Transport bombers
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
Transport bombers are the best idea I've ever heard.
They are regular civilian airliners like 737s and 747s with bomb doors added, maybe refueling capabilities and a few flares.
The advantages are numerous. There is a preexisting worldwide supply chain for spare parts and maintenance techs/pilots. The planes are much cheaper (70-150mil each vs 2000mil for a b1).
Their range is truly amazing, much further than a b-52 (they were designed for efficiency and cost effectiveness after all). Even 737s can fly from CA to HI no problem. Modern 787s are even better.
Fill them with either air launched cruise missiles or 2000lb bombs on rotary racks. 737 can carry 35, a 747 can hold 72.
Pair them with a P-8 and an AWACS. Add a fighter escorts.
And they can be readily converted between bomb loadouts, troop transport, and strategic airlift. Logistics is one of the most important factors in any war.
What does /k/ think? Useful concept or are there considerations I'm not seeing?
Shameless self bump
>>29571673
747's are too big and expensive, plus, 737's can already do midair refueling.
conclusion: make them all 737's
>no stealth
>no defenses
>>29572035
That's what fighter escorts are for anon.
>>29572023
I agree, smaller platforms are more flexible and with air refueling range is less of an issue.
Plus the P-8 and the Australian ewar/radar version are already based on 737. Adding a bomber variant would be ideal for parts and training compatibility in an all 737 fleet.
USN already uses 737s to hunt submarines
Not much of a stretch to make a version full of cruise missiles or 2000lb bombs
>>29572035
It's not like you're gonna expect a passenger jet to drop bombs on your location?
Should just have Boeing whip up a 787 as a bomber to replace the B-52.
It should cost less than developing a whole new airplane.
>>29572598
Hugely cheaper, worldwide civilian parts/training/supply lines compatible, greater range, greater payload.
So there's this seemingly great idea floating around. It's comon knowledge. But it's not in widespread use.
You should ask yourself: why hasn't this been done already? Usually there are good reasons for that.
>>29573060
Tell us anon, what are those reasons why this idea would not work?
>>29573139
Remember that passenger plane that got shot down over Ukraine because they thought it was a fighter? Think about what might happen if all bombers looked like passenger aircraft.
>>29571673
When I worked in panama we outfitted 737's with advanced electronic countermeasures and radar jamming equipment so we could transport seized shipments back into the US without domestic involvement.
I love the idea of passenger jets turned bombers
>>29573159
Passenger planes shouldn't be flying in an active warzone anyway.
Are we supposed to stop using trucks in the military because they kinda look like civilian trucks?
>>29573159
If retards already can't tell the difference, why does it matter?
>>29572300
Submarines don't present a serious AAW threat.
Ground targets do.
>>29573179
Please tell us more this sounds interesting.
>>29573221
Fighter escorts.
No difference than the threat to b-52s anyway. All bombers need protection.
>>29573232
we would catch shipments coming out of the United states of automatic weapons/rocket launchers/antiair (illegal weapons) destined for cartel/narco use in south america.
panama was the entry point for the shit coming out of the united states. we setup "sting" operations I guess you could call them.
So we would catch the contraband entering panama and we would box it up and literally send it back to the US.
>>29573443
Woah. Rocket launchers and anti air? Was that shit stolen from national guard armories or something?
>>29573552
No actually it was bought directly from manufacturers in the US in most cases.
corrupted police and military organizations in south america would buy them, acting as the intermediary between US manufacturers and the cartels, and quietly shuffle them off into cartel hands.
Seems like a great way to get a whole shitload of civilian airliners shot down, OP.
>>29573667
Military version of airliners already exist. And have existed for decades.
Oh look, its this thread again...
>>29573443
A-r-r-re y-y-you CIA?
>>29573221
>Ground targets do.
What makes a B-52 or Tu-95 more survivable against SAMs than a converted 747?
>>29571673
It's BIN DUN BEFO.
The US government routinely sprays chemicals from airliners over US soil in order to test bio-weapons on its own population.
This has been going of for decades. These chemtrails turn good americans into SJWs and libtards by lowering our testosterone and increasing our oestrogen levels. It takes years, but it's effective. You can see the results by yourself.
Tis all true, govenor, I SWEAR!
CHEMTRAILS ARE RUINING OUR COUNTRY!
>>29573784
I've worked for Delta, I can confirm this.
>>29573221
Wait we don't have a sub launched amraam equivalent?
>>29572511
>It's not like you're gonna expect a passenger jet to drop bombs on your location?
No, but after the first time you're now allowed to shoot down passenger planes scott free because you can't tell if it's a bomber or a passenger plane anymore.
>>29573784
True story.
One of the hoses carries fuel, the other one carries chemical X to turn us into powerpuff girls.
Some may say it's because there are two fuel tanks, but that's not the problem (plus, fuel can be moved from one tank to another). There ARE two tanks, but one of them isn't fuel.
You can trust me on this.
>>29572511
Perfidy is a war crime, anon. You can use an airliner as a bomber, but if you do so it may not feign civilian identification. You can REFUSE to identify yourself, but odds are enemy RoE will still eventually classify you as hostile if a state of war exists.
>>29572511
Literally every country of note is ready for this, airspace is tightly watched.
>>29573699
Asesor extranjera
I love how people have a shower thought and start posting like no one in the defense industry has ever thought of this.
>>29574035
>shower thought
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izA4ZyZGs_8
>>29571673
Wing position is something of a problem unless you have an internal bomb-moving thing.
Passenger airliners generally have low wings, which get in the way. Bombers are usually mid-mounted wings or high wings.
>>29573667
Not our problem.
Besides, if it was a serious concern you'd have no P-3 or P-8, no E-3 or E-6, no KC-10 or KC-767, no Nimrod...
>>29573900
The fine for perfidy is tree fiddy AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOO
>>29573900
How about the P-8, then? And the other civilian-based warplanes that have been around for decades?
>>29574110
i'd imagine it have some kind of conveyor system for the bomb rack internally
>>29573900
What about using cargo planes like the Hercules? Just open the back door and let fly a few tons of explosive?
They're already targets.
There's stresses on the airframe when dropping a bomb load.
>>29571673
>use transport plane as bomber, surprise enemy once
afterwards, all transport planes are intercepted with fighters. commercial planes that don't respond are shot down and all inside perish.
This is the same reason we don't use aid workers and journalists (for the most part, argonauts) as spies. It's dishonest, it puts civilians at greater risk.
>>29574035
If "Military planners have rejected this" than surely you have a source. Nobody has given a good reason against the idea in this whole thread.
>>29571673
You're basing your logic in 'good faith', and its not going to happen.. Heres why:
The decision makers in DC, & especially the pentagon, don't operate in the way you and I think of issues. "Hey guys, lets use a tested & proven airframe as a bomber.". you see there are ZERO bennies for them, as individuals in that idea.
all of DC works by thousands of companies vying for contracts to get them fat tax dollars. And the decision makers don't like granting multi-billion dollar contracts without getting their 'fair share'.
Utilizing an already proven airframe also cuts into their pockets. how? They miss out on developmental costs (and with the usual budget overruns). They get to 'double dip'.
The idea that your senator, or mine, is in DC to do the 'work of the people' is only what they say to get votes.
>>29574134
i know right? if only there was some way to tell these 2 jets apart
>>29574267
Surprise isn't listed as a reason though.
All of the reasons are logistical.
And again, a huge number of military designs are based on civilian airliners. The reason isn't the potential for confusion, it's the inappropriateness of them for the task.
>>29574309
Tell me which is which on a radar screen.
>>29573794
>implying they'd contract with anyone other than southwest to do this.
>>29574309
Are you saying that the cruise missile carrier would be painted as an airliner or something?
>>29571673
using civilian aircraft for military purposes.
not very smart are you.
>>29574359
Are people really this retarded?
>>29574287
I don't want to believe this, but I suspect you're right.
Maybe if we bought like, a few hundred planes we could sell it as a fat handout to Boeing or something.
