dela@thermal.ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) (03/05/91)
From: dela@thermal.ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) In article <1991Feb28.051210.8528@cbnews.att.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> > >A number of people called me on the error, but not one seemed to > >understand that "little" bombers (F-111, F117) and "big" bombers > >(B-52, B-2) each have their own role and that we need both types > >of aircraft. > > However, it's not entirely clear that the B-52 replacement needs to be > as expensive as the B-2. > [Henry's comments on the B-2 as a skud killer deleted. -DA] > I actually agree with Mary that a new big bomber is needed. But it needs > to be something that the US can afford in substantial numbers, so that it > can be risked in combat in something less than an all-out nuclear war. I agree, completely. We'll always need to be able to drop lots of conventional bombs on somebody ... possibly somebody far away from where our bombers are based. Every time this comes up, I have the same knee-jerk reaction ... what's so dumb about designing a heavy bomber variant of the Boeing 747 (or whichever big "mass produced" people hauler you happen to like)? If this is a bad idea, will somebody please put me out of my misery, and explain why? :-) Del Armstrong Internet : dela@ee.rochester.edu UUCP : ...allegra!rochester!ur-valhalla!dela Twisted pair: (716) 275-5342
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (03/06/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1991Mar4.204134.4041@cbnews.att.com>, dela@thermal.ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) writes: >Every time this comes up, I have the same knee-jerk >reaction ... what's so dumb about designing a heavy bomber >variant of the Boeing 747 (or whichever big "mass produced" >people hauler you happen to like)? > >If this is a bad idea, will somebody please put me out of my >misery, and explain why? :-) Well, not a bad idea, actually; 747s and DC-10s were considered for cruise missile carriers in the late 70s. You could pack a LOT of cruises into a wide-body airframe and save lots of money on airframe maintanence :-) Unfortunately, the AF will continue to insist upon overflying the target to drop bombs instead of using stand-off weapons (despite the use of "smart weapons," lotta ordinance was dropped the old-fashioned way). The Navy, on the other hand, showed how to do things "right" in some sense. All of the cruise missiles were launched off of ships to kill fixed targets, and they got to test their SLAM stand-off missile. Work continues on a stand-off submunitions carrier (currently one has to overfly to drop cluster weapons, with the exception of a Tomahawk varient), but I'm sure it will be put off for another 5 years.... Reform may be dying in the Soviet Union, but we have the right to introduce it to the DECUS Board of Directors. -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
kinney@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Mark A. Kinney) (03/06/91)
From: Mark A. Kinney <wku_unix!kinney@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> This is in response to Del Armstrong's post about heavy bombers. Seeing how well the cruise missiles used in the Gulf War are *supposed* to have worked, I think that the stand-off bomber concept (B-1B) has been somewhat justified. This, however, is only useful for hitting hardened targets. What if you need to maul an infantry unit? There is some precedent for the "cargo- hauler-as-bomber" concept. The Argentines loaded up some of their C-130's with bombs during the Falkland Islands War, and failed to hit any British ships if I remember correctly (I *know* that it any were hit, none sank). Earlier, British Vulcan bomber raids failed in cratering the Stanley airfield. This may not seem to be a good record, but both times targets suited to cruise m missiles with appropriate warheads were attacked. It would work a lot better on\a a spread-out ground unit. Either way, it seems you would get the same results. If anyone out there knows better, I'd like to hear what you have to say. Mark Kinney kinney@wku.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/06/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: dela@thermal.ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) >... what's so dumb about designing a heavy bomber >variant of the Boeing 747 (or whichever big "mass produced" >people hauler you happen to like)? The main problem is how to put a big bomb bay in it. You don't just go cutting holes in the belly skin -- that skin is a very important part of the plane's structure! The concentrated weight is also a problem to some extent. Bomb bays are a structural nuisance even for purpose-built bombers, and it's worse when you're trying to retrofit them in. Of course, you could always do what de Havilland did for the Nimrod: add a second fuselage underneath the original! (The Nimrod is a derivative of the Comet airliner, with a peculiar figure-8 fuselage cross-section.) -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry