said we wouldn't put nukes there.
>>28849938
To be fair, the B52 is probably going to outlive us all.
Interesting topic, I was taking a quick look into how things work here in Brazil and, while we do not have any heavy bomber, it seems a lot of effort is being put into our AMX A-1M. What kind of strategy could be behind this? We already have lots of F-5 and soon some Gripens.
>>28851983
Honest appraisal, you don't need a heavy bomber. You need light and cheap craft. The AMX A-1 is a decent candidate for it. It's not the greatest, but it will serve y'all decently in whatever wars you might get up to, as they won't be against the toughest opponents. They also have a good role in a counterinsurgency.
>>28851983
I didn't realize you guys had an army. I thought you just sent a planeload of hookers and cocaine to your enemies as a peace offering to solve all your conflicts
>>28852044
>need
>>28849914
That's just wrong and there is nothing ironic about that, it's really simple. In therms of effectiveness B-52 and Tu-95 are equally good while B-36 and M-4 were equally shit.
>>28851150
Boeing doesn't have much trouble building military use versions of it's jet aircraft. (Except for tankers, nach). For something simple like an arsenal aircraft or curse missile carrier it would cost less then a Poseidon, where they had to fit it with and integrate a huge amount of complicated sensors.
>>28850308
Maybe this will finally become a reality:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-ac-3-alhtk.htm
Though perhaps the SM-6 would be a better place to start, given the network-centric nature of the arsenal plane.
>>28851279
talking jet era, yeah WWII they had style.
>>28853601
mount a fucking RIM-162 ESSM launcher(s) in the B-52. Those things have insane range, and would be even better from a B-52 flying at 40000 feet.
>>28852849
You're talking out of your ass. Tu-95 is incapable of carrying any conventional bombs.
>>28849877
>AGM-86 and AGM-158 say hi.
Pantsir S1, TOR-M1-2 and older Tunguska 1 say hi, AGM-86 and AGM-158 go bye bye.
>>28851350
>plane numbers falling from 7,000 to 4,000
>bright future
Not for pilots at least.
H-Hello.
>>28855310
Though the Badger-E looks better. A bit less silly at the nose.
>>28855310
you're so loud, bear-kun!
I can hear you from down in my submarine!
>>28855704
Bears are prop planes.
>>28855743
>"• Each of the Bear’s eight four-blade propellers break the sound barrier as they turn, making the Tu-95 perhaps the loudest plane on the planet. In fact, Bears are so noisy that they can be detected by U.S. underwater sonar sensors and submarines. Fighter pilots sent up to intercept Bears have reported that the planes’ unmistakeable drone can even be heard over the sound of their own jets."
>>28855760
I know. I'm saying that the picture you replied to is a jet plane, so it couldn't possibly be a Bear.
>>28855760
Except >>28855465 is obviously not a bear
>>28855704
>>28855760
The picture says "Tu-16K 'Badger-C'" for gods sake.
>>28851433
It's not going to be carrying A2A for anything but self-defense as long as it's not VLO and can't carry anything longer-ranged than an AMRAAM.
>>28857992
When your frontline fighters are dealing with internal stores only and you're worried about the survivability of non-stealthy gen 4 birds having an arsenal plane with long range AAM makes a ton of sense. Detect and target with stealthy fighters, BTFU airborne ESSM/SM-6/whatever they come up with.
Why dont we get rid of the B52? Sure shes old... Sure theres more advanced things...
But there are only 21 B2s
only 104 B1s have ever been built...
And 744 b52s. Anyone have any idea on how many are still in service?
>>28859169
77 currently in service.
>>28859169
Simply put, we're still using it because we haven't gotten a replacement.
>>28855186
Not if AGM-88 AARGM and MALD-J have anything so say about it.
>>28859169
B-52's will outlive 3 replacements.
>>28857992
Part of the entire point is to increase the missile magazine of fighters. AMRAAM-ER or SM-6 would fit the task.
>>28859919
>AMRAAM-ER
?
>>28851983
Not to be a dick but your air force in in really bad shape. I do not think that there is a real strategy in the mix of air frames that they have. For having the 11th largest defense budget at just over $ 31 billion a year Brazil should have a larger and more modern air force and navy.
>>28850257
ahaha faggot
>>28859919
>AMRAAM-ER or SM-6 would fit the task.
Got any reading material on AMRAAM-ER or A2A SM-6? Because something like a longer-ranged missile would be needed for the concept to even be viable, and of course Meteor suffers from "not made here" syndrome.
>>28860371
AMRAAM Extended Range, senpai.
>>28850485
>>28850308
>>28851375
A program for updated pic related should be very low cost and quick (i.e. won't happen). Long-range 747 with set of magazines and feeder chutes, and non-cruise missile ammunition. AGM-154 maybe, GBU-53B would be better. Or even copy the 25kg Chinese guided drone bomb, giving a payload of ~2000 guided bombs, for independent targeting, release and guidance.
>>28861852
pic related
>>28861852
>~2000 guided bombs
>Two fucking thousand
>>28861920
Look, its cute for a start. And all that's needed is a couple of FOs getting clicky with their integrated map position computer whatsits, tapping on the screen for half an hour on possible enemy positions- they'll get though those 2000 bombs in no time.
>>28861852
By low cost and quick you mean very expensive years down the road, as no hardware/software exists.
Meanwhile B-52's have both CONECT and IWBU upgrades in progress. Now if they can only get them some new engines finally.
>>28848931
God no 140,000 lbs fuel load per flight 5,000$ panel latches motherfucking ALCM grease. The only reason we still have it is Carter's nuke treaty. It's the only bomber we have that's allowed to carry nuclear cruise missiles.
>>28851210
Dat 28 on a single Y stand every time. I know it technically can, but why risk it?
>>28849347
> How hard would it really be to modify a 767 or something to do the job?
About as practical as modifying a bus into an APC, only instead of vehicle engineering, its re-engineering a jet, which is orders of magnitude more complex.
>>28860471
Brazilian military expenses are crazy inflated due to compulsory conscription at the age of 18 for males and high pension costs. Personnel payments (active and inactive) amount to just over 70% of the total. And the remaining is allocated for but not actually spent in full due to budget contingency.
>>28863335
Source: http://www.forte.jor.br/2015/01/22/quanto-o-brasil-gasta-com-defesa/
>>28859169
The number slowly falls as they are taken apart for space parts
The LRS-B will likely be purchased in much larger numbers than expected to replace them.
>>28860555
Nothing really besides what you'd find on Wikipedia - both missiles are already capable of being guided by F-35s (or at least there was a test some time recently where an SM-6 was guided by 2 separate F-35s handing over and taking over guidance mid-flight - AMRAAM-ER actually might not be compatible at this point, but shouldn't require much at all to be open for airborne guidance; you could probably just port AIM-120C7 or D variant software directly over).
