It’s time for another episode of /k/ Planes! This time, we’ll be looking at the bombers of the United States Air Force.
Soon after the Second World War came to an end, the Army Air Forces broke off completely from the Army, forming an entirely new branch known as the Air Force. As Cold War tensions rapidly ramped up, the Air Force soon found itself on the forefront of this standoff, using their nuclear-armed bombers to serve as a deterrent. With the bombers of the Strategic Air Command being the only way of delivering nukes in the early years of the Cold War, bomber development unsurprisingly ramped up. By the mid-50s, SAC had begun programs for everything from Mach 3 intercontinental bombers to nuclear-powered aircraft. However, just as bomber development was peaking, massive doctrinal changes set in. The advent of surface-to-air missiles killed the concept of a high-speed, high-altitude bomber, forcing SAC to hastily adopt a low-altitude approach to avoid detection by enemy air defenses. More critically, the development of ICBMs was seen by many to make strategic bombers no longer necessary. SAC would manage to hold onto its bombers, but overall bomber development ground to a halt. For the remainder of the Cold War, bomber programs would be few and far between, and they would be continually hampered by politics. Fortunately, the USAF’s strategic bombers have survived the dissolution of SAC in 1992, and, though the current fleet is rapidly aging, current plans to procure new bombers seem to be fairly secure.
>>29856687
In 1940, the USAAF issued requirements for a new light bomber to succeed the A-20. Douglas, capitalizing on their success with the bomber, designed a new machine along the same lines as the A-20 making use of various major advances in technology. The new bomber used the same three-man crew and general layout, but a new laminar-flow wing was developed and more powerful Pratt & Whitney Double Wasps were mounted, allowing for vastly improved armament. Two remotely operated twin-.50 turrets were installed in dorsal and ventral positions for defense, while the glazed nose had two flexible guns for the bombardier. Internal payload capacity increased to 3,000lb, while external hardpoints provided space for another 2,000lb. The first prototype flew in October 1941, followed by a night-fighter prototype outfitted with a radar in the nose and a ventral cannon pack. The third prototype followed the pattern set by B-25 attackers, fitting a 75mm cannon in the nose.
>>29856695
While the latter two prototypes would not enter production, the original design was a smashing success. Carrying double the payload specified, it still managed to come in 700lb under the projected weight. The bomber was ordered into production as the A-26B, with the first production variant replacing the glazed nose with a solid nose fitted with six machineguns. Production of the A-26B began in 1943. With an emphasis placed on ground-attack, the bomber was soon fitted with four underwing blisters each holding two .50s, and later production variants would expand the nose armament to hold a total of eight (rather than the original six) machineguns.
>>29856708
The A-26 was first deployed to the 5th Air Force in the Pacific, making its debut in July 1944 over New Guinea. Unfortunately, operational evaluations found the cockpit to be poorly designed, so the A-20 persisted with frontline units. Only after major changes to the canopy and armament took effect in early 1945 did pilots in the Pacific really start to accept the bomber. The 7th Air Force began receiving the bomber in March 1945, opening up operations from Okinawa into China and Japan. Unfortunately, the delays in acceptance of the A-26 meant that it wouldn’t see too much use in the Pacific. Apart from the sole bomb group flying the type off of Okinawa, it appears that most other units flying the A-26 in the Pacific were composites also operating the B-25 or A-20.
>>29856717
The 9th Air Force in Europe received the bomber in September, with their operational evaluations going far better. By the end of the year, A-26s were replacing A-20s and B-26s in operational units. Early operations attempted to return to the low-level tactics that had been so successful in the Pacific, but, after heavy losses, the A-26 switched to medium-level attacks. As a result, many units switched over to conventional glass-nosed variants. Early in 1945, the A-26 reached the 12th Air Force in Italy, supporting the final campaigns of the war. Across Europe, the bombers participated in night intruder missions, striking enemy logistical elements attempted to avoid air attacks by only moving at night. Despite initial difficulties, the A-26 was a smashing success in Europe - 9th Air Force Invaders had flown 11,567 missions, dropping over 18,000 tons of bombs and claiming 7 enemy aircraft while losing only 67 of their own.
![A26-2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Fl38jKx.jpg "A26-2[1].jpg")
>>29856724
As the USAAF transformed into the independent Air Force, the A-26 was passed onto both the Strategic and Tactical Air Commands, becoming the B-26 as the “A” designator was dropped. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, the A-26 was called back into action. On June 29, 1950, they conducted the first USAF bombing mission on North Korea, striking an airfield near Pyongyang, claiming 25 aircraft on the ground and another in the air for no losses. Flying day and night, B-26s served until the end of the war as an invaluable part of the war effort. The 452nd Bombardment Wing, one of two B-26 units involved in the war, would be credited with 15,000 sorties (7,000 at night) for the loss of 85 crewmen by the time they were deactivated in 1952. By the end of the war, B-26s had been credited with the destruction of 38,500 vehicles, 406 locomotives, 3,700 railway cars, and seven enemy aircraft on the ground.
>>29856732
In early 1951, 111 Invaders were loaned to France for use in Indochina. Though most were stationed in Southeast Asia, several were moved to North Africa where, they were deployed against insurgents in Algeria. Operating out of Haiphong, they would make an appearance during the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, though they would fail to make a difference in the outcome of the war. In 1954, with the end of the war in Indochina, the surviving 85 B-26s were returned to the US. The use of the B-26 as a counterinsurgency platform would characterize its career with most foreign powers. Indonesia acquired six aircraft in 1959, using them against domestic rebels, while the bomber made a significant showing in the conflicts in Biafra and Portuguese Angola in the mid- to late-60’s. It was also a critical part of CIA covert operations, supporting efforts to overthrow the Indonesian government in 1958 and providing the only air support for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961.
>>29856740
The last significant use of B-26s by the US would come in Southeast Asia. In 1960, the CIA deployed several B-26s to the region to assist Laos in fighting communist insurgents. Owing to backlash over the Bay of Pigs invasion, initial operations were purely reconnaissance flights, though full-blown attack missions would eventually come. As part of Project Farm Gate, the B-26 was the primary strike aircraft in the region, remaining in that role until replaced by the A-1 in 1964. Around the same time, the B-26 fleet was abruptly withdrawn owing to several accidents related to wing fatigue. However, the utility demonstrated by the Invader convinced the USAAF to return the fleet to service. Overhauled with upgraded engines and propellers, new wings, and wingtip fuel tanks, 40 Invaders became B-26K Counter-Invaders. They were redesignated A-26A owing to Thailand’s refusal to station American bombers in the country, and they were returned to Southeast Asia. There, they operated against the Ho Chi Minh Trail until being withdrawn in 1969.
>>29856746
Though the USAAC’s 1935 long-range bomber program would come to an end in 1936, the push to create a bomber with an intercontinental range would persist. In 1938, a new program to create a high-performance long-range bomber began, with Boeing contracted to begin preliminary development. In December 1939, a formal specification - calling for a payload of 20,000lb, operational radius of over 2,500 miles, and top speed of 400mph - was issued, with Boeing, Consolidated, Douglas, and Lockheed receiving contracts. Though Lockheed and Douglas would soon drop their projects, Boeing and Consolidated soldiered on, producing the B-29 and B-32, respectively. Given the requirements issued, the resulting aircraft were unsurprisingly massive, marking some of the largest combat aircraft of the war.
>>29856755
Lockheed’s bomber proposal, which received the designation XB-30, was the smallest of all designs submitted. Based off of the still-developing L-049 Constellation airliner, the XB-30 would be powered by the same Wright Duplex-Cyclone radial engines of the airliner and retain the same wings and tail. An all-new fuselage would carry six defensive turrets (two dorsal, two ventral, one nose, and one tail) carrying ten .50s and a single 20mm cannon - all remotely controlled to allow the fuselage to be pressurized. Two ventral bomb bays would be installed as well, providing a total payload capacity of 16,000lb. Coming in at a max takeoff weight of just under 100,000lb, it was considerably heavier than the Constellation it was based off of, but it had markedly better performance projections, including a top speed of 382 mph and an operational range 1,000 miles longer. Unfortunately, the design would not leave the drawing board - Lockheed dropped it early in development when it became clear that Boeing had a two-year head start on development.
>>29856766
Whereas Lockheed had produced the lightest of all proposals, Douglas took a different approach, resulting in the largest design to receive a contract. The XB-31 also made use of four Duplex-Cyclones and a pressurized cabin, but the aircraft itself was massive. The shoulder-mounted wing was to be over 200 ft in span, while the max takeoff weight would be just short of 200,000lb. Defensive armament was comparatively light, with four .50s placed in dorsal and ventral turrets and two 37mm cannon in a tail position, but payload was very heavy at 25,000lb. Unfortunately, the design couldn’t hope to compete with the Boeing design. In late 1941, with Boeing and Consolidated having received contracts for further development, the XB-31 was canceled without ever leaving the drawing board.
>>29856773
The Consolidated proposal would be heavily based off of their successful B-24 Liberator design, sharing its high aspect ratio wing and double tail in its original incarnation. Contracted as the B-32, the bomber featured an all-new pressurized fuselage and remote-controlled retractable defensive turrets with a total of 14 machineguns. Power would come from four Duplex-Cyclones, and gross weight would be just over 100,000lb. The first prototype would fly on September 7, 1942, but it was a far cry from the final design. Issues with cabin pressurization, landing gear, and gun turrets meant that the XB-32 lacked a pressurized cabin, landing gear doors, and defensive armament. Additionally, persistent issues with the engines plagued the design (as they would with the B-29). Eventually, armament was installed in the form of eight machineguns in dorsal and ventral turrets and a combination of two machineguns and 20mm cannon firing rearwards from the outboard engine nacelles.
>>29856786
A contract for 300 B-32s was placed in March 1943, but development issues only intensified. The XB-32 prototype crashed in May 1943, and the second prototype would only be ready to fly that June. Stability issues were found, leading to the replacement of the double tail with a larger, more conventional single tail. Meanwhile, persistent problems with the pressurization and defensive armament spurred the decision to repurpose the design as a medium-altitude bomber. Pressurization was dropped, and the complicated remote-controlled turrets were replaced with conventional manned ones. By 1944, testing had gone well enough for the order to be expanded to 1,500 aircraft. The first delivery of a production aircraft came in September 1944. Unfortunately, the first deployment wouldn’t come until May 1945 in the Philippines. The first combat missions were flown against Formosa as the sole squadron to fly the type transitioned. Ultimately, just 10 combat missions were flown before the war’s end. In the last days of the war, they were relegated to reconnaissance missions, continuing these sorties until the end of August, when the unit was stood down. Production was cut in September 1945 with only 118 aircraft completed, and the bomber was almost immediately retired in favor of the more capable B-29 at the end of the war.
>>29856795
With work starting back in 1938, Boeing had been working to roughly adapt their B-17 into a longer-ranged bomber with a pressurized cabin. However, when their Model 345 was contracted as the B-29 in May 1940, there was little resemblance between the new design and the older B-17 apart from the tail. The new pressurized fuselage of the B-29 included a glazed nose and stepless canopy, while its four defensive turrets (two dorsal and two ventral) were all remotely controlled. Two bomb bays straddled the wing spars, providing a total payload capacity of 20,000lb, and long, thin wings would provide for excellent performance at altitude. Due to the promise the design showed, the initially contracted order for 250 aircraft ballooned to 500 by January 1942. In late September, the first XB-29 would fly. Though it lacked any armament, the second prototype (flying at the end of December 1942) would be closer to the production design.
>>29856808
Unfortunately, testing was plagued with many issues. An engine fire caused the crash of the second prototype in February 1943, and continual modifications meant that production was also delayed. Even once deliveries of production aircraft did begin, most were flying straight from the factory to a depot for modifications to meet the latest standard for the aircraft. Because the B-29 was much larger than anything else in service, however, storage became an issue, and many would be damaged by inclement weather. By the end of 1943, only 15 of the 100 B-29s delivered were flyable. Intervention from General Hap Arnold sped the modification process, but it wouldn’t be until 1944 that the B-29 would reach operational service. Even then, many issues persisted, especially with the temperamental engines.
>>29856812
Though original plans had called for the B-29 to make its debut in Europe, the B-17 and B-24 were doing well enough there that it was decided to instead send the bomber to the Pacific, where it would be the only aircraft capable of striking Japan. Plans called for the bombers to operate out of southern China, with supplies being airlifted in over the Himalayas. The first B-29s arrived at their bases in China in April 1944, and on June 5, the first combat mission came when 77 B-29s were launched against targets in Thailand. Though they suffered no losses to enemy fire, the poor reliability of the bombers meant that 5 aircraft would still be lost. Ten days later, 47 B-29s made their first raid on Japan, striking the steel works at Yahata. Unfortunately, they did little damage, missing their target and losing two of their number to enemy fire. Just as bad, the raid exhausted the fuel stocks, forcing the raids to pause until more fuel was flown in. Due to the difficulties associated with operating out of China, B-29 operations were never very intense from the region. Raids continued across Southeast Asia and Japan, but by January 1945 the last B-29s were withdrawn from China.
>>29856824
Because of the difficulties of operating out of China, an operation was launched to capture the Marianas Islands, which would bring Tokyo in the range of the B-29s. Once the islands came into Allied hands, five airfields were constructed, providing enough space for 180 B-29s to operate. B-29s began arriving on Saipan in October 1944, and by the end of the month they had launched their first raid (against Truk). By the end of the year, raids against Japan had begun, with 111 B-29s sent against Tokyo on November 24. The results of these early raids were mixed. The B-29s flew high and fast enough to make interception by enemy fighters difficult, and early on in the raids the Japanese were already resorting to fairly desperate tactics such as ramming. However, the high-altitude attacks with regular high explosive bombs weren’t nearly as effective as planners had hoped.
>>29856834
The solution to the B-29’s bombing problems would come in the form of the firebombing campaign. In early March, the B-29s changed tactics, abandoning high-altitude daylight raids in favor of low-altitude (5,000ft) night bombing with incendiaries. Operation Meetinghouse - the raid on Tokyo - would be the first of these missions. On March 9/10, 279 bombers dropped 1,665 tons of bombs on Tokyo. The resulting fire destroyed 7% of the city, killing some 80,000, injuring a further 40,000, and leaving roughly a million without homes. Despite the vulnerable low-altitude approach, the bombers had suffered few losses - just 14 B-29s were lost, while a further 42 were damaged. Over the next week, these raids hit Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe, with similarly devastating results. Though the conventional high-explosive raids would also continue, the firebombing of the cities would be the most devastating element of the bombing campaign up until the end of the war.
>>29856852
Of all the B-29’s missions, the atomic bomb raids on Japan would undoubtedly be the most famous. Though the B-29 was by far the most capable bomber in the USAAF inventory, the sheer size of the atomic bombs meant that serious modifications would have to be made to allow the bomber to carry the weapons. Under the codename “Silverplate,” 65 B-29s were configured to carry atomic bombs. Modifications involved the removal of the defensive turrets and the enlargement of the bomb bays into a single 33-ft bay (long enough to carry the cancelled Thin Man bomb). A Silverplate B-29 named Enola Gay would make history on August 6, 1945, when it delivered the gun-type Little Boy bomb to Hiroshima. Three days later, Bockscar dropped the second bomb - the implosion-type Fat Man - on Nagasaki. Several days after the obliteration of the two cities, on August 15, 1945, Japan surrendered to the US.
>>29856861
B-29 production would end in 1946, with all surviving examples passing on to the newly formed USAF. The 65 Silverplate B-29s would form the backbone of SAC’s nuclear deterrent until the B-36 and B-50 entered service, and in the years following WW2, they would be the primary means for testing nuclear weapons. As more capable bombers took over its strategic role, reconnaissance, ELINT, and tanker variants would be developed, extending the B-29’s service. Though the B-36 would begin to replace the B-29 in 1949, the B-29 would be the only strategic bomber to fly in Korea. Unfortunately, five years of technology advancing seemed to have caught up with the B-29. The arrival of the MiG-15 in Korea saw a surge of losses, and very quickly the B-29s were limited to night missions. Despite the restrictions, however, the B-29 performed admirably over Korea - 20,000 sorties were flown, dropping 200,000 tonnes of bombs.
>>29856871
In 1943, engineers at Douglas conceived a concept for a twin-engined bomber with a 2,000 mile range, 400mph top speed, and 2,000lb payload. The concept, which entailed burying engines in the fuselage to allow for a clean, low-drag wing, was submitted to the USAAF in 1943. The Army was impressed with the design, and in June 1942 an order was placed for two prototypes as the XA-42 (changed to XB-42 at the end of the year). The XB-42 would take shape as a peculiar looking machine. Its two Allison V-1710 engines were mounted behind the cabin, geared aft to drive contra-rotating propellers. To prevent ground strikes, a large four-surface cruciform tail was used. The crew all sat in the nose, with the pilots placed in individual bubble canopies and a bombardier in the nose. Four remote-controlled machineguns were mounted facing aft in the wings, firing outboard of the propellers, and two more were fixed forward firing. The aircraft had also grown since the proposal, with an internal bay capable of carrying four 2,000lb bombs or a single 10,000lb bomb if the bomb bay doors were left slightly open.
>>29856884
The XB-42 prototype would make its maiden flight in May 1944. Its top speed was just over 400 mph, and it far exceeded the projected range and climb rate. Minor issues were found with the controls, engine cooling, propellers, and crew layout, but overall the aircraft was satisfactory enough to warrant further work. While Douglas refined the design, the end of the Second World War put an end to their hopes. With a new generation of jet bombers just over the horizon, the Air Force opted to wait rather than order the XB-42 into production. Testing continued regardless, with a revised second prototype even setting a transcontinental speed record at the end of 1945. Unfortunately, this prototype was lost in a crash, forcing the test program to be completed with just a single aircraft. The sole surviving XB-42 was fitted with a Westinghouse 19XB-21 turbojet under each wing, following through with a proposal Douglas had tendered around the same time as the original XB-42. Flying as the XB-42A in 1947, it did demonstrate far better performance, with a top speed of nearly 500mph and cruising speed of 442 mph. However, after just 22 flights, a hard landing damaged the tail. The XB-42A was repaired, but it would never fly again, as the USAF’s focus had since shifted to pure jet-powered designs.
>>29856893
Though the B-29 was a solid airframe that met the requirements set out for it, the Wright Duplex Cyclone engines that it used had been problematic all through its development (and in fact, through its entire career). In 1944, with B-29 production going smoothly, it was decided to work on an improved variant making use of the more powerful Pratt & Whitney Wasp Major engines. Coming in at a 3,000hp, the Wasp Major was the most powerful American piston engine to ever see mass production, producing almost a third more horsepower than the Duplex Cyclone. The first prototype for the re-engining, designated the XB-44, would take flight in My 1945. While it performed reasonably well, Boeing had plans for the final production variant - the B-29D - to feature far more changes than just a new powerplant. The new bomber made use of a new aluminum alloy that would make the wings both stronger and lighter, while a strengthened undercarriage increased the max takeoff weight by 40,000lb. To account for the extra weight, the tail was enlarged, and, while the standard payload bay and defensive armament was retained, external racks for a further 8,000lb of bombs were added.
>>29856921
An order for 200 B-29Ds had been placed in June 1945, but the end of the war that came soon after saw the order caught up in the mass cancellations that followed. In December, the order was slashed to 60, with the designation changed to B-50. The first production B-50A wouldn’t take flight until two years later in June 1947, followed by an expanded order for 78 more aircraft. While the Air Force planned to replace the B-50 with the further improved B-54, development of less ambitious B-50 variants continued. The B-50B would further increase the max takeoff weight and add underwing fuel tanks, and the definitive production version, the B-50D, would increase max takeoff weight to 173,000lb, add an inflight refueling receptacle, and revise the nose windows. Though intended as little more than a stopgap until the new generation of strategic bombers was available, the B-50 nevertheless saw a fairly large production run totaling nearly 400 aircraft.
>>29856931
B-50s began reaching SAC bomber units in 1948, taking on the nuclear deterrent role. In this role, the B-50’s career was brief and uneventful, and within a couple of years the B-47 had come along to replace it. In 1949, a reconnaissance-oriented RB-50 took shape, intended to replace the aging RB-29s then in use. They would make their debut in the Korean War, replacing RB-29s, and later they would begin overflights of periphery areas of the Soviet Union. However, even with vastly improved performance over the B-29, the RB-50s were incredibly vulnerable to Soviet air defenses. Several RB-50s were downed by Soviet interceptors, and, once the RB-47 came into service in 1954, the RB-50 was retired. The final B-50 variant to take shape, the KB-50 tanker, would again be developed as a replacement of an earlier B-29 variant. Fitted with strengthened wings and receptacles to refuel up to three fighters at a time, the KB-50 would form the backbone of TAC’s aerial refueling force soon after its introduction in 1956. Their service was generally uneventful, although several were deployed to Thailand in the early stages of American involvement in Southeast Asia before metal fatigue finally forced the retirement of the last KB-50s in 1965.
>>29856958
Soon after Douglas had tendered their proposal for the XB-42, they began examining the idea of installing turbojets in place of the piston engines in the tail. By 1944, the idea had gained considerable traction, so in March the XB-42 contract was modified to call for two prototypes powered entirely by turbojets, designated XB-43. Douglas ended up modifying the static test airframe for the XB-42 for the first prototype. Two J35 turbojets were placed in the rear fuselage where the original piston engines were, with two intakes cut on the sides of the fuselage and exhausts piped out the tail. With no propeller to protect from ground strikes, Douglas removed the lower vertical tail, enlarging the upper surface to compensate for loss of yaw stability. With no propeller in the way, Douglas could also revise armament, replacing the awkward wing guns of the XB-42 with two remote controlled machineguns in a tail position. While work went ahead on the standard bomber variant, Douglas was also working on an attacker variant fitted with 16 forward-firing machineguns in a solid nose and 36 5-inch rockets.
>>29857002
Thanks to the relatively simple conversion of the prototype, the XB-43 was ready for testing by 1945. Unfortunately, the end of the war saw a general slowdown of manufacturing, leading to delays in engine procurement. Ultimately, due to problems with the engines, the XB-43 wouldn't make its maiden flight until May 1946. Though this would make it the first American jet-powered bomber to fly, it came just too late to gain a production order. Though the XB-43 performed even better than the XB-42 with minimal compromises to range and payload, it was outperformed by the new class of jet bombers designed at the end of the war and was generally underpowered. Douglas would complete the second prototype as an engine testbed, retaining one J35 engine but arranging the aircraft to allow the second engine to be replaced. The second prototype would enter Air Force service as the YB-43, serving as a testbed for the J47 engine. In this configuration, the YB-43 would fly some 300 hours of test flights before being retired in 1953.
>>29857009
In early 1941, the USAAC initiated a program to create a bomber capable of striking targets in Europe from the mainland US, fearing that Britain would fall to German forces. In April of that year, requirements were issued calling for a bomber with a 450mph top speed, 275mph cruise speed, ceiling of 45,000ft, and a maximum range of 12,000 miles. These requirements quickly proved impractical, so requirements were refined. Service ceiling and cruise speed dropped slightly, and range requirements were refined to call for an operational radius of 4,000 miles with a 10,000lb payload. The requirements were originally submitted to Boeing and Consolidated, though Northrop was added to the team a month later. Ultimately, only Consolidated (later Convair) and Northrop would receive contracts for development. Not too surprisingly, the requirements led to the development of some of the largest aircraft ever built.
>>29857029
Northrop’s bomber proposal capitalized on their research with flying wings, scaling up their basic design to create a strategic bomber. The B-35 would have a fuselage-like cabin along the centerline to carry its crew of nine, complete with bunks for long flights. Twenty guns would be mounted along six remotely controlled turrets, and six bomb bays (three on either wing) were to carry a payload of over 50,000lb. The bomber itself was a 172 ft flying wing, powered by four Pratt & Whitney Wasp Major engines in a pusher arrangement. With a loaded weight of 180,000lb, the B-35 was far larger than any bomber to fly in WW2, and, with a range of over 8,000 miles, it posessed a truly intercontinental range. The original contract for the XB-35 called for the bomber to be flying by 1943, but, given the advanced nature of the design and priority given to other projects, the first XB-35 wouldn’t fly until June 1946.
>>29857038
Unfortunately, the XB-35 would run into major problems. Though it had already received an order for 200 aircraft, the Air Force was reluctant to operate the plane, owing to issues with the original contra-rotating propellers and the more promising B-36 that the bomber was competing with. The original design’s bomb bays were too small to carry a nuclear weapon, but Northrop was not permitted to modify the design despite USAF insistence that they would not buy it unless it could carry the Mk.3 bomb. Despite issues, several pre-production YB-35s were built, the first of which flew in 1948. Meanwhile, the USAF ordered several airframes to be converted to the jet-powered YB-49 standard. Ultimately, however, Northrop was unable to overcome the issues. The YB-35 was outperformed by the B-36, and, though the YB-49 offered better performance, it lacked the range to compete with the B-36. In 1949, the B-35/49 program was controversially cancelled on grounds of the technical issues associated with the design, and all airframes were ordered scrapped.
>>29857049
The competing design from Convair, designated B-36, was more conventional than the Northrop flying wing, but it would stand out due to sheer size. Standing 46ft high and 162ft long, the B-36 had the largest wingspan of any bomber ever (a record that holds to this day), with a span of 230ft. Its massive wings were seven feet thick at the root, providing enough space for a crawlspace to be added to service the engines. As originally designed, power came from six Wasp Major radials placed in a pusher arrangement driving the second-largest propellers ever fitted on an aircraft. Dwarfing everything else in terms of size, the B-36 was also incredibly heavy - it had a gross weight of over a quarter million pounds, and the max takeoff weight was over 400,000lb. The bomber carried a crew of 15 in a large pressurized fuselage, with a tunnel connecting the forward and rear compartments that straddled the four bomb bays. Defensive armament consisted of six retractable remote-controlled gun turrets, as well as fixed tail and nose positions. The centerpiece of the design, however, was the spacious bomb bays, which provided a total payload capacity of 86,000lb.
>>29857056
Like the B-35, the B-36 would not be ready to fly by the contracted 1943 deadline, instead taking flight in August 1946. Oddly enough, the unarmed pre-production B-36A would fly several months before the second prototype - the YB-36, complete with armament - flew. Despite teething issues just as bad as those experienced by the B-35, the B-36 would be ordered into service fairly quickly, owing to its record-breaking payload and 10,000 mile range. By the end of 1948, the first operational group of B-36Bs had been formed. The aircraft’s unprecedented size did present some issues, as there were no hangars large enough to house the behemoths, but otherwise they were serving well. On December 7, 1948, the B-36 demonstrated its true potential for the first time. Taking off from its base in Carswell, Texas, a B-36B flew all the way to Hawaii to drop a 10,000lb payload before returning home. The round trip, which was over 8,000 miles, took over 35 hours to complete.
>>29857066
Despite impressive performance, the exorbitant costs, difficult maintenance, and high profile of the program in an era of budget cuts saw it be targeted for cancellation. It became a contentious issue, particularly between the USAF and USN. Fortunately, rising tensions between the US and USSR would save the B-36, as it was the only platform available to perform nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union. Fairly early in the B-36’s service, Convair finally decided to address complaints about poor performance. Though the B-36 had an impressive range, it had a poor power-to-weight ratio that led to excessive takeoff rolls and a poor climb rate. A fairly simple solution was found in the B-36D, which added twin turbojet engines slung outboard of the props on the wings. First delivered in 1950, 26 B-36Ds would be new-built, while 59 others would be converted from B-36Bs. Several RB-36Ds were also produced for strategic reconnaissance.
>>29857071
Though the B-36 would never drop a bomb in anger, it would have an extensive service career as a test platform. Being nuclear bombers first and foremost, they took part in several nuclear tests, sitting at a standoff distance to simulate the effects on a bomber as it escaped the target. Because the B-36 far outstripped the range of any fighters, it became the subject of various parasite fighter experiments.. Early experiments involved connecting wingtip-to-wingtip with various other aircraft (Project Tom-Tom) ranging from other B-36s and B-29s to F-84 fighters. Such an arrangement would allow the bomber to carry its own fighter escort, while docking with another bomber would increase fuel efficiency. While a crash during testing put an end to Tom-Tom, attempts to carry a fighter in the bomb bay went better. A specially designed parasite fighter, the XF-85, would take shape, and experiments were performed with both XF-85s and F-84s to test the efficacy of the arrangement. Ultimately, the parasite fighter concept proved impractical, though it was not a complete waste - 25 RB-36Ds were converted to the GRB-36D standard to carry RF-84Ks for reconnaissance missions. These saw limited service between 1955 and 1956, ultimately being phased out in favor of the far more practical and capable U-2.
>>29857084
Having been kept out of Korea, the B-36’s only operational use would come as a strategic reconnaissance platform. Thanks to the extremely high service ceiling of the B-36, the bomber was selected for overlights of the edges of the Soviet Union. Such flights began in 1951, gradually probing the edges of the Soviet arctic regions. Ultimately, however, such flights were limited as Soviet air defenses rapidly expanded. Meanwhile, service in Korea and advances in air-to-air missiles had shown that the B-36’s operating altitude may not be as practical as expected. In 1954, the USAF began the Featherweight program, which stripped the now-obsolete armament from the B-36, reducing crew to 9 and lightening the airframe. Even so, the landing gear was strengthened and fuel tanks expanded, giving the bomber the longest range and highest max takeoff weight of any B-36 series. Such modifications significantly improved performance, increasing the operating ceiling to 47,000ft.
>>29857091
Ultimately, the B-36 was made obsolete by the rapidly advancing technology of the time. Slow and lumbering, it could no longer count on its high ceiling to protect it from fighters, even with the benefits offered by the Featherweight modifications. Though it had an impressive range and payload, it was incapable of performing aerial refueling, meaning it was unable to reach many bases deep in the Soviet Union. When Eisenhower came into office, modernization of the Air Force took priority, and in 1955, the process of phasing out the B-36 in favor of the B-52 began. Defense cuts would extend the B-36’s service life longer than expected, but SAC had phased out most of their B-36s by the end of 1956. By the end of 1958, only 22 B-36Js were still operational. Early the next year, the last B-36J was retired.
>>29857096
As the XB-35 fell behind schedule and developments in jet technology proved promising, a study was commissioned in 1944 to examine the feasibility of mounting jet engines onto the XB-35 design. When Northrop was contracted to create 13 B-35 prototypes in June 1945, authorization was given to convert two of these to a jet-powered configuration under the designation YB-49. Originally planned with six J35 turbojets, the YB-49 would finally take shape as an eight-engined machine. Due to the removal of the prop shaft housings that provided yaw dampening, the bomber was fitted with four large wing fences that extended into fins at the trailing edge. Apart from the changes made to accommodate the new powerplants, however, the YB-49 was almost identical to the XB-35.
>>29857102
The first YB-49 prototype would fly in October 1947. Extensive testing of the prototype would occur, followed by a second prototype that would fly in 1948. Unfortunately, the second prototype would crash just after being accepted by the Air Force, killing its entire crew. Following the crash, extensive testing of the surviving prototype was performed to determine the aircraft’s stability, with poor results. Pilots found the bomber to be extremely unstable, and, in comparative flyoffs against B-29s, the YB-49 was found to take four times as long as the B-29 to attain bomb run stability. Even worse, the jet engines were far less efficient than the piston engines of the XB-35, cutting range so significantly that the YB-49 was more in the class of the jet-powered medium bombers being developed at the time. However, while it had the same range as other bombers in development like the B-45 and B-47, it was considerably slower thanks to its thick wing. Unsurprisingly, the YB-49 was found to be unfit for the bombing role, and in 1950 the program was cancelled and the first prototype scrapped.
>>29857119
As development of the YB-49 hit delays, Northrop proposed a reconnaissance variant. While nominally based off of the YB-49 (and in fact sharing the RB-49 designation), the new variant featured substantial changes to the powerplants. An initial prototype would mount eight J47s in the original configuration, while the second prototype would use six J40s (two of which were carried under the wing), and the final configuration would mount two J40s and two T-37 turboprops (once they became available). Hoping to salvage something out of the disaster that was the Northrop flying wing bomber program, the Air Force placed an order for 30 YRB-49s in 1948. Unfortunately, the program soon came under fire, as it became apparent that all projected variants fell short in some aspect of performance. Ultimately, in January 1949, the contract was slashed to just a single YRB-49A prototype. Hastily completed in early 1950, the YRB-49A mounted six J35s, with two slung under the wing. Flight testing began in May 1950, but by September, the brief test program had come to an end. It would make its final flight in mid 1951, finally being scrapped in 1953.
>>29857129
In 1943, the USAAF had issued informal requirements for a jet bomber to kickstart research into such designs. By 1944, this had evolved into a full-blown requirement calling for an 80,000lb class machine with a top speed of 550 mph, cruise speed of 450 mph, range of 3,500 miles, and service ceiling of 45,000ft. North American, Convair, Boeing, and Martin all responded to the requirements, resulting in two four-engined designs (from North American and Convair) and two six-engined designs (from Boeing and Martin). Unsurprisingly, all the original designs submitted to the requirements were poorly optimized transitional machines, largely resembling a piston-engined aircraft with jet engines hastily slapped on. Nevertheless, the rapidly rising tensions as the Cold War began spurred the USAF to speed up the procurement process. While Boeing was working on refining their design to make a truly modern bomber, the USAF had a flyoff between the first two designs to fly - the North American XB-45 and Convair XB-46. The result was a unique two-stage procurement as the Air Force scrambled to get a stopgap into service.
>>29857138
North American’s contender to the new bomber requirements, contracted as the XB-45, was a four-man four-engined machine designed with a payload of 22,000lb. Outwardly unimpressive, the bomber mounted its four J35 turbojets in twinned nacelles under the straight wings. More closely resembling a WW2 bomber with jets hastily slapped on than a truly modern aircraft, the XB-45 featured a glazed nose for the bombardier and a tailgun position fitted with two machineguns. First flying in March 1947, it would be the first of the competing designs to take to the skies. A total of three XB-45 prototypes were built, flying 131 flights over the course of testing. While hardly a remarkable aircraft, and in fact falling short of several requirements (namely range), the rush to get a jet bomber into service would save the design. Delays in the more capable Boeing and Martin competitors spurred the Air Force to make an interim selection between the XB-45 and Convair’s competing XB-46. The B-45 was found to be superior, so, after several minor modifications, the bomber was ordered into production.
>>29857149
Unfortunately, the B-45 ran into problems very quickly. Though original plans called for the bomber to equip eight bomb groups and three reconnaissance groups, a variety of factors collided to reduce the planned procurement. Soon after the selection of the B-45, the promising flight testing of the B-47 put further production into question as the Air Force began looking towards purchasing the far more capable Boeing bomber. In 1948, budget cuts saw the planned order cut to just 142 airframes. Though it would still enter service in 1948, it was plagued by various technical issues. The engines themselves were problematic, and the complicated bombing system was a constant source of problems for crews. Perhaps more glaringly, the pressurization system of early production models was prone to failure, severely hampering the performance of the aircraft.
>>29857159
Despite all the early issues with the type, the B-45 would go on to prove its importance. When the war in Korea broke out, the mass movement of American forces to Korea left Europe vulnerable. The USAF, needing to retain its nuclear deterrent in Europe, began a process of upgrading the B-45 fleet to carry nuclear weapons. 40 B-45s were converted to the new role, arriving in the UK in May 1952. While B-45s were forming a vital part of the strategic deterrent over Europe, RB-45s were making their operational debut in Korea. Owing to the heavy losses suffered by RB-29s in Korea, a squadron of RB-45s was sent to the theater to supplement the older bombers. Thanks to their speed, they were capable of flying daylight missions in relative safety. These daylight missions continued until an RB-45C was almost lost to a MiG-15, forcing a shift back to night operations. Despite their limited numbers, they would serve through the end of the Korean war, providing invaluable strategic reconnaissance.
>>29857170
Despite a good showing in the early ‘50s, the B-45’s career would be brief. In the strategic bombing role, the B-45 was soon superseded by the more capable B-47, and, while an initial round of upgrades had given the B-45 fleet basic nuclear capabilities, the Air Force was reluctant to continue upgrading what they considered an obsolete aircraft to keep up with rapidly improving nuclear weapons technology. By the mid-50s, strategic reconnaissance would be primary focus of B-45s. Several RB-45Cs were passed on to the UK to perform overlights of the Soviet Union from Europe, while several American squadrons also seem to have been tasked with overflights from bases elsewhere. By 1958, some 50 B-45s of all types remained in service, all operating with Tactical Air Command’s 47th Bomb Wing. With the arrival of the B-66 that year, the bombers were rapidly phased out, and by July 1958, the last B-45 had been retired.
>>29857176
Convair’s contender to the new bomber requirements was a similar design to North American’s XB-45. Designated the XB-46, the Convair bomber had engines paired in nacelles under its straight wings. While it maintained a sleek appearance, it still carried archaic features that made it obsolete, and, as development went on, Convair found their project struggling to retain support even against another internal project - the XA-44/XB-53. The XB-46 project would survive the resistance, but only after its order for prototypes had been slashed to just a single aircraft with only basic systems installed. Testing began in April 1947, making it the second of the four contending designs to fly. Though by no means competitive with the larger Martin and Boeing designs, the decision of the USAF to evaluate the two earliest contenders as a stopgap gave hope to the design. Unfortunately for Convair, the XB-46 was outperformed by the XB-45. Though it boasted a longer range than the XB-45, it was considerably slower, and, given the size of the bulky radar bombing system slated for production aircraft, a production B-46 variant would likely have required an extensive reworking to make it combat-capable. Ultimately, the B-46 program was cancelled in August 1947 before flight testing could even be completed. Testing would continue for a further 44 flight hours beyond the cancellation of the aircraft to examine stability and vibration issues, but in August 1949, the XB-46 was taken out of service owing to difficult maintenance.
>>29857205
Unlike the Convair and North American contenders, Martin’s XB-48 would be a six-engined aircraft. Significantly larger than the XB-45 and XB-46, the XB-48 retained the same archaic straight wing, but made attempts to address the unsatisfactory layout by making use of a very thin airfoil section. Engines were grouped together under the wings in special nacelles fitted with airflow channels to keep the engines cooled, and, as a consequence of the very thin wings, the bomber was fitted with bicycle landing gear. Unfortunately, the XB-48 would take flight just too late to be considered a contender for the initial round of selection, instead being held back as a backup in the event Boeing’s B-47 did not pan out. Unfortunately for Martin, the B-47 very much did pan out, massively outperforming the other three bombers it was developed alongside. With the B-47 going smoothly, the XB-48 program came to an end.
>>29857220
Boeing’s original proposal submitted to the USAAF requirements in 1944 was not too far from the competing designs from other companies. Given the internal designation Model 424, the bomber was a scaled-down development of the B-29 mounting four turbojets in paired nacelles under the wings. When wind tunnel testing revealed the Model 424 to be unsatisfactory, however, Boeing radically redesigned it into the Model 432. The Model 432 retained the conventional straight surfaces of the original design, but moved the four engines into an unusual arrangement behind the cockpit. Soon after the Model 432 took shape, however, Boeing engineers got their hands on German swept-wing data, and Boeing revised the design once more into the Model 448. The Model 448 added 35 degree swept wings, a new intake for the four forward engines in the nose, and two further engines placed in the tail - a consequence of a push for greater range and performance.
