camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Seymour) (05/21/91)
From: camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Seymour) A friend of mine was over the other tonight while I was reading my daily dose of sci.military. We got to talking about various air- craft. He has heard rumors of all kinds of weird birds, but the one that really caught my attention was something of an oddball-- the airsuperiorty B-52. Supposedly, some extra airframes were converted to radar/missile platforms. All bomb capacity was converted to either missile launchers or extra radar. And the big bird was supposed to be able to fire "normally groundbased" missiles backwards from about half of its bays. What I would like to know is the following: 1. Was there such a conversion? If so, anybody got the specs? 2. What kind of role would it fill? Would it go out as a long range antiplane platform to extend protection to an outbound bomber fleet? 3. If its not just a myth, where is it now and what was learned from the experiment? 4. Anything else you may feel pertinent to this topic. i.e. anything else that may be similar, like a 747 turned bomber as an example. thanks james seymour camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
daveg@prowler.clearpoint.com (05/22/91)
From: daveg@prowler.clearpoint.com camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Seymour) said: > Supposedly, some [B-52] extra airframes were converted to > radar/missile platforms. All bomb capacity was converted to > either missile launchers or extra radar. And the big bird was > supposed to be able to fire "normally groundbased" missiles > backwards from about half of its bays. This is described completely in the novel "Flight of the Old Dog", by Dale Brown, where is was called the B-52 Megafortress. It was stealthy, too. Excellent book, but as far as I've heard, that's all it is. :-) -- "Look, folks, you can't save everyone. | Dave Goldblatt [daveg@clearpoint.com] Just try not to be living next to | Software Engineering (Subsystems) them when they go off." | Clearpoint Research Corporation - Dennis Miller | 35 Parkwood Dr., Hopkinton, MA 01748
pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu (05/23/91)
From: pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu
{Look mom, no quoted text!!!!! :-) :-) -- Pete}
{Lots of stuff about an air superiority B-52 deleted}
Sorry, I lied - I WILL post once more!!!
Anyway, the idea of an "air-superiority B-52" sure sounds reasonable to
me. Just load it up with 20 or so HARM's (probably more), maybe a couple of
submunition drones, and some other gizmos, and it just may work.
For a couple of interesting stories on this, I'd suggest _The Flight of
the Old Dog_ and _Day of the Cheetah_ by Dale Brown. I don't suggest these just
on the "military-fiction" genre - rather on the basis of how well stealth and
other high-tech equipment could work on such a venerable airframe. To me, some
of the stuff in these books is quite possible; no doubt someone out west already
has something like this flying around at Edwards & Nellis.
Peter Stockschlaeder
University of Scranton
pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu
Forget the flames/replies, folks - I'm here for only 4 more days. Will
have account at George Washington - I hope.....dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) (05/23/91)
From: dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) The air-force had an idea of using 747 as cruis-missile launcher. That bird was supposed to take 72 ALCM. We have also some talks about equipping B1's with Phoenix or AAAM to be used as fleet-defense fighters. -- dvlssd@cs.umu.se, Stefan Skoglund I Tel +46 90 19 65 29 Ume, Sweden I
phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (05/23/91)
From: phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Seymour) writes: >one that really caught my attention was something of an oddball-- >the airsuperiorty B-52. Sounds like someone read a piece of FICTION titled "Flight of the Old Dog" by Dale ??? >Supposedly, some extra airframes were converted to radar/missile >platforms. All bomb capacity was converted to either missile >launchers or extra radar. It sounds amusing at first, a flying AEGIS platform, but it seems to me the "overwhelm them with 300 missiles at once" method described in "Red Storm Rising" wouldn't have any problem with such a platform. After all, how many missiles can an AEGIS track and kill at any one time? Surely no more than a dozen or so. Considering how much AEGIS and/or AWACS cost, I have to wonder how effective it would be and whether it would be better than a couple of squadrons of F-14s with Phoenix (which we already have). These considerations seem to make the B-2 almost worth its cost... -- For the Welfare system to flourish, its clients must not. Conflict of interest?