How about turning a modern bomber into a airliner? They did it all the time in the 50s
>>29574337
Tell me the difference between a jihadi and a journalist on a predator thermal camera from 20,000ft
>>29574475
have you ever been on live leak? you can pretty much discern who is carrying an AK or RPG
>>29574470
my mom told me about flying in a Tu-114 from Warsaw sometime during the 70s i think. the plane was, unsurprisingly, extremely loud
>>29571673
The amount of added weight from the bombs is what would really matter in all of it.
The design may not be suited for the added weights, and the amount of fuel they could have on board could also lower if the combined weight was too much for successful takeoffs.
Depending on the 737 model used they have anywhere from a 62,000lb empty weight, not including fuel to the largest model at 98,500lb empty, that have a maximum takeoff weight of 111,000-187,000lbs. Jet fuel weighs 6.8lbs per gallon, and the models have from 4,720-6,875 gallon tanks, which means they would be carrying anywhere from 32,000-46,750lbs of fuel, which gives the planes a payload capacity of 17,000-42,000lbs.
So if you're using 2,000lb bombs, you could have 8-21 bombs tops if that.
>>29574359
Nah, he's a fucking idiot.
Just like
The USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW%26C
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-8_Joint_STARS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-6_Mercury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EC-135
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-97_Stratotanker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_KC-10_Extender
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_EC-121_Warning_Star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-3_Orion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_35#Military_variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_T-1_Jayhawk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-39_Sabreliner
USSR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-126
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-50
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-38
Sweden:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_340_AEW%26C
UK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Nimrod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_125#Military_operators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_VC10#Military_service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Voyager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Aviation_Jetstream#Military_operators
Japan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-767
Brazil:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_R-99
India:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRDO_AEW%26CS
China:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJ-2000
Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CP-140_Aurora
Australia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AP-3C_Orion
Ireland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASA_CN-235#Military_operators
Italy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATR_42#Military_and_government_operators
Turkey:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATR_72#Military_operators
And that's just off the top of my head, cut short to fit the character limit.
>>29574530
But you would also subtract all the passenger seating, overhead bins etc. Not sure how much all that stuff weighs but I'm sure it's at least a few tons.
You also wouldn't need the windows so you could have a stronger airframe.
>>29574560
All these planes... are any of them bombers?
>>29574370
>>29574560
I love this site full of little shit posters like you.
why don't you dress up like a cop and walk around Ferguson for a while.
>>29574560
never heard of a few of these. and the sabreliner is adorable!
>>29574581
He specifically implied military purposes was a bad idea, not bombers.
Conversion to bombers has it's own problems. (If we wanted to get technical, I believe the Soviets used Licence-built DC-3s as bombers in WW2, but we both know that's a silly example.)
A good number are Anti-Sub though, and capable of carrying a few bombs.
>>29574600
What about this is being a poser? Almost all of that stems from my love of civilian aircraft, not military knowledge.
>>29574581
Most of the ASW aircraft on that list can carry bombs, what is the difference any way?
Why wouldn't a tanker be a legitimate target?
>>29574573
Yeah, but then you have to think if they are going to add any armoring to the plane, any defensive capabilities, or counter measures.
>>29574573
plus you could take out all of the cabin pressurization, oxygen masks, all that shit.
>>29574653
realistically it would have like, no armor.
its defense would be its flight path, and guns are just ineffective against modern fighters.
all it would really have is flare/chaff pods and those don't weigh too much
>>29574651
I agree with you. Just wondering if there are any examples of dedicated bombers.
>>29574688
He-111?
>>29574272
I think my source would be there are no 737's dropping bombs right now.
>>29574560
nigger
>>29574685
They would at least want to armor the fuel tanks or they would be remaking the G4M.
>>29573784
>Chemtrails
Don't even get me started. We only had a weeks notice back in 2001 when they were required to be on all aircraft. Making those things fit into a piper warrior was the biggest PITA I've ever dealt with.
>>29574246
they do that already
>>29574180
they have giant "US NAVY" or "USAF" painted signs on them/general military paint schemes, plus to a trained eye they are different from civilian planes.
>>29574953
Thankfully, the aircraft I worked on all had a fuel dump system amenable to modification.
We just plugged our chemical X tanks on it, chembombed CA, and none was the wiser.
>>29574756
It'd be pretty pointless. If a fighter gets it's guns on you, you're probably already dead. The best way to survive an attack is not to get hit.
>>29574337
the one with a mode 4 IFF response.
>>29575011
>plus to a trained eye they are different from civilian planes.
this
i mean it takes some effort but if you looks close you'll realize these aren't the same jet in this pic >>29574309
>>29574337
The USA managed to confuse an A300 with an attacking F-14.
The shape of the aircraft is of little relevance.
>>29574272
>Nobody has given a good reason against the idea in this whole thread.
You'd be taking food out of the mouths of Boeing and Lockheed execs. They need multi billion dollar dedicated bomber programs to keep their kids in shoes (Prada).
>>29574272
>Nobody has given a good reason against the idea in this whole thread.
>>29574110
[he should have mentioned the weight of a conveyor system and the limits it places on how fast you can drop bombs]
>>29574257
>>29575186
Boeing hasn't sold a bomber to the government since the 50's.
I know this site is usually shit, but here is an article about transport bombers that I thought was pretty good
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371
Boeing proposal
>>29571673
The only transport bomber that makes sense is the Concorde. It's hyper sonic, has better range than 99% of military aircraft and operates at heights that are STILL higher than most fighters.
With modern missiles and bombs, you don't even need a bomb bay. You could have a rear exit tube that fires them and have a bunch of laser pointers target what they hit.
I worked it out that a Concorde could house and fire 120 Tomahawks in this way per mission or 2000+ Hellfire/Brimstone IIs.
>>29573879
Suddenly I want the West to develop this as a response to the Chinese and Russians putting ASMs on commercial freighters as a message that two can play at that game.
>>29575498
You're wrong about everything.
Mock up
>>29575498
I like this idea. I think a big problem for the Concord was that a lot of countries wouldn't let it fly over them for noise pollution/political reasons, which limited the routes it could fly and it's profitability. It might have been in service much longer if not for that.
>>29575498
>>29575536
>>29575583
Not sure how seriously the idea was taken.
>>29572035
I'm sure that is a huge issue when fighting goatherders, and by fighting I mean "hundreds of miles away, launching missiles"
Honestly until this fails in action I can't see why it's a bad idea, better give the pilots some kickass ejection seats though lol because let's also be honest, there are a lot of ways this could go tits up
>>29575498
>120 Tomahawks
fucking where, have you ever been in a Concorde? Like, assuming you rip out the inside, there's probably space for two abreast, and like 6-10 down the tube, the Concorde isn't that spacious to hold that sort of payload
>>29575897
>have you ever been in a Concord
You say this like it's a common experience or something. I don't think I know anybody that has even seen one
>>29576689
i rode in one when i was like 8. yeah my family is rich.
it's cramped. 2x2 narrow seating. going supersonic was pretty neat though. we did it more as a novelty than anything else.
not sure where my Links of London corkscrew that British Airways used to give out went...
>>29576689
You can board one in a aviation museum in Scotland.
Or at least you could a few years ago. I never got to because apparently they sold out tickets and you're supposed to book online instead of walking up.
Got to touch the tyres though.
>>29573443
>United States of Automatic Weapons/Rocket launchers/Antiair (illegal weapons)
For some reason I read that as a fictional country's name.
The United States of Ordnance. USO.
Yes I like this.
>>29573784
>implying the NWO aren't using thousands of superior tesla aerial battleships the size of continents to tip conflicts in our favor and create entire storm systems to control the very skies themselves with chemtrails and targeted lightning strikes from their tesla cannons like we did in Ukraine
Do you even tinfoil bruh?
>>29573784
i've met people like this.
god are they retarded.
>>29571673
"Transport bombers are the best..."
Yes. And they should be heavily armored.
>>29573179
Uh . . wut?
seized shipments. . .and anon . . . where did you land with the seized shipments?
Civilian aircraft should have distinct radar signatures from military aircraft.
>>29578944
kek
>>29573900
Perfidy is also an awesome word that we should use more often.