>>29857243
Despite all Boeing’s work to optimize their bomber, the Model 448 was rejected almost immediately upon its submission. While it offered significantly better performance than the other contender designs, the hazard presented by engine failures in flight was deemed too great, forcing Boeing to redesign their bomber with engines in the wings. Fortunately for Boeing, the reworking was simple. The four engines behind the cockpit were moved to paired nacelles around the mid-span, while the two remaining engines were placed further towards the wingtips. Because of the thin wings and spacious bomb bay the design called for, Boeing was forced to incorporate bicycle landing gear. The crew arrangement was similar to the other contenders, with a crew of three placed under a tandem cockpit, as was the payload (25,000lb) and defensive armament (a tail barbette fitted with two 20mm cannon). Though the substantial redesigns had heavily delayed the bomber, the extremely modern design offered considerable promise, leading to the Air Force making a special exception to their procurement process to get the bomber into service. Although it would only take flight at the end of 1947, the B-47 demonstrated substantially better performance than the rest of the “class of ‘45,” and by the end of 1948, had been ordered into production.
>>29857251
The first B-47s reached units in June 1951, but various teething problems would keep it out of operational service until 1953. Cabin ergonomics were poor and crew workload was high, making flying the plane difficult. Takeoff and landing in particular was tricky, with sluggish performance on takeoffs and high landing speeds only made worse by its unusual bicycle landing gear. Nevertheless, teething problems subsided as training improved, and the B-47 rapidly rose to prominence as Strategic Air Command’s primary intermediate-range bomber. By 1956, 28 wings were flying with B-47, with a total of 1,306 bombers and five wings totaling 254 RB-47s. Having taken over the strategic bomber role from the B-45, the B-47 fleet was made compatible with most freefall weapons in the nuclear arsenal. They would serve as the first line of the strategic deterrent, with bombers rotating every 90 days to bases in the UK, Morocco, Spain, Alaska, and Guam.
>>29857257
By the late ‘50s, advances in air defenses led to a doctrinal shift away from high-altitude penetration. Crews began training for low-altitude pop-up attacks, developing a flight profile that entailed a low-altitude penetration, toss-bombing attack, and low-altitude egress. Unfortunately, these practices were hard on the airframes, and, coupled with the already high crew workload, accident rates unsurprisingly soared. In 1958, the added stresses to the airframe had forced the initiation of a refit program to strengthen the wings. Even as this program began, however, the B-47’s days were numbered. In 1959, the B-52 began to take over the strategic deterrent role, leading to a cutback in B-47 numbers. Operational squadrons slowly drew down, with final phaseouts beginning in 1963. By 1965, the last B-47 had left the Air Force inventory.
>>29857264
While the nuclear-armed B-47s would be far more numerous, it would be the RB-47 spyplanes that would see the most interesting use. Starting in 1952, RB-47s began flying missions over the Soviet Union, with missions generally taking the bombers around more lightly defended regions such as Siberia and the Kola Peninsula. While these missions were generally successful, the bombers were far from invulnerable. Such overflights relied on flying high and fast enough to escape interceptors before they could reach the bombers, meaning that the RB-47s were heavily reliant on inadequate early warning networks. Unsurprisingly, the bombes were not always able to evade Soviet interceptors. In May 1954, an RB-47E was damaged by an intercepting MiG-17, and in April 1955, MiG-15s bounced an RB-47 near the Kamchatka Peninsula, presumably downing. In 1956, these flights ramped up with Project Home Run, entailing 156 overflights of Siberia. RB-47 flights continued into the mid-60s, with countless run-ins with enemy interceptors occurring, almost always in international airspace.
>>29857275
In 1945, Convair was contracted to develop a jet-powered attack aircraft for the USAAF under the designation XA-44. Taking full advantage of captured German research, Convair developed an unusual design featuring a 30 degree forward-swept wing and a tailless layout. Developed in parallel with the XB-46, it was considerably lighter, with a gross weight of just 60,000lb, and it was to be powered by three J35 turbojets buried in the rear fuselage. Payload was to be 12,000lb of bombs, and provisions for up to 40 HVARs to be mounted under the wings were made. Despite its unusual layout, the project gained considerable support both internally and within the USAF, so much so in fact that it threatened the contract of the XB-46. Ultimately, a revised contract saw the XB-46 order cut to a single stripped-down prototype, substituting the other two contracted airframes with XA-44 prototypes. Meanwhile, in 1948, the “A” attacker designation was dropped, and the XA-44 was redesignated the XB-53. Unfortunately, despite its promise, the XB-53 would never materialize. In 1949, before construction of a prototype could begin, the XB-53 contract was cancelled.
>>29857286
In 1947, Boeing began yet another major overhaul of the venerable B-29 design under the designation YB-50C. The YB-50C was an ambitious project, aiming to mount the new Pratt & Whitney R-4360-1 Variable Discharge Turbine engines, each providing a total of 4,500hp, onto a substantially improved airframe. The fuselage was lengthened by 10 feet, while wingspan grew by 20 ft. Larger underwing tanks increased fuel capacity by 3,000 gallons, bringing projected range to 9,3000 miles. Two extra landing gear struts were added under the outboard engines, bringing the max takeoff weight to an impressive 230,000lb - 36,000 of which could be payload. By now, the design had changed significantly enough to warrant an entirely new designation - B-54. Both conventional bomber variants and a reconnaissance RB-54 version were planned, with Boeing going as far as building a full-scale mockup of the RB-54. Contracts for 21 B-54A and 52 RB-54A bombers were placed in May 1948, but, just under a year later, the Air Force reversed their decision owing to the coming availability of far more capable jet bombers. The B-54 program was cancelled in April 1949, and construction on the prototype was halted.
>>29857299
In October 1947, before the B-47 had even flown, the USAF issued preliminary requirements for a medium bomber to eventually replace the Stratojet. Boeing would produce a turboprop design under the internal designation Model 474, which was declared the winner of the competition in 1948 and contracted as the XB-55. The XB-55 was vaguely similar to the B-47, using a shoulder-mounted swept wing and bicycle landing gear, but it had several notable changes. The six turbojets of the B-47 gave way to four T40 turboprops on a wing with a reduced sweep. Coming in at a gross weight of 153,000lb, the XB-55 would be significantly larger than the B-47, but payload would remain largely the same at 24,000lb. Due to the use of turboprops and the lower wing sweep, top speed was reduced to just under 500mph (over 100mph less than the B-47), but service ceiling jumped over 10,000ft to 42,000ft, and range increased to 5,000 miles. A crew of ten would man the machine, with ten 20mm cannon placed around the machine to defend it from enemy fighters. Despite all the work put into the project, however, it would never materialize. The B-47 was proving promising once testing began, and delays with the T40 powerplants saw Boeing look to mounting turbojets on a parallel project - the XB-52. As the revision was examined, it became apparent that the XB-52 would not only vastly outperform the XB-55, but it would be ready a full year earlier. Coupled with the resounding success of the B-47, this drove the USAF to cancel the XB-55 program in 1949.
>>29857314
In 1945, the USAAF issued requirements for a light bomber, to which Martin responded with a six-man composite powerplant design which would be contracted as the XA-45. However, soon after the contract was placed, the program requirements were heavily revised, calling for all-weather close air support operations. Martin heavily revised the design, turning it into a three-engined jet-powered bomber with a crew of two. Meanwhile, the “A” designation had been dropped, so the new bomber was designated XB-51. The revamped bomber was to carry eight 20mm cannon and a payload of 4,000lb, along with equipment to make use of the SHORAN navigation system. The bomber itself made use of an incredibly unconventional layout. Fitted with three J47 engines, the XB-51 mounted two of the powerplants low on either side of the nose, while the third was placed in the tail. The 35 degree swept wings were fitted with a variable-incidence mechanism to improve takeoff performance, but the unusual mechanism forced Martin to work with bicycle landing gear. The bomb bay itself was a unique rotating design with a maximum payload of 10,400lb.
>>29857517
Two XB-51 prototypes were made, the first of which flew in November 1949. As testing began, the Air Force began a new program to procure a night intruder, with the XB-51 emerging as a favored design alongside the English Electric Canberra. XB-51 testing generally went well, with the bomber demonstrating excellent low-level maneuverability and a substantially higher top speed than the Canberra. Unfortunately, the better performance hid some operational failings. The Canberra had a considerably longer range than the XB-51, and elements of the XB-51 design, notably the low-mounted forward engines and bicycle landing gear, were considered unsuitable for the forward airfields the XB-51 was expected to be operating from. Ultimately, the Canberra was selected as the winner of the program, and the XB-51 was cancelled. It was not a complete loss, however, as the Canberra production contract was given to Martin, who incorporated elements of the XB-51 - notably the rotating bomb bay - into production Canberra variants.
>>29857527
Though the products of the USAAF’s previous long-range bomber program (the XB-35 and XB-36) had yet to fly, the USAAF would issue requirements for a replacement in later 1945. Formal specifications issued in February 1946 called for a bomber with five or more gunners, a six-man relief crew, cruise speed of at least 300mph, operational radius of 5,000 miles, and payload of 10,000lb. Boeing, Consolidated, and Martin would all submit proposals, with Boeing’s Model 462 declared winner in June of 1946. Contracted as the XB-52, the Model 462 was hardly an ambitious design. Coming in at a gross weight of 360,000lb, it was to be powered by six T35 turboprops and have an operational radius of just over 3,000 miles. Though it had won the contract, the Air Force soon expressed concerns over the projected size of the aircraft and its inability to meet specified range requirements, so Boeing scaled it down to the Model 464, which came in at just 230,000lb and mounted four engines. This was soon reversed, however, as requirements were revised once more in late 91946 to call for a 400mph cruise and range of 12,000 miles with a nuclear payload. The final iteration of the Model 464 selected for further development, the Model 464-17, carried the same T35 turboprops, but came in at a whopping 480,000lb.
>>29857549
Unfortunately, the Air Force was unenthusiastic about Model 464-17. Boeing continued to refine the design, introducing a 20 degree swept wing, more powerful turboprops, and reducing defensive armament to just a single tail gunner position, but interest continued to wane. The start of the Berlin Blockade in 1948 revived interest in the XB-52, but the bomber still fell well short of Air Force hopes. In October 1948, a Boeing design team went to Wright-Patterson AFB to present the latest iteration of the bomber, only to be told that the Air Force was no longer interested in a turboprop bomber - they wanted an all-jet machine. Frantically reworking their proposal, the Boeing design team successfully produced a new design that would meet the requirements. Fitted with a shoulder-mounted 35 degree swept wing much like the B-47, the bomber would carry eight J57 turbojets in four underwing nacelles. After a day of intense design work, Boeing employees presented the Model 464-49 to the Air Force in the form of a 35-page proposal and a hastily made balsa wood model. The USAF was very interested in the proposal, and in 1949 production of two prototypes began. Though the Air Force continued to waffle, SAC leadership remained enthusiastic about the new design, and in early 1951, a contract for 13 pre-production B-52As was placed.
>>29857558
The XB-52 prototype was rolled out in late 1951, but a failure of the hydraulic system during ground testing meant that the first B-52 flight wouldn’t take place until the YB-52 was ready in April 1952. In many ways, the YB-52 resembled a scaled-up B-47, sharing the same general layout, fighter-style cockpit, and tandem undercarriage. A spacious bomb bay spanned much of the fuselage, and a substantial crew was included to keep workload manageable. In the tail, a gunner manned a position with four .50s, and a weapon systems officer and navigator would support the pilot and copilot. While the B-52 prototypes were fitted with the fighter-style canopy of the B-47, the three pre-production B-52As would revert to a more conventional canopy, giving the bomber its distinct appearance. While 13 B-52As had originally been ordered, the final 10 aircraft of the order would be completed as B-52Bs, differing primarily in that they were fully combat capable rather than mere evaluation machines.
>>29857572
The first B-52 squadron became operational in March 1955, slowly replacing the B-36. Though the new bomber actually had a smaller payload capacity than the massive B-36, it presented a massive improvement in performance over the older bomber, and, with the rapidly shrinking size of nuclear warheads, the decrease in capacity soon became a non-issue. Like most aircraft, early service was plagued with teething problems, particularly with the advanced bombsights and navigational systems, but the B-52 would quickly become the backbone of SAC’s nuclear deterrent. In 1956, the B-52 became the first aircraft to drop a thermonuclear bomb during the Operation Cherokee tests, and in their early years they would go on to set several records in their class. As part of SAC’s policy of airborne alerts, through the end of the ‘50s and much of the ‘60s the B-52 was kept on constant alert, with roughly a third of the fleet airborne with nuclear weapons at any time. Unfortunately, this led to several notable accidents involving nuclear weapons, including a crash over Spain where two weapons had their casings broken, requiring an extensive cleanup effort. As a consequence of the multiple high-profile crashes, SAC ended the airborne alert system in 1968. B-52s still waited on alert, but such alerts were now with aircraft on the ground standing by to sortie.
>>29857584
By the end of the ‘50s, the advent of surface-to-air missiles had forced a sudden shift in strategic bomber doctrine towards low-level penetration and the use of standoff missiles. Starting in 1959, the B-52 fleet underwent an upgrade program to allow them to carry the AGM-28 standoff missile and ADM-20 Quail decoy, along with avionics upgrades that added an advanced ECM suite and the ability to fly all-weather low-level operations. Though the B-52 proved better suited to low-level operations than supersonic bombers like the B-58 or (still in development) B-70, the new flight profile took a heavy toll on airframes. Denser air at lower altitudes caused more strain on airframes than the aircraft were originally designed for, and, as the B-70 program was cancelled in 1961, there was a great deal of concern among the USAF over the viability of the rapidly aging fleet with no prospects of a replacement.
>>29857643
Though the B-52 was primarily intended to serve as a strategic weapon, escalating tensions in Southeast Asia in 1964 saw the USAF approve a conversion of several B-52Fs to carry conventional munitions. The refit added multiple ejector racks on the pylons originally added to deploy AGM-28s, while the bomb bay was also configured for conventional bombs. After the refit, the bombers were capable of carrying a total of 51 750lb bombs. In 1965, these B-52Fs were deployed to Guam, where they would operate out of to perform their strikes. Unfortunately, the deployment was hamstrung by politics. SAC and the White House were unwilling to risk the bombers over North Vietnam, so while the strategic bombing campaign was handled by tactical bombers, B-52s were used in tactical strikes under the codename Arc Light. Initial Arc Light strikes were a disaster. The very first mission, involving 27 B-522s, resulted in the loss of two B-52s in a mid-air collision with no effect on the ground, as the enemy had already left the area long before the bombers had arrived. While later missions would have a better record, operational issues remained, particularly in the insistence that the approval for every single mission had to come from the White House.
>>29857693
As the Arc Light strikes continued, however, practices improved. The chain of command was shifted so that the bombers only needed the approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and larger raids gave way to smaller, spread-out missions that allowed for the bombers to hit multiple targets at a time. The scope of operations slowly expanded, with the bombers flying some 300 sorties a month and eventually ranging across most of South Vietnam, Laos, and even parts of North Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Air Force began the Big Belly upgrade, modifying the B-52 fleet to bring their total conventional payload capacity to a whopping 60,000lb. As Rolling Thunder raged on, the effectiveness of the B-52s only continued to improve. The introduction of the Combat Skyspot bombing system, which worked with ground radar stations to guide the bombers to targets, allowed the B-52s to perform close air support missions. In 1967, B-52s were deployed to Thailand, allowing for the bombers to conduct operations more quickly. The impact of these changes would be most apparent at the end of Rolling Thunder during the Khe Sanh siege, where B-52s flying in support of the base turned the area surrounding the fort into a cratered moonscape.
>>29857857
Though Nixon’s policy of Vietnamization would see a drawdown of B-52 operations starting in 1968, this trend would rapidly reverse in 1972, when the North Vietnamese launched an offensive across the DMZ. In response to the invasion, Nixon launched Operation Linebacker. The 206 B-52s deployed as part of the offensive again flew primarily tactical strikes, making use of years of refined tactics to smash the NVA offensive. Linebacker gradually drew down until after the election that November, but, as Nixon lost his patience with the North Vietnamese belligerence in negotiations, he ordered the most intensive bombing campaign of the war - Linebacker II. Starting on December 18, 1972, Linebacker II put the B-52 on the forefront of the campaign. No more were the bombers flying tactical strikes, but instead they were going straight to Hanoi. 48 bombers were supported by F-4s flying CAP and laying chaff, F-105s flying Wild Weasel, EB-66s with jamming support, and EC-121s keeping their eyes out for enemy fighters. Over 12 days, B-52s flew 729 sorties, dropping 15,237 tons of bombs on strategic targets in North Vietnam. For their efforts, they managed to down two hapless MiGs with their tail guns, while 15 B-52s were downed by air defenses and another five heavily damaged. Despite the losses, Linebacker II was devastatingly effective. The North Vietnamese were forced to the negotiating table, allowing a ceasefire to be signed in January 1973, ending American involvement in Vietnam. Arc Light strikes continued across the region into the middle of 1973, but for the most part, the war in Vietnam was over.
>>29857863
By the ‘70s, much of the B-52 fleet had reached the end of its service lives. Newer variants were overhauled, while the older part of the fleet was retired. A new round of upgrades integrated the B-52G and -H models with the SRAM nuclear missile and SCUD decoy, and added such features as an improved ECM suite and an electro-optical viewing system with FLIR. By the early ‘80s, the B-52G and -H would form the bomber arm of America’s strategic deterrent. The bombers remained on constant standby in the same ground-standby practice that had been adopted in the late ‘60s. Meanwhile, the USAF had moved to supplement the bombers with FB-111s as an intermediate-range stopgap until a suitable replacement for the B-52 could be developed. Unfortunately, the next effort to replace the B-52 would be hamstrung by politics. The B-1, intended to serve as a supersonic replacement for the B-52, was briefly cancelled before being revived with a slashed order. The result was a force of new bombers only large enough to replace the FB-111, meaning the B-52 would soldier on. Though the end of the Cold War and signing of the START treaties would see a massive drawdown of the B-52 fleet, the bomber would soldier on into the new millennium, surviving not only the B-1 program, but the B-2 as well.
>>29857883
In 1991, the B-52 was called into action once more when Iraq invaded Kuwait. On January 17, 1991, seven B-52Gs would take off from their base in Louisiana, marking the first combat sortie of Operation Desert Storm. Flying for a total of 35 hours, they launched 35 cruise missiles aimed at command and control targets across Iraq. Later that day, B-52s also performed their first combat low-level mission, targeting four airbases and a highway. Once the Iraqi air defense network fell apart, B-52s reverted to conventional high-altitude bombing missions. As part of the psychological warfare conducted during the war, B-52s would alternate between bombing and dropping leaflets, warning Iraqi troops that a raid was coming the next day and following through with the threat. The result was devastating to Iraqi morale, with many surrendering Iraqi troops talking with interrogators about their dread of the bomber. Over the course of the war, B-52s flew 1,600 sorties, dropping 25,000 tons of bombs. No B-52s were lost in action, although two were hit by SAMs and another hit by a HARM after the missile locked onto the radar of the tail gun.
>>29857892
Following the end of the Gulf War, much of the B-52 fleet was retired owing to the post-Cold War drawdown. However, those that remained in service would get yet another overhaul to keep them flying. The B-52G was retired from service, leaving only the B-52H. The B-52 fleet would get another round of upgrades, removing the tail gun (a consequence of the HARM hit in the Gulf War), adding new navigation and communication systems, and integration with the newest guided munitions, particularly the JDAM and JSOW guided bombs. In the years since the Gulf War, the B-52 has continued to see action, flying over Iraq in 1996 (Operation Desert Strike), Yugoslavia in 1999 (Operation Allied Force), and Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom in 2001 and 2003, respectively. Though the Air Force had originally planned to replace the B-52 with the B-1 and B-2, the low numbers of those bombers has meant that the B-52 remains in heavy use. Though its age is showing, giving it a higher per-hour flight cost than the B-1, it has consistently shown the highest mission-capable rate of all USAF bombers. The USAF intends to eventually replace the B-52 with the Long Range Strike Bomber, but the retirement of the B-52 is still very far off - current plans call for the B-52 to be flying until 2045.
>>29857898
In 1950, as the B-52 program was facing resistance from multiple angles, Convair pitched a proposal to develop an all-jet variant of the B-36F as a cheaper alternative. Proposed as the B-36G, Convair was contracted to convert two B-36Fs to the new standard. The conversion was extensive, involving the fitting of entirely new swept wing and tail surfaces, along with eight turbojet engines, a new nose, and extended tail. As the proposal materialized, the bomber quickly lost its commonality with the B-36, leading to the USAF changing the designation to YB-60. The first YB-60 would fly in April 1952, just three days after the competing B-52 made its first flight. Flight tests were initially successful, with the bomber demonstrating good handling. Unfortunately, the bomber couldn’t compete with the B-52. Though no official flyoffs were ever held, the B-52 clearly outperformed the YB-60, being well over 100 mph slower than its Boeing competitor. The YB-60 did offer a higher payload capacity, but the shrinking size of nuclear weapons meant that the difference in payload was less of a concern than the performance disparity. Ultimately, in January 1953, the Air Force cancelled the YB-60 contract. The second prototype, being over 90% completed, was never flown, and ultimately, both prototypes were scrapped by the end of June 1954.
>>29857909
With the outbreak of war in Korea, the USAF quickly developed a new requirement for a jet-powered interdictor to replace the A-26. While several domestic designs were considered, including the XB-51, the USAF also looked abroad, considering the British English Electric Canberra bomber. The Canberra and XB-51 would quickly emerge as frontrunners in the program, with the Canberra ultimately winning the production contract owing to its longer range and more conventional layout. However, English Electric lacked the production facilities to meet the USAF order for 250 aircraft in a timely manner, so the design was licensed, with Martin producing the bomber as the B-57. A Canberra B.2 was delivered in 1951 to serve as a pattern aircraft, and the first B-57A would be rolled out in 1953. At a glance, the B-57A was identical to the Canberra B.2, retaining its distinctive fishbowl canopy. However, it included several changes, including more powerful J65 engines in place of the Rolls-Royce Avons, and a reduced crew of two with the cockpit moved forward.
>>29857916
Ultimately, only eight B-57As would be built, with the bulk of early production instead being RB-57As. None of these early-production B-57s would see little operational use, instead being used for development of a more fleshed-out variant. The first definitive production variant would be the B-57B, which took on the distinctive appearance that the B-57 would hold through its career. The rotating bomb bay developed on the XB-51 was applied to the bomber, and four stores pylons were added under each wing for a total payload of 10,000lb. Four .50s were mounted in each wing, and avionics upgrades included the AN/APW-11 bombing system and a radar warning receiver in place of the tail radar on the B-57A. Most important, however, was the new cockpit. The ugly fishbowl canopy and “coal hole” radioman’s position - originally designed for high-altitude operations - was completely reworked, with a tandem fighter-style cockpit fitted instead.
>>29857926
Despite the unsatisfactory nature of the B-57A, the RB-57As would be the first variant to see operational use. RB-57As were deployed to Japan and Europe, with heavily modified variants taking part in reconnaissance missions over Europe. Two RB-57As were delivered to the Republic of China in the late ‘50s, allowing for overflights of mainland China to begin. However, both would be lost to Chinese air defenses by 1959. That same year, Martin began modifying surviving RB-57As, which were now being phased out of service, into ECM platforms. Redesignated EB-57A, the bombers were fitted with ECM equipment in their bomb bays, allowing them to serve effectively in training units. As the RB-57A was retired, the reconnaissance role was passed on to the RB-57B and the significantly refined RB-57D.
>>29857938
In 1964, two squadrons of B-57Bs were deployed to Bien Hoa in South Vietnam to support the local government. Early operations were limited by politics, with bombers only flying reconnaissance missions. Unfortunately, base security was lax, and ate that year five B-57Bs would be destroyed in a mortar attack. With the escalation of American involvement in 1965, the B-57 finally began flying strike missions. In March 1965, they flew their first mission into North Vietnam, and by April, they were relegated to the efforts to interdict the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Missions were flown at night on both sides of the border, requiring the deployment of flares to illuminate the targets owing to the lack of any all-weather equipment on the bombers. Unfortunately, the rapidly improving North Vietnamese air defenses would force the cross-border missions to be curtailed, and by Fall 1966, the B-57B was withdrawn from missions into North Vietnam.
>>29857949
Though the B-57B would bear the brunt of early operations, it had proven lacking for night operations. In 1967, three B-57Bs were fitted with low light TV systems for operational trials, performing well enough for a more fleshed-out variant - the B-57G - to be ordered. 16 B-57s were converted to the new B-57G standard, entailing the installation of an AN/APQ-139 radar, LLTV system, FLIR, and a laser targeter for guided bombs. Because of the added weight, the gun armament was deleted. 11 B-57Gs would be deployed in 1970 to Thailand, beginning strikes that year. The results of the operations were mixed. The B-57G was tremendously effective when it was in the air, but the advanced systems mounted on the machine were horribly unreliable, making serviceability low. They would fly on in the theater until 1972, losing only one of their number to enemy fire. Meanwhile, B-57Bs had long since been withdrawn. After attrition reduced their force to a mere shadow of its former glory, the B-57Bs had been withdrawn in 1959. 51 of 94 B-57Bs sent to Vietnam were lost, and only one of the B-57s in the first deployment would survive the war.
>>29857957
The end of American involvement in Vietnam effectively marked the end of B-57 operations by the USAF. B-57Bs had been retired before the war was even over, and the last B-57G left service in 1974. EB-57Es, optimized for all-weather reconnaissance, would soldier on until 1982, but their use was limited in the post-Vietnam USAF. Pakistan would be the only foreign operator of the B-57, flying 24 B-57Bs and two B-57Cs starting in 1959. They would make their combat debut in the 1965 war with India, flying 167 sorties and dropping 600 tons of bombs for the loss of three of their number. By relocating the bombers after every sortie, the PAF managed to keep the bombers safe from IAF fighters, while their own B-57 operations would prove quite successful at disrupting IAF operations. In the 1971 war, they again went into action, hitting 12 IAF runways on the first night of the war. Through the remainder of the war, they flew primarily night missions, but they would be far less successful than six years’ prior, losing five bombers to enemy action. The PAF B-57s would be retired in 1985, becoming the last B-57s to leave service.
>>29857965
Parallel to the program that resulted in the B-57, the USAF launched a similar requirement for a tactical bomber, leading to Boeing, North American, Martin, and Douglas all submitting proposals. All proposals were based off of existing designs, though the Douglas proposal was the only one based off of an aircraft that was yet to fly - the Navy’s A3D Skywarrior. Contracted as the B-66 in November 1951, the bomber was to be a simple de-navalization of the A3D with a payload of 10,000lb of conventional or nuclear stores or a reconnaissance kit and an operational radius of 1,000 nautical miles. The reconnaissance RB-66 variant was given priority, and, as the design was to be a simple conversion of the A3D, no prototypes were ordered. Instead, five pre-production RB-66As were ordered.
>>29857990
Unfortunately, changing requirements soon meant that the B-66 would require significant development. While aspects like the general layout, defensive turret, and three-man crew remained, the bomber required major structural changes. The cockpit had to be completely redesigned to accommodate new ejection seats, and, requirements for low-altitude operations meant that the wings and airframe had to be significantly strengthened. An all-new wing was developed with a new airfoil section and larger area, and a larger radar required a new nose. Thanks to requirements for rough-field operations, the wheels also had to be enlarged, and, owing to concerns over the availability of the J57 engine the A3D used, the Air Force changed over to the J71. The result was an aircraft that superficially looked very similar to the A3D, but was in fact almost an entirely new design. Such changes meant that the first B-66 wouldn’t fly until mid 1954.
>>29857999
Deliveries of RB-66Bs began in 1956, with a total of 145 RB-66Bs and 72 B-66Bs built. All examples would go into service with the Air Force’s Tactical Air Command, becoming TAC’s primary night reconnaissance platform. Despite being designed for tactical reconnaissance and bombing, however, the B-66 would end up in the niche EW role. In 1955, the first RB-66C was flown, fitted with an extensive ECM array including jammers, chaff pods, and a crew of seven (including four EWOs in the bomb bay). The operational debut of the B-66 came during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the jammer variants were used to support the blockade.
>>29858006
As the war in Vietnam escalated, the demand for EW assets skyrocketed, spurring the conversion of 13 B-66Bs and 52 RB-66Bs for EW duties. In 1966, the new jammer aircraft were redesignated EB-66. Flying solely as jammers in the war, they EB-66 would initially be used to provide jamming support for strike packages. However, it was slow compared to the fighters t often flew alongside, and as dedicated jammer equipment was developed for the fighters to carry, the EB-66s were withdrawn from these escort missions. EB-66s would also fly ELINT and larger-scale jamming missions over North Vietnam early in the war, but after one was downed by a MiG, they were withdrawn south of the border. They continued to fly standoff jamming missions from the relative safety of South Vietnam, blinding long-range North Vietnamese early warning radars. Though they returned to a more active role during Operation Linebacker II when they supported the B-52 raids, they were rapidly losing their utility. With the end of the war in Vietnam, the EB-66 was gradually phased out, and in 1975, the last EB-66s were retired.
Plane autist is back.
Rejoice!
Bump. Lurkin' and reading.
>>29858014
In 1946, the USAAF started the Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft project to investigate the feasibility of a nuclear-powered bomber. After five years of studies, the program was replaced by a full development project in May 1951, known as the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion. Based on the NEPA studies conducted, contracts were handed out to Convair and Lockheed to develop nuclear-powered bomber testbeds. Though tentatively bombers, these design studies were more intended to be testbeds to investigate the feasibility of a nuclear powerplant on an aircraft. As such, the designs were hardly practical in a military sense. Convair’s proposals centered around the obsolete B-36 strategic bomber, and, while Lockheed’s original design may have had more of a military focus, it too was little more than a technology demonstrator.
>>29858034
Convair’s nuclear testbed proposal, the X-6, was designed around the B-36 airframe. Final plans called for the X-6 to mount a P-1 reactor in the fuselage to provide power to X-39 engines (nuclear-powered variants of the J47 turbojet). Owing to the safety and weight concerns with operating a reactor in the air, it was decided to first convert a B-36 to test the general feasibility of an airborne reactor. A single B-36 was converted for the role as the NB-36H, with the nose completely reworked to hold an 11 ton lead and rubber-lined crew cabin complete with foot-thick lead glass to keep the crew safe from radiation. In the aircraft’s spacious bomb bays, a single three-megawatt reactor was placed. The reactor would run during testing, but it would not power any systems in flight. Flight tests began in September 1955, with the reactor running for the first time in February 1956. A total of 47 flights were flown, ending in 1957. By then, however, interest in a nuclear bomber was waning, and tests seemed more concerned with the effectiveness of the shielding than the feasibility of the airborne reactor. The budget for the ANP had been slashed by 50% in 1953, and in 1958, the NB-36H was scrapped, putting an end to the ANP.
Dude have you done an episode on helicopters (non attack) if not you really should
>>29858047
Lockheed’s nuclear aircraft concept, the CL-225, was a considerably more ambitious proposal. Sharing the same stubby wings and T-tail layout of the F-104, the CL-225 was a portly machine designed around a reactor developed by Pratt & Whitney. Two layers of radiation shields were designed - the first surrounding the reactor in the center of the aircraft, and the second protecting the crew in the extreme nose. The reactor was to power four engines mounted around the fuselage, and a payload bay was provided between the reactor and the cockpit. Projections called for the CL-225 to attain supersonic speeds, but, unsurprisingly, the ambitious project would never leave the drawing board, failing to even make it to the mockup stage.
>>29858057
In 1952, the USAF issued requirements that became known as Weapon System 302A, calling for a supersonic intermediate-range strategic bomber. North American, Douglas, and Martin all submitted proposals, with Martin’s Model 316 winning the design competition in 1956. Contracted as the XB-68, the bomber was expected to reach operational service by the early ‘60s. The XB-68 was unusually small given the requirements, coming in at a max takeoff weight of just over 100,000lb. It was of primarily steel construction, and was vaguely reminiscent of the F-104, with stubby trapezoidal wings and a T-tail. Power was to come from two J75 turbojets, and a crew of two was to be placed in a tandem cockpit. Plans called for a top speed of Mach 2 and an operational radius of 1,250 miles with a 3,700lb nuclear payload. Unfortunately, the project rapidly ran into issues with the inertial guidance bombing and navigation system, delaying the planned introduction of the bomber. Meanwhile, the Air Force was hit with major budget cuts, and in 1957, the bomber contract was cancelled.
>>29858064
As interest in a nuclear-powered bomber increased, the USAF issued full-fledged requirements for a nuclear bomber under the designation Weapon System 125A. Issued in 1954, it continued to leverage upon ongoing research by Convair and Lockheed to create a fully combat-capable weapon system. Initial requirements called for a cruise speed of Mach 0.9 with the highest possible dash speed over the target, and a design capable of entering service by 1963. In 1956, Convair would team up with GE, while Lockheed joined Pratt & Whitney to jointly develop an airframe and reactor system for the project. The project seemed promising at first, with the WS-125A given the same priority (but a fraction of the budget) as the Atlas ICBM project. However, interest waned alarmingly quickly. Despite the successful demonstration of the X211/J87 nuclear-powered turbofan in 1956, the Air Force would convert the program to a pure research project in late 1957, ultimately splitting it at the end of 1958 into a four-phase program for the development of a variety of nuclear-powered aircraft. Development continued on with low priority until 1961, when all funding for nuclear propulsion was removed. The reasons behind the cancellation were numerous, ranging from the higher than expected weights, failures to meet performance objectives, and safety concerns with operating the aircraft.
>>29858071
Lockheed’s WS-125A proposal leveraged off of their work with the ANP program. Coming in at a whopping 600,000lb gross weight, the bomber was powered by a single 320 megawatt nuclear reactor driving six turbojet engines. The general layout of the CL-225 was to be retained, but a much flatter profile was to be used. The exact details of the propulsion system are unclear, it’s likely that the design used a closed-cycle engine rather than the open-cycle engine Convair and GE successfully lobbied for. This system would ideally provide more efficient heat transfer t o the engines, but at the cost of increased complexity and weight. Unfortunately, Lockheed’s WS-125A proposal would not leave the drawing board.
>>29858077
Convair’s WS-125A proposals were equally ambitious, making use of many elements developed for the B-58 conventional supersonic bomber. Most details are unclear, but it appears that a variety of layouts were examined, generally retaining the basic tailless-delta layout of the B-58 with different engine configurations. Convair originally had planned to implement a much safer liquid-cooled closed-circuit reactor for the aircraft’s powerplant, but, as the complexity of the proposal increased and it became apparent that this would make meeting the deadlines impossible, Convair and GE successfully lobbied to be allowed to use a much simpler direct-cycle engine. Though Convair and GE would manage to demonstrate the planned J87 powerplant at near full power, this phase of the design project came to an end in 1956 as the Air Force lost favor in the WS-125A.
>>29858052
Haven't done any helicopter threads yet.
>>29858082
In 1949, the Air Force issued the Generalized Bomber Study (GEBO II), which aimed to create a supersonic intermediate -range bomber to replace the B-47. Boeing, Convair, Curtiss Douglas, Martin, and North American would all submit bids. GEBO II requirements were finalized in April 1950, calling for a bomber with a range of 4,500 nautical miles and a cruise speed anywhere from Mach 0.9 to 1.5. Boeing and Convair emerged as the victors of the initial round of proposals, with their designs receiving project designations MX-1965 and MX-1964, respectively under the program name WS-102. In mid-1952, the designs were finally given operational designations, with Convair receiving XB-58 and Boeing XB-59. Development continued in parallel until October 1952, at which point Convair was declared the winner of the full development contract.
>>29858090
Boeing’s XB-59 would emerge as a surprisingly conventional bomber design. Powered by four J73 turbojets buried in the wing roots, the XB-59 carried over staples of early Boeing jet bombers, including bicycle landing gear and a shoulder-mounted wing. A crew of three was to be carried in the nose, just as in the B-47, with defensive armament of a single cannon operated remotely placed in the tail. Following design requirements, the XB-59 was designed with a 10,000lb payload in mind and a MAch 2 dash speed. Unfortunately for Boeing, the Air Force favored Convair’s more radical approach, which offered better performance projections and a lighter airframe. Convair was selected as the winner in October 1952, and development of the XB-59 came to an end.
>>29858100
Convair’s original proposal for the GEBO II requirements was an unusual parasite bomber concept, relying on a B-36 to carry a fairly small vehicle near the target area before being released for a supersonic attack run. Fortunately, these concepts gave way to a far more feasible concept that would eventually become the B-58. Designed around a tailless delta wing layout, the bomber would make use of four J79 engines. Convair, recognizing the performance penalty that would come from making the bomber large enough to carry its payload internally, instead developed an external pod that would carry weapons and fuel for the bomber, allowing the clean aircraft to remain sleek and aerodynamic. The fuselage was area-ruled, and, after going through several different engine configurations, Convair settled on hanging each engine individually under the wings. A crew of three would sit in tandem in an incredibly advanced cockpit, complete with their own individual ejection pods, and a remote-controlled 20mm cannon would be mounted in the tail.
>>29858109
Though Convair was declared winner in 1952, it would be some time before the B-58 would fly. The incredibly advanced design unsurprisingly hit delays, and, as the scheduled first flight kept getting pushed back, the program began to hit resistance from the USAF. By the mid-50s, the B-58 was very controversial. SAC was moving towards ICBMs, and, with a range only half that of the B-52, the B-58 seemed to have limited utility. Worse, the B-58 was already incredibly expensive, and it would only get moreso. Nevertheless, the B-58 advocates would win out, with the XB-58 finally flying for the first time in November 1956. Testing took three years and took 30 pre-production machines, owing to the advanced nature of the aircraft and its associated systems, but by 1959, it was finally materializing. The first deliveries began in early 1959, and by the end of the year it was demonstrating incredible performance, achieving a climb rate of over 200 m/s and holding Mach 2 flight for a full hour.
>>29858112
The 30 trial machines created would be followed by 86 production B-58s, with deliveries ending in 1962. Most trial machines were brought to operational specifications, though eight were converted to trainers. The B-58 would have a mixed reputation in service. It was undoubtedly an incredible aircraft, with performance better than most fighters of the time, and it was surprisingly maneuverable despite its size. However, it was tricky to fly owing to the high sweep of the delta wing, and it had unusual stall characteristics that made flying the aircraft at low speeds and altitudes incredibly dangerous. Even with the development of trainers, the B-58 suffered from a high accident rate, losing 26 of their number over the course of the bomber’s service. Also, the bomber was absurdly expensive to fly, with the two B-58 wings costing just as much as six B-52 wings.
>>29858121
By the mid ‘60s, the advent of surface to air missiles meant that the B-58’s high-speed, high-altitude approach path was no longer feasible. The bomber was capable of operating at low levels, but it could not fly supersonically while doing so, and the new flight profile further cut into the bomber’s range. With the B-58 having lost the one niche it held, its days were numbered. In 1965, McNamara ordered the bomber retired by 1970. It would leave service on schedule, having never fired a shot in anger. Though the Air Force had examined the possibility of using the B-58 in Vietnam, they decided against it, as the bomber could only carry a modest payload and was absurdly expensive to operate. Thus, the B-58 would live out its brief career as a sleek but ineffectual strategic asset.
>>29858112
With your knowledge on US bombers, what would you recommend as a replacement for the aging B-52s?
>>29858128
Though the original WS-125A requirements had proven far from feasible, there remained considerable interest in the Air Force relating to the expected endurance of a nuclear-powered aircraft. In 1958, the CAMAL program was launched, calling for a subsonic nuclear-powered aircraft with an endurance of 120 hours and a payload consisting of several missiles or gravity bombs. As with previous projects, contracts were handed out to the Lockheed/Pratt & Whitney and Convair/GE teams. The CAMAL program was considerably more realistic in its goals than the previous phase of the WS-125A, but nevertheless it ran into the same problems, particularly owing to operational safety concerns.