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/25/91)
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >It sounds amusing at first, a flying AEGIS platform... >... how many missiles can an AEGIS track and kill at any one time? >Surely no more than a dozen or so. Considering how much AEGIS and/or >AWACS cost, I have to wonder how effective it would be and whether >it would be better than a couple of squadrons of F-14s with Phoenix >(which we already have). Forget the cost of the AEGIS-type system. How much does one weigh? How much space does it take up? How many crewmen are needed to operate it? As I recall, the AWACS system, which controls no missiles, fills a 747. (including the radar crew, that is.) Even if you could put a AEGIS-type fire control radar system on a B-52, would there be any room left for missiles? What type of missiles? (I don't think the SM-2 would fit at all.) Frank Crary
bradd@gssc.gss.com (Brad Davis) (05/30/91)
From: bradd@gssc.gss.com (Brad Davis) fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >Forget the cost of the AEGIS-type system. How much does one weigh? How >much space does it take up? How many crewmen are needed to operate it? >As I recall, the AWACS system, which controls no missiles, fills a 747. Sorry to nitpick, but the AWACS fills a 707, which is a much smaller airframe. There would be lots of extra space/payload if you started with a 747... Brad Davis, GSS Inc, Beaverton OR bradd@gssc (503) 671-8431
wab@uunet.UU.NET (Bill Baker) (05/30/91)
From: igor!rutabaga!wab@uunet.UU.NET (Bill Baker) The AWACS platform is a 707. The lifetime Boeing has squeezed out of the '07 airframe boggles the mind, what with the KC-135 and AWACS (and Looking Glass?). Actually, my dad was at Boeing during the design cycle of AWACS and I remember asking why they weren't using a '47. It turns out the system just doesn't need that much of a platform. It was also much cheaper considering both the unit cost and maintenance start-up costs (the AF was already set-up for '07's). Those are good reasons, but the AF has been historically wary of the 747. First, although those were ostensibly the reasons why the '07 was the platform of choice, the scuttlebutt around the company was that the AF didn't want to be accused of subsidizing another commercial airframe (like the '07). There was also the general "contract balancing" sentiment of the AF: The quiet word from the AF was that Boeing had Minuteman and the B-52 and that was enough (this is also supposedly why Boeing hasn't bid on a fighter contract for many, many years prior to the ATF). However, there were, at one point, some senators agitating for the AF to buy '47's instead of C-5's and the AF wanted their C-5's no matter what. This was happening at the same time that AWACS was in the early design stages, if I remember correctly. Then, during the debate over funding the B-1, there was a school of thought that what we really needed was a B-52 follow-on that could just stand-off from Soviet airspace and salvo cruise missiles during a war. I think there were some comparisons along the lines that you could have six 747's for the price of one B-1 and each one could carry twice the number of cruise missiles, etc. That didn't make the AF very happy. Finally, I think the AF contest for the KC-135 follow-on was between the DC-10 and the '47 (not sure about this). Anyway, the AF took the DC-10, which has led me to wonder what the effect of a Sioux City-type uncontained engine failure in a fully-loaded DC-10 tanker would be. Anyway, I think the AWACS system can track a lot more targets than the AEGIS system, plus having look-down capability. AWACS can also download targeting information directly to fighters, and I think it would be a semi-trivial task to do some post-processing on the same data and use it for missile targeting. You'd need an airframe capable of carrying the system and dozens of BVR air-to-air missiles, but a '47 could probably do it. A squadron of such planes might make a hell of a backbone for theatre air superiority. It couldn't function as a stand-alone system for various reasons, but in conjunction with fighters it might be effective. One consideration is that the AF hasn't wanted to arm their radar tracking planes, mostly because it wants them to have a somewhat non-combatant status. This has actually worked as the AF have deployed AWACS to bolster other air forces without raising the political considerations of "sending in the troops." But really, the reason the AF would never implement such a system is that 747's aren't sexy and the AF fighter mafia would never stand for a single fighter buy being displaced by a non-fighter system.
dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) (06/03/91)
From: dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) igor!rutabaga!wab@uunet.UU.NET (Bill Baker) writes: >You'd need an airframe capable >of carrying the system and dozens of BVR air-to-air missiles, but a '47 >could probably do it. A squadron of such planes might make a hell of a >backbone for theatre air superiority. They would also give NORAD some good air-defense cap over the whole North-America. But the AF didn't buy the F-14 for that role. They bought F-15's.
jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart) (06/04/91)
From: jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart) Why not make an Airspace Control System platform out of a B-52? The F-14's radar can track 12 targets and with the Pheonix missle can kill four of them. With AMRAAM a B-52 with radar similar to the F14's could store dozens of Pheonix and AMRAAM, both of which are fire and forget, and be quite a formidable flying superfortress. The AWACS system can independantly track hundreds of targets AND control fighter squadrens to intercept them, as the Isrealis showed in the invasion of Lebanon this is quite potent (kills around 95, losses). If three B-52's were armed with an AWACS like radar that could also supply infor- mation to Phoenix missles (not very hard to accomplish - this would just be a data transfer that takes at most a few hundredths of a second) and each B-52 held 36 Phoenix missles, they could have achieved the same results, theoretcally Also you could have one B-52 doing AWACS tracking, while two or three responce B-52s, armed with Phoenix, and AMRAAM or other fire and forget missles, taking care of the actual shooting could be quite a force to reckon with. Since we have dozens of B-52s sitting out in the deserts in the 'Aircraft GraveYards' we could outfit them without building new air frames. [Aren't those old air frames getting pretty close to end off life cycle, though? --CDR] Just a thought. Jess Stuart @CSU Chico CA
johnhall@microsoft.UUCP (John Hall) (06/05/91)
From: johnhall@microsoft.UUCP (John Hall) igor!rutabaga!wab@uunet.UU.NET (Bill Baker) writes: > One consideration is that the AF hasn't wanted to arm their radar > tracking planes, mostly because it wants them to have a somewhat > non-combatant status. I think the radar dish would detonate a missle if one was carried, which is why AWACS doesn't. That is a lot of radiation flux. -- My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (06/05/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart) writes: >Why not make an Airspace Control System platform out of a B-52? You mean why not make an AWACS out of a B-52? You can't - a B-52 wasn't designed and built as a transport plane. You need a transport type plane to carry all those electronic equipment and personnel for AWACS missions. That's why Boeing 707 is an ideal choice here. B-52 was designed and built as a bomber - meaning that there is a very limited space available for additional crew or equipment. Most of the fuselage volume is devoted to fuel tanks, bomb bays, etc. Also, I believe that the B-52 airframe is too narrow for AWACS equipment/personnel purpose.
leem@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Lee Mellinger) (06/05/91)
From: leem@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Lee Mellinger) jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart) writes: > Since we have dozens of B-52s sitting out in the deserts >in the 'Aircraft GraveYards' we could outfit them without building new >air frames. > [Aren't those old air frames getting pretty close to end off > life cycle, though? --CDR] This is the same thought I heard expressed in 1964 when I was working on the B-52. Our airframes were approaching 5000 hours, the design lifetime. Continual rebuilding has kept them in the air about six times that long in calendar time, I'm not sure if anybody knows what the end of the "aluminum overcast" life cycle is. -- Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/354-1163 FTS 792-1163 leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
newman@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Bill Newman) (06/05/91)
From: newman@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Bill Newman) Someday, computer, sensor, and actuator technology will probably make it practical to put missile point defense systems on vehicles (tanks and aircraft) which are primarily intended for other chores. Probably, each vehicle will be able to automatically exchange data and coordinate plans with all friendly vehicles in the vicinity, and most current electronic countermeasures tricks will become obsolete, so that more than air superiority procurement will be affected. Anyway, until this kind of point defense is economical and effective, the lifetime of a high-flying, radar-emitting, slow, large, radar-emitting aircraft within missile range of enemy aircraft is likely to be very short. For this reason, I don't think the Air Superiority B-52 makes much sense -- if you design an aircraft to fight at long-range missile distances, you shouldn't design it to be so vulnerable to long-range missiles. After point defense becomes available on aircraft, high-flying, large, subsonic aircraft may still not be a good base for air superiority. In particular, if you can fly faster and higher, and maneuver harder, any given missile is less likely to be able to reach you, and by this time flying low and slow may not be a very effective way to hide, anyway. Therefore, even if we could build aerial battleships and mount some sort of Super Air Phalanx on them, I suspect that speed and maneuverability would be an important part of their defenses, so their airframes would be probably be closer to the B-1 or SST than to the B-52 or 747. Bill Newman newman@theory.tc.cornell.edu
bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au (06/06/91)
From: bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au johnhall@microsoft.UUCP (John Hall) writes: > I think the radar dish would detonate a missle if one was > carried, which is why AWACS doesn't. > That is a lot of radiation flux. If this was true, what is it doing to the crews of these aircraft? I would presume that there must be some means of protecting them from the radiation. However would adequate shielding be too heavy to carry? Or is it a case that the radiation, radiates, in only particular directions (ie basically horizontally outwards from the radome) and the crew underneath are not affected? If that was true then it would be possible for them to carry and fire missiles if necessary. Although I rather suspect the tactical need for such a thing is negated by the provision of more than adequate fighters under the control of the AWACS so that it can keep any real threat at bay at a sufficient distance so it can get on with its real job - directing and controlling the air battle. After the second "c" in its initials stands for just that, "Control". -- Brian Ross
gordonh@milton.u.washington.edu (Gordon Hayes) (06/08/91)
From: gordonh@milton.u.washington.edu (Gordon Hayes) swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) writes: >B-52 was designed and built as a bomber - meaning that there is a very >limited space available for additional crew or equipment. Most of the >fuselage volume is devoted to fuel tanks, bomb bays, etc. Also, I >believe that the B-52 airframe is too narrow for AWACS equipment/personnel >purpose. I can definitely verify that the BUFFs (B-52's) don't have the room for an AWACs crew. I've been all over them and they are rather cramped. I used to work on them (for 4 years, including uploaded ones on the alert pad, ready to go). Scary place to work sometimes. I really think, though, that the planes they currently use for AWACS are quite reasonable ones. -- Gordon Hayes, MCIS, University of Washington gordonh@milton.u.washington.edu
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (06/13/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > .... I really > think, though, that the planes they currently use for AWACS are > quite reasonable ones. The AWACS airframe is a modified Boeing 707-320B. Boeing just shut down it's 707 line after the last AWACS was shipped off to France. If other countries want AWACS - Boeing will start up the 707 line again. Current countries with AWACS include; Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, and NATO. The 'military' version of the 707 is also the airframe for E6, E4, and KC135. mike schmitt Defense and Space Systems [Boeing graphic deleted. --CDR]
daveg@prowler.clearpoint.com (06/13/91)
From: daveg@prowler.clearpoint.com bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) said: > The AWACS airframe is a modified Boeing 707-320B. Boeing just shut > down it's 707 line after the last AWACS was shipped off to France. If > other countries want AWACS - Boeing will start up the 707 line again. > Current countries with AWACS include; Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, > and NATO. I think you can add to the list Israel and Japan, and I suspect there's one or two more. > The 'military' version of the 707 is also the airframe for E6, E4, and KC135. This presents an interesting problem, as the J-STARS aircraft is based on the 707 platform. I recall hearing that there was concern about using old airframes if Boeing did indeed shut down the 707 production line. And since (according to CNN, anyway; I haven't heard it from Grumman), 22 aircraft are going to be delievered by 1994 (!), what are they going to put them in? -- Dave Goldblatt daveg@clearpoint.com Software Engineering (Subsystems) Clearpoint Research Corporation
amoss@cs.huji.ac.il (Amos Shapira) (06/15/91)
From: Amos Shapira <amoss@cs.huji.ac.il> daveg@prowler.clearpoint.com writes: > I think you can add to the list Israel and Japan, and I suspect > there's one or two more. Not Israel. U.S. refused to let Israel buy AWACS (did Israel request it at all?). The Israeli reaction was to build her own version called Falcon, as far as I recall. Cheers, Amos Shapira amoss@cs.huji.ac.il
Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com (06/22/91)
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com
"The air superiority B-52 seems hopeless, but what about a similar
concept: having the B-52 drop lots of laser-guided bombs, which are
guided by smaller aircraft lower down?"
This was the plan if the war had lasted another day or two. Due to
the great success of smart bombs, I expect them to be placed on a
big bomber within the next few years. The B-1, the B-2, and the B-52
are all possiblities for this mission. Imagine the firepower of a
B-52 loaded with 35 smart bombs! I should point out that Powell
considered smart bombs an even more important advance than stealth.
Eric Klien