>>29575498
>I worked it out that a Concorde could house and fire 120 Tomahawks in this way per mission or 2000+ Hellfire/Brimstone IIs.
No, you didn't.
>>29576689
I've seen one of the prototypes in a museum.
>>29578702
Wouldn't it be better to store that upside down?
>>29578990
Maybe it could in some Ace Combat type game?
>>29573209
they don't really look like civilian trucks, possess army markings, and are usually driven by military personnel
>>29571673
>2000mil for a b1
Holy fucking shit, a plane costs more than an entire frigging carrier?
>>29571996
erectionintensifies.gif
>>29580655
2000mil = 2bil. Carriers cost 10bil.
But that 2bil figure might have been for the b-2, not the b-1, I don't remember.
Cost plus contractors. Most of our procurement decisions are based on what's good for business, not what's good for the military or what's good for America.
They classified the cost of the LRSB program btw. McCain is pissed about it.
>>29573784
>oestrogen
You're not an American. You're some sort of imposter!
>>29571673
Early Aeroflot passenger jets were convertible to bombers.
>>29573794
So you where the delta pilot smuggling guns from Atlanta to New York.....
>>29582387
Sauce?
Are we talking easy conversion, or do you have to completely re-jig the wing of a TU-104 using a crane?
>>29581304
>The plot thickens
>This is a worldwide conspiracy that all airlines participate in
>They could be vaccinating us and cause autism in our children
>>29571673
I thought of this idea as soon as I heard about the idea of arsenal planes to make up for the f-35's limited ordnance capacity.
Basically f-35 gets close and spots target, sends coordinates to a b-52 loaded out the ass with missiles and about 200 miles away, b-52 fires a missile and blows target to hell. Replace the b-52 with a 747, and you're good.
>>29574267
>This is the same reason we don't use aid workers and journalists (for the most part, argonauts) as spies. It's dishonest, it puts civilians at greater risk.
I laughed so hard I pissed myself a liittle
>>29583294
Never happen. Not enough gibs me days for LockMart.
>>29583002
>it has caused autism in us
>>29572511
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Sometimes, you shoot them down just in case...
>>29573899
But...there's only one hose feeding the pump. Then it splits in 2....
>>29571673
>>29571673
Here's the biggest reason that you wouldn't use a civilian jetliner as a bomber.
>muh programs
It isn't sourced out to every congressional district in the US. It isn't the delicious pork laden treat that congress likes to pass around. So even if it saved us money, it will never happen. Ever.
>>29572035
with the current level of radar advancement stealth tech will be worthless by the end of the decade
>>29575208
ssh, let the kids circlejerk about how evil capitalism is.
>>29583294
>Replace the b-52 with a 747, and you're good.
and this is what gets me about this whole thread.
why spend billions replacing a plane you know works to retrofit another to do the exact same thing. what's the point?
>>29576689
I've been in the one next to the Intrepid museum.
Its tiny.
Will it still have the same range and efficiency if its loaded up with all that ordinance though? Carrying 100 people plus some baggage is one thing, but fully loading it with 2,000 lbs. bombs from cockpit to tail is another.
>>29587384
This is probably a big problem
Range drops off quite dramatically with payload on some civilian aircraft
>>29583294
Why don't we just "pay" airlines with kick-backs & tax-exemptions in as compensation for trading out a little bit of passenger capacity in exchange for a low-capacity cruise missile bay on every airliner they fly?
We would have cruise missiles in theater in EVERY THEATER at ALL TIMES.
Imagine it:
>every commercial passenger jet also carries a few air-launched cruise missiles
>>29571673
Why not just make a bunch but also make a retrofitted hanger with it that detatches the passanger seats which are all on a specific rack that can pop in and out of lock with the push of a button ****while in service not just randomly in flight**** then have another rack that when it locks in it unlocks the bomb doors for release. Easy conversion to and from.
But the whole thing about the enemies not knowing if it's a passanger plane or a bomber is still a problem.
>>29588918
>But the whole thing about the enemies not knowing if it's a passanger plane or a bomber is still a problem.
A problem solved with enough black paint to scrawl "USAF" on the fuselage