>>29858171
Lockheed’s GL-232 proposal would be a swept-wing design with a conventional T-tail, powered by a mixed propulsion of conventional jet and nuclear engines. Fitted with two XMA-1 nuclear reactors, the bomber would be supplemented by four conventional jet engines slung under the wings to assist in takeoffs. Unlike Convair’s proposal, the GL-232 would make use of a closed-cycle engine, which circulated liquid metal from the engine to heat exchangers in the engine. Elements of previous designs, particularly the two-stage radiation shielding, were also carried over to the GL-232. Unfortunately for Lockheed, the GL-232 would not be selected as the winner of the design competition, so the project was dropped.
>>29858182
For the CAMAL requirements, Convair would produce a tailless canard design under the internal designation Model 54. The centerpiece of the Model 54 was to be three XNJ140E nuclear turbojets in the rear fuselage for cruising flight, while two conventional J75 turbojets were to be carried under the wings to assist in takeoff and landing. Coming in at 260 tons, the bomber was slightly smaller than the supersonic proposals from the first phase of the WS-125A competition. The Model 54 would end up winning the initial development contract, leading to extensive scale testing. Unfortunately, though the bomber got as far as scale wind tunnel testing in 1960, it wouldn’t survive to the end of the year. In late 1960, the program was cancelled in light of a doctrinal shift towards ICBMs, and in January 1961, Secretary of Defense McNamara definitively cancelled all nuclear aircraft projects.
>>29858130
Not sure, actually. I've heard talk of the 2037 bomber being potentially supersonic, but I could be wrong there. The thing's I'd really expect from the 2037 bomber would be pretty obvious
>stealth
>huge emphasis on guided munitions, meaning payload may be less than the B-52
>ridiculous amount of sensors and integration that would make the F-35 look tame
The bigger question is what kind of approach profile they'll design around. Thanks to MANPADS and Shilkas, low-altitude penetration really isn't all that feasible anymore, while newer ECM systems suddenly have made medium and high altitude operations safe again.
>>29858208
In 1954, the USAF began the next stage of supersonic bomber development to follow on to the B-58. Emerging in 1955 as the Weapon System 110, the project was even more ambitious than the B-58. The WS-110 requirements called for a Mach 0.9 cruise with a maximum possible dash speed over a 1,000 nmi entrance and exit from the target. Payload was to be 50,000lb of stores, and the bomber needed to have a combat radius of 4,000 nmi. The program broke into two phases - the WS-110A bomber and WS-110L reconnaissance system (that was later cancelled). Six contractors were selected to bid in mid -1955, but only Boeing and North American would respond with proposals. The initial round of proposals resulted in two similar designs, both making use of jettisonable outer wing sections for cruising flight and a gross weight approaching three-quarters of million pounds. Worse, they were too large to fit in existing facilities, and were only capable of supersonic flight for a short dash over the target. When the Air Force rejected these, the companies went back to the drawing board for more realistic proposals. North American would emerge the winner with their proposal, earning the designation XB-70.
>>29858217
Boeing’s WS-110A proposal, working under the internal designation Model 725, was a massive six-engined machine with several external fuel tanks and a long cigar-shaped fuselage. Two engines and external tanks were slung under jettisonable outer wing sections, while the remaining four would be carried further inboard for the duration of the flight. These outer panels were independent of the rest of the aircraft, being fitted with their own landing gear and fuel tanks, and were to be jettisoned once the subsonic cruise portion of the flight had ended. The panels were free-floating, ideally reducing loads on the rest of the airframe. Details of the engines are unclear, although Boeing planned to make use of boron-enriched zip fuels to improve performance. Unfortunately, this ambitious design was far from practical. Coming in at about 750,000lb gross weight, it was impractically large, and was consequently rejected.
>>29858223
North American’s WS-110A proposal would share the same novel jettisonable outer wings of Boeing’s design, differing primarily in minor details. North American opted to use just four engines, all buried in the rear fuselage, with the jettisoning outer wing sections being unpowered. These outer sections carried large external fuel tanks partially faired into the wing, and were swept slightly forward. A large canard foreplane extended past the nose, likely to improve low-speed handling. The North American proposal also entailed the use of the same zip-fuels Boeing intended to use to meet performance goals. With only four engines, the proposal was slightly lighter than Boeing’s design, starting out at 650,000lb and growing to 700,000lb for the final submission, but it too was deemed impractically large and subsequently rejected.
>>29858232
After the rejection of the initial round of proposals, North American and Boeing went back to the drawing board. North American produced a radically new design, winning the full development contract in late 1957. Contracted as the XB-70, the bomber was a sleek delta-winged aircraft with a long nose craning forward above the aircraft. Power was to come from six J93 turbojets carried in a wedge-shaped fairing under the wing that also held the bomb bay and landing gear. Canards were placed near the cockpit, and the nose was designed to droop for takeoff and landings, allowing an optimal nose shape to be retained for high speed flight. Perhaps most significant, however, were the drooping outer wing sections. During supersonic flight, the outer sections of the wings would droop, working in concert with the shocks created by the engine intakes to “ride” the shockwaves produced for an efficient supersonic cruise. The result was a bomber a little over 500,000lb gross weight capable of meeting the specified operational range, with a payload of 20,000lb, all while doing so at Mach 3.
>>29858239
Unfortunately, while North American’s new bomber offered amazing performance, bomber doctrine was rapidly changing. A new generation of surface-to-air missiles being developed in the latter half of the ‘50s was increasingly threatening, even to high-speed, high-altitude aircraft. The only solution to this seemed to be low-altitude penetration to fly under enemy radars. This worked fine for older bombers like the B-52, but the performance losses at low altitude for the B-70 were unacceptable - the bomber was limited to just Mach 0.95 at low altitudes, barely faster than the B-52. Worse, the B-52 had a longer range and higher payload, meaning that, under the new low-altitude penetration doctrine, the B-70 was actually outperformed by the bomber it was to replace. Developments elsewhere further threatened the program. The zip fuel program was cancelled in 1979, further hurting the bomber’s performance, and in September of that year, the XF-108 - which shared many elements with the B-70 - was cancelled as well. Politics would keep the XB-70 alive through the 1960 election, despite an Air Force shift towards ICBMs, but, upon taking office and realizing the reality of the situation, Kennedy cancelled the B-70 program.
>>29858243
Though the B-70 had been cancelled, too much money was sunk into it to just stop development. Instead, Kennedy allowed the bomber to continue development for use as a high-speed research aircraft. In that capacity, it received an order for two prototypes, the first of which flew in 1964. The first flight was marred by a series of technical issues, but by its third flight, the Valkyrie had broken the sound barrier. The first prototype would eventually push to a top speed of Mach 3.02 in testing, before damage to the structure forced subsequent tests to be limited to Mach 2.5. The second prototype, with a refined structure, would push this further, reaching a top speed of Mach 3.08. Unfortunately, the second XB-70 was lost in a mid-air collision during a formation flight in 1966. The original prototype continued flying until the end of testing in 1968. In December 1968, it made its last supersonic flight, and on February 4, 1969, the XB-70 made its final flight, landing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base for museum display, where it remains today.
>>29858250
As the cancellation of the B-70 suddenly left the Air Force without a replacement for the B-52, a program to develop a stopgap was hastily launched while a more suitable replacement was developed. After several years of searching the USAF found its stopgap in the form of the F-111. In 1963, General Dynamics had submitted a proposal for a minimally modified version of the F-111A, which was accepted as the FB-111A. Selected in 1965, orders would expand to 263 aircraft under McNamara’s guidance, only to have the order slashed to 76 once Nixon took office. Optimized for nuclear strike, the FB-111A made use of the longer wings from the F-111B, stronger landing gear of the F-111D, enhanced air brakes, uprated engines, and the newest intakes. Avionics upgrades over the standard F-111 were minor, mostly amounting to a stellar navigation system satellite communications, and automatic stores release systems. Total payload was raised to 35,500lb, with standard mission profiles calling for anywhere from two to four AGM-69 SRAM standoff missiles to be carried. The bomber also had the ability to deploy nuclear gravity bombs.
>>29858255
The first production FB-111A flew in 1968, with most production aircraft built from components diverted from the cancelled British F-111K order. Deliveries continued until June 1971. Being strategic weapons, their service with SAC was uneventful. As the B-1B began to enter service, the FB-111A was phased out, as it became surplus to requirements. As the bombers were retired, the decision was made to convert several to conventional bombers under the designation F-111G. Conversions began in 1989, with 34 FB-111As converted to the new standard. Remaining FB-111As were retired in 1991, though the F-111G survived slightly longer, being retired in 1993. Following the retirement of the F-111G, 15 were purchased by Australia to supplement their fleet of F-111Cs, serving until the retirement of the type in 2007.
>>29858262
Soon after the cancellation of the B-1, the Air Force began a new series of design studies to develop a B-52 replacement optimized for low-altitude penetration. Starting in 1961, design studies evolved over time, creating a compact subsonic design with high-bypass engines and a fairly modest payload. Further studies refined it to add swing-wings and increase the size and payload of the aircraft. In 1963, the Advanced Manned Precision Strike program was started, in which Boeing, General Dynamics, and North American were issued contracts to study a new aircraft. This culminated in the 1964 Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft, which added high-speed high-altitude capabilities to the requirements as well. Secretary of Defense McNamara resisted the efforts to develop a new bomber, however, so the program remained on low priority until Nixon took office in 1968. Unfortunately, the AMSA would be yet another major program to be the target of politics, being fully cancelled and then revived under new requirements, ultimately only finally entering service just as the Cold War came to an end.
>>29858269
The final design that General Dynamics settled on a design study that dated back to at least 1967. Though details such as wing sweep, overall size, and payload varied over time, the general arrangement remained the same. The aircraft had a shoulder-mounted swing-wing and conventional tail, mounting the projected four GE F101 engines on pylons extending from the rear fuselage under the wings. Details on the final design are hard to find, but whatever the case, it appears that General Dynamics’ proposal was not enough to compete with North American Rockwell’s AMSA design.
>>29858285
North American had produced another swing-wing design study for the AMSA. The sleek design that would become the B-1A resembled a fighter more than a bomber - it had a low-mounted swept wing that blended into the fuselage, and the four engines were paired together just under the trailing edge of the fixed section of the wings. As contracted in June 1970, Rockwell was to produce one static and five flying prototypes, though this would be reduced to just three flying airframes. The first B-1A prototype would take flight in late 1974, followed by the second and third prototypes in 1976. Unfortunately, the B-1A would become a target for the Carter Administration. Costs were spiraling upwards, and a combination of the belief of the superiority of ballistic missiles and the push for disarmament caused Carter to cut the program in 1977. The decision was not entirely ill-conceived, considering Carter was informed of the development of stealth bombers in 1975, and the newest generation of cruise missiles would allow the B-52 to perform the nuclear strike role just as well as the B-1A.Testing of the B-1A was allowed to continue, and Rockwell would conduct a series of studies simplify the design and reduce costs, but as originally conceived, the B-1A was dead.
>>29858289
After the cancellation of the B-1A by the Carter Administration, General Dynamics began proposing several upgraded versions of the FB-111A to fill the gap left by the end of the program. The culmination of these developments, the FB-111H, was proposed to provide a more capable FB-111A variant to meet SAC’s needs. The FB-111H was a general enlargement of the FB-111A, using more powerful F101 turbofan engines and extending the fuselage by ten feet. Revised stores pylons would allow for up to twelve AGM-69 SRAMs to be carried under the wings, while the expanded internal bay would provide space for a further four SRAMs. Unfortunately for General Dynamics, this proposal was short-lived. President Reagan revived the B-1 program upon taking office, and the need for an improved FB-111A quickly evaporated.
>>29858300
Even as Rockwell worked on the B-1, they were conducting studies for a next-generation bomber. Sometime in the mid-’70s, they began a study for supersonic bomber making use of their recent experimental work with oblique wings. The study produced an unusual four-engined design with a wide, flat fuselage and large shoulder-mounted wing. The wing would pivot around its root, providing a completely unswept surface for optimal low-speed performance, while being able to be completely folded flush with the upper fuselage for high-speed flight. With the wing folded completely away, the flat fuselage would ideally provide enough lift to keep the aircraft aloft in high-speed flight. The design also showed evidence of minor RCS-reducing features, particularly in the twin tails that were canted outwards.
>>29857009
How did this place not go into production?
>>29858313
Sometime in the mid-70s, Boeing would work on a control configured vehicle bomber concept under the internal designation CCV-100-2. Appearing in a 1974 patent, the design appears to be a twin-engined, swing-wing design. Given the CCV designation and lack of a tail, the concept appears to be a fly-by-wire design. It features a couple of very unusual elements, including a vertical surface under the nose and intakes mounted above the aircraft. It’s made appearances in some Boeing concept art, as well as had a brief mention in an issue of Aviation Week around the time the design was developed, but there’s little actual information out about the bomber. Details as basic as the bomber’s size are unclear, and the only indication of performance the patent gives is that the bomber is to be supersonic.
>>29858316
Outperformed by the class of '45 bombers, and postwar budget cuts meant the Air Force couldn't justify buying something like that if it was going to be obsolete within 2 or 3 years.
>>29858341
Although Carter had killed the B-1A, the Air Force worked with Rockwell to develop an improved cruise missile-carrying variant on low priority. Rising tensions with the Soviets led to a resurgence in defense spending, and when Reagan took office in 1980, he revived the B-1 as the B-1B. Though the B-1B would retain the same outward appearance of the B-1A, the B-1B would have countless changes. The high-altitude, high-speed envelope was all but abandoned due to the expected superiority of Soviet air defenses, allowing Rockwell to eliminate features like the variable-geometry intake ramps and reduce the top speed below Mach 2. Instead, the new focus became low-altitude operations with reduced chances of detection. New engine inlets and other design features reduced radar-cross section, and, although top speed at altitude dropped to Mach 1.25, low-altitude top speeds went up from Mach .85 to Mach .92. Max takeoff weight increased by over 80,000 lb, allowing for more fuel to be carried as well as a massive internal and external payload. The focus of payload would also switch to cruise missiles rather than freefall bombs.
>>29858351
The advanced B-1B would prove equally controversial and even more expensive than its predecessor, but Reagan would keep the program alive. The B-1A prototypes were modified to the B-1B standard to test the design, and in 1984, the first production B-1B would take flight. Deliveries began in 1985, and by the end of the decade, the entire production order of 100 aircraft was delivered. Unfortunately, it remained controversial early in its service. Several aircraft were lost to accidents, and availability was low (due to inadequate funding for spares). It faced further criticism when it didn’t make a showing in the 1991 Gulf War, although this was due to the fleet being reserved for nuclear strike and not yet equipped for conventional strike. However, as a response to the criticism over its lack of utility, the USAF embarked on a program to expand the B-1B’s ability to use conventional munitions in the mid-90’s.
>>29858361
The B-1B would finally make its combat debut in 1998 over Iraq as part of Operation Desert Fox, where it dropped unguided bombs for four days. Several months later, it made an appearance over Kosovo during Operation Allied Force, again dropping iron bombs. The B-1B would really come to shine in the post-9/11 rampage across the Middle East and Central Asia. During both invasions, they showed their utility as a CAS platform, loitering for long periods over battle zones loaded with JDAMs to hit whatever targets arose. Although they would run into the issue of being unable to confirm targets, the USAF would address this by the end of the decade by fitting the B-1B with an external targeting pod. Nowadays, the B-1B is perhaps the most useful bomber in the inventory. Experience over Iraq and Afghanistan cemented its utility as a tactical bomber, and all of the teething issues experienced early in service seem to be gone. Not only is availability rate high, but it has a lower cost-per-flight-hour than the B-2 and even the archaic B-52.
>>29858361
Although the B-1B was originally intended to be a state-of-the-art strategic bomber, it has since lost its ability to deploy nuclear weapons. Thanks to various strategic arms reduction treaties and the renewed focus on conventional strike, the entire fleet had its nuclear capabilities disabled. However, it has hardly lost its place as an effective bomber. The USAF continues to employ it in various COIN operations and incidents like the bombing of ISIL. It continues to be upgraded to deal with more conventional threats, both in terms of sensors and countermeasures as well as armament. Though the Long Range Strike Bomber will eventually come along to supplement the B-1B, the Air Force plans to keep the B-1B flying for the foreseeable future.
>>29858375
By the mid-70s, DARPA had initiated a program to develop a stealthy strategic bomber. Lockheed and Northrop were both contracted to develop stealth bomber designs for the Advanced Technology Bomber program in 1978, with proposals to be submitted by August of the next year. The two proposals - the Lockheed SENIOR PEG and Northrop SENIOR ICE - followed roughly similar designs. SENIOR PEG would be a tailed flying wing with a passing resemblance to the F-117, while SENIOR ICE was a full flying wing with much cleaner lines. Initially, Northrop participation was seen only as a fallback in case SENIOR PEG was a catastrophic failure. However, Northrop’s design would prove to be better suited to the ever-evolving Air Force requirements. Originally calling for a high-altitude penetration bomber, requirements formally issued in 1980 would call for exceptional low-altitude capabilities as well. Additionally, total payload and loaded weights had rose, putting the program in Northrop’s favor. Ultimately, Northrop would win the ATB contract in 1981.
>>29858381
As originally designed, SENIOR PEG would roughly resemble a scaled-up HAVE BLUE. SENIOR PEG would have a diamond-shaped fuselage with wings extending out past its edges and a V-tail extending backwards on a boom. Critical elements of the HAVE BLUE design - including the engine inlet grates and heavily faceted design - would be carried over to SENIOR PEG. With computer analysis of radar cross sections improving since the development of the HAVE BLUE, Lockheed could improve upon their design, making limited use of curved sections on the SENIOR PEG. However, the limited use of curved sections could not compete with Northrop’s far more advanced design, and thus, in 1981, Northrop’s design was selected for development as the B-2.
>>29858395
Northrop’s SENIOR ICE would be a pure flying wing design from the start. Such a design allowed for the elimination of vertical surfaces improving stealth. As originally designed around the high-altitude mission, SENIOR ICE used a diamond-shaped center section with long, high-aspect ratio wings extending outwards from it. The decision to add low-altitude capabilities briefly forced Northrop to re-evaluate their design. The large wings of the SENIOR ICE would lead to high gust loading at low altitudes and a bumpy ride, so Northrop looked into configurations with a higher sweep and lower aspect ratio. However, these configurations reduced range and affected directional stability enough to require the addition of vertical fins. Worse, it hampered takeoff performance to the point that SENIOR ICE would have to incorporate afterburning engines purely to meet takeoff requirements. Thus, Northrop reverted to the original design, making a superficially minor change to compensate instead. The trailing edge of the center section was modified heavily, giving it a W-shaped cutout to change the aerodynamic loading and smooth the ride. This was accompanied by a structural change as well, allowing SENIOR TREND to meet the USAF requirements perfectly.
>>29858407
The design that would win the ATB contract in 1981 would come to be known as the B-2. Taking flight for the first time in mid 1989, the B-2 was a large smoothly contoured flying wing. The four F118 engines are paired together on nacelles on either side of the cockpit, with RAM-lined S-curve intakes and exhausts carefully designed to reduce IR signatures. A rear-facing LIDAR system would be installed as well to detect contrails and alert the pilot, allowing them to adjust altitude to compensate. Two side-by-side bays were designed to accommodate up to 50,000lb of munitions, and bomb bay doors were specially designed to reduce their RCS impact. Rotary launchers allow the bomber to carry up to 16 1,000kg-class munitions, including the B61 nuclear bomb, while the bomb bay also has space for up to eighty 500lb conventional bombs. Thanks to extensive automation, the B-2 has a crew of just two men. Navigational systems were originally an “astro-inertial” system, combining stellar navigation with a standard INS for greater accuracy. It also possesses the AN/APQ-181 radar for navigation and attack, and an extensive (but very secret) countermeasures suite was installed to protect the aircraft.
>>29858415
Originally, the USAF had planned to procure 132 B-2s to form the backbone of the strategic bomber force. However, even before the end of the Cold War, escalating costs due to delays and the design’s highly advanced nature made it controversial. With the order slashed to just 20 aircraft, it would become even moreso. Without a long production run to spread costs over, the flyaway cost ballooned to nearly a billion dollars. Although 10 of the 20 B-2s would be delivered by 1995, they were only Block 10 machines, lacking most of the capabilities the bomber was advertised with. Only in 1997, with the delivery of the last 10 aircraft as Block 20 machines, did the B-2 fleet finally reach IOC. The entire fleet was rapidly brought up to the Block 20 standard, which was soon followed by the Block 30 upgrade, including avionics improvements, a satellite link, support for the latest guided weapons, and substantial improvements to the stealth features.
>>29858428
B-2
The B-2 would finally make its combat debut in 199, taking part in the opening phases of Operation Allied Force. Over the course of the campaign, the B-2 would fly several strikes against heavily-defended targets, dropping JDAMs with impunity. In 2001, they were called into action again, this time over Afghanistan. One mission, lasting 44 hours, took bombers from Whiteman AFB in Missouri to Afghanistan to Diego Garcia, where the aircraft refueled and rearmed before performing the same trip in reverse. Four B-2s would see action over Iraq two years later. Despite its incredible capabilities, however, the B-2 has been an expensive aircraft to fly. The RAM on the aircraft’s skin is sensitive to weather, requiring special storage conditions, and, until the post-Block 30 upgrades maintenance-per-flight-hour has amounted to 20.8 hours. The newest upgrades have significantly reduced maintenance, lowering it to 9.2 hours-per-flight-hour. The latest round of upgrades has also added AESA radars, as well as the capability to deploy the SDB II and Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Currently, there are no plans to replace the B-2 anytime soon. It’s scheduled to fly until at least 2040, although the fairly docile flight profiles of the bomber mean it likely will be able to fly long past that date.
>>29858441
In 1999, the Air Force formed a tentative plan that called for a new strategic bomber to be developed by 2037 to replace the aging fleet of strategic bombers. However, such a timeframe left a massive gap between bomber development programs, so several aerospace manufacturers began efforts to create interim designs to bridge the gap until the 2037 bomber was ready. In 2004, these efforts seemed to have caught the attention of the Air Force, leading to an official request for information being sent to manufacturers. Studies looked at the possibility of procuring a new aircraft to augment the existing bomber fleet to be fully operational by 2018. All three major manufacturers would submit multiple proposals, with at least one joint proposal materializing from Lockheed and Boeing. Though the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review would put an end to several early 2018 bomber projects, the program as a whole survived on until 2009. By that point, budgetary and nuclear arms treaty restrictions had made the project no longer feasible. The interim bomber concept would live on, but the 2018 bomber program would be no more.
>>29858457
Lockheed’s most developed concept for the 2018 Bomber would be the FB-22. Derived from the F-22, the FB-22 began development in 2002, starting out as just an F-22 with expanded air-to-ground capabilities but radically changing over time. Initial concepts centered around an enlarged fuselage to make space for more weapons. The conventional planform of the F-22 was replaced with a semi-delta wing, with wing area increasing with each successive concept. The final concept used the stock F-22 fuselage, but enlarged the bomb bays by bulging the doors out. The largest wing yet proposed was to be mounted increasing payload and range, and stealthy external pods for various munitions were to be designed, bringing total payload of SDBs from 8 (on the F-22) to 30. Additionally, the expanded bomb bays allowed for larger bombs to be carried - while the F-22 was limited to 1,000lb JDAMs, the FB-22 would be able to carry the 5,000lb GBU-28 internally. Because supermaneuverability was not part of the requirements, the thrust-vectoring nozzles were eliminated. However, air-to-air capabilities remained. This came at the cost of supercruise abilities and top speed, but overall the concept was solid. Lockheed tried to keep the concept alive in the aftermath of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, but it was ultimately cancelled.
>>29858463
Northrop’s FB-23 was a more straightforward development of their failed F-23. Making use of the refined design they planned for the production F-23, Northrop enlarged the aircraft, bringing it to roughly 30 meters in length. The added drag would be compensated for by two Pratt & Whitney F135s or GE F136s (of the F-35), which were to be buried in the aft fuselage to preserve stealth. Projections with the more powerful F136 engine called for a top speed of Mach 2.4, making the hypothetical FB-23 even faster than the F-23. Diverterless supersonic inlets were used, further improving stealth characteristics. The distinctive humps for the engines seen on the F-23 would disappear, however, as the aft fuselage filled out to make space for fuel and payload. A crew of two seems to be planned, with crew sitting in tandem seating. The fate of the project is not known. It appears that Northrop didn’t follow Lockheed’s example and try to carry the design beyond the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, so the FB-23 was likely cancelled in 2006.
>>29858497
Boeing’s most famous proposal for the 2018 bomber would be the B-1R. Derived from the B-1B, the B-1R was to mount the same F119 engines of the F-22, giving the bomber a top speed over Mach 2 at the cost of a minor reduction in range. This would be accompanied by minor improvements to stealth features, as well as a revamped avionics and countermeasures suite. New external hardpoints were to be added, and, unusually, the bomber would be integrated not just with a new generation of guided munitions, but with the AIM-120 AMRAAM as well. Apparently the idea behind the AMRAAM compatibility was to offer the aircraft as a dual-role bomber and “arsenal plane” to operate in concert with fighters. Whatever the case, the B-1R would not proceed past the proposal stage.
>>29858505
Though 2009 would mark the end of the 2018 Bomber, the requirement would only be replaced by a new program known as the Long Range Strike Bomber. Formed from the ashes of the 2018 Bomber, the LRS-B aimed to create a similar interim design for long range strike making use of proven technologies to keep costs down. Initial statements in 2010 declared that the bomber would be nuclear capable, but not necessarily at the start of its service life owing to treaty limitations. Full requirements were issued in 2014, calling for 80-100 bombers with a unit cost of $550 million. Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop Grumman all submitted proposals, with Northrop Grumman declared winner in October 2015. Boeing contested the decision, though they have failed to overturn it. As of 2016, the LRS-B was officially given the B-21 designation, with current plans calling for anywhere from 100 to 200 bombers to be ordered, reaching IOC by the mid 2020s. While few details are actually known about the B-21’s design, it is likely going to make use of many technologies matured with the F-35 to reduce costs, particularly the engines. Avionics are also to make use of an open architecture, allowing for easier upgrading and integration of the bomber in the future.
>>29858521
And that's all I got.
Finals next week, so don't expect another thread then. Next thread will be the Gulf War air campaign. After that, I'm going to need suggestions.
>>29858531
is F35 gud?
>>29858598
does the pope shit in the woods?
OH BOY
>>29858606
Why do you keep asking me that? Where his Holiness does His business is His Business.
Anyone got suggestions for new threads?
